Many members here are the retirement age.I thought this article could help out some of them.
Strategies to Max Out Social Security Benefits - Yahoo! Finance
Printable View
Many members here are the retirement age.I thought this article could help out some of them.
Strategies to Max Out Social Security Benefits - Yahoo! Finance
Numbers don't lie But SSI is based on the amount you paid into it. For some its high others not .
It tells you to be smart and if necessary get help in making decisions that you have to live with for the rest of your life. Not easy finding a job when you are 60 to 70.
I read the article and also the comments from other readers (even the replies to their comments). I found their comments and replies to be more informative than the original writer. Statistics don't always shed a true light on the real situation, JMO.
Mike
I am a retired airline pilot--we could not fly beyond age 60, so it is a screwed up retirement---most pilots took ss at age 62, projected life span is 69, and you have to live past 85 to net any more $ total compared to taking the reduced amount at 62--
As I approached 62 I ran my own numbers and if I delayed until "full retirement" at age 67 it would then take ten years to break even, given the differential monthly benefit compared to the five years not taken at the lower amount, and that did not include any annual increases. For me I would have been 77 before I was actually getting anything "extra" - in essence by delaying I would be betting SS that I was going to live well past 77, and they would be banking on the fact that I probably would not. Sure, there are some special cases that one can run for couples, survivor benefits, etc, etc, but if people don't die in the order of the analysis then the analysis is moot. All I know is what made sense to me.
Thats why I took mine at 62. where I worked we used to pay off FICA by April or May.
I am 7 months away from being able to make as much money as I want outside of SSI.And the same from medicaid/medicare.About the same time I hope to be done with all the projects for my business and back out on the road.
Jerry-I am just curious.Could pilots then fly cargo??.Quote:
Originally Posted by jerry clayton
The difficulty in all this is that you have to make decisions on what you know (profound eh?). But, is what we know valid, best guess, or most probable? I made the same choice as it seems most posting here did, start taking it at 62 in the hopes to get it while it lasts. I find that most people are under the misconception that SSI is a "secure lock box" thing, and because you get an annual "statement" that shows what you've contributed and what the expected annuity is, it appears to be an account. It's anything but. It has none of the features of a real retirement account you'd set up for yourself that is regulated for "honesty" and accountability. People bristle at calling SSI a ponzi scheme, but it looks more like that than a legitimate retirement fund/account. Approximately 10,000 boomers per day are now hitting retirement age, and will so for the next 20 or so years. Various involved government agencies that are in any way involved have projected a variety of dates certain when the pay ins won't meet the pay outs as curently prescribed, but on average the fund goes upside down in about 8-10 years. The so called "tax cut" approved through the balance of this year that was passed last week will have to shorten that window since the tax is what funds SSI in part. So this miraculous "compromise", or "getting things done" as some call it, actually makes the SSI program even more unable to meet it's future demands/promises. And they really are only promises........and promises can be broken.
We have one thread where we can rant against politicians, so that's not the point here. More is to remain in concert with the point of the article Gary linked....................prognostication and planning. For my fellow fogies plan on getting less unless you're completely without any assets in your life. My best guess is we're going to have to do some form of what's called "means testing" to keep the system appearing to have some viability. In other words, the SSI dept. will test your financial condition to see if you "really need" help from the government. At first it will be offered as only going after those filthy rich people, you know, anyone who has/or had and income over XXXX dollars. In reality that's not very many people. So then it will expand to those who have actual investment accounts in excess of YYYY dollars. This is when it will start getting more interesting, because it will start to get into those folks who thought ahead, were prudent, didn't overspend in their life, and (horrors) actually saved some money over the decades of their life just like grandma and grandpa urged them to. Unfair? Get over it!. But again, in the big scheme of things that's still a comparatively small number of people. So, doing what the politicians most often do, move the goal posts again. Start to include all assets, for instance, the value of your home, cars, rental property, and anything else that shows on a legitimate financial statement to calculate "net worth". Now you get into the fat part of the population base. In other words (slight over statement for effect), if you own ANYTHING you'll be subject to means testing. Now, depending on where you fall in the range, that doesn[t mean you'll get aced out completely on a "benefit payment", it will likey be a sliding scale, but what amounts to is if your were any kind of responsible with your income over your lifetime you'll be "penalized" to some degree or other.
Don't start crying...."But I paid in all those years, I want my money back!". Sorry, you didn't really pay into a savings/investment account.......................you paid a tax, a tax that was redistributed almost immediately after you paid it. Just like any other tax that went to highway projects, military protection, fancy jets for politicians, welfare payments, and any other gorvernment program. And since it looks like we're redefining how many people will be working in our economy, the inflow to the system will be at a much slower rate than previously. Sorry to be so grim, but articles like the one linked are incomplete if they only base their recommendations on the system remaining as it is today. That's completely unrealistic, it's economically unsustainable, not matter how many or which politicians deny it. Remember, it's an election year, and too many of your fellow citizens have demonstrated that for whatever reason(s) they choose not to look beyond the last page of their calendars.
