General Discussion

Fiendish Thingy

(21,112 posts)

24. Fun with statistics

Tue Feb 28, 2023, 06:14 PM

Feb 2023

Yes, the 1983 law had the effect of reducing lifetime benefits for early retirees, but it didn’t cut monthly benefits in half for 62 year olds who retired in 2000 compared to those who retired prior to 2000, which was your original claim. The total reduction of benefits would depend on a number of factors, including lifespan, which has been decreasing in the US.

Words (and numbers) matter.

I took my SS at 62, and the trade off between reduced benefits and getting to retire 3-8 years earlier was totally worth it to me, and since moving to Canada 10 years ago, my lifespan has potentially increased, further justifying my decision.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

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

39 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Into Perpetuity. I like the sound of that! [View all] winetourdriver01 Feb 2023 OP

Voila! Not complicated at all. brush Feb 2023 #1

Yes winetourdriver01 Feb 2023 #2

The Republicans' corporate donors/owners would have a major fit if the cap were completely removed. Lonestarblue Feb 2023 #4

Been saying "REMOVE (not lift) the cap!" since Reagan. Grins Feb 2023 #11

Anytime someone says "simple" is almost is never. Not a tax Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2023 #30

Do it, just do it republianmushroom Feb 2023 #3

The cap is currently $160,200, but it should still be lifted. rsdsharp Feb 2023 #5

Lift it to whatever it needs to be to make Social Security solvent for decades to come. patphil Feb 2023 #12

Yep Rebl2 Feb 2023 #21

This message was self-deleted by its author aggiesal Feb 2023 #6

This message was self-deleted by its author cojoel Feb 2023 #7

Worst President except for Trump Nululu Feb 2023 #8

The law that Congress passed. former9thward Feb 2023 #9

Got a link to support that statement? Nt Fiendish Thingy Feb 2023 #15

I have trouble putting links thru my phone. Nululu Feb 2023 #18

Copied a section Nululu Feb 2023 #19

Fun with statistics Fiendish Thingy Feb 2023 #24

Then just name the site you read the information. Nt Fiendish Thingy Feb 2023 #22

It's true. I had to wait until age 67 to get the full amount. wnylib Feb 2023 #20

That's not what was claimed Fiendish Thingy Feb 2023 #23

It doesn't say "half" the amount. It says "far less." wnylib Feb 2023 #25

Check the edits Fiendish Thingy Feb 2023 #26

OK. Thanks. wnylib Feb 2023 #27

Sorry about that. My mistake. Nululu Feb 2023 #28

In school they used to say "show your work" when doing math. former9thward Feb 2023 #10

Why a cap in the first place? Jeebus. I smell rich Goopers.. Evolve Dammit Feb 2023 #13

Because to there is a cap on benefits and SS was sold as a retirement plan grantcart Mar 2023 #35

bu they still collect SS Medicare benefits. Why not make it commensurate with your wealth? Evolve Dammit Mar 2023 #36

Because there is no means testing for SS/Medicare grantcart Mar 2023 #38

Well maybe since GOP wants to kill it altogether, it's a good time to see who should qualify based Evolve Dammit Mar 2023 #39

This is only partially true Fiendish Thingy Feb 2023 #14

This Johnny2X2X Feb 2023 #16

Yes. People make a mistake thinking it is a tax. It is NOT. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2023 #33

A better way to make it solvent is to raise the minimum wage natio nationwide Warpy Feb 2023 #17

+1. Much better for multiple reasons. . . . nt Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2023 #32

Perfect! And beautifully said. When we all do better, Trailrider1951 Mar 2023 #37

Lets look at the big picture. if we were to tax the high income earners at a fair rate flashman13 Feb 2023 #29

Social Security has separate accounting from the rest of the budget Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2023 #34

OP graphic is flat out wrong. It is NOT a tax Bernardo de La Paz Mar 2023 #31