social security

[deerseeker001]

take it and run,get your life back.

 

[newbury]

SS is not owed to any one specific individual but is a bloated, misunderstood safety net for all taxpayers who reach a specific age or become eligible for other reasons. Anyone who thinks that they are paying into an account is sorely mislead and uninformed.

Exactly. I was brought up that SS was a safety net not designed to be a retirement fund. I'm amazed that there is not a stricter "means" testing.

More emphasis should have been given throughout our schooling on planning for retirement. If I had known what it was really going to be like I would have retired two years ago.

 

[Mickey_Fx]

Then somebody should tell the SSA.

Old-Age & Survivors Insurance Trust Fund

Maybe I stated it badly but Travelover got it right. In a physical sense, there is no pile of cash belonging to any individual. All accounting entries.

Legally speaking there is no legal obligation for Uncle Sam to pay anyone SS benefits.

Here are a couple references.

Social Security Online History Pages

And a section from Wiki regarding Social Security.

"The Social Security Administration's authority to make benefit payments as granted by Congress extends only to its current revenues and existing Trust Fund balance, i.e., redemption of its holdings of Treasury securities. Therefore, Social Security's ability to make full payments once annual benefits exceed revenues depends in part on the federal government's ability to make good on the bonds that it has issued to the Social Security trust funds. As with any other federal obligation, the federal government's ability to repay Social Security is based on the power to tax and the commitment of the Congress to meet its obligations.

In 2009 the Office of the Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration calculated an unfunded obligation of $15.1 trillion for the Social Security program. The unfunded obligation is the difference between the present value of the cost of Social Security and the present value of the assets in the Trust Fund and the future scheduled tax income of the program. In the Actuarial Note explaining the calculation, the Office of the Chief Actuary wrote that "The term obligation is used in lieu of the term liability, because liability generally indicates a contractual obligation (as in the case of private pensions and insurance) that cannot be altered by the plan sponsor without the agreement of the plan participants."

IMO it would be unwise to count on SS as the majority of your retirement income if retirement is still a couple decades away. All it takes for major reductions in benefits is for those still working to baulk big time over increase FDIC taxes. Politicians always know which way the wind is blowing.

Was within the last yr or two that benefits exceeded income for the first time. Heard something like this again in the last week or two, another yr where benefits exceeded income and a revised date for bankruptcy moved up a coupe yrs sooner. Same for Medicare.

 

[Western]

Here is an article I just read you may find interesting, sorry if it has been linked already.

Avoid These 7 Social Security Sins

 

[Ken]

When first married my wife and I agreed to save 10% of income in a credit union. So it grew at and admazing rate. I retired at 59 and started SS at age 62 wife waited until she was 65 and draws almost the amount I receive. This will pay for the insurance and medical expenses. Live and enjoy the saved amount in the credit union .
Todays .05 to .09 interest on bank funds Have no idea what the future brings for young adults trying to get established.

We never went into debt.that wasn't covered by funds in a account. for what was purchased (wave cash at a car dealer they will find a way to get a price we would pay ) and would deduct 25% of advertised not sticker price and usually they agreed.
House purchase same idea.
Money is a exchange agreement . If you don't have it there in no reason for seller to deduct so you can purchase.
ken

 

[BTDT2]

When to take SS is like buying shoes, no one size fits all. If you have a stay at home wife, with little or no SS credits, and lack a multimillion dollar retirement account or huge inheritable pension, it may well be best to wait if you can afford to. Women normally outlive men, and the last thing I want is for my wife of many years to be forced to live on beans and rice, or be forced to choose between medication or heat. By me waiting until age 70 to collect SS, she will receive twice what she would have received had I started SS at 62 . If my reading of the law is correct, she can also start collecting SS on my credits at 62, while I'm waiting to reach 70, providing I apply and suspend at 66. If she outlives me, her benefit increases to whatever I was entitled to or was receiving at the time that, 'I moved on'.

Another consideration is the current interest rate the banks, and the 'guvmnt', are paying on savings accounts, CD's and bonds, e.g 2% less than inflation. If you look at SS as an investment and compare it to an annuity with cost of living increases (COLA), you are actually making around 8% on you investment for each year that you can afford to wait.

If on the other hand, you are approaching 62, and everyone in your family has passed away from medical problems, I suggest applying for your SS benefits, 'tomorrow'! Again, one shoe, does not fit all.

I'm 65, and if I die tomorrow, I will not have received a dime from the 35 plus years of maximum Social Security contributions, but then again, 'we' will probably get all 'our' investment back and more, when my honey lives into her late 90's as most of the women in her family have...... the important exception being she will be collecting the maximum benefit. That's the least I can do for the love of my life:thumbsup:

 

[wroughtn_harv]

I'll be 64 in a couple of months, got a letter from SS just the other laying out my benefits. I can't imagine drawing it now, but that's just me.

 

[beppington]

I'll be 64 in a couple of months, got a letter from SS just the other laying out my benefits. I can't imagine drawing it now, but that's just me.

Curious as to why?

 

[Ron JD670]

i'm coming up on 62 and am considering getting social security. anyone decide to start getting social security at 62 and a few years later regretted doing so?
i did the math assuming i live to 80 and it doesn't make sense to me to wait until 65 to get 10k over 15 years over what i would get if i started at 62.
the only thing i don't like about getting social security at 62 is that they withhold some if i earn over around 15k.

I advise people on this for a living and giving you advise based on what you've mentioned would be malpractice. Like drilling your teeth without X-rays or surgery without an MRI.

Statistically the average man approaching SS age will live into the early 80s. So the average man will be ahead waiting. Without knowing your health and family history can't say how your odds change.

taking the benefits earlier locks in lower annual adjustments not only your base benefits.

As an advisor I would want to know what you would live on if you don't take SS benefits early? What return can you expect? Each year you delay you get a guaranteed return on your SS. can you say that for your current investments or a specific portion of them.?

I suggest sitting down with an advisor. Someone may be giving SS seminars in your area. Yes some of these people will be selling something, but a good advisor will be helpful.
Good luck
RoN

 

[JDgreen227]

Men in my family tend to die early from cancer, nobody going back 200 years has made it to 70...which is one of the reasons I retired at age 51 and plan to draw SS at age 62. As for my spouse, she will be just fine (financially) if I should die tomorrow. I cannot think of one good reason NOT to draw SS at 62.