General Discussion

coalition_unwilling

(14,180 posts)

32. There is no requirement that you start receiving SS at any age, although

Tue May 22, 2012, 10:13 PM

May 2012

you currently become eligible for it at 62.

Likewise, under this OP's proposal, there would be no requirement that you or anyone else be required to take SS beginning at age 50.

Your opening word 'Sorry' implies that you cannot support the proposal because you fear it would somehow cut into your peak earning years. Now that you know that no one proposes to take those away from you, what say you to the OP's proposal?

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):

55 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

We need to propose bold ideas like reducing SocSec to age 50. [View all] CK_John May 2012 OP

Agreed. That's the best way to compromise. Aim high, settle for what you really wanted. nt Comrade_McKenzie May 2012 #1

Yep, but I doubt if that would be a realistic opening bid. Do you really think so? CTyankee May 2012 #13

Doesn't matter annabanana May 2012 #14

I don't know about american pickers. What is that? It's interesting to me... CTyankee May 2012 #15

TV show on the History Channel annabanana May 2012 #19

OMG, that sounds like the least likely program I would want to watch. CTyankee May 2012 #50

Or watch Pawn Stars. limpyhobbler May 2012 #33

The problem I see is that jobs will never come back for 50+ group. CK_John May 2012 #17

No college out of high school for a cohort of people born in 5 birth years? karynnj May 2012 #53

Hey, it's not like the other side starts with realistic opening bids. n/t gkhouston May 2012 #35

Yep, agree! No offense meant to Obama at all, but the US is stuck in RKP5637 May 2012 #2

We need to replace every interstate bridge over 25YR before they CK_John May 2012 #4

Yep, agree! The problem with the dems is they are too cautions, too RKP5637 May 2012 #8

Europe isn't all bad, just some of the southermost countriesl Certainly not the north. CTyankee May 2012 #16

We need to change the financial model so desperately for the US, RKP5637 May 2012 #18

And Medicare For All. muntrv May 2012 #3

Put it out there on the table and meld it with new plan for next year. CK_John May 2012 #5

Yes, and the Dems silenced that idea for the second time under Obama :( n/t slipslidingaway May 2012 #24

AFL-CIO has proposed something similar, removing the cap and increasing the payments. We have to freshwest May 2012 #6

Corporations are hoarding 2.5 trillion their % of SS should be increased xtraxritical May 2012 #29

SS was never intended to be more than a supplement to a real retirement pension NNN0LHI May 2012 #7

I spent decades working very hard and have no pension, just a meaningless RKP5637 May 2012 #9

Irrelevant DavidDvorkin May 2012 #10

Exactly. Pensions and healthcare should not be tied to employment. SunSeeker May 2012 #27

+1 for a "a true national pension" limpyhobbler May 2012 #41

It is not clear if you agree with the OP or not. Do you support SS or not? rhett o rick May 2012 #12

SS lifted the MAJORITY of seniors out of poverty. The problem is that it used to tax 85% of all wage Vincardog May 2012 #55

I think that negotiations from the administration have been lackluster. NCTraveler May 2012 #11

Get a strong Democratic majority in Congress and the President will be FDR's clone! xtraxritical May 2012 #30

I am not looking for FDRs clone. nt. NCTraveler May 2012 #34

What makes you think that? Has he given some indication limpyhobbler May 2012 #36

With a 100 Dem Senators and 435 Dems in congress, we still wouldn't see FDR's clone. hughee99 May 2012 #43

hell yeah RobertEarl May 2012 #20

Medicare for all would be an even better/bolder idea. TrollBuster9090 May 2012 #21

K&R....n/t unkachuck May 2012 #22

Start reducing the eligibility age for Medicare. tinrobot May 2012 #23

I'm all for it. Cleita May 2012 #25

Time to resurrect Sen. George McGovern's idea for a Guranteed Annual Income for coalition_unwilling May 2012 #26

Sorry, peak earning years are the 50s. I fully intend to take advantage of that fact Godhumor May 2012 #28

There is no requirement that you start receiving SS at any age, although coalition_unwilling May 2012 #32

My point in saying what I would do was to illustrate I disagree with the idea Godhumor May 2012 #47

Fuckin Hey! Where on Earth do people quit working at 50??? NYC_SKP May 2012 #39

Absolutely agree. The way I see it, the fifties are when you prepare for your golden years Godhumor May 2012 #48

There would be such a huge reduction in social security you would have to be wealthy anyway. dkf May 2012 #31

First you are counting on the lack of age discrimination. If you have a job at 50 CK_John May 2012 #54

Really? Why not 40? Or 45? NYC_SKP May 2012 #37

I travel. Go Vols May 2012 #40

So you're a consumer, not a producer or a leaver of the the world in a better place. NYC_SKP May 2012 #42

I am a consumer and producer. Go Vols May 2012 #46

Many unemployed over 50 find it impossible to find a job. ErikJ May 2012 #52

Retire with 20 years of service Go Vols May 2012 #38

You can't live on social security, especially after they deduct your Medicare B and you pay for D. FarCenter May 2012 #44

Somehow I agree. limpyhobbler May 2012 #45

Rec'd, and doubling the payout just1voice May 2012 #49

It would almost wipe out the 25% unemployment rate of youth. ErikJ May 2012 #51