Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just get out of one of these 3 wars we are in and there would be SS for all who have paid into it. Why do we let these sleezbags in Washington DC continue to steal from us all?
Make that two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan). We are not participating in a war in Libya. We are only flying some air patrols, with Britain and France doing most of it anyway. There are no NATO troops on the ground. In any case, there will be Social Security for all who have paid into it, just maybe with a slightly higher age designated as the "full retirement" point.
Those of us now in our thirties and younger, possibly forties and younger, are not going to have the benefits of pensions and social security, even though we'll pay into ss our whole lives. We'll only receive a small fraction of what the older generations have been receiving, if anything at all. Most of us have 401k's through our employer that aren't doing well for us at all, and homes that we now owe more on than they're actually worth.
If you do what many educators were forced to do, and save 10% of your income after taxes starting when you were 22 yo and continued for 40 years until you are 62 I guaranteee that you will have a decent retirement.
My aunt did this starting in 1933 when she started working, and when she retired in 1985, she was sitting pretty. And she was only(wrong word actually but implying that she was not a doctor) a clerical worker her whole life.
I gotta say as a woman who never married and has worked by b&tt off I don't understand why someone (not just women) get more money just for being married. This hardly seems right. So we risk SS's financial health to give people more money just for being married? Why? No wait. It doesn't matter why I just disagree. I don't care if gays get married but this is a good reason not to support gay marriage. Its a good reason to not support civil marriage period.
Well, if that ticks you off... I work with a woman who makes really good money and at 62 she plans on taking the 50% of her EX-Spouse's SS until she reaches 66. At that point she will take her own.
She was married to him for over 10yrs so that entitles her to 50% of his... no matter how many wives he has. It is crazy.
She plans on taking the 50% at 62 cutting back her hrs at work and will still make a bundle.
Some have it and some don't.
Are you able to get a greater annual interest rate on your investment assets (you'll be drawing-down) compared to the annual rate of increase in SS benefits if you wait to collect at some age beyond 62?
I don't know where you can get a safe 5% annual rate on investments, but SS benefits increase by ~5% per year from age 62 to 66 and 8% per year from age 66 to 70. The longer you can wait to collect, the higher the figure...and that figure is paid to you for the rest of your life.
It would seem to me that it would be better to draw down a greater amount from your investment assets (that are earning a lesser rate) and wait to collect SS that will be increasing greater (dollar-for-dollar) because it will be earning a higher rate. Obviously you don't plan on dying anytime soon because you've worked-up your numbers and feel you're okay until age 95.
While the plan is to take it at age 62, I do plan to re-evaluate it the year before. Depending on how it projects out will be the deciding factor. If I end up not taking it at 62, I'll re-evaluate it each year until age 66. I believe Mathjak said a reason for taking SS early is to leave a bigger inheritance. We'd like to leave something for our kids, since it will be much harder for them when they retire.
Actually, I don't think I'll live to age 95. I just wanted to make sure the funds would outlast me. In theory, I think I can average a 5-7% return over time, with a relatively passive portfolio. Of course, this means it will range from a double digit negative return to a double digit positive return.
While the plan is to take it at age 62, I do plan to re-evaluate it the year before. Depending on how it projects out will be the deciding factor. If I end up not taking it at 62, I'll re-evaluate it each year until age 66. I believe Mathjak said a reason for taking SS early is to leave a bigger inheritance. We'd like to leave something for our kids, since it will be much harder for them when they retire.
Actually, I don't think I'll live to age 95. I just wanted to make sure the funds would outlast me. In theory, I think I can average a 5-7% return over time, with a relatively passive portfolio. Of course, this means it will range from a double digit negative return to a double digit positive return.
That's a smart plan to re-evaluate in case things change. It's my opinion that unless a retiree absolutely 'needs' (literally) the money, or is in ill-health and doesn't expect to live beyond their 70s, it's financially more prudent to let their SS benefits grow and collect later. The annual increase of SS benefits (by waiting to collect) is far greater than the rate one can [currently] get on investment assets...and that increased SS benefit amount is paid for the rest of your life. If you have retirement savings/investment assets, it makes far more sense to draw money from those dedicated retirement savings/investment assets instead of forfeiting the 5% to 8% annual increases afforded to you by waiting to collect. Once you do start collecting SS benefits (at full retirement age or even at age 70) there will be less need to pull from personal retirement savings/investment assets because you'll be collecting much more from SS...up to 75% more depending on when you start collecting. Where can you get a 75% return in 8 years (age 62 to 70) on savings/investments? You can't...
A lot (most) retirees see SS benefits becoming available to them as money, money, money ($$$$) they can get their hands on as soon as they turn age 62. They want that money 'now' (ASAP)...so they can SPEND it - spend it 'now' as soon as they get their hands on it! Chances are that 'spend' mentality has been with them all their life...and that's why they 'need' the heavily reduced pre-full retirement SS benefit amount. Chances are they didn't plan very well (at all) for their retirement by saving and investing and building up size able dedicated retirement assets. It sounds like you are smarter than that and on the right track...
Make that two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan). We are not participating in a war in Libya. We are only flying some air patrols, with Britain and France doing most of it anyway. There are no NATO troops on the ground. In any case, there will be Social Security for all who have paid into it, just maybe with a slightly higher age designated as the "full retirement" point.
Besides which SS comes out of a separate fund by law from any other spending. By law the payments have to come from the trust fund ;no where else as the trustees spoke of in their report just a few weeks ago. That is why they also reported that by law the payout will go to estimated 77% across the board as law requires.
Tell me, again, when they expect that to happen - was it 2036?
I think you've got the year right, but I'm not sure. What I wanted to add (and yes, you probably know this) is that the benefits will be reduced to 77% of normal in that year if nothing is done before then to modify the system. Some small tweaks, if done soon, can stave this off. The more we wait, the greater the changes will have to be (in order to maintain promised benefit levels). Of course the bad thing about it is that politicians in general prefer to kick the can down the road rather than make changes which they know cannot make everyone happy. It's unlikely I will live to see the year 2036 (I would be 92 then), but I do hope for the sake of people younger than I am that reasonable, small changes will be made to preserve the Social Security system for them.
I don't think anybody will have much of a can to kick at this rate.
I mean between the fed and govts monetary policies beating the dollar to death working w/ wallstreet making a killing on derivatives (both commodities/RE) and sending all the jobs overseas, never mind endless wars and debt blackholes I would think something has to give soon.
I feel for you Haggard. Some serious challenges ahead for everyone. Regarding Facebook.
Ironically, look at those Greek "cops" fighting those people. Once those Austerity measures continue for a bit you can bet those cops will be thinking they were on the wrong-side. Won't be long and their benefits will go too.
People who think it ain't gonna be me...well maybe you should look around. History ain't on your side.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
