Comment

Comment on A boomer gets just $1,056 a month in Social Security and works as a bus driver: 'I don't see myself being able to retire, but I'm grateful and healthy'

partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

She’s 68 years old, meaning born in 1956. For someone born that year the earliest they can take Social Security is age 62. source

“I always wanted to earn my own money,” Echols said. “I always wanted to work, and at the age of 14, someone started my Social Security records for me. I waited 45 years to get that paycheck.”

From her quote it sounds like that’s what she did. However starting to take social security that early also means you get a reduced benefit. Assuming she started it the day she turned 62 she only gets 73.3% of her full possible benefit. If she had waited until age 66 she would have gotten her full benefit of $1446/month instead of the $1056/month she’s getting now. However, I completely understand that she may have had to start taking it early for personal economic reasons to survive. This is one of the reasons retirement savings outside of social security is so important. If she would have had enough to supplement and delay social security until 66, she would have had the full amount and still retire at 62.

source

Sort:hotnew top

Brkdncr@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
I find it appalling that as productivity has increased we haven’t focused on bringing the retirement age down.

source
- partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Retirement age is whatever age you can afford it. The Social Security age only continues to rise because the point of Social Security isn’t to grant a time after working age for leisure. A big chunk of those that pay into Social Security are supposed to die before taking benefits. The Social Security payments are there so that those that survive that long aren’t living it abject poverty. Thats it. That’s all Social Security (for retirement) is.
  
  source
  - phdepressed@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    The giant loophole is that social security is specifically not reduced for the ways the wealthy make money such as rental income and investments.
    
    source
    partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    If I’m understanding you right, part of what you’re referring to is “means testing”. Means testing is usually defined as : “if a person has a way to obtain income outside of Social Security, they should have their Social Security benefits reduced”.
    
    This is a hypercharged political issue. Even the wealthy pay into Social Security to receive the same level of benefit as everyone else. The suggestion of means testing is, if someone can afford to live without Social Security, should they get it at all? This raises lots of problematic questions. A few I can think of is:
    
    who decided what income equals “affordable” in my example above?
    
    is SS benefit reduced by just rental income, or do you go after people with pensions and 401k income?
    
    is it fair to be forced to pay into a system for your entire working career and not get any benefit out of it at the individual level?
    
    does means testing reduce the incentive to save for retirement? As in, why save extra if your SS benefits will be reduced to equal what you saved on the side?
    
    So far there’s no legislation that supports means testing for Social Security benefits that have passed that I’m aware of, but I don’t claim to be any kind of expert.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
- Iceblade02@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  Bringing retirement age down really isn’t feasible when people live longer and longer. It’d likely be better to find a middle-ground, where folks can slowly reduce the hours they work as they age until retiring completely.
  
  source
  - Dkarma@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    This is Bs. America is rich as fuck
    
    source
  - Donebrach@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Also Americans are living shorter and shorter due to our healthcare system and (shocker!) wage inequality and all the problems that brings.
    
    source
____@infosec.pub ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
For me (mid-40s) from a quick glance at the SSA site, I surprisingly wouldn’t take a hit if I started at 62. That assuming it’s a) there and b) not privately invested in some shitshow tying it up, etc., of course.

Tentatively, given there’s no difference between 62 and 68 for me, and I’m not exactly in idea health already, the real motivation for me to work past 62 is the health insurance.

I have no illusion that the ACA or the Marketplace will exist in its current form nearly two decades from now; and Medicare seems to have a hard cut at 65 rather than the age range one could claim SS at.

That three years between 62 and 65, without Medicare, the Marketplace, or employer paid insurance, would be a far larger risk than I’m willing to take, barring a full and complete disability.

source