Quote:
Originally Posted by disneysteve
Very interesting. Never knew that.
What I don't understand is why they have gradually increased the age for full benefits but they've left the minimum age the same at 62. I'm sure it would help the solvency of the system if they started creeping up the minimum age also. I bet they could save millions if they made it 62 and 2 months or 4 months. Minor changes could save a bundle.
|
Yes- because a sound strategy would be to collect benefits from 62 to 68 (full benefit age), invest the SS checks, then pay SS back 6-8 years later and keep the interest.
The issue with this is that it's possible you are taxed each year on the SS checks, so this works better for people with low expense (low 72t) footprints.