Social Security retirement age is changing: what to know about full benefits
**Related Video Above: Cleveland man spends months proving to Social Security, credit cards he's not dead
(WJW) — Retirement is the goal. It's the dream. But for those looking to stop working full time and enjoy their golden years, there is something new to know about Social Security retirement benefits.
Is your name extinct now? Federal government releases new baby name popularity data
In 2025, the full retirement age (FRA) has changed for those born in 1960 (and above). In order to receive a full check, U.S. citizens (turning 65 this year) must wait until they're 67 years old.
The change comes as part of a phased approach taken by the federal government back in 1983, when they made amendments to the Social Security Act that were intended to help keep the program afloat.
Those born before 1960 are still in luck to claim before hitting age 67, according to the Social Security Administration:
Those born between 1943-1954 have full benefits at age 66
1955 is 66 years and two months
1956 is 66 years and four months
1957 is 66 years and six months
1958 is 66 years and eight months
1959 is 66 years and 10 months
This all applies to full benefits, of course. Those who'd like to receive a partial Social Security check can do so starting at age 62 (but that means getting about 30% less per month). Those who want to make more money, can stave off their payments until 70, receiving about 24% more in their monthly checks.
Some Social Security recipients could get 3 checks in May
Despite the age changes, a recent poll conducted by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that over 50% of soon-to-be retirees who were surveyed said they are not confident Social Security benefits are going to be available when needed.
Social Security payments are calculated based on how much money a person has earned during their life. People are also eligible for Medicare starting at age 65. Find out more about exact payments right here.
At this time, there are no legislative efforts to move up the Social Security FRA even further.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
5 Major Social Security Mistakes Boomers Can't Stop Making
Retirement planning is both complicated and high-stakes — a recipe for mistakes with major financial consequences. And sure enough, Business Insider reported that more than half of Americans over 65 earn less than $30,000 a year. As you plan your own retirement, watch out for these Social Security mistakes plaguing current baby boomers. Check Out: Read Next: Too many people reach their early 60s and think: 'I've been paying into the system for decades, I need to lock in my share!' Unfortunately, that leaves them with far lower lifetime benefits than if they'd waited. 'Filing early means locking in a permanent reduction in benefits, up to 30% if your full retirement age is 67,' explained Christine M. Parisi, senior wealth advisor at R.W. Rogé & Company. If you take benefits at age 62, you receive just 70% of your full retirement benefit. At 67, you collect 100%. Wait until 70, and you receive 124% of your full Social Security benefit. Learn More: Plan to continue working for a while? Hold off on taking Social Security — and not just to secure higher benefits. 'If your earnings exceed the annual limit, the Social Security Administration may withhold $1 in benefits for every $2 you earn over the threshold,' Parisi added. 'Benefits can also push your income higher for Medicare-related costs like IRMAA, meaning you could end up paying more in premiums.' Plus, combining your salary with Social Security can push you into a higher tax bracket. You can end up handing much of that money right back to Uncle Sam. If one spouse earned significantly higher income, or worked for many years longer, their benefits will be higher. Plan to optimize those, perhaps by having that spouse delay benefits while the family lives on earned income or distributions from retirement accounts before taking benefits. Parisi noted that different rules apply to surviving spouses. 'If your late spouse worked long enough to qualify for Social Security, you may be able to start collecting survivor benefits as early as age 60. Unfortunately, many don't realize this is even an option until it's too late.' First and foremost, when you planned your retirement income, did you account for taxes? You'll still owe income taxes in retirement, at least under current tax laws. 