Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Another article with a thin premise (to fill a column?).
The premise - that full retirement is actually age 70 (because what you get monthly is less if you draw earlier) - is not accurate. It is based on the conceit that nothing substantial is affected by the official full retirement age (FRA) of 66.
But there is a monthly payment - spousal benefits - that depends on the official definition of full retirement age (FRA). That is, it depends not on when the person retires, but strictly on the legal definition of FRA (currently 66 years old).
A person generally gets 1/2 of the working spouse's monthly benefit. Not the 1/2 of the monthly benefit that the spouse draws at age 70, or at age 62, but the monthly benefit that the spouse is entitled to at age 66 regardless of the age at which the spouse actually begins drawing benefits.
So FRA has a clear impact on the size of monthly payments. It thus does "undermine the basic 'fact' that 70 is the age for full monthly benefits under Social Security." (Borrowing the wording from the article.)
Somewhat related - her assertion that it generally pays to defer payments to age 70 is often wrong for couples. If there is a high probability that one of the couple will die before age 82 or so (i.e. the break even point), then the optimal strategy is often for the lower earner to start drawing at 62, while the older defers until age 70.
Comments
The premise - that full retirement is actually age 70 (because what you get monthly is less if you draw earlier) - is not accurate. It is based on the conceit that nothing substantial is affected by the official full retirement age (FRA) of 66.
But there is a monthly payment - spousal benefits - that depends on the official definition of full retirement age (FRA). That is, it depends not on when the person retires, but strictly on the legal definition of FRA (currently 66 years old).
A person generally gets 1/2 of the working spouse's monthly benefit. Not the 1/2 of the monthly benefit that the spouse draws at age 70, or at age 62, but the monthly benefit that the spouse is entitled to at age 66 regardless of the age at which the spouse actually begins drawing benefits.
So FRA has a clear impact on the size of monthly payments. It thus does "undermine the basic 'fact' that 70 is the age for full monthly benefits under Social Security." (Borrowing the wording from the article.)
Somewhat related - her assertion that it generally pays to defer payments to age 70 is often wrong for couples. If there is a high probability that one of the couple will die before age 82 or so (i.e. the break even point), then the optimal strategy is often for the lower earner to start drawing at 62, while the older defers until age 70.