January 27, 2023
"What’s with all this whingeing about the raising of the retirement age? Ye gods, what a bunch of..."
"... lazy, workshy, good-for-nothing, stay-at-home, Deliveroo-scoffing, unproductive, couch potato cry-babies we have become. Well, you have become. I’m fine. Work is good! Work is fun! Work is what you were made for! What the hell else do you think you’re supposed to be doing with your time: surfing the internet for good deals on comfy tracksuits, posting your lunchtime sarnie on TikTok and nipping up to Scotland every three months to flip genders on a whim?... What do you want to do when you’re old, anyway? Work is the only thing. You want to play golf or bridge or mahjong all day or go on some awful cruise? Or sit alone in the pub staring into the bottom of one of the three pints you can afford, that you have to make last all afternoon?... Come off it. We all know what happens when you retire: you die. Because the cessation of work famously accelerates the decline of physical and cognitive functioning...."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
87 comments:
The retirement age has to go up because the working are supplying goods and services to the retirees, and there can't be too many retirees per working person. As life expectancy goes up so does the retirement age, to keep the balance. It doesn't just mean a longer vacation until you die.
In the US, at least, social security could be fixed for the foreseeable future simply by raising the retirement age to 67. Go up a month every year for a couple decades.
65 is an absurd age to be putting people out to pasture. Retirement was supposed to be a short period of time, something to make your twilight years easier, not a third of your life. Not some whole new chapter.
I agree. I'm semi-retired, working three days and 20 hours a week. While I might gripe about having to get up at 4:30AM to get to work, I really wouldn't want to have nothing to do all week but entertain myself. My mom worked until she was 83, I expect to the same.
Bite me, Giles. I got plans.
You work an extra two years or whatever our fat leisure class overlords deign to mandate.
-XC
PS - Been paying SS tax for 42 years now. I'm honestly surprised I may collect something.
There's a place in the media ecosphere for angry tough guy commentators like Morton Downey or ESPN's Stephen D. Smith. Giles Coren has found that niche in its British print form, and will happily exploit his prey for a while.
Correction, it's ESPN's Stephen A. Smith
A sign of our times (pun intended) is society constructed on shared responsibility/progressive prices that garners an authorized right to life and retirement.
Work is fun for some people, but not for others. There's much to be said for love and work as requirements for a fulfilled life, but not everyone is lucky with either.
Giles Coren is an idiot. I hope you don't have to pay the Times to read his rants and tantrums.
The government made a promise by setting an age of retirement with benefits. When you break a promise, don’t blame the people for trusting you or don’t whine when they show up with pitchforks at your home. Better yet, don’t make the promise.
It's not the working longer. It's a backdoor cut in benefits. A change in full retirement age from 67 to 70 results in a 20% cut.
As Trump wisely advised, leave it alone.
The writer tried to be outrageous and funny.
He should get a little credit for trying.
In the developed world, retirement ages for public pensions have been and will continued to be raised because of longer life spans. But most countries have options where you can retire earlier and get a lower pension. If retiring at a younger age is important, you could do the prudent thing and save money for your retirement at an early age. A few smart investments, like rental properties, should do the trick.
Per recent Columbia U study, almost 10% of over 65 have dementia, and another 22% mild cognitive impairment. Use AI to find suitable jobs for them....
I enjoyed working. I also enjoy NOT working. He sounds like the working Moms who criticize the stay at homes. Don’t knock what you haven’t done.
Giles Coren sounds like a right c*nt.
Spoken like someone who has never been retired.
"What do you want to do when you’re old, anyway? Work is the only thing. You want to play golf or bridge or mahjong all day or go on some awful cruise? Or sit alone in the pub staring into the bottom of one of the three pints you can afford, that you have to make last all afternoon?"
The last one, please.
