Weblogic

By now everyone in America has heard that the first baby boomer, Kathleen Casey-Kirschling, born at 12:01 a.m. January 1, 1946 has signed up – online – for social security. Now she’s received her first direct deposit payment. I don’t know whether to hate this hapless “first boomer,” or just feel sorry for her because she’s under a microscope.

But everything having to do with Ms. Casey-Kirschling and her voyage to social security is always reported as though it were the first drop in a hopeless tsunami of money that is going to pour out of the government. And no one really knows exactly what demands aging boomers are going to make on social security.

Because Ms. Casey-Kirschling opted to start receiving benefits at the earliest age, 62, her monthly benefit is reduced. If she lives past age 87, she’ll be ahead; if her earthly sojourn is 86 years, the government wins that actuarial bet. That’s what the whole thing is: an actuarial bet. But one thing I think is pretty darn clear: this generation’s retirement is going to evolve very differently from past generation’s. For one thing, more than 75% of people born between 1946 and 1964 indicate in surveys (including AARP’s) that they do not intend to stop working entirely. And trust me, if you’re working, you’re paying into social security no matter how old you are. Not only that, but if you are receiving benefits and working, there’s a good chance you’ll be paying taxes on your benefits.

A few months ago The Wall Street Journal wrote "The Baby Boomer's Guide to Social Security" – and their conclusion: stop worrying and get on with your life. Even if the program goes bankrupt – which is unlikely -- benefits would still remain at 75% of what they otherwise would have been. Not exactly the catastrophe the Chicken Littles are predicting.

Comments (0)

Name

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Add Comment