One solution lawmakers have debated as a way to ensure Americans have access to their full Social Security retirement during their golden years is to increase the full retirement age. Right now, depending on when you were born, the full retirement age is either 66 or 67. Unfortunately, increasing the retirement age would disproportionately benefit the wealthy.
The study, which was provided by Social Security’s chief actuary, determined that increasing the retirement age for wealthy individuals would benefit them more than less wealthy individuals because wealthy individuals tend to live longer than less wealthy individuals. The study showed that in 1977 the top half of earners and the bottom half each had similar life expectancies. A man age 65 in 1977 could expect to live about 15 more years regardless whether he was wealthy or not, but that has changed over time. Top half earners lived, on average, about 5.4 more years than bottom half earners according to figures from 2006.
The Los Angeles Times picked-up on this study with its own story that explains why wealthier American will benefit if the retirement age is increased. This is not breaking news though; Kathleen Romig from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities concluded the same thing in an article published in January of 2016. “The higher a person’s socioeconomic status – whether measured in earnings, income, or education – the longer his or her life expectancy,” Romig said.
There are definitely other studies that show wealth plays a part in mortality rates. The CBPP did another study and found that people in the lowest 20 percent of lifetime earnings (less than $22,400 a year) had death rates more than three times as high as those in the top 20 percent (annual earnings of $74,356 or more).
The quick fix of increasing the retirement age to save Social Security is not as easy as it sounds, with the wealthy benefiting and the less wealthy no so much.
