Forum Thread

2017 Social Security Changes To Full Retirement Age

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 6 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Just read this article on the Motley Fool:

    The Biggest Social Security Change in 2017 That's Not Being Advertised

    Here's the exert of note:

    Beginning in 2017, brand-new retirees who can enroll for Social Security benefits, but were born in 1955, won't reach their full retirement age until age 66 years and 2 months. Starting this year and in each successive year thereafter through 2022, the full retirement age will increase by two months to account for lengthening life expectancies, as outlined by the Social Security Amendments of 1983. This will culminate in a full retirement age of 67 years for those born in 1960 or after.


    So this had me wondering if this was really new information, or if Motely Fool was just reporting on a well known fact, but packaging it as 'news'. Seems it is new. Officially in 2017, full retirement ages are changing for everyone born after 1937. The above quote is completely accurate. And if you are wanting more detailed and official info, here's what I found about ALL the changes to Social Security and full retirement age changes for 2017 onward:

    2017 Brings New Changes to Full Retirement Age. Here's a blog SSA wrote about the changes to full retirement age, starting in Jan of 2017, for starters. It's a quick read.

    Retirement Planner: Full Retirement Age. This is from the Social Security official website. It breaks down everything you need to know about retirement ages based on your DOB, as well as calculators and what happens to your SS benefits if you claim early vs on time vs late, age wise.

    2017 Social Security Changes Fact Sheet. Everything the SSA changed about benefits, including COLA (cost-of-living slight increase), tax rates, taxable earnings increase, coverage amounts, disability thresholds, and payout examples after changes.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Why am I not surprised? It'll be into the 70's by the time I begin thinking of retirement because of "lengthening life expectancies". This is definitely a reminder to younger generations not to rely solely on Social Security, partially, or maybe at all.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    JFoster Wrote: Why am I not surprised? It'll be into the 70's by the time I begin thinking of retirement because of "lengthening life expectancies". This is definitely a reminder to younger generations not to rely solely on Social Security, partially, or maybe at all.
    im 20 years old born 3/23/1997 i guess u could say i fit into the '' early retirement'' and the "fool" category however im unsure oif what benefits the government offers today for a young girl like me ... financially
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    ishabert.50 Wrote:
    JFoster Wrote: Why am I not surprised? It'll be into the 70's by the time I begin thinking of retirement because of "lengthening life expectancies". This is definitely a reminder to younger generations not to rely solely on Social Security, partially, or maybe at all.
    im 20 years old born 3/23/1997 i guess u could say i fit into the '' early retirement'' and the "fool" category however im unsure oif what benefits the government offers today for a young girl like me ... financially
    2017 is a year of lies and deceit thats the way i see it . ive done a lot of work for america and still unsure of what is the price for my struggling and confusion
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    A question. I may need to retire next year which is my full retirement age, but if I waited until 70, my benefit would be significantly higher. However, company reorganization will force me to retire. So, the plan is to retire at 66 and wait until 70 to collect. The question is whether or not my benefit would remain the same at 70 as it would be at 66 because I would no longer be contributing. Or, would it increase as it would if I were still working and contributing because the government would have the benefit of holding on to my money (as paultry as it is) longer. I have my 40 quarters already locked in.

    And, if I do find work, I would likely not earn as much, so is the social security benefit based on the highest earning years?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Gdg Wrote:

    A question. I may need to retire next year which is my full retirement age, but if I waited until 70, my benefit would be significantly higher. However, company reorganization will force me to retire. So, the plan is to retire at 66 and wait until 70 to collect. The question is whether or not my benefit would remain the same at 70 as it would be at 66 because I would no longer be contributing. Or, would it increase as it would if I were still working and contributing because the government would have the benefit of holding on to my money (as paultry as it is) longer. I have my 40 quarters already locked in.

    And, if I do find work, I would likely not earn as much, so is the social security benefit based on the highest earning years?

    It's a little complicated, but the short answer is that your benefits will be calculated based off the earnings of your most profitable 35 years of employment.

    The Social Security Administration has various retirement calculators that allow you to put in your financial information and figure out what your benefits will be when you choose to start receiving them.

    I'd suggest starting with that and then contacting the SSA if you need any further clarification.