[utahagen]

As I wrote on a previous post, Republicans should refer to "collection of benefits age" rather than "retirement age". People are free to retire at, say, 65, but just not collect social security for another year or two after that. During that year or two, they could live on other savings. This one or two year deferral may be enough to substantially "save" social security. Conservatives should back modest increases in the collection of benefits age, even as we push for so many other needed reforms in social security. Many people who retire at 65 have twenty, thirty, even forty years of living ahead of them. It's simply outdated and unrealistic to believe that everyone can start getting payments as early as 65.

[CSM]

"As I wrote on a previous post, Republicans should refer to "collection of benefits age" rather than "retirement age"."

I like this clarification. The government should have no say when I can retire!