Bankrate follows a strict editorial policy, so you can trust that
we’re putting your interests first. Our award-winning editors and
reporters create honest and accurate content to help you make the
right financial decisions.
Key Principles
We value your trust. Our mission is to provide readers with
accurate and unbiased information, and we have editorial standards
in place to ensure that happens. Our editors and reporters
thoroughly fact-check editorial content to ensure the information
you’re reading is accurate. We maintain a firewall between our
advertisers and our editorial team. Our editorial team does not
receive direct compensation from our advertisers.
Editorial Independence
Bankrate’s editorial team writes on behalf of YOU – the reader.
Our goal is to give you the best advice to help you make smart
personal finance decisions. We follow strict guidelines to ensure
that our editorial content is not influenced by advertisers. Our
editorial team receives no direct compensation from advertisers,
and our content is thoroughly fact-checked to ensure accuracy. So,
whether you’re reading an article or a review, you can trust that
you’re getting credible and dependable information.
You have money questions. Bankrate has answers. Our experts have
been helping you master your money for over four decades. We
continually strive to provide consumers with the expert advice and
tools needed to succeed throughout life’s financial journey.
Bankrate follows a strict editorial policy, so you can trust that
our content is honest and accurate. Our award-winning editors and
reporters create honest and accurate content to help you make the
right financial decisions. The content created by our editorial
staff is objective, factual, and not influenced by our
advertisers.
We’re transparent about how we are able to bring quality content,
competitive rates, and useful tools to you by explaining how we
make money.
Bankrate.com is an independent, advertising-supported publisher
and comparison service. We are compensated in exchange for
placement of sponsored products and, services, or by you clicking
on certain links posted on our site. Therefore, this compensation
may impact how, where and in what order products appear within
listing categories. Other factors, such as our own proprietary
website rules and whether a product is offered in your area or at
your self-selected credit score range can also impact how and
where products appear on this site. While we strive to provide a
wide range offers, Bankrate does not include information about
every financial or credit product or service.
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?
Share