Financial experts suggest working until 70

[Denverite]

I think it has very little to do with the government and the IRS and a whole lot to do with the fact that almost everyone is living above their means and has no retirement savings whatsoever. If they work until 70 they can at least collect the largest SS benefit and maybe live off of that.

+1

Particularly surprising since the US had a severe recession just ten short years ago. You have to wonder if those people who are not saving have forgotten all about that. Do they all have the "this tree is going to grow to the sky" attitude?

Is consuming beyond your means really worth a permanent lack of financial independence? I would never want to approach retirement with social security as my sole income source. Suppose that program eventually gets reduced, which many people believe it will. Rude awakening.

 

[JustCurious]

I would never want to approach retirement with social security as my sole income source. Suppose that program eventually gets reduced, which many people believe it will. Rude awakening.

The consensus is that people who are already at retirement age will be exempt from any future benefit reductions.

 

[omni550]

The consensus is that people who are already at retirement age will be exempt from any future benefit reductions.

Whereas, my guess is that it will be means tested for those at retirement age.

IOW, those with the means will be sorely tested.

omni

 

[JustCurious]

Whereas, my guess is that it will be means tested for those at retirement age.

Any guess as to how they will do that?

 

[kcowan]

Any guess as to how they will do that?

Your last three income tax filings? Oh wait, they already have those.

 

[OldShooter]

Whereas, my guess is that it will be means tested for those at retirement age. ... i

The devil is in the details of that one. Most of us can manage our income to one degree or another, so "means" would have to include assets and some assets, like equity in a home, would probably have to be excluded. A front page story about a widow living solely on SS being forced to sell her house would not be a good thing for the politicians.

I think, though, that they will not touch the currently-retired or the very-near-retired because this cadre votes. The will rather set up a frog-in-boiling-water scenario that hits people who are not so close to retirement that they will seize the issue and show up to vote.

 

[ncbill]

The devil is in the details of that one. Most of us can manage our income to one degree or another, so "means" would have to include assets and some assets, like equity in a home, would probably have to be excluded. A front page story about a widow living solely on SS being forced to sell her house would not be a good thing for the politicians.

I think, though, that they will not touch the currently-retired or the very-near-retired because this cadre votes. The will rather set up a frog-in-boiling-water scenario that hits people who are not so close to retirement that they will seize the issue and show up to vote.

While we've discussed this briefly before, I remain skeptical about any asset-based means testing, mainly because tracking income has been the focus.

And there are all sorts of ways to make your assets less visible.

E.g., over on bogleheads, plenty of posters don't think umbrella insurance is sufficient protection, so they advise transferring assets into an irrevocable trust.

 

[mrWinter]

I don't relish the idea of working until I'm 70, but the idea of 70 becoming the new 65, aka standard retirement age, doesn't seem outlandish or outright wrong. If life expectancy has increased by that much in that time then it makes sense that the retirement window creep commensurately. Of course I think the real question is less about life expectancy and more about healthy living years. I think that we have managed to stay alive longer on average but not necessarily do so in health that allows working or living well, but I don't know any data to support or contradict that.

I've similarly thought that it's only fair that the SS ages creep up along with life expectancy. The system wasn't designed when people lived to 79 on average, no wonder it's going broke, without people taking any intentional action it has really changed in function.

Holy crap, I just looked it up and the average us life expectancy when SS was created was 61.7!!!!! (https://www.infoplease.com/life-expectancy-birth-race-and-sex-1930-2010) 3.3 Years prior to the average age people die! And there was no early withdrawal then, 65 was as early as you could get anything. Imagine full Social Security not starting until you turned 82.6!

 

[JustCurious]

I don't relish the idea of working until I'm 70, but the idea of 70 becoming the new 65, aka standard retirement age, doesn't seem outlandish or outright wrong.

I agree, except for physically demanding jobs, like construction workers. I don't think it's right to expect someone to keep laying bricks until they are 70.

 

[CountryGal]

I don't relish the idea of working until I'm 70, but the idea of 70 becoming the new 65, aka standard retirement age, doesn't seem outlandish or outright wrong.

Except most jobs are not available to those over 60. In Megacorp.. workers are flagged when they hit 50 and the first to be laid off. The young-ins openly chat about how the senior people should leave so that they can advance. I don't think there are enough JOBS to cover raising the retirement age.

 

[brucethebroker]

I'll pass thanks.

I agree.
I think the author of the article should be the first to try it out: let him experience the age discrimination issues and the fun of working for "know it all" twenty something bosses. The author can report back to us with his experience when he hits 70!...if he lives that long.

