喀什月经一直有是怎么回事喀什怎样诊治宫颈糜烂三度,喀什男科再线咨询,喀什女性上环取环,喀什为什么勃起后很快就软了,喀什去哪家医院治疗男科比较好,喀什泌尿男科那个医院好,喀什哪里男科

Starting Social Security early typically means getting a smaller benefit for the rest of your life. The penalty is steep: Someone who applies this year at age 62 would see their monthly benefit check reduced by nearly 30%.Many Americans have little choice but to accept the diminished payments. Even before the pandemic, about half of retirees said they quit working earlier than they’d planned, often due to job loss or health issues. Some have enough retirement savings to delay claiming Social Security, but many don’t. And now, with unemployment approaching Depression-era levels, claiming early may be the best of bad options for older people who can’t find a job.But the penalty for early filing, and the bonus for delaying your application, are based on old formulas that don’t reflect gains in life expectancy, says economist Alicia Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. The result is a system that unfairly penalizes early filers, unjustly benefits late filers — and hurts lower-income people the most.“Low-income people disproportionately collect benefits at 62 and their benefits are cut too much, and high-income people disproportionately delay claiming till 70 and their benefits are increased too much,” Munnell says. “So you penalize the low-income and you benefit the high-income.”The problem started off as a solutionOriginally, Social Security had one retirement age: 65. In 1956, Congress authorized a reduced benefit for women, to allow them to retire at the same time as their typically older husbands. The reduced benefit option was extended to men in 1961.The amount of the reduction was meant to be “actuarially neutral,” so that the cost to Social Security would be the same whether those with average life expectancies claimed the smaller check earlier or the larger check later.As life expectancies rose, though, early filers wound up living with the penalty for longer. In 1956, a 65-year-old woman had an average life expectancy of 16.9 years. Today, it’s 21.6 years, Munnell says. Instead of being actuarially neutral, in other words, the current system results in early filers with average life expectancies getting less.On top of that, Social Security offers a bonus for those who can afford to wait. A 1% delayed retirement credit was introduced in 1972, and the amount was increased over the years to the current 8%. So each year you put off claiming Social Security past your full retirement age adds 8% to your payment. Full retirement age varies according to birth year and is 67 for people born in 1960 or later.Let’s say your full retirement age is 67 and your benefit, if started then, would be ,000 a month. Starting at 62 would shrink the benefit to 0, while waiting until 70 to begin would boost the amount to ,240.The longer you live, the more you can benefit from a delayed filing — and the higher your income, the longer you’re likely to live. In fact, most of the gains in life expectancy in recent years have accrued to higher-income people.Between 2001 and 2014, for example, life expectancy rose by more than two years for men and nearly three years for women with incomes in the top 5%, according to a study for the Social Security Administration. During the same period, life expectancies for those in the bottom 5% of incomes rose a little less than four months for men and about two weeks for women.How benefits could change to be fairerTo restore actuarial fairness, the penalty for early filing should be lower, Munnell says. Someone who retires at 62 instead of 67 should get 22.5% less, rather than 30% less. Similarly, the bonus for waiting should be reduced to just below 7% per year.“The way it’s set up now, people will get 124% of their full benefit if they wait till 70 and they really should only get 120%,” Munnell says.Obviously, Social Security has bigger problems. Once its trust fund is depleted, as projected in 15 years or so, the system will be able to pay only 79% of promised benefits in 2035. That proportion is estimated to drop to 73% by 2094.When Congress finally gets around to fixing the system, Munnell says, it should consider making the payouts more fair.“I think there’ll be some grand bargain on Social Security at some point because I don’t think anybody’s really going to allow benefits to be cut 25%,” Munnell says. “This [actuarial fairness] probably should be put on the agenda.”This article was written by NerdWallet and was originally published by the Associated Press.More From NerdWalletHow to Renegotiate Your Bills to Save MoneyFeeling Out of Control? These Money Moves Could HelpRenters at Risk: Ways to Cope in the Financial CrisisLiz Weston is a writer at NerdWallet. Email: lweston@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @lizweston. 4771

Survivors of alleged sexual abuse at the hands of priests nationwide are set to announce a federal class-action lawsuit aimed at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.In the lawsuit, the group and their attorneys say the Conference "knowingly concealed" the identities and actions of known abusers. So they're calling for the bishops to release the names and files of every known accused priest in the country.They're due to make the announcement at 1:00 Wednesday afternoon in Baltimore, where those bishops are for the final day of their annual meeting. 574

Target is recalling Room Essentials 4-drawer dressers due to tip-over and entrapment hazards.According to Target, the recalled dressers are unstable if they are not anchored to the wall, posing serious tip-over and entrapment hazards that can result in death or injuries to children. Target has received 12 reports of dressers tipping or collapsing. The recalled dressers have been sold in three colors and measure 41 7/8 inches tall by 31 ? inches wide by 15 11/16 inches deep. Model number 249-05-0103 (black), 249-05-0106 (espresso), or 249-05-0109 (maple) is printed on the product’s packaging.The dressers were sold at Target stores nationwide and online at Target.com from January 2013 through April 2016 for about 8.Consumers are being asked to immediately stop using the recalled dressers and return them to any Target store for a full refund.For more information, you can call Target at 800-440-0680 or go to www.Target.com and click on “Recalls” at the bottom of the page, then “Furniture” for more information, or the “Product Recalls” tab on www.Facebook.com/Target. 1124

The #FBI and #ATF are seeking info concerning the owner of the RV, Anthony Quinn Warner, linked to the explosion in downtown Nashville on Friday morning. Recognize him? Call 1-800-CALL-FBI or submit tips online at https://t.co/hG6KFmQ7dG. @FBI @ATFHQ @ATFNashville pic.twitter.com/o8fqiHkATl— FBI Memphis (@FBIMemphis) December 28, 2020 350

The beloved 1990 classic "The Witches" gets a star-studded and charming rebirth on HBO Max, which adds diversity that the original movie lacked.Jahzir Kadeem Bruno plays an orphaned child who uncovers a secret society of witches who specialize in tormenting kids -- either eating them or transforming them into animals. Consistently funny and loaded with cheeky dialogue and stunning visuals, the film nails a storybook feel, and will no doubt cast a spell over families looking for something new to watch together amid the pandemic.A turbo mode Anne Hathaway guzzles an overacting potion for her role as the Grand High Witch, which is exactly the right approach. Allowing no restraint or nuance to taint her performance, she relishes her character's cartoonishly evil ways and commands every scene.Octavia Spencer serves as the emotional core as Agatha, a tough love-dealing, home remedy-loving grandmother. Stanley Tucci and Kristin Chenoweth cut it up in supporting roles, and Chris Rock serves as the disarming narrator.Remaking a beloved 1990 family film is a task lined with pitfalls, but director Robert Zemeckis uses the skills he developed in the likes of "Back to the Future," "Forrest Gump" and "Cast Away" to tiptoe the fine line between reinvention and paying tribute to the classic. In some ways, he stays truer to the 1983 Roald Dahl book than the original film, while taking enough creative license to make the story his own.While there's no budging the original out of the hearts and minds of those who grew up with it, this new version of "The Witches" is a skilled, welcome change-up that is as well built to last as its predecessor. RATING: 3 stars out of 4.Phil Villarreal TwitterPhil Villarreal FacebookPhil Villarreal Amazon Author PagePhil Villarreal Rotten Tomatoes 1798