U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
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 04-04-2015, 02:54 AM
 
2,429 posts, read 3,221,383 times
Reputation: 3330

Advertisements

I still don't get why: SSA always had the policy that a person was born the day before their birthday. What's the point of THAT?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-04-2015, 08:03 AM
 
Location: Cape Elizabeth
424 posts, read 386,960 times
Reputation: 745
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdflk View Post
I still don't get why: SSA always had the policy that a person was born the day before their birthday. What's the point of THAT?
I found this answer after searching on SSA.gov: In SSA regulations, the rule is that “an individual attains a particular
age on the first moment of the day preceding the anniversary of his/her birth”. The age-attainment rule results from commonlaw definitions."

rdflk: I just re-read your post about the 1st or 2nd of the month. You were mistaken when you thought the person turning 62 on the 2nd got a benefit check for the month before: NO- they do get a check for the month they turn 62, not the month before. And, the person born on the first also gets a benefit for the month they turn 62, not the month before. They also get one extra reduction month, compared to anyone who must wait until 62+1. Both of these statements are under current law. The amendment change stated a person must be 62 THROUGHOUT the month, and only those turning 62 on the first or second meet that requirement.

Last edited by ilovemycat; 04-04-2015 at 08:18 AM.. Reason: left something out
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2015, 11:42 AM
 
Location: Hiding from Antifa?
6,394 posts, read 4,170,610 times
Reputation: 5695
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
the flip side is that social security has a hold harmless law when it comes to medicare.

when medicare rates go up if you are collecting ss already , the medicare increase can never be more than your cola adjustment.

if you are delaying then you do not fall under the protected law and your increase is unlimited.

i think if you are collecing , medicare payments for part b come off the top of your check pretax but if you have to pay them on your own they are paid with after tax money.

if your medical is more than 10% of your agi then you can list it as part of your itemized deductions but you still have to clear the standard deduction.

am i correct about part b coming out pretax ? i am not sure .
Is there any history available that shows how much Medicare premiums have gone up each year for new enrollees? If it has been increasing by a considerable amount I may sign up for it as soon as it is available.

I plan on continuing to work until 68 or higher, starting SS at FRA(Aug2016), using it to pay down some debts in anticipation of retirement. The company I work for has medical with an HSA. I am trying right now to decide whether or not to go with Medicare this August and knock down the amount being deducted from my paycheck for the medical plan plus HSA contributions, amounting to about $780/month. About half of that is HSA, which I could use later on for deductibles and copays, but If I can get a sizeable reduction going with Medicare, we could reduce our debts that much faster. My feeling is that, if we get planF we would virtually have no out of pocket expenses other than our premiums, which should be much lower than the current employer's plan cost, even after the HSA is exhausted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2015, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Hiding from Antifa?
6,394 posts, read 4,170,610 times
Reputation: 5695
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemycat View Post

The person who gets a fairly dramatic change is a person with less than 35 years of earnings- because since SSA divides by 35, there are zero years in the computation bringing down the average. So, if that person has a year of $25,000.00, they remove a zero and add $25000.00. However, if a person has 35 years or more and earns $50000.00 at age 61, they might only be removing a $40000.00 and therefore only adding $10,000.00.
If you have more than 35 years history and a substantial number of those years are at or near the maximum earnings that you had to pay into SS, any further years working will not have any significant impact over the amount you will get from SS. Remember that they apply a factor that increase the further you go back, such that max earnings 35 years ago will be calculated to be about the same as current max earnings in the formula. Of course delaying start of SS will still have an effect of the monthly payment, as before.

I went to the trouble of calculating the effect of working 5 more years at max earnings(not possible now since they raised the max considerably and my income has not kept up) and the change in what I would draw was insignificant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2015, 11:56 AM
 
Location: OH>IL>CO>CT
5,226 posts, read 8,384,895 times
Reputation: 7180
Default Part B premium history

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruzincat View Post
Is there any history available that shows how much Medicare premiums have gone up each year for new enrollees? If it has been increasing by a considerable amount I may sign up for it as soon as it is available.

