As Denmark raises its retirement age to 70, experts weigh in on whether the U.S. may follow its lead
Denmark has moved to increase its retirement age to 70 — making it the highest retirement age in Europe.
Yet it may be difficult for the U.S. to follow its lead.
The new change in Denmark will apply to public pension retirements starting in 2040. Since 2006, the country has been adjusting its retirement age to reflect changes in life expectancy.
The U.S. does not technically have an official retirement age. At age 65, individuals become eligible for Medicare coverage. At age 66 to 67, depending on date of birth, an individual becomes eligible for full Social Security benefits based on their earnings record.
More from Personal Finance:House Republican tax bill favors the richSome lawmakers want to defer capital gains taxes for mutual fundsWhat the House GOP budget bill means for your money
However, those individuals who wait until age 70 to claim Social Security retirement benefits stand to get the biggest payout — an increase of 8% for each year beyond full retirement age. (The full retirement age is when beneficiaries are eligible for 100% of the benefits they've earned based on their work records.)
Yet few people wait until age 70 to claim benefits. While more than 90% of individuals would benefit from delaying Social Security until that age, only about 10% actually do, according to a 2023 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research.
While age 70 is not the official U.S. retirement age, it is the threshold based on economists' definition — the age at which you can't accrue any more benefits, according to Teresa Ghilarducci, a labor economist and professor at The New School for Social Research.
"In the United States, it's been 70 for decades, and we had the highest retirement age than any other country for years," Ghilarducci said.
Yet there are efforts to officially bump up the U.S. retirement age higher.
In 1983, Congress passed legislation to gradually raise the full retirement age for Social Security from 65 to 67. That change is still getting phased in today, with people born in 1960 and later subject to the higher 67 retirement age.
In December, an amendment to raise the full retirement age to 70 was introduced by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., during last-minute efforts to advance legislation that increased Social Security benefits for certain public pensioners.
The bill, the Social Security Fairness Act, was voted into law. However, the proposal to raise the retirement age was struck down.
Paul called for raising the retirement age by three months per year until it reached age 70, to reflect current life expectancies. The change would have created nearly $400 billion in savings for the program, while the Social Security Fairness Act added $200 billion in costs to the program over 10 years.
Other Republican proposals have likewise called for raising the retirement age.
The Social Security Administration faces looming depletion dates for the trust funds it relies on to help pay benefits. To help resolve that issue, lawmakers may consider raising taxes, cutting benefits or a combination of both. Raising the retirement age is effectively a benefit cut.
Like the changes enacted in 1983, raising the retirement age could be on the menu.
Denmark's move to raise the retirement age to 70 is not a surprise, experts say.
In 2023, research published by the Danish Center for Social Science Research found increasing good health and educational resources for 60- to 70-year-olds, along with higher demand for older workers, could point to retirement age increases in the future.
In 2025, Denmark residents can retire with public pensions when they are 67. That will gradually increase to age 70 as of 2040.
"That means simply that younger people today will have to work longer before they can go on retirement," said Jesper Rangvid, professor of finance at the Copenhagen Business School and co-director of its Pension Research Centre.
That retirement age affects everybody entitled to basic public pension income, according to Rangvid. However, those with private pension savings may retire earlier.
"There's nothing that prevents you from retiring earlier if you have the funds and the means to do so," Rangvid said.
Denmark does offer options for early retirement, including an early pension. However, raising the retirement age conveys a message, Rangvid said.
"It sends a signal that this is what the positions would like, that you should work longer," Rangvid said.
Retirement experts say raising the U.S. retirement age may not present the same solution for the population that it does in Denmark.
Denmark has a much more "equal society" when it comes to income, wealth, education and life expectancy compared to the United States, said Alicia Munnell, senior advisor at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.
In the U.S., government data shows a stark difference between the life expectancy for those at the bottom and top income quartiles, Munnell said.
"When you have such a big, big difference, any across-the-board increase in the retirement age would be foolish," Munnell said. "It'd be immensely harmful to those at the bottom who already receive benefits for a shorter period of time."
A policy to raise the retirement age may also be problematic for another reason — it would take time to phase the change in, according to Andrew Biggs, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
For example, Congress may enact a higher retirement age that starts to go into effect in 10 years, and then it would take 30 years for people with the higher retirement age to go through the system.
While moving the age from say 67 to 69 would produce savings for the program in the long run, "they're going to need the money right now," Biggs said.
The welfare reform that began in Denmark in 2006 — whereby the retirement age increased with life expectancy — has been "extremely important" for the country's economy, according to Rangvid.
"We have basically no public debt at all," Rangvid said.
In contrast, the U.S. faces high national debt that requires the country to spend more on interest payments than on the military.
Budget legislation that is currently under consideration in Congress could add an estimated $3.3 trillion to the debt including interest, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
That package would not touch Social Security or its retirement age. However, other proposals have suggested that change, a benefit cut that would be a "pretty powerful lever" toward helping to resolve the program's funding issues, according to Munnell.