Bob there is still a fear factor of ticking off too many people and then they wiping the slate clean of all those decision makers who don't re-fund SSI.
I am sure there are more of the mindset, that says work as long as you can, stash cash, 401 and the likes. There is 1000 a month difference if someone holds out until 67. I believe that at that age you are forced to take the money. So if you plan right given todays calculation @ 67 ssi is about 3500 a month, compared to 2300 @ 62. Folks will say for 5 years the bump it to small to be a benefit, more is always more. Back that up with income from some planed investments and you could easily see 5k a month . This works providing you own your home and all the toys ie cars, hotrods.
I grew with lots of my friends that were going to retire at 55, the big dream of the 80s. They are now retired and board to death, they will not admit it but the conversations bring out the clues that tell the truth. Only can speak for myself but I like to work it keeps me thinking and gives me another reason to get up each day. Allows me to drive my hotrod and not care about gas mileage and have the $$ to fix or upgrade. People that think that they need to bail because they aren't going to get what they put in........... Well they are exactly right and nobody does so they need to stick around and get all they can.
What I remember when I was younger was people retiring made room for those people who where just starting out and that funded SSI and new job openings.
As long as a person works they are an active contributor to that funding, age has absolutely nothing to do with that. The days of working for a company for 30 years and getting a pension are long gone. If that is what you mean by retiring so another can get started.
No Sir.I worked for 57 yrs as a contributor to this country.And I am planning to work P/T for many more.I do "try" to avoid the politics of this topic.I might be viewed as a simpleton.But for a country like ours to spend billions,heck trillions,on wars,then turn around to say we can't afford to take care of our own??. That is nonsense.And I am not one to fruitlessly vent.All I am stating is politicians had better not tick off the gray hairs.I am convinced we are equipped on how to get even.And would..............Quote:
Originally Posted by angrystroker
Stroker,Quote:
Originally Posted by angrystroker
I don't know what profession you & your buddies have worked, but the monthly SS payments you're quoting are about 20% high on the early number and more than 30% on your top number, in my experience. They calculate the monthly benefit based on your five years of highest contribution, and it's a line of diminishing returns, as I recall - i.e., if a person makes 30% more annually that results in a much smaller percentage increase from the SSA, like maybe 5%?? I hope those numbers are right for you, and that the funding continues until you get back what you paid in, and more.
As for the gray hairs "getting even", I'd like to hear how anyone is going to "get even" with a lame duck president, or even with senators and representatives who have their own seperate retirement system, totally apart from the SSA. They've all already got their lifetime pension lined up, and anyone who thinks different - well, I'd like to know how it feels to try to see through wool? But like Bob said, this is not the thread to get into bashing the politicians, right?;)
Roger-your right.Not the thread for bashing.All I am saying is us old guys knows how to get rid of people in office.
Yeah, and once there they really don't care if you boot them or not, right?? Why should they care what you, the voter thinks? They're set once elected. Did you read the part of Bob's post about the SS payments being a TAX and not a payment into a pension fund?? Maybe re-read Bob's post, s-l-o-w-l-y.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1gary
I did Roger.Honestly not looking to argue.From what I remember when I started working it wasn't that way.
Not looking to argue either, Gary, and you're right. As Bob pointed out, the system's headed for a train wreck so it indeed "...wasn't that way..." 57 years ago. As I listen to the radio talk show people that seem to be in their 40's it seems to me that many of the ones who "understand" say they would much rather have the money going into FICA rolling into their 401k where they can manage the investments. Problem is, that shuts off the tap for income to "the system". It is a dilema, and I fear that the picture Bob's painted could very well be true - reduced rates for those who saved, planned and built their 401k or worked for a solid company that provides a healthy pension, which smacks of more and more government malfeasance through the years.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1gary
Maybe if we stick to hot rod subjects when we start threads??:HMMM: Except in our "Other Thread", of course.;):LOL:;)
YES, I AGREE, enough of the politics / Gov't. "issues". One spot for it was enough. While I like to debate and listen to what others have to say + think, it's becoming a bit much. We've got a bunch of new members who I'm sure don't want to read our political preferences over and over.
yes sirQuote:
Originally Posted by 34_40
i come here to learn about cool cars.
there are literally millions of political forums online.
btw
this is my favorite car site.
the folks are helpful and supportive.
thanks!
