Social Security (by WMH [NC]) Dec 11, 2017 7:44 AM
Social Security (by RathdrumGal [ID]) Dec 11, 2017 8:18 AM
Social Security (by Roy [AL]) Dec 11, 2017 8:26 AM
Social Security (by Mickie [OH]) Dec 11, 2017 8:31 AM
Social Security (by WMH [NC]) Dec 11, 2017 8:38 AM
Social Security (by S i d [MO]) Dec 11, 2017 9:37 AM
Social Security (by JB [OH]) Dec 11, 2017 10:13 AM
Social Security (by Busy, busy, busy [WI]) Dec 11, 2017 10:17 AM
Social Security (by Roy [AL]) Dec 11, 2017 10:39 AM
Social Security (by WMH [NC]) Dec 11, 2017 10:56 AM
Social Security (by S i d [MO]) Dec 11, 2017 10:58 AM
Social Security (by WMH [NC]) Dec 11, 2017 10:59 AM
Social Security (by WMH [NC]) Dec 11, 2017 11:10 AM
Social Security (by OKHMBLDR [OK]) Dec 11, 2017 11:47 AM
Social Security (by S i d [MO]) Dec 11, 2017 11:53 AM
Social Security (by Bill [NC]) Dec 11, 2017 12:07 PM
Social Security (by cjo'h [CT]) Dec 11, 2017 12:52 PM
Social Security (by cjo'h [CT]) Dec 11, 2017 12:59 PM
Social Security (by GKARL [PA]) Dec 11, 2017 1:02 PM
Social Security (by John... [MI]) Dec 11, 2017 1:04 PM
Social Security (by TenantWhisperer [MA]) Dec 11, 2017 2:44 PM
Social Security (by Barb [MO]) Dec 11, 2017 5:50 PM
Social Security (by AllyM [NJ]) Dec 11, 2017 6:32 PM
Social Security (by BRAD 20,000 [IN]) Dec 11, 2017 10:14 PM
Social Security (by cjo'h [CT]) Dec 11, 2017 10:16 PM
Social Security (by John... [MI]) Dec 12, 2017 6:28 AM
Social Security (by John... [MI]) Dec 12, 2017 6:40 AM
Social Security (by S i d [MO]) Dec 12, 2017 9:09 AM
Social Security (by John... [MI]) Dec 13, 2017 7:43 AM
Social Security (by WMH [NC]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 7:44 AM Message:
prageru.com/videos/social-security-wont-give-you-security
Don't hate on me for the source. It's the video that is interesting. --173.22.xx.xx |
Social Security (by RathdrumGal [ID]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 8:18 AM Message:
Hate you? You have just gone UP in my estimation. I love Dennis Prager.
"The bigger the government, the smaller the man". --98.146.xxx.xx |
Social Security (by Roy [AL]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 8:26 AM Message:
WMH,
Are you getting SS now? I still got 5 years before I can get on the SS dole wagon. --68.63.xxx.xxx |
Social Security (by Mickie [OH]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 8:31 AM Message:
I have to wait another 15 yrs before I can try to get some of my money back from the gov't. One of the worst deals on the books. --174.233.xxx.xx |
Social Security (by WMH [NC]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 8:38 AM Message:
Roy, I'm 60, soon 61. My DH is 63, 64 in May. He is choosing to wait to collect. I say he crazy, collect while you can, you could get hit by a bus tomorrow. I'm going to collect as soon as I can.
Break even point is 78 for us. That's 18 more years for me. --173.22.xx.xx |
Social Security (by S i d [MO]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 9:37 AM Message:
I agree you should take SS as soon as you can get it. Everyone with an ounce of sense has seen it's impending collapse or vast restructuring that will mean younger folks have to wait longer to get fewer bennies. In this case, "bird in the hand" is probably worth 10 in the bush.
My most recent social security statement says on the front page, "if nothing is done, there will only be enough in the 'trust fund' and current receipts to pay out 75% of promised benefits' by 2032...which is about 3 years before I qualify for early retirement under current law. My guess is the amount is going to be reduced further and/or the minimum and regular retirement ages will increase.
Absolutely take it now before it's gone / gutted. I'd sign away every dime of future benefits today if they'd just stop taxing me from here on forward....but that isn't gonna happen since I think every other person age 45 and lower would bail out immediately, bankrupting the system entirely as the Govt would be forced to borrow the entire benefit payout amount to pay back the computer-issued IOU's that make up the 'trust fund.' --173.19.xx.xxx |
Social Security (by JB [OH]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 10:13 AM Message:
Sounds like chicken Little. Not to worry, be concerned yes, but not worry. They will move things around and fix it. I am intending on giving mine back to the gov as I will not need it. --24.123.x.xxx |
Social Security (by Busy, busy, busy [WI]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 10:17 AM Message:
Thanks for the introduction to PragerU. I'll be watching more.
