Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So correct me if I am wrong - but Social Security recipients have already [View all]truedelphi
(32,324 posts)21. I take it you were born in the forties. For those of
Us born in the nineteen fifties, or later, that is not true.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
43 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So correct me if I am wrong - but Social Security recipients have already [View all]
truedelphi
Dec 2012
OP
kr. There have been a string of benefit reductions, such as making benefits taxable under
HiPointDem
Dec 2012
#4
Yep, and if your spouse is still working, your piddly benefit now gets taxed at the rate of
Flatulo
Dec 2012
#14
That totally depends on what year you were born. I thought I needed mine at 62. It is 50% of what I
judesedit
Dec 2012
#11
Most people nearing retirement have nowhere near the cash reserves to live with no income for years.
Flatulo
Dec 2012
#15
The 1983 Social Security Amendments built in a sliding scale based on birth-year....
OldDem2012
Dec 2012
#22
And it's interesting that members of congress receiving pensions can start getting them at 62. n/t
bluethruandthru
Dec 2012
#23