My retirement days somehow are as full as my work days used to be. So many things I've always wanted to get to, that I'm trying to get to, but not able to because I'm so busy just doing what I love. And that's the difference. I liked my work. I love what I'm doing now. So, I may not be as sharp as I was when it comes to flying around the country, walking into a room full of people and presenting something to them, but I am great at my desk, with my dog at my feet, writing away the hours, or going outside to dig up old plants and find new ones for our yard. Things I never got to do. Or going out with my camera and thinking Today is the day that I really start photography in earnest! Only to stop being so earnest a half hour later because I found a neat shop I didn't know existed in our city and it got my attention.
Then finding that pint at the end of the day. Work is good. But it's not all.
I waited until full returement age to start drawing social decurity. I've talked to several people my age who started at age 65. I'm getting quite a bit more then thay are. I'm still working- a no stress relatively high paid job. I can't see retiring. I recall my grandparents at age 67. They lloked old. I don't. Actually, a few people I worked with who looked old when we were the same age are now dead. One who had worked for the state since age 18 took retirement at 55- and died at 57.
Government run retirement plans are based on statistics. I'm going to beat them. Ohers aren't. Lifestyle and genetics.
Who is going to pay for the weapons to Ukraine if these guys don't keep their nose to the grindstone?
I have two good friends who worked in construction. I think that they might have a different opinion on the subject of working longer than those who make their living dictating letters and talking on the phone.
sit alone in the pub staring into the bottom of one of the three pints you can afford, that you have to make last all afternoon?
Protip:
If you can only afford three pints (a DAY!) and you're sitting alone staring into the bottom of one..
Drink at Home! It's Far Cheaper.
Even better idea.. Go to AA meetings; they're Free, you f*cking drunk!
btw, a friend of mine just made it to 1460 days sober.
If an Oil Field worker can do it (while working in the oil fields); You Can TOO!
This seems to be tongue in cheek, and I appreciate that.
I used to think raising the retirement age is a good idea for the US. But then I started to notice how many of my 50 year old friends lost their high-flying jobs. Employers start pushing people out so that younger, lower-paid workers can take their place. And it isn't easy to get a new job at that age. So yeah, I'm not so much for that any more.
"Deliveroo-scoffing" is a distraction unneeded in this article. After having to waste my time discovering what Deliveroo is, I find controversy everywhere the company operates as to when and why these gig workers work at all.
Folks young enough to ride about on bicycles all day and night really should not care much about retirement age or benefits. It's the pay rate, Stupid.
AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY ANYTHING FROM BOOMERS, it's OK.
she seems nice.
Why does everybody stick a 'g' in the middle of whining?
Says a guy who pushes a pencil and lunches for a living. Let’s see him doing manual labor for forty plus years, or even standing behind a cash resister all day with a 67 year old back and legs.
'way back, the Kaiser set retirement at sixty-five. That's been the standard for a very long time. It worked because more workers than now died before they could collect and few retirees lived more than a few years to collect.
That's changed. Something will have to change with it. Higher contributions, move it from the fictional "self-funded--to another government program funded from general taxation.
When that happens, higher benefits will be sold for votes to be paid for by workers yet unborn.
I took SS at 62, on the premise that I wasn't working anyway, had been retired since my 50s, and every month that I didn't take it, was another month's living expenses out of my savings. I guess maybe I could have gotten a little more that by holding off, given how investments have performed, but no way was I going to work an extra five or eight years to get a little more each month. It's way easier to adjust your expectations, and way easier to live on less money, once you are retired and suddenly your needs for brand new things organically drops.
"65 is an absurd age to be putting people out to pasture."
You're 65, you have been swinging a hammer ever since you got out of the army sometime in the seventies or early eighties, you might reply to this comment "Speak for yourself," if you were in a polite mood.
@ tim maguire
The full retirement age in the U.S. is already 67 for people born in 1960 or later.
Tim McGuire says: "In the US, at least, social security could be fixed for the foreseeable future simply by raising the retirement age to 67. Go up a month every year for a couple decades." Sorry Tim, they've already done that (my 'full' retirement age was 66 nd 2 months not 65 and those younger than me reach 'full' retirement even later, until it hits 67. ANd S is still going broke in less than a decade. And don't get me started on the fact that it is already broke but the accounting fiction of the so-called trust fund let's our rulers pretend everything is hunky-dory for the moment. And do those who like to say that they paid in for years so they earned it, I will remind them that the supreme court has said that SS is not a promise and the rules can be changed anytime congress feels like it. To paraphrase Otter in Animal House; you fucked up, you trusted them.
