General Discussion

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)

30. Unfortunately, many people, especiallywomen,

Mon Dec 31, 2012, 02:38 PM

Dec 2012

Find themselves living far longer than even the best financial planner had planned for.

It is very sad to try and imagine what happens to someone who is forced to go into retirement at 62, and then they live to 92.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

So correct me if I am wrong - but Social Security recipients have already [View all] truedelphi Dec 2012 OP

K&R MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #1

You are not wrong. They have chipping away at that fund for decades now and sabrina 1 Dec 2012 #2

Too bad it is DeFazio alone - without Obama backing him - that truedelphi Dec 2012 #5

What's happened down there at the WH, indeed. Curmudgeoness Dec 2012 #8

Remember Al Gore's SS lock box? Curmudgeoness Dec 2012 #6

When feeling cynical abelenkpe Dec 2012 #10

The charge is building on the third rail Fumesucker Dec 2012 #3

Many talented people apparently agree with us - truedelphi Dec 2012 #26

kr. There have been a string of benefit reductions, such as making benefits taxable under HiPointDem Dec 2012 #4

Yep, and if your spouse is still working, your piddly benefit now gets taxed at the rate of Flatulo Dec 2012 #14

yes, you can get your full retirement at 65. I chose to underthematrix Dec 2012 #7

That totally depends on what year you were born. I thought I needed mine at 62. It is 50% of what I judesedit Dec 2012 #11

No you can't. Ret. age was raised to 67. Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #12

She is simply misusing the term "full retirement" Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #32

we don't get what you got Skittles Dec 2012 #19

Actually you do... Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #33

if you think even the benefits as they are now will be there in the future Skittles Dec 2012 #35

I will be 65 Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #38

I take it you were born in the forties. For those of truedelphi Dec 2012 #21

Full retirement at age 65 Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #34

Then why is the header to her argument "Full Retirement" truedelphi Dec 2012 #36

Because she doesn't really know what she is talking about. Sekhmets Daughter Dec 2012 #39

Apaprently your productivity in the kitchen is just further proof of how truedelphi Jan 2013 #41

Pineapple Upside down cake, from scratch.... Enjoy! Sekhmets Daughter Jan 2013 #42

"equivalent in evil to any 'terrorists" That's letting them off too easy. jtuck004 Dec 2012 #9

Yep, and here is a stat gleaned off the internet regarding what has truedelphi Dec 2012 #25

You can retire and still wait before you take full S.S. payments. WinkyDink Dec 2012 #13

Most people nearing retirement have nowhere near the cash reserves to live with no income for years. Flatulo Dec 2012 #15

Yeah And I can pay for my health insurance truedelphi Dec 2012 #20

K&R forestpath Dec 2012 #16

Not to mention that Obama froze SS payments for like 2-3 years 99th_Monkey Dec 2012 #17

He didn't freeze them Yo_Mama Dec 2012 #18

The 1983 Social Security Amendments built in a sliding scale based on birth-year.... OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #22

From the SS site: Paulie Dec 2012 #24

??? Isn't that what I just linked??.... OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #27

Yes, I was agreeing with ya! Paulie Dec 2012 #28

Okay! Thanks! nt. OldDem2012 Dec 2012 #31

Unfortunately, many people, especiallywomen, truedelphi Dec 2012 #30

Like my mom Paulie Dec 2012 #40

And it's interesting that members of congress receiving pensions can start getting them at 62. n/t bluethruandthru Dec 2012 #23

I was happy to get SS disability... Historic NY Dec 2012 #29

You are correct, they INTEND to... 99Forever Dec 2012 #37

Kicked for more input Jim Warren Jan 2013 #43