Posted on 09/14/2011 2:38:29 PM PDT by Nachum
Read the rest of the thread. This has been covered extensively by 10 other posters here other than myself. I'll just say politely you are mistaken.
Once upon a time, I knew a recently unemployed rich friend who teased me by asserting that her UI benefit kept her in shoes.
If you do a calculation, allowing for a reasonable ROI for invested money, one does better by taking the early retirement benefit, even though it is a nominally lesser payment. SS is such a thieving scheme that the longer one contributes (and/or waits to collect), the worse the aggregate benefit.
Actually the total amount you paid in isn’t available at any age, only a monthly payment is available. Apparently you don’t comprehend my question. What do you think should be available? You apparently think people should be paid more at 62 than they are currently paid but you say those who wait until 65 should be paid more than those who retire at 62 so that would mean that their payments should be raised also and then I suppose you still would not be happy because of the disparity. Trying to figure out what you have on your mind is quite taxing. So far you have not clarified anything at all.
The original retirement age was 65, in 1956 women were offered the opportunity to retire at 62 IF WILLING TO ACCEPT a 25 percent reduction in benefits, in 1961 this early retirement option was extended to men. Why do you now say that full retirement should be available at 62? If they offered early retirement next year at age 60 with a reduction of 40 percent from what is available at 65 would you then say that full benefits should be available at 60?
The only change I think should be made regarding retirement at 62 is that a person should be able to work full time without paying penalties on social security. At the present time you must be 66 to be able to earn a decent paycheck without paying penalties if you still choose to work, this is a penalty on earnings on top of the 25 percent reduction for early retirement which does not seem fair to me.
This wouldn’t be so taxing if you weren’t so committed to believing you are right, and seeing me as a simpleton, which is far from the truth. I’ve found that approaching things with a inquisitive mind is much better.
Of course, you don’t get a lump sum. You start getting payments. But the total paid in is still less than if you waited til 65, NOT because you paid more, but because the government keeps part as a “penalty”, to incourage people to work longer thereby bringing in more revenue.
Checked into it and SS is not an income tax. It is exactly as I stated earlier, that it is separate.
As a veteran, I know all too well the changes that Congress can and does inact on us, whether it be civilian or military.
He’s telling the truth!
Boy I bet that hurt him!
Agreed. I should have you talk to the poster that is having a hard time understanding what I’m saying.
Believe whatever you wish but you don’t make much sense.
Funny, but everyone else understood what I was talking about. Believe whatever you wish, but you might learn more by not being snarky. Good luck, Rip.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.