“Why does everybody stick a 'g' in the middle of whining?”
I used to wonder the same thing.
“The verb “whinge” goes back to the Old English word “hwinsian.” Though these two words share a root word, “whinge” has always meant “to complain” and nothing else, while “whine” includes more sounds and meanings. Personally, we're all for incorporating “whinge” into American English.”
In the US, at least, social security could be fixed for the foreseeable future simply by raising the retirement age to 67. Go up a month every year for a couple decades.
That's already in place. I believe the SS retirement age has increased by two months every year starting for people born in the late 1940s. For people born in 1960 the retirement age (for regular SS benefits) is 67.
It hasn't "fixed" Social Security, though. Between the indexation of benefits for inflation and the decline in employment, SS is still paying out more than it takes in. According to the SSA:
The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, which pays retirement and survivors benefits, will be able to pay scheduled benefits on a timely basis until 2034, one year later than reported last year. At that time, the fund's reserves will become depleted and continuing tax income will be sufficient to pay 77 percent of scheduled benefits.
I'm convinced they will go to means testing, which of course is completely against the spirit of the system, and screws people who actually saved enough for retirement.
"I liked my work. I love what I'm doing now."
Pretty much this.
And as far as social security goes, I'd be perfectly happy to forego any further payments, just cut me a check for my contributions over the 50 years I paid into the program (less what I've already collected), adjusted for inflation and including whatever additional amount I'd have earned had I been allowed to invest that money myself. Deal?
"In the US, at least, social security could be fixed for the foreseeable future simply by raising the retirement age to 67. Go up a month every year for a couple decades. "
It already is raised (note: I'm not saying it shouldn't be raised some more). My full retirement age was 66 yrs, 2 months. It's higher for younger people. For example, for those turning 62 in 2023, it's 67. I'm sure a full list is available from SSA.
tim in vermont said...
"I have two good friends who worked in construction. I think that they might have a different opinion on the subject of working longer than those who make their living dictating letters and talking on the phone."
Exactly right.
The start age vs payout is a wash. You on the average wind up with the same total payments whenever you start. More months of lower payments vs fewer months of higher payments.
You get a better insurance policy against outliving your savings the later you start, if you can afford to bridge the start time gap with savings, since the monthly payouts will be much higher for the rest of your life.
Of course, everyone knows the economic reason for raising the retirement age. Coren thought of some spin that the govt could use to give people a better attitude. It's humor, as some have sensed.
“What do you want to do when you’re old, anyway? Work is the only thing.“
Absolutely. Without a boss to tell you what to do, how can you do anything?
I retired at 65 and haven’t regretted it. Now I have time to do the things I love doing when I want to do them without trying to squeeze them in a full time schedule of working. If one can’t amuse themselves or find purpose in their retirement years, I have to wonder if they had amazing jobs that were labors of love and they can’t imagine a full life outside their job. Then by all means, enjoy stretching out your working years, meanwhile I’ll be enjoying my retirement years to the fullest possible.
Actually, I’d say, lower retirement age, but decrease the amount received (as they do now: retire early get less, retire later, get more) I have a feeling that it will work out cheaper, but I haven’t been gon dun the math.
Congress increased the retirement age in the US to 67 in 1983, using a scaling system based on birth year. Basically everyone now 52 or younger has full retirement from social security at 67. https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/ageincrease.html
tim in vermont said...
I took SS at 62, on the premise that I wasn't working anyway..
and every month that I didn't take it, was another month's living expenses out of my savings.
My Brother inlaw, who is rich(er than i am, any way), and SUPER SMART (never voted for a republican in his life); is 67, and isn't planning on taking SS until he's 70 (cause he'll get "more money!"). I asked him who he thought could better invest his money: him, or the government; and he said that (obviously) HE could.. So, i asked him AGAIN why he was waiting..
