宜宾光子嫩肤危害(宜宾开眼角是什么效果) (今日更新中)

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

Starbucks says it has developed a solution to block customers from viewing pornography on its free public Wi-Fi.The coffee giant originally promised to block pron sites in 2016 as soon as it developed a system to block graphic sites. Starbucks has not divulged details on how its content filtering system will work.According to Business Insider, Starbucks' policy change comes after a petition issued by an internet safety group Enough Is Enough garnered 26,000 signatures. The group's CEO, Donna Rice Hughes, claims that by allowing unfiltered Wi-Fi, Starbucks was "keeping the doors wide open for convicted sex offenders and others to fly under the radar from law enforcement and use free, public Wi-Fi services to access illegal child porn and hard-core pornography."Starbucks said in a statement to The Verge that “While it rarely occurs, the use of Starbucks public Wi-Fi to view illegal or egregious content is not, nor has it ever been permitted...We have identified a solution to prevent this content from being viewed within our stores and we will begin introducing it to our US locations in 2019.”According to Enough Is Enough, Starbucks was lagging behind other restaurant chains like McDonald's and Subway, both of which banned pornography on their Wi-Fi networks in 2016.Alex Hider is a writer for the E.W. Scripps National Desk. Follow him on Twitter @alexhider. 1399

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- A 30-year-old man was forced to leave his parents’ home after they sued him for refusing to leave, according to KABC.The man, Michael Rotondo, was ordered to leave by a judge Tuesday. Rotondo’s parents say he would leave, despite several notices.The man argued that he wasn’t given enough time to leave, saying he should have been given at least six months.Rotondo’s parents claim they started giving him notices in February, even offering to give him more than ,000 to help him find a place.Rotondo said he took the money, but it wasn’t enough to find another place to live. Court filings show that Rotondo doesn’t contribute to the family’s expenses and doesn’t help out with chores.The man says he runs a “website business” and was forced to move home eight years ago after losing a job. 818

Suffering from slumping sales and mountains of debt, Toys 'R' Us has filed for bankruptcy.The 69-year old Toys R Us was once the mecca of kids' gifts. But it was eventually overtaken by Walmart and ultimately Amazon.In its fight to stay relevant, Toys R Us amassed billion in debt. That came from slashing prices, signing major,exclusive licensing deals with toymakers and buying up other toy giants FAO Schwartz and KB Toys over the past decade. 467

Taylor Swift announced Tuesday morning that she will be releasing an intimate concert film on Disney+.The original film is titled “folklore: the long pond studio sessions” and will premiere at 3 a.m. EST on Wednesday.The film will feature performances of songs from Swift’s latest album “Folklore,” which the singer wrote and recorded during the COVID-19 pandemic.“It’s an album that lets you feel your feelings and it’s a product of isolation,” Swift said in a teaser released for the film.Well it’s 11/24 and 24-11=13 so I’ve got an announcement ?? You haven’t seen this film before ? folklore: the long pond studio sessions will be out tonight at midnight PST on @DisneyPlus! #folkloreOnDisneyPlus pic.twitter.com/BTWSRM0yaI— Taylor Swift (@taylorswift13) November 24, 2020 In the teaser, Swift is accompanied by Jack Antonoff and The National's Aaron Dessner, who collaborated on the album.“This could have been a time that I lost my mind and instead, you know, this album was a real flotation device for both of us,” Swift tells Dessner.According to a press release obtained by “Good Morning America,” Swift will perform each song from “Folklore” in the order they appear on the album. It also reveals that Bon Iver’s Justin Vernon, who is featured on the song “Exile,” will make a guest appearance.Swift told “GMA” on Tuesday that she and her collaborators filmed the performances at Dessner’s Long Pond recording studio in upstate New York in September, using a robotic camera to abide by COVID-19 safety protocols.Tomorrow, you’re invited to an intimate concert of the record-breaking album from @TaylorSwift13. folklore: the long pond studio sessions, an Original Film, is streaming Nov. 25 exclusively on #DisneyPlus. #folkloreOnDisneyPlus pic.twitter.com/PGk8GtG4tF— Disney+ (@disneyplus) November 24, 2020 1826

来源：资阳报