Dept. of Ups and Downs

[kaffy_r]

Saturday Evening, and I Wish I Were Older

Well, we can scratch that plan of retiring when I'm 62 off the agenda. First, someone reminded me that although I can retire when I'm 62, I won't be eligible for Medicare until I'm 65.

And then I found out that I actually don't get 100% of my Social Security pension until I'm 66 years and two months old, not 65, as I'd assumed. That was an unpleasant surprise that came to me rather late, since the changes went into effect after a 1983 change in the law, and yes, I managed to miss it over the 32 intervening years, as I suspect a lot of people did (but seriously, kaffyr ... seriously? You, a reporter, managed to miss this rather huge change that was undoubtedly talked about at length publicly?) So if I actually quit when I was 62, I'd only get 74 percent or so of my pension. Augh. Not doable, not in the least.

This threatened to screw over my day - and, given that my shrink declined today to prescribe me the kind of anti-anxiety help that my two other doctors thought I should have on hand for emergencies, instead upping my regular dose of gabapentin instead - screwing over my day was not something I wanted to deal with. 

And then I decided not to let it get me down. If I can manage to last even four more years, I'll get over 90 percent of my pension, and it will give me four more years to put into my 401K as well. And that's all to the good. 

To be truthful, I think part of my desire to quit when I'm 62 is my belief that my current employer is going to try to break the union in 2017; I'm not sure it won't be successful, and the thought of working in a non-union environment, or losing any of the benefits that I worked very hard over the last few decades to gain, was filling me with a lot of not-so-nebulous dread. 

Still - four years and change? I can do it ... maybe not standing on my head, but I can do it. 

Comments

[kaffy_r]

Here, they changed it so that I won't get any pension whatsoever until I'm 67.

Eurgh. It sounds like what the American government has done: instead of doing the smart thing, and instituting a truly graduated income tax that would allow for restocking of the social security/pension fund that was started in the 1930s, goverments have instead chosen to steadily chip away at recipients' benefits. Here, the congress scaled the vast heights of disingenuousness in 1983 by claiming to have moved the retirement age back "because of progress in health that allows people to live longer." What they really meant was "We're drawing down Social Security by a) borrowing from it when we shouldn't, and b) refusing to fund it properly, so we're denying people the long-held ability to retire at age 65 so that we can stretch what we have.

"Because we simply can't raise taxes of any kind on the rich and super-rich. They've told us not to."

As I'm reading what you wrote I wanted to ask the difference between superannuation and pension. Did your government pass laws that prevent private companies from paying out private pensions until the age of 67?

[kerravonsen]

the difference between superannuation and pension

Our government was slightly less stupid than the US; they introduced superannuation funds (I think they got the idea from Singapore). The idea is that the superannuation fund is supposed to fund one's retirement; with that idea in mind, super funds get certain tax concessions, and one cannot get the money out until one is 60. Every permanent employee has a super fund, because by law, employers must contribute X percent into the person's super fund. Many people just leave it at that, but one can also contribute extra money into one's super fund.

Thing is, at the age of 60, one gets the superannuation fund in a lump sum, and then one has to invest it in order to give oneself an income. Or else just draw on it until the money runs out. Which means it's basically less secure than a pension.

"Because we simply can't raise taxes of any kind on the rich and super-rich. They've told us not to."

We have that problem with the current government. They are basically stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. This is the first time in my life that I have hated a Prime Minister.

[kaffy_r]

And the pension is a different thing entirely?

[kerravonsen]

The pension is income paid by the government to qualifying retired people until they die. I think that's what you call Social Security? They keep on changing the rules about it; sometimes it's means-tested, sometimes it isn't... it's rather confusing to me.

[kaffy_r]

Ah, gotcha. The fact that the rules get changed often rather amazes me. Trying to get anyone in this country to use means testing would be like getting teeth from a hen.

[kerravonsen]

Well, that's why it keeps changing: one government brings it in, the next government takes it out.

[shanghaied]

Er um my Dearly Beloved has just told me that Aussie superannuation is a private pension plan and the government here does grudgingly hand out a barely-enough-to-subsist-on- pittance to all OAPs even if they've never been employed. Confused? Yep.

[shanghaied]

~waves at kerravonsen~ Please vote to get Scabbott and his scummy cronies thrown out? I can't, Because Foreign. Hopefully though my vile Lib-voting in-laws and the rest of their sort will die off soon and take away some support from the bad guys worst guys demonstrably more evil than the rest of the field of evil politicians.

[kerravonsen]

I keep trying, but unfortunately I live in a blue-ribbon Liberal seat. (sigh)

(For those non-Australians watching, there is a difference between "small-l liberal" and "large-l Liberal" in Australia. The Liberal party are not liberals, they are conservatives. Think "libertarian" if it helps you remember.)

[shanghaied]

My sympathies to you! I'd tell you where my horrible plastic prison shitty living quarters that happened as a result of idiotically deciding to perform 'transportation for the term of her natural life' on myself some years ago place of Aus residence is, but then I'd have to... well, you know :P :P :P

(For those non-Australians watching, there is a difference between "small-l liberal" and "large-l Liberal" in Australia. The Liberal party are not liberals, they are conservatives. Think "libertarian" if it helps you remember.)

Or think 'Tories' if you come from northwestern Europe :-)