'A portion of Social Security benefits are taxable, up to 85%, based on your provisional income,' said Keith Hensley of Florida Financial Planning. Many states tax Social Security benefits as well. The upshot? You may need more money saved for retirement than you thought. Again, you may be better off working another year and delaying Social Security benefits. It may not be too late for a Roth conversion to make sense. If you have a year with lower income, consider taking the tax hit and converting some of your traditional retirement funds to Roth accounts, so they can compound tax-free and you can avoid paying taxes on withdrawals in retirement. If Social Security is your only — or your primary — plan for retirement income, expect stormy seas ahead. William Connor, CFA and CFP with Sax Wealth Advisors, added some historical context. 'Social Security was created as a safety net for older Americans. It was not designed as a primary source of retirement income, and won't replace your working income.' Instead, combine it with other sources of income such as retirement accounts, health savings accounts (HSAs), taxable brokerage accounts, real estate investments and perhaps part-time fun working gigs. The less you rely on Social Security income, the more comfortable and secure your retirement will be. More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 8 Common Mistakes Retirees Make With Their Social Security Checks How Much Money Is Needed To Be Considered Middle Class in Every State? This article originally appeared on 5 Major Social Security Mistakes Boomers Can't Stop Making Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-UnitedHealth eyes $1 billion deal to exit Latin America as insurer refocuses on US, sources say
By Tatiana Bautzer and Sabrina Valle NEW YORK (Reuters) -UnitedHealth Group is weighing multiple bids for its Latin American operations, according to two people with direct knowledge of the matter, as the insurer buckles down after a series of unprecedented missteps that include the ouster of its CEO and a reported criminal accounting probe. The largest U.S. health insurer has been trying to exit Latin America since 2022, but the sale of Banmedica has taken on increasing urgency in recent months as the insurer took hits on multiple fronts, according to one of the people. New CEO Steve Hemsley told shareholders last week that he was determined to earn back their trust after an earnings miss and a Wall Street Journal report that the company was under criminal investigation for alleged Medicare fraud. UnitedHealth has said it was not notified by the Department of Justice and that it stands by the integrity of its operations. Hemsley replaced Andrew Witty as CEO, who had been in the post for only a matter of months following the murder of his predecessor, Brian Thompson, in New York in December while on his way to a meeting with investors. The company has four non-binding bids for its Banmedica subsidiary, which operates in Colombia and Chile, for about $1 billion, according to both people, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private. UnitedHealth's shares tumbled 25.5% in May alone and year-to-date are down 40%. UnitedHealth left Brazil in 2023 and Peru in March. It's aiming to get around $1 billion for Banmedica's operations in Colombia and Chile, the people said. The two people said the company expects to set a deadline for binding proposals as soon as July. UnitedHealth received bids from Washington, D.C.-based private equity firm Acon Investments; Sao Paulo-based private equity firm Patria Investments; Texas non-profit health firm Christus Health; and Lima-based healthcare and insurance provider Auna, the people said. Auna is in talks with a financial partner, one of the sources added. Banmedica's annual earnings before income taxes, depreciation and amortization, or EBITDA, is more than $200 million a year. Patria and Christus Health declined to comment. UnitedHealth, Acon and Auna did not respond to requests for comment. FAILED EXPANSION PLANS UnitedHealth bought Banmedica in 2018, with CEO David Scott saying he was "establishing a foundation for growth in South America for the next decades." At the time, UnitedHealth paid around 12 times Banmedica's EBITDA, according to one of the people. Three years later, the insurer decided to leave Latin America as it grappled with losses in its largest operation in the region, Brazil's Amil, which had been acquired a decade earlier. It divested from its Brazilian operations in late 2023. Banmedica is currently profitable, but is considered too small by UnitedHealth. It serves over 2.1 million consumers through its health insurance programs and has around 4 million patient visits annually across its network of 13 hospitals and 143 medical centers. UnitedHealth booked an $8.3 billion loss last year related to the sale of its South American operations - $7.1 billion stemming from the Brazil exit and $1.2 billion from Banmedica. "These losses relate to our strategic exit of South American markets and include significant losses related to foreign currency translation effects," the company said in a February filing. Brazilian investment bank BTG Pactual is advising UnitedHealth on the sale.
