I know that joyful, but it's all a part of being healthy. If we live long enough we will all probably have cancer. I found this article very interesting. Man, Environment And Life Expectancy By Edward Grimsley In the beginning, the air and all the rivers, lakes, and oceans were clean and pure. And darkness was upon the face of the deep much of the time. Man spent most of his time looking for food and shelter, and shivering, clothing made from fig leaves not being very warm. Finally, he learned that animals were useful not only as food but also to provide clothing and shelter, since their pelts and hides could be used for cloaks and tents and so forth. He became a hunter and hunted all the time without a twinge of remorse, since there was no animal\-rights movement to tell him he was doing wrong. So he roamed the earth, searching for food and shelter, breathing the pure air and drinking the pure water. He had plenty of room to roam, for the Earth was not crowded in those pristine and prehistoric days. The average life span, you see, was only 18 years. Man limited his activity to the daylight hours, of course, since he had no light strong enough to dispel the darkness that covered the face of the deep several hours of each day. He was in bed by sundown, which means that he spent much of his short life in unconscious sleep. Over the centuries, life changed. Man discovered the fire, which provided heat and light. True, it burned forests, and occasionally human beings, but people decided the advantages of fire more than offset its dangers. Through the years, more and more people began to live in permanent villages, towns, and cities. They dumped their garbage into the streets and nearby streams and rivers. Thus they invented pollution. And life expectancy rose, reaching 30 years by Roman Times. Man continued to develop and change. Eventually he invented candles. Then he discovered that lamps fueled by oil, from whatever source, produced stronger light than candles. Since whales were a good sourced of lamp oil, people killed a lot of whales in those days. But there was less darkness upon the face of the deep. People could even see to read at night. Hardly anyone spoke out in defense of whales. In the 18th and 19th centuries, man moved into the Industrial Age. This featured factories that filled the air with black smoke and poured new pollutants into the rivers and lakes. Man breathed poison 24 hours a day. His live expectancy jumped to about 40 years. Miracle followed miracle. The industrial revolution led to the internal combustion engine in automobiles. Soon there were millions of these vehicles running about the globe spewing fumes into the air. Somebody invented cigarettes. With factory smokestacks, cigarettes, and automobiles filling the air with foul particles, lungs didnt know what fresh air felt like. Since the internal combustion engines and the factory furnaces and the power generators needed fuel, man drilled for oil and transported it hither and yon. Now and then he spilled some, polluting the rivers, lakes, and oceans. And his life expectancy soared beyond 60 years. And so it has gone most of this century. Good lighting provided by generators powered by coal, oil and nuclear energy has dispelled much of the darkness from the face of the deep, which means people no longer have to lie down when the sun does. Factories have produced machines that have made life easier and richer than prehistoric man ever thought it could be. Once forced to spend most of his waking moments merely to obtain the necessities of life, man now has leisure time in abundance. He can play at home or, if he chooses, hop aboard an airplane and fly to another playground on the other side of the globe in a matter of hours. And his life expectancy is about 75 years. From all this, it would appear that pollution is manÂs best friend, since the dirtier the environment, the longer he lives, and the more he prospers. Pollution actually is a very bad thing, however as the experts have been telling us for days in observance of the 20th anniversary of Earth Day. Civilization is doomed, they warn, unless people cleanup the air and water, stop smoking cigarettes, stop cutting down old trees, save the spotted owl, and recycle everything. Exactly how man can restore the purity of the air and waters and preserve the forests while retaining all the benefits of industrialization and technological progress is not clear. But future generations probably will have time to figure it out. Experts predict that babies born in this highly polluted year of 1990 may live an average of 110 years. Distributed by Heritage Features Syndicate.

