Why do people think Retirement Age is 65?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Life expectancy used to be 70 or less in the US for men. Retiring at 67 means you have an average of 3 years to enjoy before it’s over. Kind of a crappy deal

This is not how you apply life expectancy.

[Anonymous]

Yet when your 65 birthday approaches everyone in your family, friends, coworkers start asking are your retiring.

yet 58 percent of population taking a reduced benefit will be a nightmare plus if spouse under 65 medical will kill you.

And today with people having kids later in life plenty of 65 year olds still have kids in college or grad school or kids living at home a few years after college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Life expectancy used to be 70 or less in the US for men. Retiring at 67 means you have an average of 3 years to enjoy before it’s over. Kind of a crappy deal

This is not how you apply life expectancy.

Americans who reach age 65 can expect to live about 19 to 20 more years on average, with women generally outliving men.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone both after December 31, 1959 (January 1st 1960 and forward) Social Security Full retirement age starts at 67. Yes you can take it before 67 but big haircut. And Medicare although it starts at 65 if married both of you have to be over 65 to both be on it.

My company in last 1-3 years people are working later and later. Even people born in 1959 with phase in from 65 to 67 full retirement it is 66 years and ten months. Meaning someone born July 1st 1959 is only eligible for full retirement benefits from SS without a haircut starting on May 1, 2026.

Someone born Jan 1st 1960 their retirement date is January 1st 2027. Yet we still treat 65 as retirement but people relying on SS it is now 67. And my job we have a few people who plan to now work till 70. That is age you get max SS and one guy near me wife is 5 years younger. So she is not eligible for Medicare till he turns 65.

RMDs for 401ks have now been kicked back to 75 for these folks.

Yet at 65 we are trying to force people out? Why is that? My Moms day (she was widowed) she retired at 65 but she got full SS at 65 and Company health paid care at 65 covered part of bills not covered by Medicare and a small company pension. That same exact company she retired from, no longer offers employees pensons or medical in retirement. I dont see how it would be possible to retire at 65 today on a reduced SS payment, no medical subisdy and no pension. So why do we keep saying 65 is retirment age?

Hard to believe as we are in DC bubble but according to the Govt 58% of retirees use Social Security as a major income source. 58 percent of people retiring before 67 is not going to work as they cant afford reduced payments on the thing that pays 58 percent of bills.

And 401K balances in the bottom 58 percent of people are very low. The average balance is inflated by the 14 percent who can afford to do max ever year with high paid jobs. Joe in Alabama making 50k a year putting in 6 percent to get company match at place that does average match of 50 cents on a dollar is only putting $4,500 a year in. But Brad in DC making 300K at Fannie Mae with a 8 percent match is putting in 24K a year and getting a 24K match is puting in 48K a year. That is 10x each year the lower earner.

58 percent of people 65 is not retirement age it is 67 or even 70.

Largely because medicare is available at age 65. And while you might have enough for retirement before that, many cannot afford healthcare. EPO (non HMO Plans) in my area are $1.2K/person/month at age 55. By 60/62 they are up to $1.8K/month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Medicare for all will stop this craziness

Yes, affordable healthcare for everyone, that is not tied to a job would allow more people to "retire early" and be fiscally sound. Most people I know keep working until they are medicare eligible (or are wealthy). Hard to justify retiring and paying an extra $30K+/year for healthcare when you can pay $6K at your job for family coverage (the actual cost will vary but we have always had good coverage for very reasonable rates).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So people will be showing up at work with a walking aid?
You will not be able to force someone out of work because of age!
The receptionist will need you to repeat yourself many times because her hearing aid is not functioning
The elementary school teacher is suffering from dementia

Where do you live?!?!?! Of course people are forced out of work, and often because of age. Most states are "at will" employment, which means you can easily "force" people to leave/quit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So people will be showing up at work with a walking aid?
You will not be able to force someone out of work because of age!
The receptionist will need you to repeat yourself many times because her hearing aid is not functioning
The elementary school teacher is suffering from dementia

??? Both my parents and inlaws are in their 70s. How unhealthy do you think 70 year olds are?

I think the bigger issue is that 70 year olds do not want to be working anymore. They want to babysit grandchildren, travel and work on their hobbies.

I don't have grandchildren yet, but my own children used up all my caretaking capacity. I would rather work than regularly babysit potential future grandchildren. That is not something I aspire to do in retirement. Maybe that will change someday, but it seems unlikely.

Well to each their own. I'd love to have grandkids and help out (not full time). I love my kids and want to spend time with them and their partners (and hopefully grandkids in the future).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:80% of people retire because they lose their job and then can only find work that pays much less, or for health reasons.

It's only for the most part the wealthier professional class that has the option to work longer.

Retirement is optional for only 20% of the population.

+1 most people retire at 62/63.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/most-americans-think-63-perfect-133100561.html

https://www.sofi.com/learn/content/average-retirement-age/

[Anonymous]

For me, it was because Trump/Musk eliminated my government contracting job two months before I turned 65. I could get Medicare at 65. And given how hard it is for people in their 50s to get jobs, it seems hiring committees definitely think 65 is past retirement age.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone both after December 31, 1959 (January 1st 1960 and forward) Social Security Full retirement age starts at 67. Yes you can take it before 67 but big haircut. And Medicare although it starts at 65 if married both of you have to be over 65 to both be on it.

My company in last 1-3 years people are working later and later. Even people born in 1959 with phase in from 65 to 67 full retirement it is 66 years and ten months. Meaning someone born July 1st 1959 is only eligible for full retirement benefits from SS without a haircut starting on May 1, 2026.