And he said: cause he'll get more money.
My moral...People are STUPID
"My retirement days somehow are as full as my work days used to be. So many things I've always wanted to get to, that I'm trying to get to, but not able to because I'm so busy just doing what I love. "
Some people don't know what to do with themselves if they're not working. Others do. Neither is wrong.
My Dad told me once he had never been so busy than after he retired. I thought he was nuts. He wasn't.
It would take both the GenY (born 1972-1982) and the Millennials (born 1983-1995) just to accomplish half of what the GenZ has accomplished. I say keep working if you are healthy and love what you do.
"Coren thought of some spin that the govt could use to give people a better attitude."
I just assume that anything the government tells me is a lie. Or, at best, framed to promote their interests over mine.
"future simply by raising the retirement age to 67"
Jesus. Full retirement age already is 67. It hasn't been 65 in years. And you can keep working while collecting SS.
It would help if the average voter had a clue how SS works currently, before buying into reform schemes.
As it is, the taxation thresholds fo SS haven't changed in 40 years so in effect the payout is being reduced through covert means testing.
And Congress didn't have to lift a finger.
The author's whinging about other people's whinging is performance art, not a serious argument. At nearly 72, I know of people my age who are long dead, others who run marathons, and everything in between. One size doesn't fit all.
My wife and I didn't trust Social Security to stay solvent until we needed it, so I invested in a pricey defined-benefits private pension. Lo and behold, SS still limps on, and I'm making more money not working than I ever did working.
I feel sorry for people who didn't, or couldn't, put anything by and instead depend on SS alone. For them the qualifying age and the benefit amounts leave their wellbeing in the hands of the politicians. No one wants that.
"To paraphrase Otter in Animal House; you fucked up, you trusted them."
Gee, I didn't realize SS was voluntary.
"I'm convinced they will go to means testing, which of course is completely against the spirit of the system, and screws people who actually saved enough for retirement."
That would be my thought, too.
You live within your means and save what you can while you're working (from what the government doesn't already take away from you) and when push comes to shove, the guy across the street who didn't save anything but does buy a new car every two years, has a garage full of toys like jetskis and such and takes his family to Disneyworld every year for vacation gets to keep his full SS payment and yours gets cut because he doesn't have any savings and you do.
Thanks, Inga.
"And don't get me started on the fact that it is already broke but the accounting fiction of the so-called trust fund let's our rulers pretend everything is hunky-dory for the moment."
When discussing SS, you can stop listening to anyone who declares the trust fund real. They are uninformed, stupid, or a liar. In any case, they've got nothing to contribute to the conversation.
The proposal is to raise retirement age to compensate for shared responsibility/progressive prices, [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] immigration reform, planned parenthood, Springs without borders, etc. in lieu of progressive discriminatory labor and environmental arbitrage that previously sustained liberal social, political, environmental schemes.
I favor part-time jobs in the country, in which work and leisure are integrated into the fabric of everyday life to the point that people would no longer feel a need to retire, at least not for as long as they remain healthy.
See here for details: shorturl.at/hzGIP
Social security has a fixed outlay and, absent shared responsibility/progressive prices particularly forced by single/central/monopolistic solutions in medical, academic, and Green deals, is fully funded at present tax rates. Springs without borders does not help. DIED policies exacerbate viability and collateral damage.
Original Mike, you’re right, some people don’t know what to do with themselves. Based on my experience with my extended family, I think that is based in part with the very human failing of tying your self-worth and identity with your job. In my opinion that’s also what leads to the idea that you should be paid based on who you are, vs. being paid based on the value of your job. They are not the same!
I still expect some do-gooder progressives to some day land on the idea that the next “New X” ideas (New Deal, New Society, etc) will be single-payer retirement. DC experts can’t possibly allow those trillions in private 401k balances be left untouched forever! Then the ratchet will begin. “I’m sorry Mr. StoughtonSconnie, I know you had saved to be able to retire at 6/, but we must ensure a safe retirement for everyone, you included. All we ask in return is for you to work a few more years.”