That's exactly what I thought, kudzu. You refuse to accept the math simply because you don't trust the government. That's fine if it makes you feel good because, you think, you've managed to outsmart those sneaky old federal bureaucrats. I sincerely hope you're enjoying your retirement and the SS checks you've been receiving for these past years . What bothers me is that you're misleading others with bad advice about something that's very important for their futures. For example, you claim that the math is so complicated that neither you nor I can figure it out and that the breakeven point may somehow really be later than 78 because of "the time value of money" -- the fact that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar some years down the road. That's certainly true but a deferred SS benefit grows at the guaranteed rate of 7% interest each year for four years -- the rate is 8% for those who hold off four more years until they're 70 -- PLUS whatever rate the COLA is for that year. COLAS have averaged 2.5% for the last 10 years, BTW. Since the deferred benefits is larger each year, the COLA on the growing benefit will also be larger than the COLA for the static early benefit. Considering that, the real breakeven point is probably somewhat less than 78 years not more. The real truth is that the government knows that, no matter what it tells people about waiting to take SS, most (about two-thirds) will take it as soon as they can. Many of them have no choice because they truly need the money. Others may have serious medical problems that are likely to shorten their lives. But many just can't wait to finally get something back from SS after paying in for so many years. Or they're afraid SS will run out of money. Or, like you, they refuse to believe that the government's advice to wait could possibly be true. Of course, each one of the 66% who start taking at 62 costs the government less in lifetime benefits than any and all of those who hold off. The relatively few who hold off until 66 will cost it more and the even fewer (like me) who hold off until 70 will cost it the most. That's why the breakeven point can be set at a lower age than actual life expectancy. The majority who take early collectively create a large enough surplus to fund those of us who hold off taking until later. So I thank you for the contribution, however tiny, you will likely make to help fund the later stages of my retirement.

Go see your Social Security Office. You'll should call and make and appointment first. As other posters have said, the rules are many. If you have also worked and paid social security taxes, that will be considered. Basically, the amount you might get is computed in several ways and then the maximum benefit one is used. The various cases may be (1) your wages and lifetime contribution alone, ( 2) 50% of your spouce's amount, or (3) if disabled, the disabled amount. If you were born after a certain date, the full retirement age is increased above 65. At one time, the full retirement age was to increase in steps from 65 to 67. I have been retired long enough to have lost track of the current rules. If you are elgible at age 65 for full retirement, you can take early retirement (as early as 62) with a reduction in payments. The reduction is based on the average life expectancy. When I retired, life expectancy was age 77, e.g., half of your population group will have expired by age 77. The reduction works out to be 5/9 percent per month early, thus if you retire 3 years early, the reduction is (36 months x .05)/9 or 0.20 which is 20%. Is this bad? It depends on how long you will live. If you do not expect to live beyond 77, then early retirement is not a loss. You loose only if you live beyond 77. Here's why. If you retired at the normal age of 65, then the time span to 77 is 12 years; if retired at age 62, the time span to 77 is 15 years. Check it out. You'll find that the total money paid out over the longer time is exactly the same as that of the shorter span. For example, suppose the normal payout was $100 per month. The amount for 12 years is 12 x 12 x 100 = 14,400. Now suppose that you retired 3 years early. The payout is $80 per month. The amount for 15 years is 15 x 12 x 80 = 14,400. After age 77, the early payout plan is less than the other and the difference increases each year. Since I retired, life expectancy may have increased to 78 years. These calculations give amounts based on the current value of the dollar. As time goes by, there are COLA increases that will increase the payout to offset inflation to some degree. In my experience, the SS cost increase numbers do not fully cover the real inflation of the basics.

chisue, take another look at how Social Security benefit amounts work, it's not how you say. As an example, just to keep the numbers simple, let's say a person qualifies at age 62 and starts then. They get 75% of the amount they'd get at 66. Real numbers, let's say it's $7500 at year at 62 and it would have been $10000 at 66. By waiting, they're getting a higher amount, yes, but that's not "a return on their investment". What they passed up getting was $7500 per year for 4 years = $30,000. It takes a lot of years with that $2500 increase (which will get cost of living adjustments) to equal the $30000 they passed up. If you factor in interest cost, for someone who isn't working, unless they feel confident to live to a ripe old age, taking it sooner can be better. See what I mean?