Retirement Blog

Finance Blogs » Retirement » No Social Security until age 65?

No Social Security until age 65?

By Jennie L. Phipps · Bankrate.com
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Posted: 10 am ET

I've already made up my mind that part of my retirement planning is to continue typing on this keyboard until my fingers don't work anymore. So I'm inclined to believe that a proposal from the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, to get rid of the option to take Social Security at age 62 is a good idea. The report advocates raising the first opportunity to claim benefits to full retirement age -- 66, rising to 67 in about 2020.

The author of the recently released report, Andrew Biggs, a scholar in residence at the institute, outlines these advantages:

  • Prolong the life of the Social Security trust fund by five years, a modest but significant increase.
  • Raise median income of older Americans by $7,500 a year, including both increased Social Security benefits and savings and other pension income.
  • Boost gross domestic product by about 5 percent through increased productivity, adding billions to the economy and tax revenues.

Biggs says keeping people working until 66 or 67 isn't a physical problem for most these days. He points to another study by David Cutler, a Harvard researcher, conducted for the Retirement Research Center in Boston, that concluded that 65-year-old men have the capacity to work 90 percent as hard as men in their late 50s, and work capacity only declines to 70 percent at age 75.

So Biggs says to keep most people who were born in 1952 and later on the job for another four or five years, while continuing to make Social Security disability available to those who are physically or mentally unable to work that long.

Biggs would offer one big concession. He suggests reducing significantly or eliminating Social Security payroll taxes for people who work and contribute to Social Security longer than 35 years, because the formula for calculating Social Security doesn't reward longer service. "The median individual receives only around 2.5 cents of additional benefits in exchange for $1 of additional taxes at the end of his work life," he writes.

Eliminating payroll taxes would "sweeten the pot" for those asked to work longer, he says.

That would make me lots happier. How do you feel about it?

«
»
Bankrate wants to hear from you and encourages comments. We ask that you stay on topic, respect other people's opinions, and avoid profanity, offensive statements, and illegal content. Please keep in mind that we reserve the right to (but are not obligated to) edit or delete your comments. Please avoid posting private or confidential information, and also keep in mind that anything you post may be disclosed, published, transmitted or reused.

By submitting a post, you agree to be bound by Bankrate's terms of use. Please refer to Bankrate's privacy policy for more information regarding Bankrate's privacy practices.
214 Comments
mary
December 25, 2010 at 10:25 pm

The person who wrote this article is out of touch with the reality. We, the working people deserve social security at age 62, not even 66. I work soo hard since I was a child and I am looking forward to retired at age 66... it seems like a dream.

LORI
December 25, 2010 at 9:21 pm

I have to agree with Larry. Most of us will be lucky to be able to work to 65. Manual physical labor will take it out of you. However, if we stop paying those individuals social security benefits that didn't pay into it and make the government repay the money back into the program that it has been allowed to borrow without the taxpayers consent, there wouldn't be a problem. There would be enough money in there. Are you aware Social Security paychecks have been cut for the elderly by 13% effective Jan 1?

Al
December 25, 2010 at 9:01 pm

Actuall, s.s. would be just fine if all the money that the crooks, er, congress STOLE from it over the years were to be returned WITH INTEREST! And, while we're at it, those who didn't pay into the fund, excepting the TRULY disabled, should be dropped immediately.

hellraiser
December 25, 2010 at 7:46 pm

This is bs, take the ones who collect but haven't paid into it off the system, those of us who labor for our money are tired of the freeloaders...

Carlton J. Dunford
December 25, 2010 at 5:17 pm

While I am sure all are well intended, these Ideas of requiring folks to work longer, retire later, etc.

But I am here to tell you this, YOU ARE WRONG.
If you ratchet up the retirement age today, 20 years from now the
Liberals in congress will still spend all the money and more, and then suggest ratcheting it up to 70, 75, where will it end, with NO RETIREMENT OPTIONS.

