Back Forty

Best Yetter Geezer or Nearly Elderly
I have no doubt there’s a Social Security crisis. I just realized I could start drawing mine next year, and that’s a crisis if I ever saw one.
How did I get old so fast? Maybe “old” is not the best term. “Near elderly” sounds better.
I just read a retirement magazine published by the National Education Association. This magazine asks readers for catchy titles that might describe folks over 60—better than labels such as seniors or retirees.
Women readers offered clever tidbits like “Best Yetter” generation, “Adult Boomers,” “Energizers,” “Pioneers.”
A man from Wisconsin suggested geezer. “I vote for geezer,” he says.
I’m with him. Geezer is fine.
Those of us over 60 aren’t baby boomers, anyway. Readers will recall the baby boom was an increase in birth rate from 1946 to 1964. It was caused by men returning from the war.
Give me a break. I’m sure there’s a lot of pent-up energy when young men return from war, but 18 years? You’ve got to be kidding.
Regardless of who’s a boomer and who isn’t, the current flap over reforming Social Security is just another attempt to confuse us. We’re grandfathered-in (if I may use that term.)
Of course everyone is concerned about their kids and grandkids, but all of this blather about privatizing Social Security is just a bunch of smoke. The president, Alan Greenspan and a few others have suggested younger folks should be allowed to invest a small percentage of their payroll deductions into personal accounts.
Nobody proposes turning Social Security over to Wall Street, as Mrs. Clinton claims. Ask the young people. It’s their money.
Every time somebody asks me if I want my money now, or would I prefer the government keeps it, I’d take the money and run.
I had $14,000 in federal retirement finds when I quit corporative extensions in 1983. I could have left the money until retirement age, or I could take it out and put it back later (with 4% per year interest) should I ever return to government servitude.
Folks will recall interest rates were 12%-14% in 1983. Why let the government keep my money at 4% when any sensible investment was returning 10% or better?
My wife and I put this $14,000 into mutual funds, it’s well over $100,000 now.
But now I have to make a decision about my social security. Am I better off taking a smaller amount at age 62, or a larger benefit at age 66? Of course I could be penalized if I make too much money (ha!)
The main factor in this decision is how long I expect to live. Spending and investing according to how long we expect to live, is like a really bad hangover: first you are afraid you might die, then you are afraid you may not die.
What if I died before maximizing my Social Security benefits? I would never forgive myself. I can tell you that.