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 01-23-2016, 09:33 AM
 
7,185 posts, read 2,752,262 times
Reputation: 3172

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by johngolf View Post
While far from my expertise, if one did not earn AIME (as in pay in the max) in the early years ($26,460 yearly in 1967), they certainly needed those last years at AIME ($113,172 yearly in 2016) to receive the maximum.

Early on in my working life I did not make AIME. It was only later in my working career that I did.
That is the reason why SSA deducts 5 years from the 40 years between age 20 and 60 for the basic calculation, so some (5) low years don't get counted. SSA also annually updates (or indexes) the current value of old income, so that all income is treated equally. i.e., $10,000 earned in 1960 is worth much more than that in the calculation, as it is indexed to today's value.

Of course, the good news is that just about anyone who made over the max for lots of years probably has a nice nest egg and the SSA they get is just gravy. I personally don't know anyone who did, but there is always hope, eh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-23-2016, 09:37 AM
 
71,474 posts, read 71,652,652 times
Reputation: 49063
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
My wife gets my 100% spousal benefit, along with her 100% spousal benefit along with my close to max age 70 SS survivor benefit. If she passes first I get the same. We want to maximize fixed income for the surviving spouse. While not a goal for everyone a goal for us. While we are both alive we are also getting her SS benefit on her own record. We were focused on income and not aggregate over time results.


i think the way you phrased it is a bit confusing .

your wife gets 100% of her benefit plus the DIFFERENCE between 1/2 your full and her full added to hers . that is her retirement ss payment .

is that what you meant ?.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2016, 09:55 AM
 
791 posts, read 721,978 times
Reputation: 500
A little bgnd.
I am 33. I put my early earnings into RE. Just started my 401k 2.5 years agos.
I am a foreign born immigrant, with 8 years of paying into social security.
I was planning how 30 years from now, the 401k and social security will play out.

I lost my father when i was 21, and i am pretty obsessed about the survival benefits for my own spouse and child.

Thanks a lot for the pointers.

I dont see my self living super long, i will likely take ss benefits early.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2016, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Central Massachusetts
4,800 posts, read 4,843,254 times
Reputation: 6377
Quote:
Originally Posted by aramax666 View Post
A little bgnd.
I am 33. I put my early earnings into RE. Just started my 401k 2.5 years agos.
I am a foreign born immigrant, with 8 years of paying into social security.
I was planning how 30 years from now, the 401k and social security will play out.

I lost my father when i was 21, and i am pretty obsessed about the survival benefits for my own spouse and child.

Thanks a lot for the pointers.

I dont see my self living super long, i will likely take ss benefits early.


At 33 you are over thinking this. Just put as much as you can in 401k and live life. Enjoy your family and everything this country has to offer. There is no reason to even consider SS at this point in your life.

Some folks here will tell you this fund or another. I want you to live and enjoy life. It is too short. Put what you can in the work 401k. If you have an abundance of extra cash then consider other options like a Roth. But don't forget to take the kids and family to Disney. I don't actually mean go exclusively to Disney it is just my way of saying go out camping skiing fishing with the family too. Don't just fret about the future live now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2016, 10:06 AM
 
3,455 posts, read 2,323,199 times
Reputation: 6998
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
I'm sorry, but how do people close to retirement age (or not!) not know this?! Study the website BEFORE you decide to collect or you could *********rself out of a lot of money.
There, there. Feel better now?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2016, 10:09 AM
 
Location: SoCal
13,191 posts, read 6,308,074 times
Reputation: 9815
Quote:
Originally Posted by johngolf View Post
All well and good for her but if she has income and dies, you lose that. How much does it reduce your retirement from what it could have been?
I'm the wife(lol), for my pension it reduced about $30-$40 out of $1000 benefit, not much to worry about. My husband is older, not sure if it makes a difference. But on smaller pension, I might not worry too much. I have a small pension due when I'm 62, about $400, I believe if I take 50% surviving spouse, no 100% option, my husband might get $200. I'm still debating on that.

Last edited by NewbieHere; 01-23-2016 at 10:22 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2016, 10:12 AM
 
Location: SoCal
13,191 posts, read 6,308,074 times
Reputation: 9815
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
My wife gets my 100% spousal benefit, along with her 100% spousal benefit along with my close to max age 70 SS survivor benefit. If she passes first I get the same. We want to maximize fixed income for the surviving spouse. While not a goal for everyone a goal for us. While we are both alive we are also getting her SS benefit on her own record. We were focused on income and not aggregate over time results.
For SS we both have our own earnings, except if my husband goes before I'm FRA. So that's why I have life insurance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2016, 10:19 AM
 
Location: SoCal
13,191 posts, read 6,308,074 times
Reputation: 9815
Quote:
Originally Posted by kat in aiken View Post
That is the reason why SSA deducts 5 years from the 40 years between age 20 and 60 for the basic calculation, so some (5) low years don't get counted. SSA also annually updates (or indexes) the current value of old income, so that all income is treated equally. i.e., $10,000 earned in 1960 is worth much more than that in the calculation, as it is indexed to today's value.

Of course, the good news is that just about anyone who made over the max for lots of years probably has a nice nest egg and the SSA they get is just gravy. I personally don't know anyone who did, but there is always hope, eh?
SS has a multiplier factor for the earlier years. I know I had some years that I was earning $100 because it was a part time, and I think they had a multiply factor, I don't remember on top of my head. The SS might have the information.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2016, 10:42 AM
 
Location: OH>IL>CO>CT
5,229 posts, read 8,388,588 times
Reputation: 7180
Quote:
Originally Posted by johngolf View Post
While far from my expertise, if one did not earn AIME (as in pay in the max) in the early years ($26,460 yearly in 1967), they certainly needed those last years at AIME ($113,172 yearly in 2016) to receive the maximum.

Early on in my working life I did not make AIME. It was only later in my working career that I did.
You may be mis-understanding the AIME number. That is the "adjusted" maximum, not the "real dollar" max for 1967, which was $6600.

This SSA table has the actual maximums for prior years.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html

FWIW, in 1963 & 1964, while earning only $1.70/hour, I hit the then $4800 max, due to lots and lots of overtime. They became years 31 & 32 of my AIME-adjusted 35 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2016, 12:15 PM
 
20,711 posts, read 13,727,285 times
Reputation: 14383
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
i think the way you phrased it is a bit confusing .

your wife gets 100% of her benefit plus the DIFFERENCE between 1/2 your full and her full added to hers . that is her retirement ss payment .

is that what you meant ?.

Yet people like Hillary Clinton say female spouses and widows need greater "protection" via Social Security. How much more gravy can you extract simply by virtue of marriage?
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