Why do people think Retirement Age is 65?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This sounds awful. I carried my health insurance from my employer into retirement, but when I turn 65, I will have to sign up for Medicare. The work insurance I believe becomes secondary insurance. But if what you quoted is true, my insurance cost will nearly double. Nine hundred dollars for one-person for Medicare expenses is ridiculous. And then to have to pay the premiums on the secondary insurance because Medicare covers little is asinine.

Yes it is ridiculous! That is why we need universal healthcare and need to get insurance companies out of it!

I should not have to pay $1200+ per person for healthcare at age 65+, for crappy insurance I have paid well over $500k into Medicare.

Yes you should pay that. That is what it costs or it actually costs more.

No it costs less if you took out people who never paid much in. You need 10 years of work history to get medicare. I for instance worked starting at 18 full time in a low paid job while in college. If I quit work at 28 I still be eligible same medicare benefits as someone who worked full time at a high paid job 18-65. Unlike SS where you get more the more you put in and longer you worked.

They should make it you have to work a full 40 years to get full benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Heavy users? That’s not how insurance works. Women of child bearing age use more health insurance coverage than men of a similar age, do you think women should pay greater premiums than men because their the heaviest user?

NP. Do you think young men should pay a lot more for car insurance?

Two totally different things!

One is a human right. The other is a choice. And yes those who have more accidents statistically should pay more in car insurance.

Just like if you own a home in hurricane prone florida and more if it's on the beach. Thats how regular insurance works.

But health insurance is for the good of all. And you don't get to choose your gene pool

Wrong. Both would be penalized because they're a member of a particular demographic. And healthcare isn't necessarily a human right. That's simply your opinion.

[Anonymous]

Not me. Ya boy will be out the office by age 45. Trust

[Anonymous]

I’ve saved 25-50% of income since graduating, so I’m out no later than age 50, but probably done at 45-47.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’ve saved 25-50% of income since graduating, so I’m out no later than age 50, but probably done at 45-47.

Ha Ha, I saved that too. You have no clue how much things cost in the future. My college was $3,000 a year. My kids college are $50,000 a year. My Parents rent controlled apt was $97 dollars a month when a kid, my house costs me all in around $6,000 a month. My Dad could buy a good used car for $500 bucks, I need $20,000 for a good used car.

Someone who is 30 today cant comprehend by 2076 when old and retired their monthly expenses will be 10x what they expected. My MIL her property taxes annually are same price she paid for her house!!! She paid $13K for house in 1966 and 60 years later she pays $13K property tax.

Can you imagine paying 1.5 million for a house in 2026 at the age of 29 and in 2097 when you are 89 paying 1.5 million a year in property taxes each year. Thats what happened to my MIL.

[Anonymous]

This post is a hot mess word salad. However for me i’d be more than happy to bow out of work at 55 if i could get medicare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The point of insurance is to spread the costs across the demographic pool of insured people.

"Heavy users."

$1800 is spreading it out! I'm sure most take more than that. My dad had a kidney surgery for 95k. Knees and hips are pricey too.

what is actually paid to the medical providers vs what is on the EOB statement is a fraction of the actual paid amount.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve saved 25-50% of income since graduating, so I’m out no later than age 50, but probably done at 45-47.

Ha Ha, I saved that too. You have no clue how much things cost in the future. My college was $3,000 a year. My kids college are $50,000 a year. My Parents rent controlled apt was $97 dollars a month when a kid, my house costs me all in around $6,000 a month. My Dad could buy a good used car for $500 bucks, I need $20,000 for a good used car.

Someone who is 30 today cant comprehend by 2076 when old and retired their monthly expenses will be 10x what they expected. My MIL her property taxes annually are same price she paid for her house!!! She paid $13K for house in 1966 and 60 years later she pays $13K property tax.

Can you imagine paying 1.5 million for a house in 2026 at the age of 29 and in 2097 when you are 89 paying 1.5 million a year in property taxes each year. Thats what happened to my MIL.

When I retire, I'll have a paid off house, fully funded 529 plans (probably overfunded 529 plans as I targeted $80k per kid per year), and 27X annual expenses in investment accounts. That feels safe enough for me. I'm so tired of the grind.

[Anonymous]

one thing i’m very happy about is we had kids in our early/mid 20s. Our kids will
be out of college before we are 50 and we ended up over funding their 529s since both are in state schools. Also having kids early got us on the DC real estate ladder early in life. my oldest is graduating college next month and has a job lined up with great health insurance benefits. it’s going to be a huge relief to have them both independent by the time we are 51. Health insurance before medicare kicks in is not a big worry since it’s only the 2 of us we will need to consider. We have friends our age with little kids and my God they definitely are on the hook for a looooog time financially caring for children well into their 60s.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This sounds awful. I carried my health insurance from my employer into retirement, but when I turn 65, I will have to sign up for Medicare. The work insurance I believe becomes secondary insurance. But if what you quoted is true, my insurance cost will nearly double. Nine hundred dollars for one-person for Medicare expenses is ridiculous. And then to have to pay the premiums on the secondary insurance because Medicare covers little is asinine.

