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

SOCIAL SECURITY MYTHS

Top 5 Social Security Myths
Myth #1: Social Security is going broke.
Reality: There is no Social Security crisis. By 2023, Social Security will have a $4.6 trillion surplus (yes, trillion with a 'T'). It can pay out all scheduled benefits for the next quarter-century with no changes whatsoever.1 After 2037, it'll still be able to pay out 75% of scheduled benefits—and again, that's without any changes. The program started preparing for the Baby Boomers' retirement decades ago.2 Anyone who insists Social Security is broke probably wants to break it themselves.
Myth #2: We have to raise the retirement age because people are living longer.
Reality: This is a red-herring to trick you into agreeing to benefit cuts. Retirees are living about the same amount of time as they were in the 1930s. The reason average life expectancy is higher is mostly because many fewer people die as children than they did 70 years ago.3 What's more, what gains there have been are distributed very unevenly—since 1972, life expectancy increased by 6.5 years for workers in the top half of the income brackets, but by less than 2 years for those in the bottom half.4 But those intent on cutting Social Security love this argument because raising the retirement age is the same as an across-the-board benefit cut.
Myth #3: Benefit cuts are the only way to fix Social Security.
Reality: Social Security doesn't need to be fixed. But if we want to strengthen it, here's a better way: Make the rich pay their fair share. If the very rich paid taxes on all of their income, Social Security would be sustainable for decades to come.5 Right now, high earners only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 of their income.6 But conservatives insist benefit cuts are the only way because they want to protect the super-rich from paying their fair share.
Myth #4: The Social Security Trust Fund has been raided and is full of IOUs
Reality: Not even close to true. The Social Security Trust Fund isn't full of IOUs, it's full of U.S. Treasury Bonds. And those bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.7 The reason Social Security holds only treasury bonds is the same reason many Americans do: The federal government has never missed a single interest payment on its debts. President Bush wanted to put Social Security funds in the stock market—which would have been disastrous—but luckily, he failed. So the trillions of dollars in the Social Security Trust Fund, which are separate from the regular budget, are as safe as can be.
Myth #5: Social Security adds to the deficit
Reality: It's not just wrong—it's impossible! By law, Social Security's funds are separate from the budget, and it must pay its own way. That means that Social Security can't add one penny to the deficit.8
Defeating these myths is the first step to stopping Social Security cuts. Can you share this list now?
Thanks for all you do.

All Social Security Benefits to Go Electronic

Change is Coming

All Social Security Benefits to Go Electronic
By 2013, the checks will not be in the mail.

by: Carole Fleck | from: Bulletin | April 23, 2010
Recommend (2) Comments (7)SharePrint
EnlargeMillions of Social Security recipients who get their monthly checks by mail will instead receive them electronically as of March 1, 2013, the federal government has announced. The change will not affect about 85 percent of Social Security recipients, who already receive their payments electronically.

The switch is expected to save the federal government more than $300 million in mail and paper fees in the first five years. It will also cover veterans as well as railroad and federal civil service retirees.

The change from paper checks to electronic payments will begin earlier, on March 1, 2011, for new recipients who start collecting Social Security or other benefits as of that date.

Recipients who don’t have bank accounts will be able to enroll in the government’s Direct Express Debit MasterCard program. Prepaid debit cards will allow them to access their monthly payments.

AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond lauded the Obama administration for its efforts to increase efficiency, reduce the potential for fraud and abuse and save money.

“AARP appreciates the efforts initiated by the administration to modernize Social Security and other payment systems that millions of Americans rely on each and every day for their financial and retirement security,” she said.

She said in a statement that AARP will work closely with government officials to make sure that current and future recipients, including about 4 million people who don’t have bank accounts, are able to make the transition to receive their Social Security and other federal benefits electronically.

Carole Fleck is a senior editor at the AARP Bulletin.