Now that is interesting prose!
"A few smart investments, like rental properties, should do the trick."
Until the government controls rental properties. Remember the no evictions policy? They are now openly discussing rent control.
I retired from my first career (military officer) at 49, then from the second (VP of manufacturing) at 64 to start a lean manufacturing consultancy, and finally for good at 68 when my wife took an IT position in Spain for the last five years of her own career and thus forced my own retirement.
After 26 years in the military, including two wars, three combat tours and a plethora of deployments, I decided to leave the service before my body was shot, so I understand how those who have physically (and mentally) stressful jobs may need to be accommodated differently from those with an easier row to hoe. Manufacturing innovation was something that I always wanted to do, and I loved getting up for work for those 14 years of my second career, so it was mostly a dream job for me. The last 4 years were not planned but fell into my lap when a private equity firm that knew my performance results offered me the opportunity to do a lean conversion in two of their companies, and I jumped at the chance. When I finally retired for good, I had mostly done everything I wanted to do, was financially secure and was content to play the homemaker role until my wife retired.
Could I have quit work at 49? Yes, but my retirement would have been considerably different from what it is now, as would have been my satisfaction with my subsequent life. I have worked for as long as I can remember - I got my first job at 10 years old and was continuously employed, part time or full time for the next 58 years. Now, at 78 I've been retired for 10 years, which the wife and I have spent mostly traveling the world (except for the covidiotcy years.) I wouldn't have done it any other way, but I fully understand that others may feel different or face different circumstances or challenges. I know the author was tongue-in-cheek, but he also makes some good points. Regardless, the bottom line is that those who do not like the changes to the retirement system should take what society gives them, then make up the shortfall they see in their own situation by working longer, saving more or spending less so as to give themselves the options needed to work around the retirement system changes the are an impediment to their existing plans. No one should be responsible for anyone else's retirement funding.
"May your hands always be busy
May your feet always be swift
May you have a strong foundation
When the winds of changes shift
May your heart always be joyful
May your song always be sung
May you stay forever young"
I will take SS when I turn 62- in the end, you get lower payments for a longer period of time, or you can get higher payments for a shorter period of time. I also can draw on a pension, but I am waiting longer on that (I could take it at 55 if I had wanted to) since the scale is significantly steeper if I wait longer- I will probably take it at 62, as well.
THe French working class/middle class have guts. They fight back against the power elite that's trying to screw them. Funny how there's been almost a media blackout on the protests that have resulted in ONE MILLION frenchmen taking to the streets.
Also, in order to know if the retirement age needs to raised, we need the SPECIFIC facts. The current budget, the projected budget, how much will be saved, etc. etc. Making bland generalizations in support of screwing over French workers, is just what you'd expect from Anglo-Americans, who will suffer any screw job from Big Business or the Government without a peep.
In Anglo-America everyone who writes for a Newspaper/magazine is a big business suckup, or a losertarian crabbing about those "Damn lazy workers, always wanting more".
I retired when I was 48 because (a) due to frugality, saving and investing, I could, and (b) I never really liked working. I became happier and healthier. My wife retired a few years later at age 53 for the same reasons and enjoyed the same results.
In my uninformed opinion, people who trash early retirement either are unimaginative with their leisure hours, or addicted to work and do not want to hear from people with nonconforming evidence. Or, maybe they just like being told what to do all day. In any case, they certainly did not work and save as hard we did while working.
I never apologized for my ability to retire early. And from others, I often got what seemed to be a hidden trait of envy.
My wife and I stay busy doing things that we, not someone else, wants us to do.
Means testing SS is just another term for raiding your IRA, but there are people who wouldn't even miss it if it were gone. The trouble with that is that as soon as the precedent is set, the bar drops and drops because these limits are never indexed to inflation.
