this post was submitted on 15 Nov 2023
144 points (96.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35826 readers
1266 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I don't think there is an earlier option for less money anymore but could be wrong.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You can start collecting at 62 and get 70% of your computed payout, which I will be doing.

The math is too hard for me given inflation and all that, but since social security rarely seems to have enough money, I'd guess they're still paying out more than they take in...?

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

If you make it to 62, your life expectancy is 21 more years. that mean 21*0.7 = 14.7 years worth of social security payments. Full benefit at age 67 gets you 16 years worth of payments. If they'd raise full retirement age to 70, you'd only collect 13 years of payments.

[–] LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

I've been coached into waiting until age 70 to get 100% of the payout. If you cash in at age 62, even once you hit 70 you'll still be getting 70% of your payout. Could you bear to wait eight more years for the 100%? You've already waited 62 years! What's 8 more?

[–] thisisawayoflife@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

8 years is a long time and cancer can kill you in two, especially if you don't have good doctors and they don't catch that it metastasized already. Ask me how I know.

[–] Hanabie@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago

8 years are 2 election cycles. Much can happen in that time.

[–] otherbarry@lemmy.zip 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Could you bear to wait eight more years for the 100%? You’ve already waited 62 years! What’s 8 more?

It's easy to think that way in your younger years. That's a much more difficult request for people actually in their 60's, lots of people make it to that age with broken down bodies, various illnesses/prescriptions/whatnot & probably can't see themselves continuing to do the work thing throughout their 60's let alone 70.

There's also the problem of holding down a job at that age, ageism exists in a lot of industries so a lot of these people are first in line for layoffs / taking a massive pay cut from their earlier jobs vs being a Walmart greeter or just being unemployed.

But sure... in theory if you manage to stay fit & healthy well into your old age & are able to hold onto your normal job then sure working into your 70's or more could be plausible. People probably worry less about that stuff once they're higher up on the corporate ladder - though at that point they should already have fat 401K plans & other investments so the social security aspect becomes less relevant.

[–] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Just wanted to chime in and say that everyone should start investing in their retirement as early as possible. Even if it's just a few bucks a month, it'll make a big difference down the road.

[–] CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

My dad waited until 70, and then by age 72 began a severe decline in health which eventually saw him homebound with a feeding tube, only leaving the house for doc appts or trips to the ER. I am quite certain if he had a do-over he would have retired earlier and enjoyed his 60s instead of working at his boring job.

I think if you reach 62 and you’re gainfully employed and truly enjoy what you do, there’s nothing wrong with holding out for more benefits. But if you are able to retire earlier, I can’t recommend continuing to spend your days doing work you don’t enjoy because “what’s 8 more years”. Those 8 years could be your big chance to enjoy the fruits of your labor.

[–] OutsizedWalrus@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

But what if you invest it for those 8 years?