I just turned 62. I had intended to delay taking social security until I turned 70, but that is now questionable. If my payment goes down to 75% of what it would have been 10 years from now, I may be losing out by not taking SS earlier. I have seen renditions of this scenario; the break-even age for taking SS at 62 versus 70 was 84. What does that break-even age become if in ten years the payments are reduced by 25%?
This is one of those questions that requires a little mathematical calculating. Has anyone done this, yet?
When Harry Browne was running for president as a Libertarian, he used to ask if people would be willing to give up their favorite government program if doing so meant that they could be free. Notice that he did not become president.
One line from the article you linked to, https://www.pgpf.org/analysis/2023/02/higher-interest-rates-will-raise-interest-costs-on-the-national-debt#:~:text=In%20late%20May%2C%20the%20Congressional,%248.1%20trillion%20over%20that%20period. was particularly funny.
"Ballooning interest costs threaten to crowd out important public investments that can fuel economic growth in the future."
I just turned 62. I had intended to delay taking social security until I turned 70, but that is now questionable. If my payment goes down to 75% of what it would have been 10 years from now, I may be losing out by not taking SS earlier. I have seen renditions of this scenario; the break-even age for taking SS at 62 versus 70 was 84. What does that break-even age become if in ten years the payments are reduced by 25%?
This is one of those questions that requires a little mathematical calculating. Has anyone done this, yet?
Just continuing evidence of a society unwilling to deal with reality in any capacity whatsoever.
When Harry Browne was running for president as a Libertarian, he used to ask if people would be willing to give up their favorite government program if doing so meant that they could be free. Notice that he did not become president.