 

[brucethebroker]

I think, though, that they will not touch the currently-retired or the very-near-retired because this cadre votes. The will rather set up a frog-in-boiling-water scenario that hits people who are not so close to retirement that they will seize the issue and show up to vote.

History is on your side. The increased Full Retirement Age and SS income taxation were both sneaked in on the "youngins" (boomers) in the 1983 changes, if memory serves. It was years before the taxation issue kicked in for existing seniors (65 and over in 1983), and the increased FRA was gradually applied to new filers.

 

[Dtail]

The devil is in the details of that one. Most of us can manage our income to one degree or another, so "means" would have to include assets and some assets, like equity in a home, would probably have to be excluded. A front page story about a widow living solely on SS being forced to sell her house would not be a good thing for the politicians.

I think, though, that they will not touch the currently-retired or the very-near-retired because this cadre votes. The will rather set up a frog-in-boiling-water scenario that hits people who are not so close to retirement that they will seize the issue and show up to vote.

I agree with this thinking, perhaps as SS will provide us a minimum of 49k at 62 in todays' dollars. Maybe wishful thinking.
Just raise the SS Withholding to unlimited and call it a day.

 

[aja8888]

This reminds me of a time back in 1991 when I was driving my parents to LaGuardia Airport. It was about 9:30 AM and he highway had a lot of traffic on it. This was during the 1991-92 recession, and unemployment was rising, if you recall. My dad wondered out loud if all the traffic was from the horde of people on their way to the unemployment offices!

The big difference here is that we are not in a recession. No one goes to the unemployment office anymore as the "visit" is done online and money is deposited electronically. All the people around here must just out shopping or going to lunch!

 

[broadway]

It would help if employers or the hiring managers actually want to hire 50+ workers.

On the one hand they moan about fewer workers paying taxes but yet there is age discrimination for whatever reasons.
I see it in the job ads. Entry-level blah blah blah.

.

 

[broadway]

I agree.
I think the author of the article should be the first to try it out: let him experience the age discrimination issues and the fun of working for "know it all" twenty something bosses. The author can report back to us with his experience when he hits 70!...if he lives that long.

I didn't interview with a 20-something boss.
He was probably my age, but everybody on his staff except one was in their 20s.

 

[GravitySucks]

I agree, except for physically demanding jobs, like construction workers. I don't think it's right to expect someone to keep laying bricks until they are 70.

Yup.
I imagine being a Stanford researcher at 70 is a whole lot more feasible than being a 70 year old mason.

 

[kcowan]

Given that this is an ER forum, this is just a piece to earn our derision...

 

[broadway]

Given that this is an ER forum, this is just a piece to earn our derision...

I think whoever wrote the article hasn't tried looking for a job at age 50 or greater. Or even try to keep a job at 50 or beyond.


.

 

[Turboslacker]

Well I suggest every Financial Planner and Advisor work till 70. Let's see how many of these theives taste their own medicine.

 

[Chuckanut]

I think whoever wrote the article hasn't tried looking for a job at age 50 or greater. Or even try to keep a job at 50 or beyond.


.

Bingo!

 

[Dtail]

I think whoever wrote the article hasn't tried looking for a job at age 50 or greater. Or even try to keep a job at 50 or beyond.


.

Even though I took a package voluntarily, I tried to get work after that for 1 year with having many high level contacts, but no one would hire a 56 yr old even willing to take a decent pay cut.
Thankfully, discovered this site and various calculators and hopefully the rest is history....

 

[broadway]

Even though I took a package voluntarily, I tried to get work after that for 1 year with having many high level contacts, but no one would hire a 56 yr old even willing to take a decent pay cut.
Thankfully, discovered this site and various calculators and hopefully the rest is history....

How did you know when to stop looking?

Were you willing to relocate?

 

[Dtail]

How did you know when to stop looking?

Were you willing to relocate?

Just as I got turned down for a job after 1 year, where it was me vs. no one else even with an inside contact, but they were just using me for info and didn't hire anyone, I was very frustrated and by chance within a week I discovered this site.
This led me to a myriad of calculators plus Bogleheads. Then stopped looking, so the discoveries and calculations "decided" for me and felt I can do this retirement thing NOW.
We were already cutting down our expenses for possible retirement at 62.
We relocated to FLA from HCOL in the NE. We already felt strong about moving to FLA, so not as big a decision that others would have about relocating.

As an aside, I shunned all former contacts and moved forward and don't miss any of the power or monies.

 

[broadway]

Just as I got turned down for a job after 1 year, where
We relocated to FLA from HCOL in the NE. We already felt strong about moving to FLA, so not as big a decision that others would have about relocating.

With the relocation, I meant relocating for the new job.

It sounds like it was something you would have done.