More on no Social Security at 62

By Jennie L. Phipps · Bankrate.com
Monday, December 27
Posted: 4 pm ET
Three months ago, I blogged about a proposal from the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, to get rid of the option to take Social Security at age 62. Holy cow, the people who thought this was a lousy retirement planning proposal have continued to fill my e-mail inbox with their thoughts.

This note, from a woman who begged to be anonymous, seems to reflect the majority opinion about retirement timing most eloquently:

"I totally disagree with your premise to raise the age of full retirement benefits. I am currently 60 years old. I do not have a retirement account and have a meager pension to collect when I retire. I cannot wait to retire! I am tired, sick and need to step away from the enormous stress of my job. I cannot accomplish this until I am 63 and am terrified that reckless ideas as yours will be enacted.

I cannot work until 66. That is not an option, but I am not sick enough to qualify for disability. I have worked full time -- two and three jobs at a time -- since I was 15 years old. They have collected Social Security from every one of those paychecks, an amount I doubt I will ever fully collect.

You might wonder why I am not better prepared for my retirement. I was a single mother, I raised a wonderful son, kept a roof over our heads and never, ever relied on public assistance. There were too many weeks we had to decide if we would buy groceries or pay bills. (I am sure you have no concept of this lifestyle). I don't regret those years, just wish there had been other options.

Bottom line -- leave Social Security alone. I earned it. I need it."
--
Does anyone see this issue differently?

Related posts:

1.More on fixing Social Security
2.No Social Security until age 65?
3.Social Security cutting do-overs
4.Ex-spouses and Social Security
5.Shoring up Social Security
Share:FacebookTwitterDiggDeliciousBuzz up!« Managing taxable investmentsRetirement advice from JoePa »Bankrate wants to hear from you and encourages comments. We ask that you stay on topic, respect other people's opinions, and avoid profanity, offensive statements, and illegal content. Please keep in mind that we reserve the right to (but are not obligated to) edit or delete your comments. Please avoid posting private or confidential information, and also keep in mind that anything you post may be disclosed, published, transmitted or reused.


By submitting a post, you agree to be bound by Bankrate's terms of use. Please refer to Bankrate's privacy policy for more information regarding Bankrate's privacy practices.
320 Comments
Worked Long and HardJanuary 13, 2011 at 9:25 amAs a single parent, I lived with government housing assistance early on, then worked into an excellent position. It was good. Now at 57 I'm exhausted. I had an accident, am now getting disability, but will be honest and come off it as soon as possible, hoping it is, I can't sit all day doing nothing.

I think the government has no right to raise the age at which we can begin getting our SS benefits. Like they say, Government workers are able to retire with pension in the early 50's. Then, they can become consultants for the government.

Normal citizens, if they lose their jobs in today's world, can not find another. Corporations more willing hire the younger workers, they can pay them less. Those of us in our later 50's will not be hired unless it's Walmart who doesn't work anyone full time to avoid benefits. It's becoming the practice in more corporations and companies.

Age discrimination??? They can't ask your age, but if you send a resume, are you going to tell me the employer can not tell the difference in the 30 year old and the 55+ year old? Give me a break. Even on applications they want to know education and dates as well as past employment and dates. Isn't that asking your age.

I could go on and on. Other will pick this up. Thanks.
Lester SmithJanuary 13, 2011 at 9:05 amThe sunnier you let people retire the better, that opens up a job for some younger person with a family to raise. we need to lower the retirement age.
conwaymechJanuary 13, 2011 at 8:36 amTime to think about the country and not yourself. I have numerous family members on disablility. They are all lazy slobs milking the system and looking for any opportunity to sue someone or the governement. I am 62 in march, vn marine and have worked since I was a young child. I used up most of my body but I can still support myself and others because I had the advantage of a mother that lived the true life "Grapes of Wrath" and I promised her that I would never retire but always work as much as I could. God willing I will never have to lower myself to taking anything from a government I detest run by people I consider detestable and operated by freeloaders.Like Mom said you can always do something and no work is dishonorable.
Flyers4nJanuary 13, 2011 at 8:29 amI find it amusing that many people expect the reductions in government spending to come from everyone else-not them. I'll bet many of the "Tea Party" people never thought the cuts or changes would mean they would lose benefits or their job if their candidates were elected! The GOP is walking a tightrope. If they fulfill their desire to reduce "Big Government" as they called it during the election, they will surely cost their constituents jobs in the defense industries, eligibility for this early retirement as well as many other unforeseen consequences. If they back down they will feel the wrath of those who are true believers. I love it!
J. WilkinsJanuary 13, 2011 at 8:16 amBack in the early 90's my wife had to retire from the NC school system because of the pain she was receiving in her body after around 30 years since she was a PE teacher.
She started receiving her retirement shortly. In about one year and after taking medical test, she was told she was 100% totally disabled and was eligible for medicare benifits and monthly payments. Thats when NC school system said she couldn't receive both; it was one or the other!!
Anyone have any info on this and is this right?!
danJanuary 13, 2011 at 12:51 amCongress stole all the money paid in, replaced it with iou's, and spent it on earmarks and buying votes since Johnson...and now they want to change the system to have people pay in longer at higher percents and not collect till a later age.. Politicians at their best.....and you keep voting the SAME lying ,bloodsuckers back into office...you will finally learn when you have nothing and they have it all...the hired help has better retirement and health care then the ones who pay the freight..WHAT A COUNTRY WE HAVE CREATED....NOT THE FOUNDERS........ REPUBLIC
EdJanuary 13, 2011 at 12:18 amMost who want to "reform" or privatize social security are more well off then those who don't. Rightfully,they paid more into it, and want more from it. However, not everyone is fortunate enough to be healthy, wealthy and wise...that is what SS was meant for...I suggest people see a 1933 picture called "Plan for the future"...it explains just why SS was enacted in the most direct way and is applicable to the times we live in now. We are the richest country in the world, and supposedly the most religious, but a history judges a society on how it treats the least of its citizens. Lets get away from ideology and fix the mess so that lower-income elderly who have paid into the system, and sick can live in dignity; and those who aspire for something more and are able to work for it, can enjoy that benefit too. Its possible if lose the labels, and also consider the meaning of empathy and moral responsibility. America is better than "I want what's mine".
J William CollierJanuary 12, 2011 at 11:21 pmBecause of age discrimination in the job market a lot of people are forced retire at 62...
SteveJanuary 12, 2011 at 11:08 pmIf I can retire at 62 than I will. Yes, my full benefit is cut, but at least I can have a few good years of retirement before my health starts to decline. For those who want to work till they are 70 then go ahead! I look forward to getting out of the corporate world.
« Older CommentsAdd a comment