Yes, this is a car forum, but look at the age thread and you'll see that social matters are a part of our lives. Maybe some can't walk and chew gum at the same time, but for them the option to ignore a thread that isn't of interest is the option. Nobody holds a gun to your head to read each thread. For others that want to expand what they know/believe I don't believe these sorts of matters are incongruous, only supplemental.
Alas, majority opinion may rule and this thread die, but just in case there is anyone interested in reality, right from the git-go the Social Security Plan as Roosevelt presented it was on shaky constitutional grounds. 75 years of misdirection in discussion have left the perception that is is a "retirement fund", not a tax, but that's backward (as many political games are). Here's a reference to give you a brief overview of what actually happened at the time. The original proposal was not constitutional so the program was turned into a tax to make it compliant, see "debates on constitutionality......." portion of this Wiki post:Social Security (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 34_40
I did say that while I like the debate and to listen to others opinion, I was expressing my opinion that it may be a bit much... Just my humble opinion..:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Parmenter
And yes, there are more folks with more grey in their beards than mine who can keep this thread alive and that's alright! At least it isn't an Ebay ad !! :eek:
And lastly, since my back operation, I can walk again and even while chewing bubble gum! And at 6' 3", 250 / 260 pounds, I wanna see'em hold a gun on me! I'll bet I got a bigger one! :eek::LOL::D
As the lawman said to the little lady after she asked, "But Sheriff, why do you need to carry a 45?", he replied, "Because, Ma'am, they don't make a 46." Works for me, too!!Quote:
Originally Posted by 34_40
I don't have a problem with this thread, or any similar thread dealing with social subjects. That said, people need to understand that statements of questionable veracity may be challenged or refuted. That process does not have to become argumentative, but some may take it that way. Just sayin'.....
Ouch Roger.:CRY::CRY::LOL::LOL:
No offense intended, Gary. Jus' sayin', once a thread is started it takes on a life of it's own, so don't be offended if it's on a tangent not anticipated, or if someone takes issue with a position stated. Nothing personal, just sayin'......Quote:
Originally Posted by 1gary
Ok I was not hearing you, thought you were saying after a certain age one could work and not be funding SS, all the while receiving SS. That is where I went off the rail, so my point was you work you pay that is all, and that you and I agree. Hammering on a keyboard subjects are not always clear to both parties.Quote:
Originally Posted by 1gary
You are quite right "for a country like ours to spend billions,heck trillions,on wars,then turn around to say we can't afford to take care of our own??"
The problem we have today is that there seems to be more and more able bodied people getting some sort of hand out, what I think I have read is 1 in 5 or 1 in 8 that is a huge figure. Talk about not taking care of people how about the veterans that come back in pieces.
"better not tick off the gray hairs.I am convinced we are equipped on how to get even." I wish I could convince myself of that. I think people have short memories and their votes are bought by professional used car salesmen. I will let it rest there.
rspears
I will never break even I know that, hell it looks like I will actually receive some SS. If I won the lottery I would opt out of SS all together I do believe there are people that do not deserve and should not take SS.
Ron Paul fun fact: he does not participate in the congressional pension BS
Well, what the heck, I may as well chime in here because I know a little bit about this. I turned 65 in January. I had my first open heart surgery at 43 and refused Social Security because I didn't feel I was disabled. If I had been off another two weeks I would have received the full amount as if I had retired at 67. After my 3rd open heart surgery and my 3rd heart attack, I decided to apply for Social Security. I am a retired Journeyman Machinist and also retired military, as well as having a total disability from VA totaling 210% for everything that they found wrong with me.
When I finally decided to apply for SS the representative told me because of the pay scale I had that I would receive the maximum amount. The Social Security is calculated by the highest 10 years of your pay, not 5. I just got a 3.6% increase and it went up to around $2100 per month after the medicare part B is deducted. There is a difference between SSI and SS. They made me apply for SSI first but I made too much money from my retirement pension, so then it reverted to SS. SSI is a state plan where SS is federal. You can be a 30 year old drug addict that has never worked in your life and get SSI (that sucks, doesn't it?).
At early retirement, at age 62-1/2, you will receive 30% less than you would if you retired at age 65-1/2 (dependent on your birth date) as it would have if I had taken normal retirement. If you can hold out to age 67, there is an additional percentage that is added to it, I am not in that age group so I can't say for sure how much more. I remember reading it at one time. Now, if you happen to have to go on SS Disability, you will receive the total amount as if you retired at age 67. If you continue working, for every dollar you make past a certain amount (it was $800 per month when I retired, but I think it is close to $900 now) per month, you have to pay back fifty cents on the dollar. Actually, they take it from your pay because they don't trust you to pay it back.
