Retirement Planning - Lessons Learned

   / Retirement Planning - Lessons Learned #931  
Do you expect benefits to be cut simply because there are no funds?
Good question, I am not sure and that is the biggest part of the problem. If you paid in (worked and had your money confiscated) then you should be able to count on ss with the full faith of the US government.

It makes me madder than a hoot owl for folks to look at social security as voluntary or an entitlement. I and my employers lived up to our obligations (at gun point), if the country is still sovereign, I should be able to count on the government to meet it's obligations.

Best,

ed
 
   / Retirement Planning - Lessons Learned #932  
Hopefully, yes. They already are cutting benefits to some. If you’ve been paying in for 50+ years the impression is that you are eligible for full amount at 70. Yet that doesn’t apply if you are over the income threshhold.
As is sometimes mentioned the quickest way to find a fix would be to put Congress under the same umbrella as the rest of us. The country was set up to avoid the elitism which our current legislators enjoy...
I couldn't agree more, that law makers should live under the same laws as their subjects (socialism is for the socialist, not the people).

It makes it sound like you hope benefits will be reduced if ss runs a deficit? I would live with that if we treated everything else the same way and went to cash accounting. I assume the threshold you mean the upper cap where you no longer pay in, in that year? I have no idea what that has to do with bene reductions?

Best,

ed
 
   / Retirement Planning - Lessons Learned #933  
Good question, I am not sure and that is the biggest part of the problem. If you paid in (worked and had your money confiscated) then you should be able to count on ss with the full faith of the US government.

It makes me madder than a hoot owl for folks to look at social security as voluntary or an entitlement. I and my employers lived up to our obligations (at gun point), if the country is still sovereign, I should be able to count on the government to meet it's obligations.

Best,

ed
Agreed. 100%
 
   / Retirement Planning - Lessons Learned #934  
I couldn't agree more, that law makers should live under the same laws as their subjects (socialism is for the socialist, not the people).

It makes it sound like you hope benefits will be reduced if ss runs a deficit? I would live with that if we treated everything else the same way and went to cash accounting. I assume the threshold you mean the upper cap where you no longer pay in, in that year? I have no idea what that has to do with bene reductions?

Best,

ed
I believe that we should balance the budget rather than kicking the can down the road the way we've been doing for most of my adult life. This would affect me more than many (most) TBN members as I didn't plan ahead the way that some of you did. But that was my choice...

The "threshhold" I referred to is the apparent income level when you are 70+, at which they don't pay you full benefits. I was unaware of this until last winter, when I was talking to the owner of a snowsled shop who told me that although he is over 70 he still doesn't recieve the full amount which the SS calculates he should recieve.
 
   / Retirement Planning - Lessons Learned #935  
I believe that we should balance the budget rather than kicking the can down the road the way we've been doing for most of my adult life. This would affect me more than many (most) TBN members as I didn't plan ahead the way that some of you did. But that was my choice...

The "threshhold" I referred to is the apparent income level when you are 70+, at which they don't pay you full benefits. I was unaware of this until last winter, when I was talking to the owner of a snowsled shop who told me that although he is over 70 he still doesn't recieve the full amount which the SS calculates he should recieve.
My disclaimer for this should be longer than the post! But, please confirm with your financial folks, and let me know if I am mistaken. Take no action on my word.

1. FRA full retirement age is worst case 67, you can get more money monthly if you defer up till 70.
2. Earning limits are a little complex, but, at FRA you can make all you want and still receive your full check. If you have money withheld because of earnings up to that point, they should start to trickle back to you.

I agree with the concept of a balanced budget. However, I can think of several hundred things that need to come in line before SS.

Best,

ed
 
   / Retirement Planning - Lessons Learned #936  
I believe that we should balance the budget rather than kicking the can down the road the way we've been doing for most of my adult life. This would affect me more than many (most) TBN members as I didn't plan ahead the way that some of you did. But that was my choice...

The "threshhold" I referred to is the apparent income level when you are 70+, at which they don't pay you full benefits. I was unaware of this until last winter, when I was talking to the owner of a snowsled shop who told me that although he is over 70 he still doesn't recieve the full amount which the SS calculates he should recieve.
See link from AARP. 10 myths about Social Security.
Also, there is no income threshold if you are FRA


 
   / Retirement Planning - Lessons Learned #937  
See link from AARP. 10 myths about Social Security.
Also, there is no income threshold if you are FRA


LOL wish you were a little quicker:) Thanks for the link.

It is so funny SS and medicare are so complex, about the time you are supposed to not have to do complex crap any more.

I have known so many older folks that did get care because they didn't understand what they were entitled to, really is a shame.

Best,

ed
 
   / Retirement Planning - Lessons Learned #938  
I don't know if this applies to everyone, it probably doesn't, but retiring at 61 a financial consultant I know advised me taking our SS at 62. Of course the longer you wait the more you get and it's mandatory to take it at 70 I believe. His reasoning was no one knows how long they'll live and although you get less you get more over time. I paid in starting at 14 with a newspaper route.
Our SS is a pittance and my heart goes out to those having to live off of it. I don't see how they manage. I know we couldn't.
 
   / Retirement Planning - Lessons Learned #939  
My disclaimer for this should be longer than the post! But, please confirm with your financial folks, and let me know if I am mistaken. Take no action on my word.

1. FRA full retirement age is worst case 67, you can get more money monthly if you defer up till 70.
2. Earning limits are a little complex, but, at FRA you can make all you want and still receive your full check. If you have money withheld because of earnings up to that point, they should start to trickle back to you.

I agree with the concept of a balanced budget. However, I can think of several hundred things that need to come in line before SS.

Best,

ed
I agree. However, I'm a bit biased right now as I hope to be on the receiving end in a few years.
See link from AARP. 10 myths about Social Security.
Also, there is no income threshold if you are FRA


I thought that also, until I was talking to somebody who is 70 yet not getting full benefits. Some of the points in your link were educational, and dispelled my previous comment about Congress.
 
   / Retirement Planning - Lessons Learned #940  
I'm an actuary and did the math for my mom who retired at 57 with a full pension and 401k, but was unsure what to do about claiming SS. She would have to live to 83, at that point the benefit of waiting past 62 was better. So there is a 21 year break even point. Then it works out to around 8% benefit per year delayed.

I told her to claim it at 62 and live your best retired life. Waiting till your 83 to to live your best life is nonsense.

My dad on the other hand is a stubborn mule and waited until 69. His reasoning is, getting a guaranteed 8% return for 3 years (his FRA is 66) is better than gambling it on the market.
 
 
Top