One proposal scored by the Social Security Administration's actuaries found raising the full retirement age to 70 would eliminate 26% of the program's 75-year shortfall.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
41 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's tax bill has a long way to go in the Senate as Republicans mull major changes
Republican leaders spent months carefully crafting the 1,038-page megabill advancing President Donald Trump's agenda, engaging in grueling negotiations and backroom dealings to unite competing GOP factions just enough to squeeze the package through the House. Now, several of those provisions that ensured its passage could be on the chopping block. The Senate is set to begin consideration of Trump's 'big beautiful bill' as Republican leaders scramble to finalize the massive budget framework before the Fourth of July. But Republican senators — including Utah Sens. Mike Lee and John Curtis — are unsure about some of the contents, warning some provisions go too far while others don't go far enough to reduce the nation's deficit. 'There are solid victories in the bill,' Lee said in a statement to the Deseret News. 'But in its current form, the (Big Beautiful Bill Act) won't pass the Senate. It simply doesn't do enough to address the government's spending crisis. But we can make it better.' One of the most controversial provisions tucked into the budget resolution is language repealing clean energy tax credits that were passed in the Inflation Reduction Act under the Biden administration with only Democratic support. That language was demanded by a group of fiscal conservatives in the House who threatened to vote against the full package if it was not included. However, some Republicans have been wary to fully repeal the green energy tax incentives, arguing it could raise utility costs for all Americans. Curtis is among those pushing to preserve some of those clean energy policies, particularly those dealing with nuclear energy, net-zero emissions, battery storage and more. The first-term senator has long centered his climate policies on clean energy solutions, suggesting earlier this week he will push for those changes as the Senate considers the bill. 'My friends in the House kind of called me up to say, 'Listen, we're counting on you to fix it,'' Curtis said at an event in Tooele last week. 'So I think even many of them knew that what they sent over did need some work, and that's now our job in the Senate to put our stamp on that and have it speak for our will.' 'And I think if I have anything to say about it,' he added, 'I'll make sure that we're taking into account our energy future.' On the other hand, Lee has previously suggested he wants a comprehensive repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act, telling the Deseret News it should be overhauled 'lock, stock, and barrel.' 'There are some simple ways we can improve the bill,' Lee said. One way is to 'end Biden's politically motivated subsidies under the so-called 'Inflation Reduction Act' and end the Green New Scam once and for all.' While the two Utah senators have competing visions for the future of green energy tax credits, the pair have similar views on how to address proposals paring back government spending to reduce the deficit. Both Curtis and Lee have pushed for deeper spending cuts and reforms to certain government programs. While Republicans have vowed not to slash necessary benefits under Medicaid and other welfare programs, Curtis has repeatedly urged lawmakers to engage in conversations about reining in fraudulent spending. If not, the senator has warned, drastic cuts will be necessary in the future. Lee has also been vocal about searching for deeper spending cuts in the budget framework, arguing it does not go far enough to reduce the deficit. Those calls have been echoed by some fiscal hawks in the House, who say they are counting on the Senate to implement deeper spending cuts they couldn't secure with their slim majority. Another key deal that was made in the reconciliation package is an expansion of federal deductions for state and local taxes paid, also known as SALT. That provision was demanded by blue-state Republicans who threatened tanking the package if it wasn't included. Republican leaders offered to increase the current deduction cap to $40,000 — up from the current $10,000 limit — for individuals who make $500,000 or less a year. That cap would then increase by 1% every year over the next decade and remain permanent after that period. However, that increase may not be met with open arms in the Senate — and Lee is already hinting at its removal. 'Right now, it unfortunately contains big SALT cap increases, which are basically subsidies for high-tax blue states paid for by hardworking families in Utah and the rest of the country,' Lee said. Another provision that could find itself on the cutting room floor: a debt ceiling increase. The debt limit is the total amount of money the federal government is authorized to borrow in order to pay off existing obligations, tax refunds, interest on the national debt and other payments, according to the Treasury Department. House Republicans tucked a $4 trillion debt ceiling increase into the budget resolution to avoid a default later this summer, arguing that by doing so, they would strip Democrats of the chance to use the impending deadline as leverage to attach some of their own policies. However, some Republicans are staunchly opposed to a debt limit increase in any fashion. 'I think the problem for conservatives is they lose their high moral ground. These will be their deficits,' said Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who is currently opposed to the package. 'These will be GOP spending bills, GOP deficits, and there is no change in the direction of the country.' House GOP leaders are pleading with their counterparts in the Senate not to make changes to the massive reconciliation package, warning any edits could tank the megabill before it even makes it to Trump's desk. Meanwhile, the president is telling the Senate to 'make the changes they want' — sending mixed messages as Republicans consider alterations to the budget framework advancing policies on the border, energy, national defense and tax reform. Some of the hard-to-convince lawmakers hope their stubbornness will ward off any of their Senate colleagues from making drastic changes, noting the drawn-out process in the House should deter them from doing so. 'I think after seeing how painful of a process this is and how difficult it is to get anything through this side, I think that will send a strong message in the Senate that you can't really change it,' Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., a member of the Freedom Caucus, told the Deseret News.
