What is your opinion about Government increasing the age of retirement to 68?

People living longer means that the current system MUST be adjusted, or go broke. This is not a question, or discussion. It is simple math. Either 1) people wait to receive benefits: 2) benefits are reduced considerably; 3) people start paying higher taxes; or 4) all of the above. I believe that we should phase out/eliminate spousal benefits. When the majority of spouses are both eligible for SS, there is no reason for spousal benefits. A person who marries five times can theoretically convey spousal benefits to five people. That is absurd! The people who can't work in their current position until FRA should look for another line of work or adjust their current spending to enable more saving.

lotstolose, I reread your line about "people who can't work in their current positions ...should look for another line of work". Nice thought, but what about the person in their late 50's to mid 60's, doing physical work? Just how feasible is it for them to 1) retrain for a new job; 2) be hired at that age.

Linda22; To answer your question - it's difficult to be hired for a job at that age, regardless of your knowledge, training, education, and experience. Retraining for a new job isn't necessarily difficult for a person in their late 50s - 60s, but even if one were to retrain, one still probably won't be hired due to one's age. What we need is to enact measures that make it attractive to employers to hire seniors. There is a very large group of seniors who would work if employers would consider them. I find it almost incomprehensible that employers would rather hire young and inexperienced workers rather than older seasoned workers, but it is reality. We need to change that reality. Retraining programs specifically for seniors and hiring programs that favor seniors would go a long way towards enabling seniors to keep working. It would take pressure off SS. Until that happens, seniors need to take measures to save themselves. They cannot and should not count on taxpayers to give them a comfortable retirement for as long as they live.

Let's say the SS retirement age bumps up to 68 or 70. Fine. But I can't work til 68 or 70 if I'm dead, senile or losing mobility by the day.

My family tree:
*Paternal g'pa died at 57.
*Paternal g'ma died at 74. (Entered nursing home at 68, because dementia was at a level where she was leaving stove burners on; wandering the streets handing out $20 bills; mis-identifying family members.)
*Maternal g'ma died at 66.
*Maternal g'pa died at 67.
*My Dad died at 64.
*My Mom died at 74. (Cognition and mobility deficits started in late 60s and advanced steadily.)

Social Security loves gene pools like mine. Big pay in. Small payout.

And to someone else's very good point: The cutthroat business world has no interest in ushering its workforce into their 7th decade. Companies will be "right-sizing" their way to the bank -- moreso than usual.

The only reason the social security fund is in trouble is that for the last 10 years the Republican have raided the fund for the general use. They drive it to insolvency, then yell about how it is insolvent! No kidding....go read the annual budgets.

The whole point is to have just as much money to raid while cutting the payouts.

Friends don't let friends vote Republican.

I have often wondered how the country is supposed to simultaneously defer retirement and get jobs for young people. I retired a few years ago. I had increasing health problems and an elderly mother to care for. For the last two years I worked, I assessed younger employees. I found two part time people I thought could do different parts of my job. I started logging my activities carefully. I approached the two and offered t o train them....no pay.I said there is no guarantee, but employers usually take the path of least resistance. I should add, my job brought in money. When I told my boss I was going to retire, I also suggested she make the two people full time. Even with the substantial pay increase and benefits, it was still somewhat less cost. I was right, she was glad to have a quick solution. Two people had full time work and I was happily retired.

There was an article on yahoo today stating there will be a housing crisis as the baby boomers hit their 80s in staggering numbers

i saw the article had quite a few comments attached so I perused them and there was almost a common hatred of the elderly espoused- most by millennials I suppose who seem an entitled bunch anyway

In my area builders are building 55+ communities and also new Independent Living/Assisted Living as fast as they can... and there are still long waiting list.

When I turned 70 it was like a light switch going on and I found myself having mobile issues... like trying to get up when doing something on the floor... oh gosh, now what, how am I going to get up. This scared me, as it felt like just a decade ago I was a gym rat... so much for doing weights, doesn't help get up off the floor :P

And now I find after I come home from work, after working only mornings, I find myself dozing off right after lunch. And government wants to raise the retirement age to 68?

Johnjoe,
It's certainly an option to consider reducing retirement to age 60, but your social security deduction for the past 25 years would need to have been increased by about 55%. Or you could retire at 60 and have those young unemployed (now employed) pay 55% more for your early retirement. Or you could retire at age 60 and take no pension until age 67 or 68. But then you would need to save up for this. As you can see, there is no free lunch (or free retirement in this case).