Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: oneamericanvoice

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.


164 posted on 09/18/2011 6:21:12 PM PDT by RipSawyer (Trying to reason with a liberal is like teaching algebra to a tomcat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies ]


To: RipSawyer

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.


165 posted on 09/19/2011 1:17:43 PM PDT by oneamericanvoice (Support freedom! Support the troops! Surrender is not an option!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson