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.
"File and suspend" is .00002% of the solution. Otherwise, the Democratic position on entitlement reform may be concisely summed up by the slogan, "Unsustainable benefits forever!"
Typical.
The Government is spending too much money providing benefits to the American People!!
Oh I forgot to add, they better not reduce my benefits one penny!!!
No because it was done with the intent to help not penalize. This time around it appears it is driven by negative rhetoric against those with economic success. Even the White House is using anti wealthy language to describe it. I never considered you to be one on board with the Obama vision of change.
First, I think we need to be clear that everyone is speculating that the changes suggested in the President's 2015 proposed budget includes the regular "file and suspend" strategy. The language actually used in the budget is this:
In addition, the Budget proposes to eliminate aggressive Social Security claiming strategies, which allow upper-income beneficiaries to manipulate the timing of collection of Social Security benefits in order to maximize delayed retirement credits.
I'm assuming that this would include the "Claim Now, Claim More Later" strategy. However, the quoted sentence uses the plural, i.e., strategies, so it is possible that all strategies, including the regular "file and suspend" strategies are up for grabs.
Another issue that I have not yet resolved is the repeated claim that the Act included the file and suspend strategy. I read the Act and the Congressional testimony leading up to the passage of the Act and I have not yet seen language in the Act that addresses "file and suspend". If someone has seen this, I'd really appreciate posting of the link. It is more likely Social Security created the file and suspend "strategy" when creating the rules to assist in implementing the intent behind the passage of the Act.
If so, then consider that if the Social Security Agency created the file and suspend strategy via its rule making powers, it may also be able to tweak the rule without further legislation.
Let's be honest here. The Social Security system is clearly in deep doo doo. IMO, it would be malfeasance to continue to allow the use of the "file and suspend" or similar strategy by those for whom it was never intended. It is costing the program about 10 + BILLION DOLLARS/year. How can one rationally defend this given the state of the Trust Fund. It makes no sense!
Is it no wonder that those in the younger generations believe that Social Security will not be available for them when they reach retirement age? Or that the Boomers are a bunch of selfish old timers?
Thanks for the link. I definitely understand the purpose of the divorced spousal benefit for the non-working spouse in a long term marriage with a stay at home parent. What I don't get is, when we have been divorced for over 20 years and he has gone on to marry and divorce 2 other women since our divorce, why he should get to collect half the amount of my benefit. That just doesn't make sense. I know it doesn't mean anything to my spouse and me financially, it just doesn't seem right.
Everybody talks about Social Security running out of money, but how come they never talk about how welfare is running out of money?
I worked hard to pay into Social Security all of my life. To me and my wife, it was nothing more than a forced retirement account. For us, please stop calling it an "entitlement". For those who receive benefits above and beyond what they paid in (or their spouse, in the event of survivorship benefits), you can call it an "entitlement". Don't call it that for my spouse or myself.
They are basically looking at a SS system that is unsustainable and has to be reformed.One can read the trustees report on what happens if they don't by a search under present law.
Yes, but we have an entire government that operates in a mode that is not sustainable. A lot of things will change and based upon past performance it will not be great for the citizens, especially those of the future.
Lenora, you would be best able to clarify for me. Isn't file and suspend helpful to a divorced now single lady with limited SS benefits on her own and really needing spousal benefits to survive. Without file and suspend what would she do if her ex husband continued working thus denying her spousal benefits? What if she was older than him by say 3 years and had to wait until she was 73 to claim spousal benefits instead of her own meager benefit? Am I reading and understanding this right? File and Suspend was never on the table for us so I am not fully up on the full range of implications of doing away with it.
I just saw this. As noted by another poster, the divorced spouse does not need to wait for their ex to file before applying for a spousal benefit. This came about years ago because of those divorcees who deliberately delayed filing to screw over their ex.
I will undoubtedly be significantly hurt if the changes debated in this topic goes through. I was a stay at home mother for 10+ years and was only able to catch up to about 1/2 of ex's PIA because I earned a decent income when I returned to work full time. The "claim now, claim more later" option would have allowed me to eek out a little more after I reached age 70.
First, I think we need to be clear that everyone is speculating that the changes suggested in the President's 2015 proposed budget includes the regular "file and suspend" strategy. The language actually used in the budget is this:
In addition, the Budget proposes to eliminate aggressive Social Security claiming strategies, which allow upper-income beneficiaries to manipulate the timing of collection of Social Security benefits in order to maximize delayed retirement credits.
I'm assuming that this would include the "Claim Now, Claim More Later" strategy. However, the quoted sentence uses the plural, i.e., strategies, so it is possible that all strategies, including the regular "file and suspend" strategies are up for grabs.
Another issue that I have not yet resolved is the repeated claim that the Act included the file and suspend strategy. I read the Act and the Congressional testimony leading up to the passage of the Act and I have not yet seen language in the Act that addresses "file and suspend". If someone has seen this, I'd really appreciate posting of the link. It is more likely Social Security created the file and suspend "strategy" when creating the rules to assist in implementing the intent behind the passage of the Act.
If so, then consider that if the Social Security Agency created the file and suspend strategy via its rule making powers, it may also be able to tweak the rule without further legislation.
Let's be honest here. The Social Security system is clearly in deep doo doo. IMO, it would be malfeasance to continue to allow the use of the "file and suspend" or similar strategy by those for whom it was never intended. It is costing the program about 10 + BILLION DOLLARS/year. How can one rationally defend this given the state of the Trust Fund. It makes no sense!
Is it no wonder that those in the younger generations believe that Social Security will not be available for them when they reach retirement age? Or that the Boomers are a bunch of selfish old timers?
Lenora, because of pay scale differences the lawyers and accountants devising strategies are usually smarter and more creative than those writing the regs. You can see it with tax laws etc. After the ACA law mess are the American people really confident this administration could use administrative law to change SS without blowing it up? All that will happen is the wealthy will have new work around and Joe Average will be back in the dark. Just like wealth retention strategies with trust etc etc. all of this became to expensive when Joe average started being told about it.
I just saw this. As noted by another poster, the divorced spouse does not need to wait for their ex to file before applying for a spousal benefit. This came about years ago because of those divorcees who deliberately delayed filing to screw over their ex.
I will undoubtedly be significantly hurt if the changes debated in this topic goes through. I was a stay at home mother for 10+ years and was only able to catch up to about 1/2 of ex's PIA because I earned a decent income when I returned to work full time. The "claim now, claim more later" option would have allowed me to eek out a little more after I reached age 70.
Yes and that is part of my major problem with it. Folks like you who have played by the rules and are learning how to make them work for you. This is no longer a strategy for the wealthy as it has gone mainstream for those who pay attention. To categorize this as being for the wealthy is out of touch with today.
They are basically looking at a SS system that is unsustainable and has to be reformed.One can read the trustees report on what happens if they don't by a search under present law.
No they are looking at the Fall elections and wanting to say they did something on SS reform since they have backed off previous proposals because their base said no. Use the word wealthy and it sounds good. This could have been presented by the admin without jumping once again on the wealth gap train.
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.