Yes it is ridiculous! That is why we need universal healthcare and need to get insurance companies out of it!

I should not have to pay $1200+ per person for healthcare at age 65+, for crappy insurance I have paid well over $500k into Medicare.

Yes you should pay that. That is what it costs or it actually costs more.

I have paid well over $500K into medicare, my spouse has paid over $200K. I think the $700K+ we have paid has us covered. More than covered. We should not have to pay another $2.4K+/month for us to have basic healthcare in our retirement.

But perhaps you missed out on reading that we have paid more than 99%+ of people have paid in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I mean plenty of people retire at 55. With good savings, most retire at 65 and don't take social security until 67-70.

My parents paid COBRA until both of them were 65 and could get on Medicare. Medicare for all is a pipe dream. Older people need to get used to the thought that insurance will be $$$ for a few years. They are, after all, heavy users of medical services. Everyone readily understands that people with kids 0-5 are going to pay $$$ for childcare. We save up for it and delay retirement/savings to be able to afford childcare (even if that's having a SAHM, it's still expensive).

As long as we have boomers around they will burn down the entire country before you take Medicare away from them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am 43. I plan to retire in my mid 50s. I wont take SS to fund my first decade of retirement.

I understand some people want and need to work through out their 60s. But I don't think my generation views any sort of age as the retirement age. We grew unexpecting SS to die. Its not part of our retirement calculations.

I do really really wish there was a mandatory retirement age from federal politics though... we would be far better off if no one over age 70 was permitted to be elected. Its sad and depressing to see all these put of touch oldies trying to stay relevant and run the country. Please go play golf and hang out with your grandkids.

+1

Mitch McConnell should not be rolling down the halls of Congress in his wheelchair and stroking out in front of news cameras.

And DJT is not fit to serve.

No need for partisan politics on this issue... Biden and Pelosi were way too old and should have retired years earlier too. There should just be an age cut-off no matter what side of the isle you support.

PP here and I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve saved 25-50% of income since graduating, so I’m out no later than age 50, but probably done at 45-47.

Ha Ha, I saved that too. You have no clue how much things cost in the future. My college was $3,000 a year. My kids college are $50,000 a year. My Parents rent controlled apt was $97 dollars a month when a kid, my house costs me all in around $6,000 a month. My Dad could buy a good used car for $500 bucks, I need $20,000 for a good used car.

Someone who is 30 today cant comprehend by 2076 when old and retired their monthly expenses will be 10x what they expected. My MIL her property taxes annually are same price she paid for her house!!! She paid $13K for house in 1966 and 60 years later she pays $13K property tax.

Can you imagine paying 1.5 million for a house in 2026 at the age of 29 and in 2097 when you are 89 paying 1.5 million a year in property taxes each year. Thats what happened to my MIL.

I think I have a partial understanding why you have such issues with retirement and retirement savings - you are not very good at math and/or doing even remedial research. $13k in 1966 is about $132K in today's money, so she is paying about 10% of the current value.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:one thing i’m very happy about is we had kids in our early/mid 20s. Our kids will
be out of college before we are 50 and we ended up over funding their 529s since both are in state schools. Also having kids early got us on the DC real estate ladder early in life. my oldest is graduating college next month and has a job lined up with great health insurance benefits. it’s going to be a huge relief to have them both independent by the time we are 51. Health insurance before medicare kicks in is not a big worry since it’s only the 2 of us we will need to consider. We have friends our age with little kids and my God they definitely are on the hook for a looooog time financially caring for children well into their 60s.

Ha ha you are so funny. My MIL had kids young. 19-31. She is 84. Her youngest son in his 1950s going through bad divorce and about to declare bankruptcy moved back home. With kids 12-19. She is ruining to games, dropping off at schools helping pay divorce lawyer. She is a widow. Getting married young backfired on her. She had kids 35-42 like my Mom she be dead before tgis shit show started

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve saved 25-50% of income since graduating, so I’m out no later than age 50, but probably done at 45-47.

Ha Ha, I saved that too. You have no clue how much things cost in the future. My college was $3,000 a year. My kids college are $50,000 a year. My Parents rent controlled apt was $97 dollars a month when a kid, my house costs me all in around $6,000 a month. My Dad could buy a good used car for $500 bucks, I need $20,000 for a good used car.

Someone who is 30 today cant comprehend by 2076 when old and retired their monthly expenses will be 10x what they expected. My MIL her property taxes annually are same price she paid for her house!!! She paid $13K for house in 1966 and 60 years later she pays $13K property tax.

Can you imagine paying 1.5 million for a house in 2026 at the age of 29 and in 2097 when you are 89 paying 1.5 million a year in property taxes each year. Thats what happened to my MIL.

I think I have a partial understanding why you have such issues with retirement and retirement savings - you are not very good at math and/or doing even remedial research. $13k in 1966 is about $132K in today's money, so she is paying about 10% of the current value.

So you think 132k property tax on a 1,300 sf house is fair.