You bring up a point that concerns me, too. It seems to me that most of the time when changes are made to government programs, things get worse. Eligibility requirements get stricter, or benefits decrease, etc. It doesn't matter if you're talking about government pensions or welfare or social security or whatever. However, people who are already in the system are "grandfathered in" and avoid many, if not all, of the cut-backs. In other words, when things improve (like instituting a COLA) everybody gets it, but when things get worse, only the newbies get hit. That's my observation, anyway.
It seems to me (at age 61.5) that there's a better than even chance that by the time I reach age 66 they will have moved the goal post-- changed the age for full retirement or changed Medicare benefits, or some other unhappy situation. I'm thinking I might be better off just signing up for SS as soon as I can so I can be "grandfathered".
Yes, my monthly SS benefit will be lower than if I waited. And I am still working (as an independent consultant) and I intend to keep working as long as clients want to hire me. So if I earn more than a certain amount, I will lose some SS income. But so what? If I don't earn much money, SS will be there as a cushion. If I earn over the limit, I won't need the SS, anyway. And whatever SS benefits I do collect, if I don't need them to survive, I can invest them and let the money grow until I do need it (like over age 66). Then I can pay the saved money back to myself monthly to make up the deficit I have because I signed up for SS when I was only 62.
Am I thinking straight? Or am I being foolish and simplistic?
Retrieving data ...