Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Retirement Age Hike?
Old 03-14-2014, 07:57 AM   #1
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Historic Florida
Posts: 1,645
Retirement Age Hike?

Not sure if this is the correct forum but here goes.

I listened to a long discussion on NPR yesterday regarding GubMent plans to increase the retirement age over time. The next hike would be to 67 (as opposed to 66 today). This is the age at which one would receive full SS benefits (as opposed to higher benefits at 70 or minimal at 62).

Is this true?
Any idea when it will be in effect, or at least the proposed effective date?
Will it apply to ALL persons or just those under a specific age at inception?

This could make a significant difference to one's retirement planning.
__________________

__________________
"Arguing with an Engineer is like rolling in the mud with a pig. Just remember that the pig likes it."
ShokWaveRider is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 03-14-2014, 07:59 AM   #2
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 42,074
If you heard it on NPR it must be true.
__________________

__________________
Numbers is hard

When I hit 70, it hit back

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2014, 08:01 AM   #3
Moderator
Walt34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern WV Panhandle
Posts: 16,501
If you were born after 1960 then yes, SS FRA is 67.

Full Retirement Age: If You Were Born In 1960 Or Later
__________________
I heard the call to do nothing. So I answered it.
Walt34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2014, 09:35 AM   #4
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
growing_older's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,608
This is already true. There's talk of raising in higher in a similar phased in fashion, but for people age 53 and younger full retirement age for Social Security is already 67.
__________________
growing_older is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2014, 09:41 AM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 1,878
That was part of the 1983 SS amendments

Increase in Retirement Age
__________________
rbmrtn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2014, 11:33 AM   #6
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,357
SS's full retirement age has not kept pace with longevity increases. When SS began, the average life expectancy was less than 5 years past full retirement age. Now that number is closer to 15. IMO something more than 5 years and less than 15 would be a fair SS average coverage duration.
__________________
GrayHare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2014, 01:12 PM   #7
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrayHare View Post
SS's full retirement age has not kept pace with longevity increases. When SS began, the average life expectancy was less than 5 years past full retirement age. Now that number is closer to 15. IMO something more than 5 years and less than 15 would be a fair SS average coverage duration.
This is not really correct. Even at that time life expectancy at retirement well exceeded 5 years. Average life expectancy at birth was indeed much lower when SS passed than it is now. However, this is because more children and younger people died at younger ages.

In 1940, average remaining life expectancy at 65 was 14.7 years for females and 12.7 years for males.

In 1990, the average remaining life expectancy for males at 65 was only 15.3 years and was 19.6 years for females.

Social Security History

AS of 2010, CDC says life expectancy for males at 65 is 17.7 years and is 20.3 years for females.

So, in 70 years the increase has only been 5 years for males and 5.6 years for females.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2011/022.pdf
__________________
Katsmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2014, 01:34 PM   #8
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
braumeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Northern Kentucky
Posts: 8,585
So the life expectancy increase has not been keeping pace with the CPI?

No wonder we're in such a mess!
__________________
braumeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Retirement Age Hike?
Old 03-14-2014, 03:18 PM   #9
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
seraphim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,492
Retirement Age Hike?

Deleted. Post didn't look as humorous as I thought it would be lol
__________________
"Growing old is no excuse for growing up."
seraphim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2014, 03:54 PM   #10
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
donheff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 8,634
I am watching House of Cards where they are voting on a 68/64 package. Senate has passed but it looks like it is going to get hung up in the House. I won't know until the next episode.
__________________
Every man is, or hopes to be, an Idler. -- Samuel Johnson
donheff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2014, 04:10 PM   #11
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,862
If they keep the age 62 and age 70 boundaries, increasing the FRA is just an across the board benefits cut. Not a lot of relevance to any actual retirement age.
__________________
Animorph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2014, 07:45 PM   #12
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Chuckanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 6,318
If they increase the retirement age they also need to 1.) adjust traditional working systems to allow older people to continue working - especially true in the more physical jobs, and 2.) toughen up enforcement of age discrimination laws. Otherwise they will simply transfer the payments from the SS system to the welfare systems.
__________________
The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
Chuckanut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2014, 10:17 PM   #13
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt34 View Post
If you were born after 1960 then yes, SS FRA is 67.

Full Retirement Age: If You Were Born In 1960 Or Later
So it even impacts you if you were born yesterday?
__________________
jebmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2014, 08:02 AM   #14
Moderator
Walt34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern WV Panhandle
Posts: 16,501
Quote:
Originally Posted by jebmke View Post
So it even impacts you if you were born yesterday?
By 2081 they'll probably have raised it again.
__________________
I heard the call to do nothing. So I answered it.
Walt34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2014, 08:06 AM   #15
Administrator
Gumby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,137
Quote:
Originally Posted by jebmke View Post
So it even impacts you if you were born yesterday?
I wasn't born yesterday. That's just when I fell off the pumpkin truck.
__________________
Living an analog life in the Digital Age.
Gumby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2014, 10:04 AM   #16
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 882
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post
I wasn't born yesterday. That's just when I fell off the pumpkin truck.
Must be regional differences. When I was growing up in the midwest it was a turnip truck.
__________________
jebmke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2014, 02:08 PM   #17
Full time employment: Posting here.
Al in Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Columbus OH
Posts: 688
In New England it was the lobster boat.
__________________
Ohio INTJ ENG ER Hopeful
Al in Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2014, 01:39 PM   #18
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 4,092
Age 65 was set as Germany's national retirement age in the late 1890s (or something like that) by Otto von Bismarck when life expectancies were in the 50s.

SS glommed on to the age 65 concept in the 30s and it has stuck ever since. As a nation, we are living a LOT longer than ever.

In fact, most actuaries use generational mortality projections to calculate pension liabilities for corporate balance sheets, etc. Depending on your date of birth (the later you were born the longer you are expected to live); for example a life expectancy for a male aged 50 today is age 84 using a standard table and standard projection scale.

So just due to longevity risk, paying for a traditional defined benefit pension (in either the public or private sector) is much more expensive now than it was 30 years ago.
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2014, 02:00 PM   #19
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
robnplunder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 2,124
Delaying FRA does not make those people (early 60s) more employable.
__________________
Pura Vida
robnplunder is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2014, 02:02 PM   #20
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
2B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 4,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Hitter View Post
Age 65 was set as Germany's national retirement age in the late 1890s (or something like that) by Otto von Bismarck when life expectancies were in the 50s.
I think that this was for retirement from the Prussian army. It was to give soldiers "hope" that their enlistments weren't for "life." Of course, I suspect few made it that long.
__________________

__________________
The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane -- Marcus Aurelius
2B is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Preventing a hike in cable (triple bundle) bill noelm Other topics 30 09-19-2012 08:47 PM
Yet another HI premium hike. Anyone else? Zoocat Health and Early Retirement 11 07-08-2011 06:29 AM
Anthem huge rate hike free4now FIRE and Money 21 05-03-2010 06:35 PM
So, do you feel your age? Act your age? Like your age? vickko Life after FIRE 84 04-10-2010 02:47 PM
ObamaCare's Worst Tax Hike. Disappointed FIRE Related Public Policy 81 03-30-2010 01:58 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:47 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.