Anonymous wrote:The average retirement age is younger than 65, even if that doesn't maximize your social security payouts. I think people are partially responding to that. The fact is that most people don't work until 67.

I also think that there's a logical gap in this argument "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."

The fact that retirees use their social security as a major income source doesn't mean that they can't rely on the lower payouts if they retire at 65. People with lower expenses can look at the lower payout and say "this will pay my bills."

Isn't the bigger issue for people relying on SS that Medicare doesn't kick in until 65? It would be tough to get by on a reduced SS payout and no healthcare. Maybe they qualify for ACA? The system seems designed for retirement at 65.

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.

The average retirement age is younger than 65, even if that doesn't maximize your social security payouts. I think people are partially responding to that. The fact is that most people don't work until 67.

I also think that there's a logical gap in this argument "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."

The fact that retirees use their social security as a major income source doesn't mean that they can't rely on the lower payouts if they retire at 65. People with lower expenses can look at the lower payout and say "this will pay my bills."

I don't know what people think, but retirement age is 62 if you asked me and then maybe 67.
People do talk about 65, but I would have to look up what's happening at 65 (forced sign up for medicare?) to make people retire at that age.
I have never had a job with a pension or 401k. Forget about the match or health insurance or even a contract. Within 20 years of working low wage job, I had enough to slow down and retire soon after.
401k, pension, and health insurance, and contract are not always assets. They cause people to stay at their jobs longer, take risks, spend more, neglecting their health, and not learn to invest on their own.
Don't compare Joe to Brad or Joe will be even more behind blaming others. I made half Joe's salary, had no benefits, and retired mid 40s. Had Joe known that this can be done and how to do it, he'd be retired too.
He didn't know. He is too busy thinking about Brad. Brad will be working til 65, but because he upgraded his life and his kids are used to avocado toast.
I will be taking SS at 62. It's not a haircut. It allows my own money to stay in the market longer. If I invested the payments, I'd have more money at 67/70 compared to what government offers. It's not hard to beat. Time is money.
I don't need healthcare til 65 when forced. It was work and lack of time for me that made me sick. Haven't been sick since I left full time job.
Joe in Alabama should have done Roth IRA when it first came out as a low income earner. Joe didn't know any better.

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

4 of the 9 justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are 70+: Clarence Thomas (77), Samuel Alito (76), Sonia Sotomayor (71), and John Roberts (70)
Our President turns 80 this summer.
My dad is still running his business in his 70s.

I think there is still room at the top for people to continue working if they love what they do. But people in the middle and bottom have always been pushed out by younger (and cheaper) workers, and now they are also getting pushed out by AI.

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

I've always considered 59.5 to be the target retirement date because that is when I can withdraw from IRA/401k without penalty, but I see your point, especially for people who are relying on SS and Medicare. Public policy is basically pushing for a 65-year-old retirement date, but incentivizing people to start SS withdrawals at 67 and not forcing RMDs until 75. Probably because our SS system is underfunded, and raising taxes is not a popular solution.

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

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).

Used to be.

Medicare for all will stop this craziness

Anonymous wrote:Your premise is dated. Given the state of SSI, the government wants us to work longer since on average we are living longer. SSI was never intended to support people for 25 - 30 years. Most men retired at 65 and died soon after.

I think you are perhaps referring to companies wanting people to retire at 65 to make room for younger employees. However, most, as you note, aren't in a position to retire without a haircut from SS.

^^^ I wasn't clear: most aren't in a position to retire if they have to take a haircut from SS to retire at 65.

Your premise is dated. Given the state of SSI, the government wants us to work longer since on average we are living longer. SSI was never intended to support people for 25 - 30 years. Most men retired at 65 and died soon after.

I think you are perhaps referring to companies wanting people to retire at 65 to make room for younger employees. However, most, as you note, aren't in a position to retire without a haircut from SS.

I don’t understand your post. Actually, I dispute the premise of your post title. You do too, saying “we” think retirement is 65 and then proceed to describe all the ways it’s 67 and some choose later.

The only think I can imagine is you seem to think there is some collective belief that people retire at 65. I don’t think that’s the case. I have always known it was 67 for full SS. Most people my age know this and are not under some impression it’s 65.

Some private companies still have pensions that pay out earlier based on years of service. Maybe that’s what you’re thinking of?

But I don’t think anyone is confused as you see to believe to be the case.

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.