Someone born Jan 1st 1960 their retirement date is January 1st 2027. Yet we still treat 65 as retirement but people relying on SS it is now 67. And my job we have a few people who plan to now work till 70. That is age you get max SS and one guy near me wife is 5 years younger. So she is not eligible for Medicare till he turns 65.

RMDs for 401ks have now been kicked back to 75 for these folks.

Yet at 65 we are trying to force people out? Why is that? My Moms day (she was widowed) she retired at 65 but she got full SS at 65 and Company health paid care at 65 covered part of bills not covered by Medicare and a small company pension. That same exact company she retired from, no longer offers employees pensons or medical in retirement. I dont see how it would be possible to retire at 65 today on a reduced SS payment, no medical subisdy and no pension. So why do we keep saying 65 is retirment age?

Hard to believe as we are in DC bubble but according to the Govt 58% of retirees use Social Security as a major income source. 58 percent of people retiring before 67 is not going to work as they cant afford reduced payments on the thing that pays 58 percent of bills.

And 401K balances in the bottom 58 percent of people are very low. The average balance is inflated by the 14 percent who can afford to do max ever year with high paid jobs. Joe in Alabama making 50k a year putting in 6 percent to get company match at place that does average match of 50 cents on a dollar is only putting $4,500 a year in. But Brad in DC making 300K at Fannie Mae with a 8 percent match is putting in 24K a year and getting a 24K match is puting in 48K a year. That is 10x each year the lower earner.

58 percent of people 65 is not retirement age it is 67 or even 70.

Most employers are trying to be rid of you by 55

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Medicare for all will stop this craziness

You Sir have no idea what you're saying. You know nothing about Medicare.

-This years' premium is $202 monthly and climbs every year above the COLA given.
-If your income is above $109k then you have to pay a premium on top of the $202. You may have to pay up to $700 monthly if you have a high income.
-Medicare doesn't cover many medical expenses. It has a co-insurance for many procedures. It also doesn't cover eye care or dental. If you want the gap coverage i.e. Part Q, the premium is around $200mth if you're healthy.
-If you want most prescriptions to be coverered , then it's around $50mth

There you go, just for basic medicare and minimum coverage similar to workplace Insurance, you will be paying a minimum $450mth.

You're an ignoramus if you think Medicare for all is a good idea. Throw on millions of people that haven't paid a lifetime into the fund and the expenses increase exponentially raising the premiums to $1000'S.

[Anonymous]

Who are "people" and how do you know what they all think?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone both after December 31, 1959 (January 1st 1960 and forward) Social Security Full retirement age starts at 67. Yes you can take it before 67 but big haircut. And Medicare although it starts at 65 if married both of you have to be over 65 to both be on it.

My company in last 1-3 years people are working later and later. Even people born in 1959 with phase in from 65 to 67 full retirement it is 66 years and ten months. Meaning someone born July 1st 1959 is only eligible for full retirement benefits from SS without a haircut starting on May 1, 2026.

Someone born Jan 1st 1960 their retirement date is January 1st 2027. Yet we still treat 65 as retirement but people relying on SS it is now 67. And my job we have a few people who plan to now work till 70. That is age you get max SS and one guy near me wife is 5 years younger. So she is not eligible for Medicare till he turns 65.

RMDs for 401ks have now been kicked back to 75 for these folks.

Yet at 65 we are trying to force people out? Why is that? My Moms day (she was widowed) she retired at 65 but she got full SS at 65 and Company health paid care at 65 covered part of bills not covered by Medicare and a small company pension. That same exact company she retired from, no longer offers employees pensons or medical in retirement. I dont see how it would be possible to retire at 65 today on a reduced SS payment, no medical subisdy and no pension. So why do we keep saying 65 is retirment age?

Hard to believe as we are in DC bubble but according to the Govt 58% of retirees use Social Security as a major income source. 58 percent of people retiring before 67 is not going to work as they cant afford reduced payments on the thing that pays 58 percent of bills.

And 401K balances in the bottom 58 percent of people are very low. The average balance is inflated by the 14 percent who can afford to do max ever year with high paid jobs. Joe in Alabama making 50k a year putting in 6 percent to get company match at place that does average match of 50 cents on a dollar is only putting $4,500 a year in. But Brad in DC making 300K at Fannie Mae with a 8 percent match is putting in 24K a year and getting a 24K match is puting in 48K a year. That is 10x each year the lower earner.

58 percent of people 65 is not retirement age it is 67 or even 70.

Largely because medicare is available at age 65. And while you might have enough for retirement before that, many cannot afford healthcare. EPO (non HMO Plans) in my area are $1.2K/person/month at age 55. By 60/62 they are up to $1.8K/month.

I think the analogy with child care expenses was apt. Most childcare is 2k a month. We expect 25-40 year olds to be able to afford that. Why can't 60 year olds afford $1800 a month in healthcare? They are heavy users. Their housing costs go down (as they pay off mortgages), no commuting expenses and their healthcare rises. Also, family healthcare plans average $550 a month, so it's rising from that to $1800. It's not like it was $0 while working.

[Anonymous]

Medicare starts at 65 regardless of your spouses age. Any other insurance you carry is secondary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:80% of people retire because they lose their job and then can only find work that pays much less, or for health reasons.

It's only for the most part the wealthier professional class that has the option to work longer.

Retirement is optional for only 20% of the population.

+1 DH got laid off at 60 and chose to retire vs. taking a much lower paying job. It was only about a year older than we'd been planning for so it was fine.

My dad got laid off in his mid-50s and never found another professional level job. He patched together work as handyman and facilities manager for their local community center for another decade.

Fortunately for both, the wives were able to provide health insurance via our jobs.