I plan on continuing to work until 68 or higher, starting SS at FRA(Aug2016), using it to pay down some debts in anticipation of retirement. The company I work for has medical with an HSA. I am trying right now to decide whether or not to go with Medicare this August and knock down the amount being deducted from my paycheck for the medical plan plus HSA contributions, amounting to about $780/month. About half of that is HSA, which I could use later on for deductibles and copays, but If I can get a sizeable reduction going with Medicare, we could reduce our debts that much faster. My feeling is that, if we get planF we would virtually have no out of pocket expenses other than our premiums, which should be much lower than the current employer's plan cost, even after the HSA is exhausted.
There is a table on page 28 of this webpage starting in 1966-2014. Shows basic Part B premiums, not higher premiums for high-income enrollees.

(1st year of Medicare, $3.00/month, with CPI inflation would be about $21 today ! )

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40082.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2015, 11:57 AM
 
Location: Hiding from Antifa?
6,394 posts, read 4,170,610 times
Reputation: 5695
Quote:
Originally Posted by margarets1 View Post
Thanks arwenmatk. DH will be 63 this fall, I'll hit 62 and eligible this fall. So DH can apply now (already 62) and I can apply when I turn 62? DH was higher earner so higher SS and he doesn't want to wait until he turns 63. He wants to start [b]now[b] (his parents essentially passed before becoming eligible to collect early). So under this scenario, I can get my own and his spousal when I file at 62?

Another ??: Does the additional ss spousal support go the other way too? Suppose I pass first, and although my ss is lower, will he get my ss spousal share? I'm curious if our 'monthly income' will remain the same no matter who passes first, I guess is my question. Thank you very much
I haven't read all the way to the end of the thread yet, so, if someone has responded to this yet, I am sorry.

It is my understanding that you cannot receive your own SS and spousal(50% of spouses) at the same time. You can select to take the highest of the two.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2015, 12:02 PM
 
71,463 posts, read 71,652,652 times
Reputation: 49027
you can't collect both but which you get to pick is determined by the age you file.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2015, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Hiding from Antifa?
6,394 posts, read 4,170,610 times
Reputation: 5695
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed303 View Post
There is a table on page 28 of this webpage starting in 1966-2014. Shows basic Part B premiums, not higher premiums for high-income enrollees.

(1st year of Medicare, $3.00/month, with CPI inflation would be about $21 today ! )

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40082.pdf
WRT the higher income Part B premiums on pg 30, there are rates for individuals and couples. If one of the couples has an income higher than 85K but the total for the couple is less than 170K, what premiums apply?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2015, 12:59 PM
 
2,429 posts, read 3,221,383 times
Reputation: 3330
Quote:
Both of these statements are under current law. The amendment change stated a person must be 62 THROUGHOUT the month, and only those turning 62 on the first or second meet that requirement.
Quote:
the rule is that “an individual attains a particular age on the first moment of the day preceding the anniversary of his/her birth”. The age-attainment rule results from commonlaw definitions."
Thanks. Maybe I'm missed it I'm curious about the WHY -- WHY they did that. I don't care which definitions they chose to use as the basis, they COULD have not done it another way.

Quote:
a person must be 62 THROUGHOUT the month, and only those turning 62 on the first or second meet that requirement.
That still doesn't seem to be as fair as -- getting a benefit starting in the month IN WHICH you turn 62. THAT wouldn't favor anyone.....the way it is now favors some people over others.

Seems to me they a) complicated something that didn't need to be that complicated, and b) made if an unfair rule.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2015, 01:49 PM
 
Location: Northern panhandle WV
3,007 posts, read 2,167,665 times
Reputation: 6691
Margaret 1,

No you would not get your own and your spousal as in two payments, if you file pre FRA then you are applying for all the benefits you are entitled too, which means if your benefit is higher, than what your spousal benefit would be, that is all you get.

And as for your other question regarding if one of you dies. The survivor would only recieve whichever benefit was the higher. ex: your husband gets 2000. a month benefit, you get 1000. benefit, if your husband dies and if you are full retirement age at that time, you would then start receiving 2000. a month, and no longer get your 1000.
If you died first your husband would continue to recieve his 2000. and would get nothing on your account, so with way your joint amount is less when one of you dies.
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.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top