General Discussion

wnylib

(25,345 posts)

25. It doesn't say "half" the amount. It says "far less."

Tue Feb 28, 2023, 06:17 PM

Feb 2023

It used to be possible to retire at 62 for less than the full benefits. I'm not sure how much less but I know that it was measured as a percentage. At that time, you could retire for full benefits at 65. But that was changed. There are people younger than I am who have to wait longer for full benefits.

I think it is true that if you retire at 62 now you get less than people in the past who retired at 62. I know that it's true that you only get partial benefits if you retire at 65 now. When I signed up there was a chart that showed the benefits by percentage according to age at retirement, but I don't recall now the exact percentages and ages.

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