Social Security faces a projected $5.3 trillion shortfall over

May 17, 2010 (AP Online delivered by Newstex) -- Social Security faces a projected $5.3 trillion shortfall over the next 75 years. Options for improving the program's finances, with the percentage of the gap that would be eliminated:

--Immediately increase payroll taxes for workers and employers by 1.1 percentage points each, to 7.3 percent: 104 percent.

--Increase payroll taxes for workers and employers by 1 percentage point starting in 2022, and an additional percentage point starting in 2052: 103 percent.

--Increase payroll taxes for workers and employers by 1/20th of 1 percentage point each year for 20 years: 69 percent.

--Tax all wages including those above the current cap of $106,800, without providing additional benefits to high earners: 116 percent.

--Tax all wages including those above the current cap of $106,800, while providing increased benefits to high earners: 95 percent.

--Impose a new 5 percent tax on couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $125,000: 62 percent.

--Reduce the annual cost-of-living increase in Social Security payments by 1 percentage point each year: 78 percent.

--Gradually increase the age when retirees qualify for full benefits from 67 to 68: 23 percent.

--Gradually increase the age when retirees qualify for full benefits from 67 to 70: 31 percent.

--Reduce Social Security payments by 5 percent for new beneficiaries in 2010 and later: 30 percent.

--__

Source: Senate Special Committee on Aging

Note: Social Security is financed by a 6.2 percent payroll tax on wages below $106,800 a year. Workers and employers each pay a 6.2 percent tax on employees' wages.

Social Security and other federal benefits payments will be made by direct deposit by 2013.

The Washington Post reports that most Social Security and other federal benefits payments will be made by direct deposit by 2013.
The decision will eliminate about 136 million paper checks sent by the Social Security Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, Railroad Retirement Board and Office of Personnel Management.

The switch is part of a broader plan to shift away from paper-based payments and transactions, and it will require businesses using Federal Tax Deposit coupons to move to electronic tax payments. The Treasury also plans to cut the purchase of paper savings bonds through payroll sales. The plans should save taxpayers about $400 million in processing, postage and paper costs in the first five years.

Americans who enroll on or after March 1, 2011, for benefits payments will receive them by direct deposit or be enrolled in the government's Direct Express Debit MasterCard program if they do not provide bank account information. Beneficiaries now receiving payments will switch to direct deposit or the debit card by March 1, 2013, after agencies inform them of the changes, Treasury said.

Prior efforts at mandating direct payments have failed because the government had not established the debit card program for people who don't have bank accounts.

http://www.usdirectexpress.com/edcfdtclient/index.html



The Direct Express® card surcharge-free ATM network offers surcharge free ATM access at approximately 50,000 ATMs throughout the country including Comerica Bank, Charter One, Privileged Status, Alliance One, PNC Bank, MasterCard® ATM Alliance, and MoneyPass To find an ATM near you , please visit the Direct Express® card website at www.USDirectExpress.com or call the Customer Service Department toll free at 1 (888) 741-1115.



Even if you don't live near a Direct Express® card surcharge-free network ATM you can avoid fees by

Using your Direct Express® card at retail locations when you make purchases instead of getting cash at an ATM.
Getting cash back for free when you make purchases at many retail locations
Going to any bank or credit union that displays the MasterCard® acceptance mark and get cash from a teller free of charge.
It is important that you keep track of your deposits and how much you spend using your Direct Express® card. You can obtain balance information at no cost by calling the Direct Express® card Customer Service Department, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at 1 (888) 741-1115 (toll-free). You can view your account information at www.USDirectExpress.com or obtain balance information at any ATM that displays the MasterCard® acceptance mark, at no cost. You can also request free optional deposit notification and low balance alerts. For a monthly fee of $ .75, you may request that a monthly paper statement be mailed to you.


