67 is now the norm in several European countries with others heading to that level. When Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act in 1935 the average life expectancy of a man born in 1935 was 59.9 years and the age to collect SS was 65. I.e. he would have had to live more than five years longer than his life expectancy to collect one penny.
A man born in 1960 has a life expectancy of 66.6 years. So he will get his SS just 0.4 years beyond his life expectancy. If the system as instigated in 1935 applied today the person born in 1960 would not collect his SS until he was 70.1 years old.
A man born in 2019 has a life expectancy of 76.3 years. Again, if the 1935 standard applied he would not collect SS until he was over 80. If the current rules don't change he will get his SS almost 10 years before his life expectancy age.
It's my duty to work until at least 80 to pay for the retirement, lifestyle and pensions of all the Boomers who voted to take away my free education, state owned utilities, a functioning healthcare system, affordable housing, eu membership, etc.
Hopefully I will die chained to a desk paying someones final salary pension and heating allowance for their 8 bed house while they're on a cruise somewhere.
67 is now the norm in several European countries with others heading to that level. When Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act in 1935 the average life expectancy of a man born in 1935 was 59.9 years and the age to collect SS was 65. I.e. he would have had to live more than five years longer than his life expectancy to collect one penny.
A man born in 1960 has a life expectancy of 66.6 years. So he will get his SS just 0.4 years beyond his life expectancy. If the system as instigated in 1935 applied today the person born in 1960 would not collect his SS until he was 70.1 years old.
A man born in 2019 has a life expectancy of 76.3 years. Again, if the 1935 standard applied he would not collect SS until he was over 80. If the current rules don't change he will get his SS almost 10 years before his life expectancy age.
What if the life expectancy were 1000? Should we work 950 years before collecting social security?
The hope for human society should be to be able to enjoy a larger percentage of life, not work a larger percentage of life.
Didn't this pass into law back in 1983? Why the sudden interest?
I don’t pay much attention to SS, but I also don’t think that payment schedule is anything new. I’m 44 and I’ve never considered SS to be part of my retirement plan. It will be a little bonus if I am able to collect it at some point.
Nobody is forced to work until they are 67, and I plan to retire about a decade before that.
A man born in 2019 has a life expectancy of 76.3 years. Again, if the 1935 standard applied he would not collect SS until he was over 80. If the current rules don't change he will get his SS almost 10 years before his life expectancy age.
What if the life expectancy were 1000? Should we work 950 years before collecting social security?
The hope for human society should be to be able to enjoy a larger percentage of life, not work a larger percentage of life.
I wasn't supporting any position on retirement age in my post. I was merely pointing out to the OP that the historical relationship between retirement age and life expectancy was a lot worse than it is now. Also, assuming the OP is quite young, and the retirement age doesn't change, he will be better treated by the system than those of the Golden Age or the Boomers.
What the relationship between retirement age and life expectancy should be is up to society to decide. Quality of life for the elderly versus level of taxation. One side will argue for high taxes to support longer, and so higher, SS payments. The other will argue retirement is an individual choice and the government should not be involved. You know, get rid of SS altogether - it's an entitlement.
Personally I feel the sweet spot is about five years before life expectancy, so 67 is about right. Should governments be considering raising the age if life expectancy stays well above 75? Yes, they probably should. But that would involve long term planning and preparing the public for bad news.
Governments never do long term planning and bad news is verboten as it will affect the next election cycle. So instead they will just muddle along as they always do, trading political barbs and claiming they have a miracle cure that will be explained after they are elected.
Restoring Social Security's solvency comes down to either raising taxes, cutting benefits or a combination of both. One possibility, raising the full retirement age, is another option. Here's why the idea is so controversial.
One other thing to consider is in 1935 most Americans entered the workforce in his or her late teens. A large number of Americans now go off to college and maybe even grad school, therefore delaying their entry into the workforce until their early or mid 20 s.
What if the life expectancy were 1000? Should we work 950 years before collecting social security?
The hope for human society should be to be able to enjoy a larger percentage of life, not work a larger percentage of life.
I wasn't supporting any position on retirement age in my post. I was merely pointing out to the OP that the historical relationship between retirement age and life expectancy was a lot worse than it is now.
Quality of life for retirees is much worse now.
Real wages have been flat for many decades, meaning we get less for our work now, and that is reflected yet again with this SS benefit age increase. We will get less and its not because life expectancy is increasing. It's decreasing. It's because america is going broke.
Retiring 40 years ago, when inflation was much closer to Real Wages, was better than now. Money went much further and healthcare was not blown up so quality of retirement was better, even if life expectancy was shorter.
Here is the quality of life retirees face NOW, that wasn't as bad 30-40 years ago, when wages went much further to paying for life. Conditions now:
~ life expectancy is decreasing
~ 45,000 dead americans every year (lack adequate healthcare) As much as the Vietnam war, every year
~ 1/3 of america (112 million people) struggle to pay for healthcare and are "healthcare insecure"
~ america has the most newborn deaths of all industrialized nations
~ we have the worst healthcare outcomes among all industrialized nations
~ We lead the world in healthcare spending for inferior results
~ lead in homelessness among wealthy nations
~ lead in medical bankruptcies
~ lead in calories consumed
~ lead in prescription drug costs
~ lead in debt
This is not an environment millions of retirees can survive in. You are all set? Great. Don't speak for the millions of americans who are on the edge and not ready to face these conditions, which are getting worse.
One other thing to consider is in 1935 most Americans entered the workforce in his or her late teens. A large number of Americans now go off to college and maybe even grad school, therefore delaying their entry into the workforce until their early or mid 20 s.
Didn't this pass into law back in 1983? Why the sudden interest?
$100,000,000,000 plus and counting for the weapons makers and corrupt pols
Interesting. Military spending, eh??
But what's wrong with pushing people to work until they are 70 to get 70% benefits and 75 to get 100% benefits when we can continue supporting failed audits of the biggest problem:
by WorldTribune Staff, November 25, 2022 The Pentagon has acknowledged that it can only manage to fully account for 39 percent of its $3.5 trillion in assets. “We failed to get an ‘A,’ ” Mike McCor…
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
