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 have one quick question about the part I'm quoting below.
Does this mean that my husband and daughter should probably both file and collect at my husband's full retirement age? Then he can keep working if he is able and maybe we could put more in savings (Roth, not SIMPLE because we won't be allowed to do that anymore). Does it make much sense to refrain from filing at full retirement age to maximize the Soc Sec amount?
Thank you again for being a wonderful, rational resource.
QUOTE
So, your daughter, once she is found to be "disabled", and the disability began before age 22 and has continued (she has not engaged in "substantial gainful activity" from age 22 to the time one of you comes on the record or has died, is due the following amounts:
On your husband (alive) 1/2 of his $1855 is $927.00.
On your husband (deceased) 75% of his $1855 is $1391.50.
She gets that even if he retires before FRA. So, if he loses his job or stops working for some reason between age 66 +4, they both should file. It is generally always advantageous to do so, because their combined benefit is $2782.00 a month, and will far exceed the reduction factor he will receive for filing before his FRA.
A child of a retired worker, when the worker is still alive, and there is only one child in the picture, receives 50% of the primary worker's FRA amount, or as SSA calls it- the PIA (primary insurance amount).
END QUOTE
Then, to paraphrase, if he and my daughter don't file and receive Soc Sec payments from FRA until age 70, he would give up $2782.00 x 44 = $122408
I have one quick question about the part I'm quoting below.
Does this mean that my husband and daughter should probably both file and collect at my husband's full retirement age? Then he can keep working if he is able and maybe we could put more in savings (Roth, not SIMPLE because we won't be allowed to do that anymore). Does it make much sense to refrain from filing at full retirement age to maximize the Soc Sec amount?
Thank you again for being a wonderful, rational resource.
QUOTE
So, your daughter, once she is found to be "disabled", and the disability began before age 22 and has continued (she has not engaged in "substantial gainful activity" from age 22 to the time one of you comes on the record or has died, is due the following amounts:
On your husband (alive) 1/2 of his $1855 is $927.00.
On your husband (deceased) 75% of his $1855 is $1391.50.
She gets that even if he retires before FRA. So, if he loses his job or stops working for some reason between age 66 +4, they both should file. It is generally always advantageous to do so, because their combined benefit is $2782.00 a month, and will far exceed the reduction factor he will receive for filing before his FRA.
A child of a retired worker, when the worker is still alive, and there is only one child in the picture, receives 50% of the primary worker's FRA amount, or as SSA calls it- the PIA (primary insurance amount).
END QUOTE
Then, to paraphrase, if he and my daughter don't file and receive Soc Sec payments from FRA until age 70, he would give up $2782.00 x 44 = $122408
yes, that was what I was driving at. He should strongly consider filing at FRA they both can receive benefits.
Luckily, I turn 62 next month and have filed for myself, my 10 year old and my 7 month old boy's. I will still be able to suspend from 66-70 and my boy's will continue to get their regular payments!
Am sorry but someone at 62 securing SS benefits for children 10 and 7mths is one of the problems with SS. Only in the USA would everyone pay the same rates but others get more out of it.
So I'm having trouble reconciling how this deal saves SSDI.
Government said a very small number of couples did file and suspend.
If you already did it you're grandfathered.
No new ones though.
How did this save SSDI ? Are they predicting how many would have filed and suspended and moving that money to SSDI ? If it were such a small amount then how does that save SSDI ?
I looked up..SSDI cost $141 billion.
They estimated file and suspend at $9 billion
According to that math SSDI is still going to be empty next year.
So certainly I must be missing something here.
Quoting myself here. I found the answer.
File and Suspend changes will only add a little bit to the fund.
What they did was reallocate payroll taxes that go into the SSDI fund.
The Social Security Act was amended and new allocations made:
The old amount 1.80 ends 12/31/2015 and the new amounts kick in as below.
They revert back to 1.80 in three years.
(S) 2.37 per centum of the wages (as so defined) paid
10 after December 31, 2015, and before January 1,
11 2019, and so reported, and
(T) 1.80 per centum of
12 the wages (as so defined) paid after December 31,
13 2018, and so reported,’’.
(above copied from the bill)
Now the new question I have....How is this going to effect the SS Trust Fund which will now get less money added per month for those 3 years. Did we just bring the crisis date of 2035 closer to the future ?
Am sorry but someone at 62 securing SS benefits for children 10 and 7mths is one of the problems with SS. Only in the USA would everyone pay the same rates but others get more out of it.
