Quote Originally Posted by cori n wes mom View Post
The point is...this is "targeted" to someone who can afford it. Not only in the short term but in the long term. If someone can't afford it long term (since basically it can affect how much you will get in SS longterm by not working those last few years) it's probably not the situation for you.

If someone's job is going to china...and they know about it ahead of time...it's probably better that they go on unemployment and look for a new job than it is for them to just retire...unless they are well off in the first place.

You can retire and get SS at 62 currently...but it is better financially that you wait til 66ish. And even if you do retire at 62....you do not qualify for SSI as an elderly person until age 65.

Even though...it says on the SSI website that you can make $2000 a month and get SSI(as someone who i s elderly)...your getting about a whopping $1.00 from SSI if you make that much....because it's "unearned income" and because the more you make earned or unearned...the less SSI you get. You cannot be making the max amount of income SSI allows and get the max amount of money from SSI...it just doesn't work that way.
the whole point of this discussion that the proposed temporary lowering retirement age would cost more then any benefit it would have.
Nobody in the right mind will leave a good job unless for health reasons or taking a voluntary leave with a good package proposed by the employer. Many employers are doing it themselves, offering employees in late 50's benefits to leave, anyone who can afford it left already.
The difference between these sponsored by government and private employers are who's paying the cost of these benefits, the taxpayer or the corporations, besides the point that the government being already late for this party, like always..