SS is not going BRoke! Why do you mid-wits keep saying that? And what does "Broke" mean? Its a fucking Government program. Its not a business or a bank. Its not going to run out of money.
For almost 30 years SS ran a surplus. What happened to the $? Uncle Sam didn't hide it under the mattress. It got used to fund the rest of the Government (lets make it simple). If SS needs more cash in the future, it can just get it from the General tax Revenu. Or they can raise the payroll tax.
you left out one small fact; a lot of us retired to be caregivers.
https://www.caregiver.org/resource/caregiver-statistics-work-and-caregiving/
that article stresses the wages we lost for doing this, but not the money saved by the government who didn't have to pay for their care e.g. in a nursing home.
I retired at 57m but didn't start to collect social security until age 62 mainly to get Medicare (my savings were being decimated paying for health insurance).
I retired several times. I had to give up surgery at age 55 because of a 14 hour spine fusion. I spent a year getting another degree and learning to do outcomes research. Then I found that insurance companies only wanted to "rent " my degree to do rationing of care. They didn't care about my opinions. Then I did workers comp peer review for about ten years. Then I spent 15 years teaching medical students. I finally retired for good at age 80. That's one nice thing about Medicine.
“The start age vs payout is a wash. You on the average wind up with the same total payments whenever you start. More months of lower payments vs fewer months of higher payments.”
At 62, I got the figures for what I would get at 62, 66.5, and 72. Then graphed out total payout. The three lines intersected at about 79. I had been pushed out of the big law firm I was working for (they can be very political), so needed the money, and opted for 62. My partner has decided to wait until 66.5 (a year from now), because we don’t need it now. My father started taking S S at 72, and worked another year or so, until his Secretary could get it. I had hoped to last that long, but the difference was that my father was a sole practitioner, so had a lot more flexibility than I did.
Oh. This the UK. Never mind.
I hear the NHS has collapsed.
At 75 I learned to row a single scull. So there is that.
Get real. The old age pension is not a welfare benefit. It is a partial pay back of a small part of the contribution you made over 50 years via payroll deductions. They just want to steal some more of it.
Shorter Cohen and more to the point: We took 15% of your money for 45+ years, made you a promise, and then we spent the money that we took from you on bullshit that got us reelected over and over again, so go back out there and get a job, you bum.
As my grandfather (RIP) was fond of saying when I was in my 20's and working my ass off:
"Social Security doesn't pay enough, it barely covers the country club bills..."
When Franklin Roosevelt (eyeroll) signed Social Security into law in 1935, average life expectancy was 61.7 years and the Social Security retirement age, 65
Ponzi scheme by design.
Forget spending what's in the "lockbox"
An expert economist I have retained to prepare and/or analyze lifetime earnings projections for personal injury/death litigation once told me "The only people who never retire are you lawyers." He used BLS and industry statistics. Most people who work in physical jobs are done in their 50's. Hard physical work is hard on the body.
As far as when to start taking Social Security: Unless you really need it at the time, the wisest move is probably NOT to take SS at 62.
Each year that you hold off taking your SS after your FRA (full retirement age which is now between 65 and 67 depending on your year of birth), your monthly payout will increase 7-8%. In addition, each year there will be some percentage increase for cost of living. Starting with a larger monthly payment means the COLA will be based on that larger monthly amount and will snowball over time.
I don't know about the average investor, but I know that I personally can't get an 8% return on our savings, so I am hoping to hold off as long as possible before collecting SS.
I was just talking to my uncle (78), who retired at 62 from a manufacturing job, and he's sorry that he started taking SS at 62. His health was fine when he retired, and looking back, he wishes he had worked for at least a few more years and taken SS later.
Interesting fact---last I looked into it, you can freeze your benefits for a time. Let's say you took at 62 because you quit working, but then decided a year later that you wanted to go back to work and didn't want your current salary to be subject to SS give-back. You can cease/freeze your SS payouts and choose to reactivate them in later years. I think if you do that, when you resume payments, you will get a larger payout that takes into account the fact that you were not drawing during those intervening years.
