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.
I was finally declared disabled last October, at age 61. I'm now 62 so can technically apply for SS. Should I just be watching this or should I plan on applying for regular SS?
Wait and see how it ends up. You can always apply for SS after age 62, but hold off for now.
I was finally declared disabled last October, at age 61. I'm now 62 so can technically apply for SS. Should I just be watching this or should I plan on applying for regular SS?
Even if these proposals are enacted, they would not involve any reduction in SSDI payments. In fact, they would ensure that the SSDI fund would be secure for the next six years.
I would definitely stick with the SSDI. In monthly payments, SSDI is just under the full-age retirement benefit. Your SSDI payments will convert to retirement benefits when you reach your full retirement age. If you were to take standard retirement benefits at age 62, you would receive significantly less in monthly payments.
If there was an intent at the time to not allow it why did they write a law that enables it. Perhaps they didn't conceive of the notion.
'File-and-suspend': A Social Security strategy under fire | Reuters
White House thinks the strategy is being used to unfair advantage by high-income seniors and wants to shut it down because of the added benefit cost it imposes on the Social Security program.
..
Perhaps, but it's completely legal - approved by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton as part of a broader law called the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000. The main point of the law was to give people incentives to work longer by allowing them to work and receive full Social Security benefits after they have reached their FRA.
'File-and-suspend': A Social Security strategy under fire | Reuters
White House thinks the strategy is being used to unfair advantage by high-income seniors and wants to shut it down because of the added benefit cost it imposes on the Social Security program.
..
Perhaps, but it's completely legal - approved by the United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton as part of a broader law called the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act of 2000. The main point of the law was to give people incentives to work longer by allowing them to work and receive full Social Security benefits after they have reached their FRA.
When you establish a process the intent of those using it is irrelevant. If you fail to consider that, you ought not be in the procedure writing business. The White House an issue not as much because of who is using it but more who isn't. There are progressives who want to cap benefits at FRA because it is the affluent who tend to wait beyond that.
When you establish a process the intent of those using it is irrelevant. If you fail to consider that, you ought not be in the procedure writing business. The White House an issue not as much because of who is using it but more who isn't. There are progressives who want to cap benefits at FRA because it is the affluent who tend to wait beyond that.
Well they are closing it for all income groups, not just the affluent.
And it would be quite easy for them to specify an income range where one cannot do it.
But they aren't doing that. They are closing this for all income ranges but practically saying only the affluent do this.
Well they are closing it for all income groups, not just the affluent.
And it would be quite easy for them to specify an income range where one cannot do it.
But they aren't doing that. They are closing this for all income ranges but practically saying only the affluent do this.
Bada Bing! As I said in another thread this may be a screw up. They could have specified when they wrote the law that you needed earned income.
Here's Kotlikoff's take on the legislation. He's made errors before so I'm not yet certain that he is right on all of the issues. However, it does appear that those who are not 62 years old before 2016 will no longer having the option of choosing to draw benefits on their own account or that of their (ex) spouses.
Bada Bing! As I said in another thread this may be a screw up. They could have specified when they wrote the law that you needed earned income.
And when they do find out they screwed up they usually swing the pendulum all the way instead of truly analyzing and limiting it or restricting it to certain groups.
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.
