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'

Comments

• zazo@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  sad af - she mentions “people not paying their bills” as a reason for wealth inequality but ofc businessinsider wouldn’t point a finger at the ultra-wealthy for hoarding so much money that a 68 year old can barely pay rent even with social security - it’s just unfortunate to see people accepting their poverty as “god’s plan” instead of seeing that sacrificing some of the wealth of the 0.1%-1% can have a monumental impact on those suffering the most.

  source

  • Agent641@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    This is what a fully indoctrinated wage slave actually believes

    source
• 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

  • 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

      • -> 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

      • -> View More Comments
  • ____@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
• amanda@aggregatet.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  That’s not ok, boomer :(

  source
• ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  [deleted]

  source

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Don’t tell that to the zoomers and alphers who call everyone older than them “boomers” and think older generations stole the wealth, when the true thieves are the ultra-wealthy who exploit people of all ages and all generations.

    Image source

    The vast majority of ultra-wealthy are boomers with a small bit of GenX thrown in.

    source

    • ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      [deleted]

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • Dkarma@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Boomer is a mentality as much as a generational identifier

    source