So sad that 53% of boomers haven't saved for retirement. Hubby and I have a friend that loves to say they have never had a job where they got retirement benefit. At first this person used to say never had a job that game them an IRA. SMH. Slowly, we're educating them. --172.56.xx.xx |
Social Security (by Roy [AL]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 10:39 AM Message:
Someone told me you get SS at age 62. Is this correct? --68.63.xxx.xxx |
Social Security (by WMH [NC]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 10:56 AM Message:
Roy, you can start getting reduced benefits at 62. If you wait until (66?) it goes up 20%, I think it is, and if you want until 70, it goes up another 20%. Theoretically!!!
--173.22.xx.xx |
Social Security (by S i d [MO]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 10:58 AM Message:
Roy, if you were born between 1943 and 1954 you can start collecting 75% of the promised benefit at age 62. Full retirement age is 66 for that age group. For anyone born after that, I believe 67 is the full retirement age.
There's a host of "What ifs" that can modify your benefits based on age, election of spousal death benefits, working for income, etc. Check out ssa.gov website for more info and to get thoroughly confused. ;-) --173.19.xx.xxx |
Social Security (by WMH [NC]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 10:59 AM Message:
Prager U has lots of interesting videos. Some are totally far too right-wing but me, but others are right on. I like Mike Rowe's, and Adam Corolla's, and the one on the reason for the Civil War (slavery) but I can't find it again. It was excellent, by a general and professor of history.
Anyway, they are five minutes or so. Easy to watch. --173.22.xx.xx |
Social Security (by WMH [NC]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 11:10 AM Message:
fidelity.com/viewpoints/retirement/social-security-at-62
A good article. And notice much of the reason to NOT take at 62 assumes you are still working, which many of us are not. --173.22.xx.xx |
Social Security (by OKHMBLDR [OK]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 11:47 AM Message:
I'm approaching 69, I took SS at 66 because I was still working and if you take the benefit before 66 depending on your current income level you have to give most back.
At 66 you can earn about $43k in additional income before paying any back, at 70 earn all you can and still get full benefits.
One important message in his video: DEBT FREE! Folks, that's the key.
My wife and I get a little over $3500/mo. in SS. We live on it just fine, and usually never spend it all in a month.
We both have newer cars and no debt. We live in a 3500' home (too big for us at our age). We travel, eat out a lot and enjoy life. And we do it with the SS income.
We choose to live off of the SS, and just rat-hole my vacation rental property income.
And, if SS goes broke or ends, my savings and other income will take care of us. Maybe I'll go to work for Lowe's.
"I grow a beard, and I KNOW THINGS!
Geo. --68.12.xxx.xxx |
Social Security (by S i d [MO]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 11:53 AM Message:
Just got to watch the video over lunch. Awesome. I like Chris Hogan. He's been on team Dave Ramsey for quite some time.
Two scenarios he left out of Govt "fixing" social security: raising retirement age and inflating currency (i.e. borrowing) to pay benefits. I can realistically see both of those coming into play in addition to raising taxes and reducing benefits. Which one(s) are used and to what degree they are used will depend on which strateg(ies) are the least politically harmful to whichever people are in Congress at the time. All the folks who are in office today and who could do something to lessen the blow in the future will be long gone and retired by then. --173.19.xx.xxx |
Social Security (by Bill [NC]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 12:07 PM Message:
I started collecting at 62. I am 70 1/2 now. --76.0.xxx.xxx |
Social Security (by cjo'h [CT]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 12:52 PM Message:
Most of you are mere children,by the time you collect,the money you get won't be worth the paper its printed on,especially with the character that's in charge now,how he got there,I'll never know?....charlie ...................what a joke..........if it wasn't so sad, it would be funny.................................................................................. --174.199.xx.xx |
Social Security (by cjo'h [CT]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 12:59 PM Message:
Oklohoma builder, shave off that beard,it makes you look too much older than you are.at least from here,it does..charlie.............................................. --174.199.xx.xx |
Social Security (by GKARL [PA]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 1:02 PM Message:
I can collect SSI in the next few months, but my earned income would result in it all having to be paid back. I plan on waiting another 4 years and then take it. I'll probably still be working, but will be old enough where earned income won't be an issue. Generally, I agree that it's advisable to take as soon as one can. I also agree that the main problem with social security is that they stole the money and used it to mask spending by artificially keeping tax rates low. --172.56.x.xxx |
Social Security (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 1:04 PM Message:
For those that don't know, your monthly SS benefit is generally determined by a calculated average of your "best" 35 years of work -- your 35 highest "Taxed Social Security Earnings" years.
You can go to SSA.GOV and create an account and it'll show you what they have recorded for your taxed earnings for your lifetime. It'll also tell you, based on your income data so far, your estimated monthly benefit based on the year you retire (generally 62, 67, or 70 for younger people - a little lower for older).
