AGain, nobody is required to work until 67. People can work until they want. And, if they want, they can collect social security at much younger ages than 67, or 65.
You don't really understand the topic.
As far as I can tell, the topic is about all of our plans for retirement. You started a post with the statement that thinking like retirement begins at 65 is outdated. Technically I agreed with you.
For most people retirement begins around the SS full benefit date. Just human nature to think about it that way. Pilots/rich folk have more options, but the majority do not.
Anyone under the age of 56 hasn't "thought about retiring at 65..." ever. They've always thought of retirement as something around 67. The law changed before they were old enough to even have heard of retirements at 65 or younger.
My point was, you must be pretty old to even have considered it a viable age for retirement. Anyone under 56 with a middle income job has known they probably weren't retiring at 65 since 1983, and anyone born after 1965 wasn't even old enough to vote on the change when it happened in 1983.
In other words, we all know what you stated. Nobody born after 1965 who needed SS benefits to make it work, was ever considering a retirement at age 65. We've all been planning for 67 -- or saving money fanatically to beat that.
You were lecturing a point nobody still planning their retirement has considered for a very long time.
I continued and pointed out that other than government service, pensions were long dead well before 1983. Nobody has been planning seriously for having one of those since sometime in the middle 80s, either.
So, if you'd pay attention you'd see I was agreeing with you. If anyone believes there's still folks out there young enough to be planning retirements who EVER thought they were retiring at 65... trust me, we aren't. And haven't. And never did.
That concept was dead on arrival in 1983.
Nobody except late 50's and older folks has ever had 65 or younger as their lifelong concept of "retirement age".
Your thought that in a discussion with a varied age group here about retirement was somehow tainted by thoughts of age 65 retirements and pensions, was just not accurate at all.
There are people here who are having grandkids now, who never had that concept or thought, ever. 67 has been the full retirement benefit age for 33 years.
Most folks (like Sac and myself and many others here) who are in prime earning years, are far more concerned about rates of return and stagnant wages due to globalization and inflation than have even a passing thought to pensions or retiring at 65 or younger.
So... if we're having a discussion about ALL of our retirements and not just folks already so close to retirement age they can taste it... you were preaching a worry about a concept none of us have ever had. We've always had self-directed retirement funding and little chance of SS being useful to us. Most of us have also given generously to your "moral dilemma" listed items, and taken care of the kids... long before retirement. Before we bought any "golf clubs" or "lived the good life".
Everyone actually bothering to plan for retirement who's under age 56 is a saver and still members of one of the most generous societies on the planet. Pensions? Age 65 retirements? Worrying if we did the right thing by others before retirement? Not issues for us. We didn't have the first two, and we've maintained our generosity as a society very well in a total population that's not replacing itself via birth rate.
Yes. We do understand it. The thought problems and moral dilemmas you brought up, were only experienced by those currently older than 56.
