Retirement age for Social Security

I am curious what you think the retirement age for full Social Security should be.

It seems some factors playing into it are health, years working, how much is paid in vs going out, availability of jobs, wish to not have to work but be able to have a life otherwise. Many more factors, just throwing a few out there.

So, at what age should Full Social Security retirement benefits kick in?

Bonus question for replies, how much time/amount should someone have to work/contribute to get SS?

signed, an old lady.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/356/session/L3RpbWUvMTI4NzUyNzgwMi9zaWQvSHF6dnVWY2s%3D
How long does a person need to work to become eligible for retirement benefits?
Everyone born in 1929 or later needs 40 Social Security credits to be eligible for retirement benefits. You can earn up to four credits per year, so you will need to work at least 10 years to become eligible for retirement benefits.

During your working years, earnings covered by Social Security are posted to your Social Security record and you earn credits based on those earnings.

Each year the amount of earnings needed for a credit rises as average earnings levels rise. In 2010, you receive one credit for each $1,120 of earnings, up to the maximum of four credits per year.

If you become disabled before age 62, the number of credits needed for entitlement to disability benefits depends on your age at the time you become disabled. If you die before age 62, the number of credits needed for survivors to receive benefits on your record depends on your age at the time you die.

A minimum of six credits is required regardless of your age.

:rofl: How old are you ;)

I'm sure it was my health you were concerned about.

You need 40 credits to earn SS benefits.

You earn one credit working at least one day in 3 month period and earning $1120 in 2010 the amount is subject to inflation. You can't earn more than 4 credits in one year but you can earn less. Simple version. If you work at least one day in each qtr and earn $4480 then you earn the maximum 4 credits for that year. 10 years like that and you earn retirement.

Of course w/ only 10 years your SS check will be very small but it will be something.

tracking down and posting what it is.

The system is a sliding scale but pay more in and get more out.

The scale has to start somewhere. It takes revenue to pay benefits.

sometime between 60 and 65

if the medical care in this country does`t improve the age will have to be rolled back. if not a lot of people will be dieing well before they should.

And dance and clap their hands that the money we put into the SS fund will now belong to Wall Street...

never mind my body is broke because i chose to work steel all my life instead of sitting in a chair or walking around with a clip board.

If you can work full time until 75 and want to, why collect Social Security.

i am almost 67 and am working full time. i don't know what you mean by a tax penalty? and how long you work is subordinate to many factors including the kind of work you do, your health, your financial status, etc. you may be able to retire but can't live on the income so have to continue working to pay the bills.

In you are less than full retirement age, collect SS, and work you lose $1 in SS benefits for every $2 earned over $14,610.

So someone less than full retirement age, collecting SS and working w/ salary of $30,000 would have their SS check reduced by $641 each month ($30,000 - $14,610)/(2*12).

Once you are older than full retirement age there is no penalty for working & collecting SS.

Generally speaking it only makes sense to collect SS while working (and younger that full retirement) IF you absolutely need the money AND your wages are relatively low.

A friend of mine approaching retirement recently checked into it. He found that at 66, he can collect his SS and make up to $37,000 per year with no tax penalty. After $37,000, there might be some taxes but it would not equate to paying more than he is collecting.

and it didn't make sense to her.

If you are YOUNGER than full retirement the penalty is much more severe.
You lose $1 in SS benefit (your check is reduced) for every $2 in income above $14,160

Someone making $37,000 would have their SS annual checks reduced by $11,195.
Someone making $57,000 would have their SS annual checks reduced by $21,195.

What matters is your age (in full years) relative to SS Full retirement age (which varies based on birthdate).

YOUNGER than full retirement - rather huge penalty really only makes sense if you absolutely have to take it.
SAME AGE as full retirement - smaller penalty and only on income >$37,160.
OLDER than full retirement - no penalty.

The first category you won't "come out ahead". One should really only opt for SS while still working and less than full retirement if you simply have no other options. The combination of the penalty and reduced checks (by taking SS earlier) means a significant reduction in lifetime benefit.

yes I will get less money for a longer period of time ....
(assuming I live ..)
but if I don't live longer ... at least I will
be able to do those things I want as a
retiree ...

I was homeless.
They take the last 10 quarters that you worked to base your payments on. My last ten quarters i was full blown AIDS and could not work full time. I Was working 2 and 3 jobs to try to save and get ahead. That went on the first hospital bills. I had back injuries, so while trying to heal from that one was job related then I got hit head on by a car load of drunk college students on Spring Break in FtLaud, I got pneumonia from laying still because my back hurt so badly. The insurance dropped me like a turd, my savings paid that first 30 g. Then things went down hill from there.
I was expected to die several times now, but I just keep coming back some how. I have had to fire about 10 drs some after just one visit to get good care. I have other health stuff going on too, heart condition, seizures (bless me for I have Dora my seizure alert), and deadly allergies.

This is why I was so unhappy about no public option or medicare buy in. If you can work even a little you should, I would. If I lose my medicare/medicaid and ADAP it would be a death sentence. The co pay for my meds is more than my ssd and my meds cost more than our entire house hold income, I also see that it would help engender entrepreneurs to start businesses.

In fact she is fairly healthy.

Why is it so hard for so many who truly need it and yet some who are completely undeserving get it?

what's the nature of her disability?

