FIRE posters: Run for office!
Nope. Not gonna happen. I'm done working.
FIRE posters: Run for office!
I was born in 1959, and my goal posts were moved from 65 to 66 and 10 months.In 1983, the goalposts were moved for anyone born after 1960. The oldest of that group was only 23 then. I was 20. Moving FRA from 65 to 67 for that age group wouldn't/shouldn't have had a material effect on when or if they could afford to retire in their mid-60's.
I don't have an exact answer. I think generally that moving the goalposts again for people who are within 10 or so years of their FRA of 67 isn't the right way to go about it.
All true, but a little clarification might be helpful.Correct. They must use ACA while serving but, are eligible for guaranteed lifetime health care (FEHB) upon retirement after >5yrs of service.
Five yrs of service (one Senatorial term or three Representative terms) qualifies a retired congress person to a lifetime pension which is based on years of service and collectible at age 62.
IMO, most of this is in line with other large employers, with the exception of guaranteed lifetime health insurance, which is quite valuable.
I'm sure you meant to say 66 and 10 months.I was born in 1959, and my goal posts were moved from 65 to 67 and 10 months.
Same here.Not to be picky, but they were moved for everyone born in 1938 or later. I imagine you're thinking 1960 because that's where the FRA currently flat-lines at 67. I was born in 1953, was 30 when the law changed (and had been paying into the system for 14 years), and my FRA moved from 65 to 66.
Yes, thanks, corrected.I'm sure you meant to say 66 and 10 months.
Yes, ditto! I forgot about that one. We're still going to use file-and-restrict, though, because DW just barely qualifies.And when I was 60, the file-and-suspend strategy that I planned to utilize was eliminated. That goalpost move cost us more than $40k.
To put it another way, in 1983 they raised FRA for everyone who was then under 45 years old, presumably thinking they had enough time to adjust their retirement plans. I'm guessing lots of folks on this forum would not appreciate that happening today!
Not to be picky, but they were moved for everyone born in 1938 or later. I imagine you're thinking 1960 because that's where the FRA currently flat-lines at 67. I was born in 1953, was 30 when the law changed (and had been paying into the system for 14 years), and my FRA moved from 65 to 66.
No, only folks whose plan depends on SS. Everyone else will be fine.
I agree with everything you're saying, and certainly that no one above a certain age should have their FRA changed. As one of the ones affected near retirement, I was bummed about file-and-suspend, but agreed that it was basically a loophole that was being exploited by the few who could benefit (as I would have if given the chance!). At your age (55?), I think you're pretty safe from further goalpost-moving.In 1983, everyone had plenty of time to adjust to the changed reality. Until the law changed, FRA was 65, as it had been from the beginning. For you, the increase was 1 year. For me, it was 2 years. For people older than us, it was a range of months, as little as 2 to up to 10 months.
I've seen a proposal that would move the goalposts on people my age again, moving my FRA from 67 to 69. I don't think this has been widely reported in the media. There are other proposals not widely known as well, some concerning spousal benefits, some concerning how the PIA is calculated so that anyone working for more than minimum wage (my phrasing entirely) doesn't benefit as much, and many other sundries.
It wasn't so long ago that a huge change was made with the elimination of file & suspend. Not much notice was given and it affected many people so near to retirement. I read plenty of comments when the news broke. Some people had counted on file & suspend to retire and it had suddenly been taken off the table for them. Some missed the cutoff by mere months.
Until then, it was widely thought that any significant changes to Social Security wouldn't affect anyone 55 or older, because of the lack of time to adjust. They proved that to be wrong.
The way they dicker around about this, a proposal circulated in committee today to raise FRA from 67 to 69, could become legislation in 10 years, affecting the plans of many near-retirees again.
I agree with everything you're saying, and certainly that no one above a certain age should have their FRA changed. As one of the ones affected near retirement, I was bummed about file-and-suspend, but agreed that it was basically a loophole that was being exploited by the few who could benefit (as I would have if given the chance!). At your age (55?), I think you're pretty safe from further goalpost-moving.
1. Am I the only one who remembers the same "sky is falling" debate on SS in the late 1970's?
.
I agree... the 1983 changes moved the goal posts for those ages 23-45 (including me).... giving those taxpayers 20-42 years to adapt to the changes... seems fair enought to me and I suspect that will be the model for future changes in the FRA to reflect improvements in longevity.
Why no worries about cuts in Section 8 housing, Medicade, SNAP (food stamps), government pensions, military spending, etc?
What does "left to default" mean to you in this context?I do not think they will make any adjustments to SS, Medicare and Medicaid. Each will be left to default and a "new" program will be introduced with new rules.
I agree with everything you're saying, and certainly that no one above a certain age should have their FRA changed. As one of the ones affected near retirement, I was bummed about file-and-suspend, but agreed that it was basically a loophole that was being exploited by the few who could benefit (as I would have if given the chance!). At your age (55?), I think you're pretty safe from further goalpost-moving.
What does "left to default" mean to you in this context?
If then ...My prediction is that the politicians won't act until they have to - keep kicking the can down the road and only when it is close to a crisis will they act.