NO, GO THE OTHER WAY, WE MUST CHANGE OUR SOCIETY TO GET AWAY FROM THIS IDEA THAT GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO PAY OUR KIDS TUITIONS, PAY THE FARMERS, PAY THE UNIONS, PAY FOR HAITI, AFRICA, AND ON AND ON, AND WE MUST REDUCE THE SIZE AND SCOPE OF THIS GOVERNMENT SO WE ARE NOT NEEDING TO PILLAGE THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM.

SMALLER GOVERNMENT, LIMITED GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS, LESS GOVERNMENT WORKERS, MORE INDIVIDUALISIM, YES, MORE DO IT YOUR SELF, AND LESS SPENDING AND TAXES, THIS HAS BEEN NEEDED AND IS NEEDED TODAY MORE THAN EVER, SO VOTE OUT THE LIBERALS, VOTE IN CONSERVATIVES WHO WILL DO THE RIGHT THING, AND DO MORE YOURSELF
AND PAY YOUR KIDS WAY ALONG WITH THEM WORKING PART TIME LIKE IT ONCE WAS, IT WILL NOT KILL THEM NOT TO HAVE A BRAND NEW CAR IN HIGH SCHOOL, AND A SENIOR TRIP TO PARIS, GET A HOLD ON THINGS,
STOP THE MADNESS, OR IT WILL DESTROY US ALL.

Malaea
December 25, 2010 at 4:56 pm

I agree with Larry. It is easy for the people with a high salary and some other retirement funds to sit in an office and make this rules. Not every one can work to 65. There is also discrimination to hire older workers. I'm proof of that, I lost my job almost 3 years ago and eventhough I have the experience I have not being able to get hired.

LADYDAI
December 25, 2010 at 3:27 pm

I DON'T FEEL LIKE THIS IS FAIR, WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO WORK UNTIL WE ARE ALMOST DEAD? WHY CAN'T WE ENJOY LIFE!!!!! SIT BACK AND KICK OUR LEGS UP, AFTER WE HAVE WORKED SO LONG TO GET TO THIS POINT AND THEN WE HAVE TO WORK LONGER, SO SOMEONE ELSE CAN GET IT, WELL WHAT ABOUT US, SOME OF US DON'T MIND WORKING TILL WE DIE BUT IT'S A LOT OF US THAT WANT TO ENJOY WHAT MONEY OR SAVING WE HAVE.

Luis
December 25, 2010 at 1:23 pm

After 30yrs you should be able to retire with full benefits. only those who put in to it? will receive, with a picture and figerprints cleared by the FBI, the same for welfare recepiants( these people on welfare will need to be in a work program for 3yrs and start working, once working it will be repaid at 3% of each and every paycheck. All elected and those appointed by the elected and those appointed by the apointed be the elected can only receive A salary for their positions while in office- NO fringe Benefits such as pensions no medical no guards after they leave office and every thing, all memoirs are of public domain to be in public libraries, no Properties- ALL interest on mortgages, and property Tax to be Tax deductable. NO income Tax. and I can think of many more ways to put our Great Nation back in shape?. Write me in as President and we will travel the stars.

Luis
December 25, 2010 at 12:47 pm

to put order in this Great Nation is very simple?- No fringe Benefits to those who are elected, those who are appointed by the elected, Only the Salary for being in office. No income Tax, Those who contribute to a retirement systems receive from them. Foreign investments Taxed at 100%; creat it here 50%, and Hire within a 50 mile radius 25%, In Welfare must go to training program to lear a trade. and so on. I can think on programs to benefit our Great Nation?, and it won't cost a penny.

tom Lickfelt
December 25, 2010 at 11:47 am

Stopping Social Security income after 35 years makes sense, but should be optional for those who are at the top of their income curve to continue to avail themselves of the higher benefit they would earn. Isn't it the norm to pay benefits on the five highert years of income.