Los Angeles Times
35 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
As the feds abdicate responsibilities, states should band together
Until January, the federal government and the states had a mutually beneficial and straightforward deal: The federal government prioritized challenges requiring national solutions — e.g., national security, natural and public-health disaster relief, managing the American economy. For their part, the states delivered primarily local goods and services — Medicaid and Medicare, much of our transportation infrastructure, public education. Money, specifically taxpayer money, underpinned this deal. In 2023, the federal government collected about $4.7 trillion in taxes, sending back about $4.6 trillion to the states, mainly via social service programs. (The remainder of that year's roughly $6 trillion in federal spending was mostly financed by debt.) Now, this deal between Washington and the states is unraveling to tragic effect. In May, tornados ravaged communities in Kentucky and Missouri, killing 27 people. Because of cuts to the federal government in recent months, the National Weather Service is now stretched too thin to alert rural communities in the heartland about such deadly weather. Ordinarily, after such disasters, the feds could be counted on to provide relief. That too is far from a certainty. When natural disaster strikes — as it did in Arkansas this year in the form of severe storms and tornadoes — federal aid was initially denied and ultimately arrived weeks late. Similar aid was denied to those in West Virginia, Washington state and North Carolina. Meanwhile, normal and emergency disbursements to states and localities are being withheld or threatened explicitly because the administration dislikes a state's LGBTQ+-friendly policies or immigrant healthcare. We are just a little over four months into a four-year presidency, with seemingly more cuts to come. In late May, the federal government canceled a contract to develop a new vaccine to protect against flu strains with pandemic potential (including the H5N1 bird flu), alarming state public health officials across the nation. Some decisions by the feds have been successfully challenged in the courts. Realistically though, there is only so much the judges can and will do to force federal agencies to spend, especially when Congress endorses spending cuts. Meanwhile, states have duties and obligations to their residents. But making up for the massive federal shortfall is no easy feat. No state, acting alone, could come close to replicating the goods and services that the feds are no longer supplying. Each lacks economies of scale; the cost per person is prohibitively high without the bargaining power and efficiency of the federal government. The answer, quite simply, is for the states to pool their resources, thereby spreading the costs over a far wider number of taxpayers. Here are some examples of what clusters of like-minded states could do: set up interstate academic programs that pool students and faculty cut off from federal funds into large regional research consortia; re-create public-health and meteorology forecasting centers servicing member states; and finance pandemic planning and countermeasures, precisely what was lacking — and sorely needed — early in the COVID-19 crisis. Though some may assume these arrangements require congressional authorization, the courts have said otherwise, insisting such approval is necessary only when states threaten federal supremacy. (The converse would be true here. The states would be teaming up only because the feds have absented themselves.) Additional arrangements can be even looser understandings. Consider the vacuum created now that the Justice Department has disbanded the team that focused on corruption among officials and fraud by government employees. States can mobilize interstate criminal task forces to track and prosecute corruption by politicians, lobbyists and government contractors (who invariably, when violating federal laws, run afoul of myriad state laws, too). The Trump administration is also tabling consumer protection and environmental investigations and prosecutions. Here too states can pool their resources, extend their jurisdictional reach and protect their citizens, while possibly recouping some expenses. Successful litigation often carries with it awards of legal fees and sometimes damages or monetary bounties: Lawsuits brought by states could force polluters to pay for the damage they do. Of course, not all states will jump into action, at least not at first. But this is a feature, not a bug, of the coming clustering of like-minded states. The Trump administration has created an opportunity for beneficial 'races to the top' in regulatory matters. Here's how that works: As Washington abdicates its long-relied-upon responsibilities, those states that commit to making up for the federal shortfalls will retain residents and businesses. They'll also attract new ones, particularly those frustrated that their home states aren't taking similar compensatory measures. High-tax states are often at a competitive disadvantage, as evidenced by what the Wall Street Journal has repeatedly referred to as a 'Blue state exodus.' But we think that's less likely to happen going forward. Precisely because the feds are no longer promising to fund basic education, infrastructure and social services — and are no longer viewed as a reliable regulator — it's suddenly too risky to chance living or operating a business in a state that doesn't take basic health and safety seriously. Interstate collaboration isn't a cure-all, but it's a start on rebuilding a new national compact without the political strings that have been attached to federal funding in recent months, one that may endure for the foreseeable future. It's a chance to demonstrate resourceful, resilient and good-faith public service at a time when the risk of being worn down into complacency is perilously high. Aziz Z. Huq and Jon D. Michaels are professors of law at the University of Chicago and UCLA, respectively.