No, that's okay. Honestly? She is diabetic (well in hand with medication and diet). She had a knee replacement last year.

:shrug:

Nothing plenty of people don't deal with every day and still go to work.

Sorry, but your statement is not factual. My wife is an SSD recipient, and i make 3x the U.S. median income. We own our own home outright, and have for more than a few years.

So, we're light years from broke, and she was granted it after 12 months of hearings.
GAC

but with the current economy I can't imagine how anyone who loses their job in their 50's is going to find meaningful employment unless they have very specialized skills. Maybe lower draw at 55, full draw at 60.

It's not like longer life cycle is a winner argument, with people losing insurance left & right.

FWIW, I started working part-time and summer jobs at 12 yrs. of age, full-time at 21.

not change the current age. people will work longer. we should make that pay. not in favor of a means test, either. just think that small incentives will encourage people to put off collecting benefits.

I'm tired. I need some time off.

People retiring now can take benefits at 62, or increase their monthly benefit each year they wait, until age 70. So why is the amount at 65 known as "full benefit"?

My own view is that most people would be better off waiting as long as they can to draw their social security, even if it means spending their savings. Social security is one of the rare assets that is not subject to how well an investment does, an insurance company's fortunes, poor judgment, court judgment, or no judgment.

:hippie:

since wasn't going to make it to 65. This parent got less money every month since started collecting @62.

My other parent started collecting @ 65, gets more money every month than if started @ 62.

I think "full benefit" is because they are increasing, have increased, the age of both early and full benefit collections.

I agree, SS benefits were set in place as a safety net since it was safe, not dependent on all that stuff.

unless they plan to live a very long time. The amount at 70 is not that much more than 66 or 67. Consider: a person forgoes a monthly check of $1200 for 3 years. How many months would they have to live after 70 to recoup the $43,200 dollars they did not draw in those 3 years?

working full time till the age of 70. Unless one has a substantial retirement fund built up, which a majority of Americans don't, most come out further ahead by working as long as possible before retiring.

Once you reach age 65 assuming you have no chronic conditions you have about a 50% chance of living to be 90 and about a 22% chance of living to be 100. When you consider a couple the probability that AT LEAST one person will live a long time is increased.

Life expectancy is deceptive because it includes people who die in childhood, and people who die before retirement. The average retiree lives a long longer than 74.

I ran some quick numbers from SS website.

Age 62 - $1334 a month (2010 dollars)
Age 67 - $1907 a month (2010 dollars)
Age 70 - $2366 a month (2010 dollars)

The break even for opting SS at 67 instead of 62 is 79.6. If you live past 79.6 you will receive more benefits.
The break even for opting SS at 70 instead of 62 is 80.3. If you live past 80.3 you will receive more benefits.

Generally speaking IF you have sufficient other assets (IRA/401K/pension/annuity/reverse mortgage/etc) to make ends meet for 5-10 years after you stop working delaying SS is better option.

Sure you might die young. Shit happens. Who really cares about money when they are dead? On the other hand you might live a long time long enough to exhaust your other assets. Having larger guaranteed SS check can be significant. Of course many Americans save little (or nothing) while working which makes the choice moot.

Nobody should take advice from a message board. One should seriously look at assets, actuary tables (life projections), monthly expenses, and how long one intends to work (some people do work until 65, 67, even 70 making the decision much easier). If possible you should consult w/ a fee based financial planner.

Opting for social SECURITY later has the potential to provide less income (if you die younger) but provides more SECURITY (if you luck out and die much older).

I'd wondered when break even points are, thanks for writing it up.

can't wait.. This is almost as good a birthday as 21..:evilgrin:

Tear gas, rocks, the whole works.

Just for some added perspective...

but lots of folks have put on some heavy mileage or their bodies (not to mention the market) make pushing on sometimes cruel and too often impossible.

Life expectancy is being overrated big time, considering how much of the increase is on the front end with lower child mortality rates versus any giant leap in lifespan after 65 (much less the current 67).

I answered this way because of my own experience in getting older. I watched many very good men "retired" early from very good paying jobs. They had reached a time when their salaries were too high. It was cheaper to hire young men and start them on their upward/downward spiral. It is extremely difficult for anyone over the age of 55 to find employment. I've been there and I have excellent skills. Our knowledge and experience count for nothing as we are old. Discrimination is rampant among the elderly. So, until this stops, retirement should come earlier. Additionally, the longer we work, the less work there is for the young.

to see the Medicare eligibility age lowered and the coverage improved. If I'm not mistaken, right now you aren't eligible for Medicare until you're 65, plus you have to pay a portion of your Medicare costs and also purchase supplemental insurance. I would like to see the whole Medicare system beefed up, and have eligibility begin at age 62, when you also qualify for partial SS retirement payments.

I might consider retiring at 62 and taking the 28.3% hit on my monthly benefit if I could be assured that Medicare would be both affordable and would cover my needs. As it stands right now, that would be impossible

Here is why:

1) It is prohibitively expensive to get private insurance between ages of 55-65. If people could join Medicare at 55 the money saved would be worth far more than getting SS at 55 and paying MASSIVE insurance premiums.

2) Employers are reluctant to hire older employers for same reason. People over 65 are cheap (Medicare becomes primary insurance) however 55 to 65 are expensive. Making medicare begin at 55 would help those who wish to work longer to be able to find employment.

eom