__._,_.___

NO COLA 2010 2011

Millions face shrinking Social Security payments (Associated Press)
By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER

August 24, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Millions of older people face shrinking Social Security checks next year, the first time in a generation that payments would not rise.
The trustees who oversee Social Security are projecting there won't be a cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the next two years. That hasn't happened since automatic increases were adopted in 1975.
By law, Social Security benefits cannot go down. Nevertheless, monthly payments would drop for millions of people in the Medicare prescription drug program because the premiums, which often are deducted from Social Security payments, are scheduled to go up slightly.
``I will promise you, they count on that COLA,'' said Barbara Kennelly, a former Democratic congresswoman from Connecticut who now heads the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. ``To some people, it might not be a big deal. But to seniors, especially with their health care costs, it is a big deal.''
Cost of living adjustments are pegged to inflation, which has been negative this year, largely because energy prices are below 2008 levels.
Advocates say older people still face higher prices because they spend a disproportionate amount of their income on health care, where costs rise faster than inflation. Many also have suffered from declining home values and shrinking stock portfolios just as they are relying on those assets for income.
``For many elderly, they don't feel that inflation is low because their expenses are still going up,'' said David Certner, legislative policy director for AARP. ``Anyone who has savings and investments has seen some serious losses.''
About 50 million retired and disabled Americans receive Social Security benefits. The average monthly benefit for retirees is $1,153 this year. All beneficiaries received a 5.8 percent increase in January, the largest since 1982.
More than 32 million people are in the Medicare prescription drug program. Average monthly premiums are set to go from $28 this year to $30 next year, though they vary by plan. About 6 million people in the program have premiums deducted from their monthly Social Security payments, according to the Social Security Administration.
Millions of people with Medicare Part B coverage for doctors' visits also have their premiums deducted from Social Security payments. Part B premiums are expected to rise as well. But under the law, the increase cannot be larger than the increase in Social Security benefits for most recipients.
There is no such hold-harmless provision for drug premiums.
Kennelly's group wants Congress to increase Social Security benefits next year, even though the formula doesn't call for it. She would like to see either a 1 percent increase in monthly payments or a one-time payment of $150.
The cost of a one-time payment, a little less than $8 billion, could be covered by increasing the amount of income subjected to Social Security taxes, Kennelly said. Workers only pay Social Security taxes on the first $106,800 of income, a limit that rises each year with the average national wage.
But the limit only increases if monthly benefits increase.
Critics argue that Social Security recipients shouldn't get an increase when inflation is negative. They note that recipients got a big increase in January _ after energy prices had started to fall. They also note that Social Security recipients received one-time $250 payments in the spring as part of the government's economic stimulus package.
Consumer prices are down from 2008 levels, giving Social Security recipients more purchasing power, even if their benefits stay the same, said Andrew G. Biggs, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a Washington think tank.
``Seniors may perceive that they are being hurt because there is no COLA, but they are in fact not getting hurt,'' Biggs said. ``Congress has to be able to tell people they are not getting everything they want.''
Social Security is also facing long-term financial problems. The retirement program is projected to start paying out more money than it receives in 2016. Without changes, the retirement fund will be depleted in 2037, according to the Social Security trustees' annual report this year.
President Barack Obama has said he would like to tackle Social Security next year, after Congress finishes work on health care, climate change and new financial regulations.
Lawmakers are preoccupied by health care, making it difficult to address other tough issues. Advocates for older people hope their efforts will get a boost in October, when the Social Security Administration officially announces that there will not be an increase in benefits next year.
``I think a lot of seniors do not know what's coming down the pike, and I believe that when they hear that, they're going to be upset,'' said Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who is working on a proposal for one-time payments for Social Security recipients.
``It is my view that seniors are going to need help this year, and it would not be acceptable for Congress to simply turn its back,'' he said.

Cola no cost of living Increase

We also need an absolute commitment to social security -- more funding and yes, more generous benefits. This year, because of temporary deflation, Social Security recipients got no cost of living increase. But energy prices have been volatile. Health costs have risen. The costs of local services have gone up as city an state governments have had to raises fees sales taxes to plug budget holes... Living in 2009 really isn't cheaper than living in 2008 and the government knows it.