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.
Yet it was your guy, Obama, who first proposed eliminating this "loophole" in Social Security because it benefitted mainly the wealthy. But I guess you are going to give him and the Democrats who voted for this a pass. Am I right?
I'm not an Obama fan by any stretch, but I think this is the second thing I have ever agreed with him about. The first was his stated opinion of Kanye West.
The file and suspend strategy was adding to the total budget of SS and the benefits were paid out to those needing them least. They needed that reduction to ask for some other benefits going to those more in need to be funded.
Not necessarily. It all depends on what the couple does as their alternative strategy. If they both delay until 70 and well into their 90's. One of the things that gets overlooked is that their are a lot of couples who are basing their decisions on trying to provide the maximum income for the surviving spouse. Not trying to time when they die so they get the most out of SS or the oooops I lived to long strategy.
Not necessarily. It all depends on what the couple does as their alternative strategy. If they both delay until 70 and well into their 90's. One of the things that gets overlooked is that their are a lot of couples who are basing their decisions on trying to provide the maximum income for the surviving spouse. Not trying to time when they die so they get the most out of SS or the oooops I lived to long strategy.
You may have missed my point because you just helped me make it. These are people who had alternatives. This wasn't make or break; it was make or make a little easier. My other point is that it was maximizing a benefit beyond legislated intent.
You may have missed my point because you just helped me make it. These are people who had alternatives. This wasn't make or break; it was make or make a little easier. My other point is that it was maximizing a benefit beyond legislated intent.
We are missing each other's point. What I am saying is that it may not reduce the strain on the system if I skin the cat differently and live long enough to get the same lifetime amount or more. The more affluent tend to live longer and are often able to elect to work longer.
I hope so. I have a divorced friend that is just waiting for her ex to turn 62 so she can file on his benefits. She is already 62. She does work, but could use the extra money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clemencia53
She worked for a school district and did not pay any SS. She already retired, but has continued to sub. She had breast cancer and other issues, so had to retire early.
Is she aware of the Government Pension Offset?? In her case, assuming she is collecting her teacher's pension, collecting on a spouse's SS, means that her spousal SS benefit, unless she meets fits an exemption criteria, will be reduced by 2/3 of her current pension:
Quote:
However, benefits for widows, widowers and other survivors may be reduced because of another rule called the Government Pension Offset (GPO). Under the GPO, those benefits will be cut by two-thirds of a pension you receive from a federal, state or local government job in which you were not required to pay Social Security taxes.
Example: If you get a $600 pension, two thirds or $400 must be deducted from your Social Security payment. Thus if you're eligible for a $500 spouse's, widow's, or widower's benefit, you will receive only $100 a month from Social Security ($500 - $400 = $100).
Q: Are there exceptions to the GPO?
A: Yes, there's a lengthy list of situations in which GPO will not reduce your benefits. Here's a sample of three:
You're a federal employee who switched from the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) to the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) after Dec. 31, 1987
You filed for and were entitled to a spouse's, widow's or widower's benefit before April 1, 2004
You paid Social Security taxes on your earnings for 60 months or more during the period beginning January 1988 and ending with the first month of entitlement to benefits
And if your ex-husband (male example here) was the major breadwinner and still hates you? Since the new law takes away any good reason to file and suspend (like the ability to claim retroactively from FRA), he simply waits to file until 70, and the poor (never worked, not remarried) ex-wife can't collect spousal support until then, regardless of her age.
You mean a change where the guy doesn't get screwed? That has to be a first.
There is a serious need to raise the retirement age. Life expectancies have ballooned, largely as a result of Medicare. When Social Security was designed it started at age 65 and not many people lived into their mid-70's. Now nonagenarians are common and there are plenty living into their 100's. Who's going to pay for this party?
*umm...* - I live in today's economy. Where employers routinely place a bulls'-eye on the backs of employees in their 50s.
To repeat an example from another thread: suppose your employer hits your bulls'-eye when you're in your mid-50s. You get two weeks' notice and a week's pay for every year you have worked there.
No pension plan other than a 401(k) with an insignificant match, and you have to be THERE for three years to get the match.
No vacation payouts. Many states don't require them.
Let's further speculate that you joined this lower-tier employer after a period of unemployment, and don't have much time in. Further, while you were unemployed you ate into your accumulated retirement savings because otherwise you would have been on the street. Now you're at 50% of your previous retirement savings and you're not vested in the company match with this employer.
You more than likely have a degree from a Tier III school, or none at all. Wasn't needed in 1980, and you were lulled into idiocy by the blandishments of your management - whose pay grades correlated with the number of "staff" they managed.
You are in a high COL area.
What is such a person supposed to do in the interval between being kicked to the curb at 55, and qualifying for SS at 62? - Let alone the higher "retirement" ages you advocate? Snuff him/herself out?
Witnessing their parent's circumstance will lessen the strain on SS forty years down the road. The children of this hapless 55 year old will take the lesson and opt out from breeding.
Witnessing the circumstance will do nothing for the 55 YO people in the example. Very few of them will have the stuff it takes to re-tool after twenty years of stagnation.
The employer of whom I speak was formerly a technology giant. Carly stripped and sold the most significant assets, and turned it into a commodity company. We all know where that goes - with manufacturing now exported to $8/hour countries, it's a race to the bottom. The company is left with a bloated scratch-my-back management and staffing structure, and decreasing sales (naturally). Stick a fork in it.
This is a lesson for us all. DO NOT DRINK THE KOOL-ADE.
With respect to the OP's post, increasing SS FRA is a cavalier recommendation in today's environment. The mechanisms that underpin today's environment will persist for forty years - assuming the X'ers learn the lessons.
^^This is exactly correct. The decent-paying jobs are no longer there for far too many "older" displaced workers. It's a huge problem, not talked about enough - with far-reaching consequences. Those of us already retired on this board are very fortunate. My guardian angel kept me employed until age 67-1/2. I would not counsel anyone 40 or 50 to plan on that. Best prepare early for an early job loss. Which means save, save, save - and like OP says - don't breed - or, if you do, limit it to two children, max. Even that's one too many - especially if eventually there's a divorce.
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.
That has to be a first.