In case people want to have an idea of what they are looking at in the future.
- John...
--207.241.xxx.xxx |
Social Security (by TenantWhisperer [MA]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 2:44 PM Message:
I may be wrong but I think it's your 35 best QUARTERS not years.
--73.16.xxx.x |
Social Security (by Barb [MO]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 5:50 PM Message:
Keep in mind, when it was first designed, only 4% of the population was expected to live to collect anything from Social Security.
Now, people not living to collect is the exception rather than the rule.
What is even scarier is the number of people now who live until 100 or older, who collect Social Security for 35 or more years.
I expect we will see a means test at some point If you have resources, you will lose your benefit. --64.251.xxx.xxx |
Social Security (by AllyM [NJ]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 6:32 PM Message:
I had to take it at age 62. Local employer had closed and I had six empties. My health insurance privately was about 800 a month. I was renting my own body. So the SS early paid for the health insurance but taken early is less than if I had waited, up to five hundred dollars less. Medicare kicking in was a big help and then I sold two fourplexes so no help needed now. --73.33.xxx.xxx |
Social Security (by BRAD 20,000 [IN]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 10:14 PM Message:
I calculated the payout if I live to 80.
Starting at 62 was only $500 total difference than if I started at 66 or 72.
Money in hand is worth 2 in the bush.
I'll use it to pay off some mortgages which will mushroom my income.
BRAD --68.51.xx.xxx |
Social Security (by cjo'h [CT]) Posted on: Dec 11, 2017 10:16 PM Message:
JB,you're sicker than I thought? ....................... Charlie................................................................. --174.199.xx.xx |
Social Security (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Dec 12, 2017 6:28 AM Message:
TenantWhisperer: You are indeed incorrect. It is 35 best YEARS, not quarters. This is confirmed here:
www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/retirebenefit1.html
It states: "We use the highest 35 years of indexed earnings in a benefit computation."
- John...
--207.241.xxx.xxx |
Social Security (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Dec 12, 2017 6:40 AM Message:
Brad: Age 80 is the year where everything kinda lines up as far as SS benefits go. All of the lines of income come together right around that point -- which is why there is so little difference.
It basically goes like this: if you die BEFORE you turn 80, then you are generally better off to have started taking SS benefits at the lower/earliest age. If you die AFTER you turn 80, then you'd have received more total money if you started taking it at the full or past-full retirement age.
If you live to be 90, for example, the average (~$50k/year) person would get about $75,000 more in total benefits by starting at age 70 instead of 62. Of course, if that guy died at age 71, then he didn't get much at all. :)
It's all a gamble based on death. :)
- John...
--207.241.xxx.xxx |
Social Security (by S i d [MO]) Posted on: Dec 12, 2017 9:09 AM Message:
John, thank you for the excellent summarization.
I think another factor that plays into the decision (and I realize this is a bit "apples to oranges") is what you plan on doing with that money. In Brad's and your example, it is assume the money is taken and consumed, which is probably accurate for many folks receiving SS benefits.
On the other hand, a wise investor would take the money as early as possible and invest it, multiplying the total returns many times over and probably coming out ahead even if they do die young. Again, though...kind of apples to oranges. The SS calculator cannot make assumptions based on what folks will/won't do with the money. Merely something for us here--as wise investors--to consider.
I'm 42...so the odds of me seeing anything from social security that will significantly impact my life by age 62 (or whatever the minimum age is in 20-25 years), are very slim. To me...anything I get is all gravy on the biscuit. I think most Gen Xers are of like mind with me which is why more of us tend to have significant private retirement savings vs. Boomers who are more likely to rely on pensions and Govt programs.
We are all partially of a product of the times we live in. Boomers trust(ed) the Govt and big company pensions because when they were younger the Govt and big American companies appeared more trustworthy and stable. Gen Xers see the rules changing and therefore we tend to see that "it's up to me"...so we do Roth IRAs, 401Ks, real estate investing, etc. But I wonder how much the rules will change by the time we get closer to retirement? Will Millenials shake their heads at us one day and wonder how we could ever trust the Govt not to tax our Roth IRA distributions....sort of like Boomers trust(ed) the Govt not to reduce or cut SS benefits? --173.19.xx.xxx |
Social Security (by John... [MI]) Posted on: Dec 13, 2017 7:43 AM Message:
Agreed -- same boat with me at 44. I've always had that attitude that IF it is there, it will be a little extra bonus to play with. If it is NOT there (or significantly smaller than expected), then it will hopefully not have much of an impact on my life plans at that point. Living that way certainly helps to NOT worry about SS like so many others that I know of who worry about it constantly. :(
- John...
--207.241.xxx.xxx |
Reply:
|
|