Leland said...The government made a promise by setting an age of retirement with benefits. When you break a promise, don’t blame the people for trusting you or don’t whine when they show up with pitchforks at your home. Better yet, don’t make the promise.
When the government promised to pay you retirement benefits at 65, you promised to die at 62.
Did you? Or did you break your promise?
Micheal K: Somewhere in there you also wrote a hell-of-a-good book.
Still working full time at 69. Health insurance is better. Wife has medical issues which has changed everything for retirement plans. Have interesting and challenging job. Worked a great deal to stay on to mentor the youngsters fresh out of college. Have leverage now that I never had before as they kiss my ass to encourage me to stay.
I'm the grumpy old fart at work and I love it.
"65 is an absurd age to be putting people out to pasture. Retirement was supposed to be a short period of time, something to make your twilight years easier, not a third of your life. Not some whole new chapter."
The average life expectancy for US males is 73.2 years and for women 79.1. This gives many Americans less than 15 years of life after retirement at age 65, (and for men, less than 10 years), far from a "third of your life." The age of "full retirement" is already greater than that: for me it was 66.2 years, for my younger brother slightly greater, and for my wife, 67.
As for the matter of work itself, yes, it can be a tonic for one's life, but it can also be a poison. This Giles Goren (a tv personality and food journalist) is just a privileged twat, (to use a favored Brit term). If he were a coal miner or did some other sort of brutal physical work, he might look forward to a few years free of toil in his later years.
"My Brother inlaw...is 67, and isn't planning on taking SS until he's 70 (cause he'll get "more money!"). I asked him who he thought could better invest his money: him, or the government; and he said that (obviously) HE could.. So, i asked him AGAIN why he was waiting..
And he said: cause he'll get more money."
I initially had the same thinking, but then it occurred to me: I may need the SS payments earlier than 70, and any portion of it I don't need can be banked or invested. The monthly sums for the three years from my present age to 70 will add up to a tidy sum, even if I just put it in a bank account, certainly more than I could otherwise accumulate by other means. So...I elected to begin my SS benefit and will be receiving my first SS payment in the near future.
Your brother-in-law is counting on living many more years, and he imagines getting that greater-per-month payout will be the better choice if he lives long enough to go past the "break-even" point, but he isn't being realistic about his chances of dying in the (relatively) near future.
Louis said: "Still working full time at 69. Health insurance is better. Wife has medical issues which has changed everything for retirement plans. Have interesting and challenging job. Worked a great deal to stay on to mentor the youngsters fresh out of college. Have leverage now that I never had before as they kiss my ass to encourage me to stay."
Sorry about your wife's health but very happy for you that you are able to be have a satisfying way to continue in your profession.
My husband (63) would love to retire now, he's in a high-stress job as a gov't attorney. Great health insurance so we don't have to get a Medicare plan yet and I think we could really bulk-up our nest egg if he doesn't retire for 3-5 more years. My dream would be if he could work out exactly what you have done, because he's regarded as an excellent mentor and is also valued as the sage "go to guy" for advice when the merde hits the fan.
Well, it's not always the individual's choice, is it?
There is nothing stopping you from working after 65 - so long as someone wants to employ you. Meanwhile, there are people who would like to keep working up until 65, but they get shoved out of their jobs in late 50s or early 60s and can't get another job.
When I ran the numbers, it was about 7 years before the later retirement age would begin to reap benefits regardless of which year it began, e.g. 62, 65, 67. And of course, what good is a higher monthly payment if you only live a few years after starting?
After a couple of hospitalizations a short while ago, the bigger concern is health insurance. Which of course ObamaCare did NOT fix. Medicare may not be great, but it is at least a safety net just in case. Meanwhile, a quality plan for an unemployed person is very expensive - which is hard to pay when you don't have a paycheck, with the only alternative being Medicaid.
Blogger TaeJohnDo said...
Micheal K: Somewhere in there you also wrote a hell-of-a-good book.
Thanks but I could hardly retire on my book royalties which average about $6 a month.
Post a Comment