I agree with this. SS has gone too far in its breadth of coverage and needs to rein it in. One of the reasons I find Bernie Sanders' talk of "expanding" SS over the top. We don't have enough earners as it is and wages are steadily dropping both of which lead to even further reduction in SS revenues. And, he's talking about increasing revenues and thereby outlays by raising the earnings cap. For now, it's a zero sum game eventually without reforms.
I agree with this. SS has gone too far in its breadth of coverage and needs to rein it in. One of the reasons I find Bernie Sanders' talk of "expanding" SS over the top. We don't have enough earners as it is and wages are steadily dropping both of which lead to even further reduction in SS revenues. And, he's talking about increasing revenues and thereby outlays by raising the earnings cap. For now, it's a zero sum game eventually without reforms.
I believe what Bernie Sanders and the other Senators who are in favor of "expanding Social Security" mean, is not expanding the benefits, but expanding the pool of money needed to shore up the system. They favor raising the cap on the payroll tax from $118500.00 to, I believe, $250,000.00. Also, not enacting the "chained CPI" COLA formula, which would give seniors, in years there is a COLA, even less of a COLA.
In terms of children collecting, you can blame the men of the baby boomer generation. Many men, during midlife crises or whatever, divorce the older woman, marry a younger one and now have little ones. It is not 62 year old women having children who are under 18.
Am sorry but someone at 62 securing SS benefits for children 10 and 7mths is one of the problems with SS. Only in the USA would everyone pay the same rates but others get more out of it.
OASI = Old Age and Survivors' Insurance.
Jealousy is very unbecoming.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Quoting myself here. I found the answer.
File and Suspend changes will only add a little bit to the fund.
What they did was reallocate payroll taxes that go into the SSDI fund.
The Social Security Act was amended and new allocations made:
The old amount 1.80 ends 12/31/2015 and the new amounts kick in as below.
They revert back to 1.80 in three years.
(S) 2.37 per centum of the wages (as so defined) paid
10 after December 31, 2015, and before January 1,
11 2019, and so reported, and
(T) 1.80 per centum of
12 the wages (as so defined) paid after December 31,
13 2018, and so reported,’’.
(above copied from the bill)
Now the new question I have....How is this going to effect the SS Trust Fund which will now get less money added per month for those 3 years. Did we just bring the crisis date of 2035 closer to the future ?
I believe what Bernie Sanders and the other Senators who are in favor of "expanding Social Security" mean, is not expanding the benefits, but expanding the pool of money needed to shore up the system. They favor raising the cap on the payroll tax from $118500.00 to, I believe, $250,000.00. Also, not enacting the "chained CPI" COLA formula, which would give seniors, in years there is a COLA, even less of a COLA.
Thanks for that. I'm conflating so much info in my brain these days, decided to go to the horse's mouth.
Appears, income between $118,500-$250,000 is exempt.
Income OVER $250k - earned and unearned - would be subject to tax - PLUS - increases in benefits, COLA, and putting a floor on minimum SS:
Quote:
Sanders’ measure would make the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share. ...... [snip]The legislation would subject all income over $250,000 to the payroll tax. Doing so would impact only the top 1.5 percent of wage earners, the Center for Economic Policy Research has estimated.
The bill also would subject unearned household income above $250,000 to the same 6.2 percent tax as applies to most earned income. The top 0.1 percent of Americans gets about half of all capital gains income.
Asking the wealthiest Americans to contribute more into Social Security, would not only extend the solvency of Social Security through 2060, it also would allow Social Security benefits to be expanded for millions of Americans.
Increase Social Security benefits by about $65 a month for most recipients.
Increase cost-of-living Adjustments for Social Security recipients.
Provide a minimum Social Security benefit to significantly reduce the senior poverty rate.
In terms of children collecting, you can blame the men of the baby boomer generation. Many men, during midlife crises or whatever, divorce the older woman, marry a younger one and now have little ones. It is not 62 year old women having children who are under 18.
Indeed. Wonder if SS should institute rules first wife and kids get xxx, second wife and kids get yyy, etc. - or maybe prorate benefits on longevity of marriages - and put a $$ family cap on the whole shebang - or maybe assign benefits based on age of beneficiary when kids were born - or his contributions to system after their birth - or maybe all of the above.
<snip>
Now the new question I have....How is this going to effect the SS Trust Fund which will now get less money added per month for those 3 years. Did we just bring the crisis date of 2035 closer to the future ?
The Retirement and Survivors Trust Fund lost one yer. The Disability Trust Fund gained six years.
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.
