35 and under: How would you feel about raising SS age to 67?

[apples and oranges]

At this point, I don't want to think about turning 40,much less 65. I'm not sure it would make much of a difference for me. What say you?

[Ruby the Liberal]

1. They are proposing this for 55 and younger.

[Little Star]

18. HA! If you were born between 1943 and 1954....

Your full retirement age is already 66 years old!!!!!

Have a look at what it is today:
http://ssa.gov/retirement/1943.html


They need to raise the cap & let people retire earlier so younger people can have jobs! Our government is just plain stupid!

[girl gone mad]

2. I'd be angry since it's totally unnecessary.

[Parker CA]

3. With so many other options available to cut spending (wars wars wars), it seems completely

unnecessary to me.

[trayfoot]

4. ALL they have to do is RAISE THE CAP!

[Justitia]

5. It's ALREADY age 67 for everyone born after 1960. -eom

[flamingdem]

7. yep. I think the pukes are aiming for 70 for the younguns nt

[strategery blunder]

6. 26, and I say temporarily lower it to 62.

We need to address JOBS, and one way to do that is to make it easier for people to retire.

When I was growing up, I was told that I would have no problem finding a job, because tens of millions of my elders would start retiring right about now...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Suddenly few can afford to retire, and everyone that can is hanging onto their jobs with screeching fingernails...

Meaning the positions that demographers had expected to be freed for young people like me entering the workforce after college, were not.

I graduated college a year before the economy "officially" crashed...but the economy was already softening.

I don't begrudge people in their 60s trying to hold on until full retirement age; if the retirement age was lowered, they could retire in some measure of peace, a few million job positions would need to be filled, unemployment would drop, and everyone would be happy.

It may or may not require a hike in the SS tax, but it'd be worth it to help fix unemployment! Unfortunately, our esteemed politicians don't give a damn.

[Mel]

8. It already is 67 for full benefits of Social Security

that is if you where born after 1959. Thanks Raygun and a Democratic House for doing that.

http://ssa.gov/pubs/ageincrease.htm

Did you mean to say Medicare? Which is 65.

[pennylane100]

9. I am already on social security so it will not affect me but

why on earth should we change a formula that has absolutely no effect on the debt ceiling while we allow the richest people in the country to make no sacrifices at all. They are counting on the democratic party blinking first, as usual. As a fairly decent poker player, I say no. The republican paymasters will not allow the raising of the debt ceiling vote to fail. They will cave before that happens.

[dkf]

10. That is normal retirement age so you can receive it at a younger age

But with cuts.

So if you want to retire younger save more. If you can't save enough you will have to wait to retire.

[Cid_B]

11. I don't plan on getting it at all....

so I will be pleasantly surprised either way...

[Little Star]

20. We all (young & old) need to fight so that you and others..

your age can be pleasantly surprised. Trust me you will need that safety net as much, if not more than seniors now do.

NGU!!!!

[enough]

12. Nobody that age can imagine becoming 65 0r 67. They have no interest in the

distinction between those two ages. I know I didn't when I was 35 and under.

[treestar]

22. this is very true

I remember being under 35 and at that time, I would never want to think about being 65! I'm 50 now and still don't!

[HappyMe]

26. Well, that's true.

The only time I think of being over 65 is when I see fridge boxes. Then I think, 'damn, grab that house'. I'm 53.

[Indykatie]

13. Programs Were Originally Designed When Folks Retired at 65 and Didn't Live as Long

Folks are living much longer and often working longer because the economy hasn't or won't allow folks to be prepared financially for retirement. I think an increase could be acceptable to many people. I am 58 and in fairly good financial shape but most people I talk to even those in my age bracket aren't close to being prepared at age 65 for many reasons, and yes some of the reasons are self inflicted. With the elimination of most defined pension plans many will find that they have not saved enough to supplement whatever cash balance plans their employers put in place when they did away with the traditional plans. Some companies don't even have CB plans. I'm a benefits director for a large F500 company that provides both a cash balance plan and a generous 401K match and we still have a substantial number of folks not participating in the 401K. We started auto enrolling our new employees and that has helped a little. Young folks, listen up. Start saving now and do it consistently. You'll be glad you did when you reach my age

[Justitia]

14. actually, life length has not changed much - infant mortality has, which skews the numbers. -eom

[Indykatie]

21. Those Slight Changes Mean A Lot when Calculated by Actuaries over Many Years

Given the numbers of folks receiving the benefits an increase of even a few years in life expectancy adds quite a bit to the total cost of the programs.

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. It has, actually

See here:http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

According to the table, 53.9% of men and 60.6% of women born in 1875 who lived to adulthood went on to live to age 65; for those born in 1925 those figures increase to 72.3% and 83.6%. And in the same period remaining life expectancy for those reaching age 65 increased by 2.6 years for men and 5.2 years for women.

[Justitia]

29. The pertinent numbers are those that explain additional years once a person makes it to age 65

The previous post referred to when the program was instituted - 1935

[Spider Jerusalem]

30. The pertinent numbers are both

the additional number of people surviving from age 21 to 65 is just as pertinent, I'd say (and someone born in 1875 turned 65 in 1940 and would have been among the earliest Social Security recipients).

[PragmaticLiberal]

15. Personally, as a 35 year old...

I could accept it.


I'd have plenty of time to prepare for it.



But I'm sure there are many who'll disagree with me.

[cableman24]

16. I will be 24 at the end of august and would not really care. it would just

Make me change things a little and save a little bit more before I reach that age.

[Little Star]

19. Good luck with that pipe dream! Do you really think people have not

tried to save? Wages are so small (and most have always been so) that it takes every penny just to exist for most families.

It is not getting better it is getting worse. Most of us believed just how you do, but that dream rarely is possible.

Get back to us when you become retirement age.

[JI7]

17. i wouldn't be upset by it

[erodriguez]

24. No thanks

No raise in the cap for me. It doesnt matter if I cant retire for another 30+ years. There is no guarantee that I'd have a job that long, put enough money away for retirement, not be subjected to a medical crisis.


2 years is a long time if you are destitute.

[Chan790]

25. Only...

if it were immediate and tied to an end to the rate-cap without an extension of uppermost benefit...currently ~$2,366/mo.

(By immediate, I mean it doesn't tick up. It's 67 tomorrow for everybody not retired and doesn't increase with later DOB.)

[mysuzuki2]

27. Uh, hate to tell you this but the full retirement age

is 67 for people that age.

[newportdadde]

28. I'm assuming you mean Medicare, it would cost me an additional 15k for the two years.

That is if I was still able to retire and keep insurance through my employer, currently that is around 750 a month for a former employee and spouse.

If my employer does away with retiree insurance I will need to work longer. I think you will see more an more companies not offer it, my own company will no longer off it past the age of 65 now. So I think those of us 35 and under would be pretty stupid to be okay with a change like that unless you like the idea of essentially working until you are dead.

[Yo_Mama]

31. Already 67 as so many have noted.

This is a weird thread, with many saying not to do what has already been law for decades.

The suggestion has been made to delay SS retirement to 68 or 69. Why don't you amend your post to ask that question?

[CreekDog]

32. most uninformed post ever

How about trying again, next time with a question that doesn't include a flawed premise.