I don’t think there is an earlier option for less money anymore but could be wrong.

  • originalucifer@moist.catsweat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    should it be 70? fuck no. its goin the wrong direction thanks to rampant, unrestrained capitalism and lack of taxes.

    that said, the last thing im thinkin is ‘i hope i get all mine’

    no one is askin if the military will get funded… there actually isnt much difference here

  • Beej Jorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    You can start collecting at 62 and get 70% of your computed payout, which I will be doing.

    The math is too hard for me given inflation and all that, but since social security rarely seems to have enough money, I’d guess they’re still paying out more than they take in…?

  • Otherbarry@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    I don’t think there is an earlier option for less money

    Sure there is, go to the SSA website itself the earliest eligibility is 62

    https://www.ssa.gov/retirement/eligibility

    You can also register yourself there & see your own estimates based on when you expect to claim social security.

  • Pons_Aelius@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    men’s life expectancy is only 77 now

    That figure is average life expectancy. IE 50% of US man are expected to reach 77.

    A bit of history on why 65 was originally set as the retirement age.

    The first country to set retirement at 65 was the Weimar Republic in Germany (1918-1933).

    The reason 65 was chosen was that at that time only 5% (1 in 20) of the German population made it to 65. Retirement and the pension was a case of “You have worked hard all you life and will die soon, this is to let your final years be a bit easy”

    Over the last century, in the west at least, over average lifespan has increased markedly and the quality of life for people of advanced age has also increased.

    Many government now face the issue that they cannot afford to keep paying retirement benefits for two reasons:

    1: Many many more people are reaching retirement age and they are living for decades more, rather than a few years.

    2: With the decline in birthrates the ratio of working people to those in retirement has changed from about 10 to 1 to about 5 to 1 and is expected to get worse in the decades to come.

    This does not answer your question but gives you an idea of the issues and hard decisions soci8eties will have to face in the coming decades.

  • DrQuint@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Don’t watch kurzgesagt’s video on “South Korea”* getting older, if you don’t want to know the awful answer to that.

    * video is more general than that. But they used korea as the clickbait.

  • Neil@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    Just another fucking grift. I never expect to see or use or benefit from that money while I’m alive.

  • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    8 months ago

    I expect the issue will need to get addressed in the future, especially as the wave of millennials retiring will be far worse than the boomer wave.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if it gets combined with a change in qualification age for Medicare. You push Social Security age qualifications up but push Medicare down to put the added healthcare costs on the Federal Government instead of the states. It would likely involve a slow ratchet up rather than an immediate jump. I can also see the deal include ditching the social security tax cap, or maybe adding a new tier.