I have had a lot of conversations with people trying to decide whether to take retirement at age 62-1/2 or wait until regular retirement age. Guy's, let me tell you a little about the facts of life... at one time, I never in my life thought my health would go to crap. It can happen at any time without warning. If you take early retirement at age 62-1/5, granted, you will receive 30% less. However, you will receive it. If you wait until age 65+, your health can go to crap. That is three years that you could enjoy life in good health even though you are getting less money. Don't get the misconception that you will revert to regular SS when you reach regular retirement age. That is the drawback, it stays at the 30% reduced rate. However, you will get it for a longer period of time.
I don't claim to be an expert, but I have seen many people wait until their regular retirement age and then something happen and they don't get to enjoy it. Another thing a lot of people don't know, if you are trying to get disability, and have been turned down, you can apply for early retirement at age 62-1/2 and still keep your claim open for the disability. Then, if you get the disability, you will get the full amount retroactive to the initial application date, but you have to make sure the claim is active. After a certain amount of time without follow-ups, it becomes dormant.
I mentioned that I am a totally disabled Veteran. This is a result of my service in Viet Nam and exposure to Agent Orange causing heart problems. It was also due to the fact that I was shot, run over by a truck, crushed abdomen during combat maneuvers and several other things. I mention this because I have been working with a Viet Nam Marine that had major heart problems. He was awarded only 70% of what should have been 100% disability and could not understand why. I explained to him that it was because he was still trying to work. As long as you are working part-time or full time, you won't get the full amount. The same goes for SS Disability, you have to be off from work for a full six months before you can receive one dime.
There will be those of you that are going to ask why I am putting all of this on here? At sometime or another, someone will stumble across it that is in need of this information and I am hoping that it will help them in some way.
I now have had three open heart surgeries, three heart attacks, two strokes, have had 18 heart catherizations, have 11 stents and am on my 2nd pacemaker/defibrillator. I have to go to the Cardiologist tomorrow because the leads on the device are not making good contact and I am dreading it, but I will take anything that comes along because I have no choice. God has watched over me through all of this and I am hoping he will continue to do so. God is GREAT!
Sorry to have hijacked the thread but I hope someone will get some information out of it.
I thought I was finished, but wanted to add something else. I can't believe that I have never came across anyone else that remembers this. I specifically remember when I was a younger man. It had to be somewhere around 1969-1970 because I had a new 1969 Camaro SS 396 / 375 HP, and I only had it for a year before I flipped it 5 times end-for-end drag racing. I told you God has been watching over me:LOL:.
I remember hearing it on the news that Congress was in need for a lot of money and didn't know where to get it from. They decided to get it from Social Security. I remember hearing one of the Congressmen say that there was no way possible that Social Security would EVER need as much money as was in the funds. They took an amazing amount of the money out of what was available and never put it back. At the time it didn't make a flying fig of difference to me because of my age. I am sure that most of you were young at one time and know young people don't care about retirement. Any of you ever remember hearing it?
Ed-thanks for sharing.
President Johnson created the ‘unified budget’ in the late 1960s to disguise the real cost of the Vietnam War.[6] [7] President Johnson did not want to ask for income tax increases to pay for several ambitious government programs of that era (the Vietnam War, the Great Society War on Poverty, the NASA Space Race). Putting surpluses from Social Security overwithholding “on budget” (adding them to the general operating budget of the United States Government) so the overwithholding could be used to pay for other government programs would make the federal budget appear balanced. The resulting debt to Trust Funds would be presented “off budget.”Quote:
Originally Posted by Hurst01
In 1967 President Johnson appointed a Commission on Federal Budget Concepts which in its October 1967 report proposed a unified budget to do this. Johnson submitted the first unified budget to a Democratic Congress for Fiscal Year 1969 scheduled to begin on July 1, 1968. Thus was born the practice of using Social Security Trust Fund surpluses – or “Intra-governmental Holdings of Debt” to hide the size of the overall federal deficit.
AHAA, Thanks Bob. I have mentioned this to several others and they act like I am nuts. I know it was not my imagination. It is nice to know someone else remembers it. Like I said, at the time I was a snotty nose kid (age 24) thinking that life would go on and didn't really care. I hated listening to the news. You can bet I listen to it now to see how bad I am going to get screwed.
My whole point to my initial post was to say, depending on your financial position, if you have a chance and can afford to retire and enjoy life you should take it because of the uncertainties you may face later. This is just my own personal opinion based on my own experiences. Sooner or later, life hits you in the face, and it hurts.
I missed the link that 1Gary posted and went back to read it. What the article says has some good information. But as it also states, it is a gamble on how well your health is going to hold up. Another thing I want to mention... the SS representative told me that when I die, my wife can continue to draw her benefits or receive 82.5% of mine, whichever is greater. 82.5% of mine is considerably more than hers is now. I was placed on mandatory medicare in 2004 and things could have changed somewhat.