IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Social Security’s Real Retirement Age Is 70


  • Alicia H. Munnell


Social Security was designed to replace income once people could no longer work. In the 1930s, the retirement age was set at 65, which coincided with the age used by many private and public pension plans. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, Congress changed the law to enable workers to claim benefits as early as 62. But benefits claimed before 65 were actuarially reduced, so that those who claimed at 62 and those who claimed at 65 could expect to receive about the same total amount in benefits over their lifetimes. In the early 1970s, Congress introduced the Delayed Retirement Credit, which increased monthly benefits for those who claimed after the so-called Full Retirement Age of 65. That credit, which was modest at first, now fully compensates for delayed claiming. As a result, lifetime benefits are roughly equal for any claiming age between 62 and 70, and the highest monthly benefits are available at 70. In that regard, 70 has become the new 65. Moreover, the level of monthly benefits at 70 appears appropriate given the increased deductions for Medicare premiums, the greater taxation of benefits, the declining importance of the spouses’ benefit, and the diminished sources of other retirement income. This brief aims to clarify Social Security’s current benefit structure. The discussion proceeds as follows. The first section describes how 70 became Social Security’s new retirement age. The second section explores whether 70 is the “right” age by looking at “equivalency” to 65, the increasing dispersion in life expectancy by socioeconomic status, and actual retirement patterns. The third section looks at the Social Security replacement rates that workers will face at different retirement ages. The fourth section clarifies that with the maturation of the Delayed Retirement Credit, the “Full Retirement Age” no longer describes the benefit structure; further increases in this benchmark simply reduce replacement rates for everyone. The final section presents a threefold conclusion. First, the shift to age 70 may be appropriate given the increase in life expectancy, health, and education for the majority of workers, but will lead to low replacement rates for the many workers who retire early. Second, further cuts in benefits by extending the Full Retirement Age will lead to very low benefits for early retirees. Third, policymakers need to inform those who can work that 70 is the new retirement age and devise ways to protect those who cannot work.

Suggested Citation

  • Alicia H. Munnell, 2013. "Social Security’s Real Retirement Age Is 70," Issues in Brief ib2013-15, Center for Retirement Research.
  • Handle: RePEc:crr:issbrf:ib2013-15

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Brown, Jeffrey R. & Finkelstein, Amy, 2007. "Why is the market for long-term care insurance so small?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(10), pages 1967-1991, November.
    2. Norton, Edward C., 2000. "Long-term care," Handbook of Health Economics,in: A. J. Culyer & J. P. Newhouse (ed.), Handbook of Health Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 17, pages 955-994 Elsevier.
    3. Hubbard, R Glenn & Skinner, Jonathan & Zeldes, Stephen P, 1995. "Precautionary Saving and Social Insurance," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(2), pages 360-399, April.
    4. Jeffrey R. Brown & Amy Finkelstein, 2008. "The Interaction of Public and Private Insurance: Medicaid and the Long-Term Care Insurance Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(3), pages 1083-1102, June.
    5. Michael G. Palumbo, 1999. "Uncertain Medical Expenses and Precautionary Saving Near the End of the Life Cycle," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 66(2), pages 395-421.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:crr:issbrf:ib2013-15. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Amy Grzybowski) or (Christopher F Baum). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.