Axios
an hour ago
- Axios
Exclusive: HHS watchdog finds more than $16B in health savings
The Department of Health and Human Services' watchdog identified more than $16 billion in overpayments, fraudulent billings and possible cost savings in health programs over a half year spanning the Biden and Trump administrations, including more than $3.5 billion to be returned to the government. Why it matters: The semiannual summary, first shared publicly to Axios, comes as the Trump administration says it's prioritizing government efficiency and rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. It reflects growing concern over federal payments to Medicare Advantage plans, along with enforcement actions like McKinsey agreeing to pay $650 million to settle charges that its advice caused Purdue Pharma to submit fraudulent claims stemming from the opioid crisis. The report was sent to Congress late Friday. By the numbers: The HHS Office of Inspector General identified $16.6 billion in real and potential savings from October 2024 through March of this year. The office's investigations identified $3.5 billion in funds due back to the federal government, and its audits found another $451 million that the government will recoup. More than $12 billion in potential cost savings were identified if HHS makes recommended policy changes. The office issued 165 recommendations over the six months. In one example, OIG found that Medicare could have saved $7.7 billion if it lowered payments for swing beds at critical access hospitals so that they match skilled nursing facilities. The change would require action from Congress, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said it didn't agree with the recommendation. Nearly 400 civil actions, including settlements, resulted from OIG's work during the period. OIG says its work returned $11 to the federal government for each $1 invested in its office. "Whether it's us, whether it's [the Government Accountability Office], whether it's DOGE, whether it's state auditors, there's always a need for program integrity and oversight," said John Hagg, assistant inspector general in the IG's office of audit services. Zoom in: OIG over the six months covered in the report continued its investigations that raise concerns over improper payments in Medicare Advantage. OIG found that many patient diagnoses reported by privately run Medicare plans were supported only through health risk assessments. That allowed plans to be paid more to care for sicker, more expensive patients without enough supporting documentation, raising questions about their validity, per OIG. OIG recommended that Medicare further restrict plans' abilities to get higher payments based on diagnoses reported only on in-home health risk assessments in order to save an estimated $4.2 billion for Medicare. The office plans to do more work on Medicare Advantage in the near future, Melicia Seay, assistant inspector general in the office of evaluation and inspection, told Axios. "There's a lot of areas in terms of Medicare Advantage that we're exploring, whether it is the payment policy related to the program, the service delivery, quality of care," she said. Catch up quick: President Trump in January abruptly fired several agency inspectors general, including longtime HHS watchdog Christi Grimm. He claimed that"some were not doing their job."
New York Post
4 hours ago
- New York Post
Campaign Finance Board's voter-guide fiasco errors are no laughing matter
A near-$7 million bungle by the city Campaign Finance Board is fresh sign that an outfit with huge power over city elections is in dire need of overhaul — if not elimination. The CFB's voter-outreach arm, NYC Votes, last month spent $6.85 million of taxpayer money mailing 3.5 million 'voter information' guides that were riddled with huge errors, from listing Mayor Eric Adams and four other non-candidates as on the ballot in the Democratic primary to falsely 'informing' the public about a Republican primary that doesn't exist. It also left out two entire City Council races. 'It's an interesting error from a system that demands absolute perfection from candidates, where a one letter typo can cost a campaign tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees or even removal from the ballot entirely,' fumed Corinne Fisher to PoliticoNY; she's one of the candidates the guide falsely lists as on the ballot. NYC Votes also managed to advertise the wrong date for the primary during at least four games at CitiField, Gothamist discovered. Maybe they think Mets fans shouldn't vote? Or maybe the CFB should adopt a slogan from Casey Stengel's verdict on the Amazins: 'Can't anybody here play this game?' The board says it'll mail out new guides with the correct info to all 3 million potential Democratic primary voters; we guess it won't worry about Republicans who rely on its bad info and head to the polls for a fictional race. All this would be easier to laugh at if the Campaign Finance Board didn't have such vast and unaccountable power over city campaigns. On Friday, it airily slammed the Andrew Cuomo campaign with a $675,000 penalty because it disapproves of the Cuomo website, following a $622,000 fine two weeks before over the same issue — namely, how an independent pro-Cuomo superPAC can use the site to figure out his chief issues. And of course the board has summarily refused to allow the mayor any matching funds at all, crippling his re-election campaign over federal charges that have now been permanently deep-sixed. Reminder: Back 2013, the CFB all but anointed Bill de Blasio the next mayor by denying funds to his most-similar competitor, John Liu. And in 2001, it imperiously declared that there would be no additional campaigning in the primary elections after they had to be rescheduled when the planes hit the towers on the original Primary Day — a completely arbitrary decision that was conceivably key to Mike Bloomberg's victory that November. If you're keeping score, that's two mayors out of the last three who arguably won thanks to this elected board whose decisions can at best be contested in court cases that won't be settled until long after any given Election Day — and it has already played a huge role in this year's contest, too. Yet it can't even produce a reliable voters' guide: Surely, the Charter Reform Commission should be at least looking at some proposal to oversee or eliminate the CFB and the entire corrupt 'public campaign finance' system? For the record: Primary Day is June 24, even for Mets fans.
