U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-02-2012, 02:12 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,601 posts, read 33,030,945 times
Reputation: 29158

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by UR1972 View Post
I am going back and forth about filing for early Social Security benefits at age 63. I would like to stop working but could work longer because no one is forcing me to retire, and hubby plans to work until 66 or 67. Have any of you filed for reduced benefits before 65 or 66 and regretted it several years later?
No regrets whatsoever. Retired at age 62, which was two years earlier than I had originally planned. But now, four years later, it's obvious to me that that was the right decision. Sure, I could've gotten more if I stuck it out a few more years, but at what costs to my quality of life? To me, that's more important than a few extra dollars. Besides, historically men in my family only live to about age 71. That's only five years from now for me. It comes down to an issue of grab it while you can! If I beat the average, so much the better and I'll still not regret pulling the work plug early.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-02-2012, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Kirkwood, DE and beautiful SXM!
12,054 posts, read 21,071,268 times
Reputation: 31793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluff_Dweller View Post
It is a gamble every one has to decide for themselves in my opinion UR1972
Because my dad died early, I also took mine at 62 years but was told by the social security people that I would be penalized because I had a teacher retirement income check. They were right as I started with $68 per month. That was 15 years ago and my ss check is now $180 per month. Part of my check pays for my Medicare premiums.
I have never heard of teachers being penalized when collecting SS because of teacher retirement checks. I do not understand how that can even be legal if you have paid into the system. Can you provide more details?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 03:04 PM
 
82,924 posts, read 80,410,958 times
Reputation: 58884
Many people have pensions from income that never paid much into the social security system .these people didnt have to pay in much because they had their own retirement system and either had jobs that were excluded or jobs that paid something but not the full amount in to the system.

They then collected ss as if they had a low income as the amount they paid in on record looks like they are merely just another low income earner.

The problem is low incomes are given quite a boost in the ss calculations compared to what was paid in.

They pay out alot more then what was payed in as the formula is different.

The wep law has the pension income adjusted from ss so you cant double dip and get a boosted ss payment on top of your pension.

Its very complex and only something i have very superficial knowledge of since i have no reason to learn about it myself.

Last edited by mathjak107; 12-02-2012 at 03:37 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 03:27 PM
 
Location: SW MO
23,601 posts, read 33,030,945 times
Reputation: 29158
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
Many people had pensions from income that never paid into the social security system . They then collected ss as if they had a low income too.

The problem is low incomes are given quite a boost in the ss calculations compared to what was paid in.

The wep law has the pension income subtracted from ss so you cant double dip and get a boosted ss payment on top of your pension.

Its very complex and only something i have very superficial knowledge of since i have no reason to learn about it myself.
I don't understand it either, even though I was "penalized" by it. All I do know is that my state pension was reduced by $133 a month because I would also be receiving Social Security. But then again, the pension fund reimburses me monthly for my Medicare Part B premium so I'm not really going to complain.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 03:32 PM
 
82,924 posts, read 80,410,958 times
Reputation: 58884
I did some editing above to try to explain it better.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 03:58 PM
 
Location: Lexington, SC
4,281 posts, read 11,304,254 times
Reputation: 3737
All

My wife was in the private sector for 20 years. She then did 20 years as an employee of a state government under their retirement plan. There are states that have a "deal" with the federal government (based on them not paying into SS or something along those lines) that if their employee retires under their pension plan, then the retired employee's SS will be at a "reduced" amount. This even applies to those like my wife that paid into SS prior to working for the state.

Some states refer to the program/reduced SS benefits as the "offset".

We love my wife's retirement pay and retirement benefits but she says it reduces her SS from about $1,200 per month to $400 per month.

Not complaining here...we love the monthly "state kiss".....LOL

EXCERPT:

WHAT IS THE WEP?
The WEP affects members who apply for their own (not spousal) SS benefits and fail to satisfy certain exceptions. A major exception is that members, who were eligible for their public pension before January 1, 1986 (i.e., 20/more years of service under age 55, or 10/more years over 55) or have at least 30 years of substantial coverage under Social Security, are exempt from the WEP. (There is some relief for those with 20-30 years of SS coverage.)

If a member doesn't satisfy the exceptions, then they are subject to the WEP, meaning that their SS benefits will be calculated using a different formula. Under that different formula, instead of receiving 90% of the first $606, which the member earned on the average each month (in this case, $545.40), the member would receive only 40% of their first $606 ($242.40) - more than 55% less in benefits.

WHEN DID WEP BECOME LAW?
The WEP was enacted as part of the 1983 Social Security Refinancing Act, designed to shore up the financing of the Social Security Trust Fund. That Act was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, after being adopted by the Democratic-controlled House where Rep. Dan Rostenkowski (D-IL) chaired the House Ways and Means Committee and the Republican-controlled Senate, where Sen. Robert Dole (R-KS) chaired the Senate Finance Committee.

WHAT STATES HAVE RETIREES HURT BY THE GPO AND WEP?
In addition to Massachusetts, there are 26 states that have public retirees and employees who could be hurt by either the GPO/WEP. Like the Commonwealth, the first 6 states, listed below, have almost all or a large majority of their employees not contributing to Social Security, and, therefore, potentially affected by these laws as retirees. The remaining 20 states are ranked in terms of the percent of employees who may be impacted (66-16%). They are: California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Ohio, Texas, Florida, New York, Nevada, Connecticut, Kentucky, Minnesota, Georgia, Missouri, Michigan, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Washington, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Alaska, Maine, Hawaii, Montana, New Mexico and New Hampshire.

END

Hope this helps.

PS

Rarely are teachers part of the state employment retirement system as they are not state employees. They might be part of So and So State Teachers Retirement System but in most cases, this is not the same as a "true" state employee retirement system.

Last edited by accufitgolf; 12-02-2012 at 04:12 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 04:26 PM
 
Location: Kirkwood, DE and beautiful SXM!
12,054 posts, read 21,071,268 times
Reputation: 31793
Thanks for the info. I was getting worried; and you are correct that we are not actually part of the state system.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Lexington, SC
4,281 posts, read 11,304,254 times
Reputation: 3737
Quote:
Originally Posted by SXMGirl View Post
Thanks for the info. I was getting worried; and you are correct that we are not actually part of the state system.
A male friend that was very important in teacher unions, retirement programs, etc. (in the 70-80's) once said that one of the early problems teacher faced was in the 40' and 50' most teachers were women, their income was 2nd to their husbands, and they were not very strong negotiators when it came to negotiating with men. They accepted many things that a group controlled by men would not accept.

He said it tooks more men becoming teachers to overcome 2nd rate salaries, benefits, retirements, etc.

I am not agreeing. I am just stating what he (a national teachers union figure in the 70-80's) once said.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 06:22 PM
 
6,233 posts, read 4,156,776 times
Reputation: 16400
UR1972,
Read some (or many) of the responses to the article at link below - the responses which appear after the end of the article.

Many of the responses are enlightening and food for thought concerning retiring at age 62 and collecting social security at that time. Almost all in the comments/responses agree that retiring at 62 is/was the right decision for themselves.

http://money.msn.com/baby-boomers/7-...es-will-regret
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2012, 06:33 PM
 
82,924 posts, read 80,410,958 times
Reputation: 58884
While im not disputing taking ss at 62 may be right for some those commenting about it struck me as not being very knowledable about the system either.

They all patted each other on the back for not waiting until the break even point.

There is so much more involved in the decision other then breakeven point. In fact that may be the smallest part of someones decision
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top