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 02-14-2016, 11:24 AM
 
Location: OH>IL>CO>CT
5,230 posts, read 8,392,545 times
Reputation: 7185

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by KKVegas View Post
Here's an interesting point about the day of the month that regular Social Security benefits are paid: It used to be at the beginning of the month for everyone; then they started paying it on the first, second, third, or fourth Wednesday depending on birth date. Not only that, but I think they also pushed everyone's first payment back a month. This means the government is saving itself one or two payments for everyone getting Social Security. For example, my husband started getting his benefits at 62. He turned 62 on February 24, but he didn't get his first check until April 27. I believe that under the old system, he would have gotten his first check at the beginning of March, but instead he had to wait until the end of April (almost two full months).
What looks like a 2 month delay for anyone's FIRST payment only applies to those starting AT age 62. The rules say you must be 62 for a FULL month before benefits start, and payments are always "in arrears"; ie, for the month earlier. This rule does not apply if you start benefits sometime after the month you turn 62.

https://www.socialsecurity.gov/polic...3/v62n3p51.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-14-2016, 11:26 AM
 
1,373 posts, read 781,165 times
Reputation: 1032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgustedman View Post
Here's my situation:


I would have to pay $400-$650 just for rent for an apartment. Then the utilities, then gas, insurance (Car&renters) then food then cable, then internet....

Instead, I live out of my van.

No rent
Showers/wifi/workout $37 a month (I'd do Planet Fitness but they are across town)
Gas $160 a month
food $75-125
Vehicle Insurance $34 a month ($206 every 6 months)
Mailbox $75 a year ($6 a month)
Some other expenses, but can crunch $450 easy.

Changing job to $1,450 a month....So if careful, save $800 a month?

Thing is, if I work till 62, I'll get $759 a month. I can easily survive at that rate as I have shown....


Ohh, that sounds really sad. There is no such thing like a public pension? $1,450 per month is not that much. But I would expect that someone can life a modest but normal lifestyle on such an amount.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2016, 11:43 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
21,535 posts, read 43,982,964 times
Reputation: 15135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Linda_d View Post
A FRA benefit of $1000 would be reduced to $750 if taken at 62 and increased to about $1300 if not taken until 70.
Perfect example. Essentially, by waiting to age 70, the benefit increases a whopping 73% - and possibly even more because of additional earnings.

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquietpath View Post
The worst scenario I can think of is working until 70 to get the most from SS and then dying only a few years later. I know people live into their 80s and beyond but many more die in their 70s.
My uncle retired at age 60. Biggest mistake he made. 31 years later he was alive and kicking and in good health throughout. Had a minuscule govt pension and worked at odd jobs for years after "retirement" to build up SS credits. Even worse, his employer significantly increased its pension AFTER he retired. All efforts by him and others in his situation failed to grandfather these people into this enhanced plan (they actually brought a lawsuit). He said for years he NEVER expected to be alive past 70, or he wouldn't have retired when he did. Who knew?? Obituaries here are LOADED with women living into their mid-90's. It is very common. So, I manage my finances accordingly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by galaxyhi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenora View Post
However, I wanted to correct your misunderstanding regarding Social Security Disability. Your SSDI will not be reduced at 62. When you reach your FRA your disability check will stop
SSDI transition before 62.
Lenora is correct. The SSDI transition age is FRA (full retirement age) - not age 62. FRA for you would be at least age 66. I know people who've transitioned from SSDI to SS. The transition took place at FRA.

I have heard, however, that the SSDI benefit can be reduced at transition to SS - happened to a friend of mine. She transitioned at her FRA age of 65, 3 mos. She'd been on SSDI since age 57. Her SSDI was higher than her SS benefit, so she also qualified for a SSI (Social Security Supplemental) benefit. She is also on Medicare/Medicaid, gets food stamps, literally does collect cans and other recyclables, really has to count her pennies, currently she is without a car.

*****

Another former relative, now age 75, still works 30 hours a week doing general cleanup at a restaurant. She never worked much, relies on SS benefits from a deceased husband. He died young, so the benefit isn't great - less than $1k/mo. Second marriage of 20 years ended in divorce. Because of a serious heath issue she blew through the settlement, says deceased husband's SS is higher than 1/2 of her ex's. Her earnings allow her to have a car and do a few things. She deserves better, imo.

Last edited by Ariadne22; 02-14-2016 at 12:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2016, 11:45 AM
 
1,075 posts, read 1,117,388 times
Reputation: 1416
Quote:
Originally Posted by KKVegas View Post
Not only that, but the sister would also be working part time. If she earns over about $16,000 per year and is collecting Social Security before FRA, she will lose $1.00 in Social Security benefits for every $2.00 she earns above that $16,000 threshold.
That is not correct. The money is deferred and added back after she reaches FRA. It is not lost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2016, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,745 posts, read 4,215,210 times
Reputation: 6866
Quote:
Originally Posted by galaxyhi View Post
Um ,no, I respectfully disagree.

Unless they changed it for those born after a certain year {which might apply to me} ...
Umm, best to look up the rules if someone disagrees with you on a matter of significance. This rule has been around for at least 60 years...

https://www.ssa.gov/history/dibfreeze.html

https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0410105000

https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0425501240

https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0410105005

I can see where a disabled claimant with zero earnings in one or more months of the highest 35 years would believe their retirement benefits would be reduced IF they were basing that assumption on the prior Benefit estimates issued to claimants before they became disabled. This is because the benefits estimate is based on the assumption that the claimant continued to work until her FRA and would therefore eliminate some of those zero years.

Although your earnings record is frozen at the time of onset of your disability, the disability benefit is calculated using those zero years prior to the time you became disabled. Thus, when you reach FRA the benefit remains the same unless you try working while receiving disability (contact SSA) in which case your additional earnings will be used to eliminate one or more of those zero years.

Trust me on this one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2016, 12:39 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,043,990 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by organic_donna View Post
That is not correct. The money is deferred and added back after she reaches FRA. It is not lost.


It is lost if she does not reach FRA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2016, 12:52 PM
 
33,046 posts, read 22,043,990 times
Reputation: 8970
Quote:
Originally Posted by lenora View Post
Umm, best to look up the rules if someone disagrees with you on a matter of significance. This rule has been around for at least 60 years...

https://www.ssa.gov/history/dibfreeze.html

https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0410105000

https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0425501240

https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0410105005

I can see where a disabled claimant with zero earnings in one or more months of the highest 35 years would believe their retirement benefits would be reduced IF they were basing that assumption on the prior Benefit estimates issued to claimants before they became disabled. This is because the benefits estimate is based on the assumption that the claimant continued to work until her FRA and would therefore eliminate some of those zero years.

Although your earnings record is frozen at the time of onset of your disability, the disability benefit is calculated using those zero years prior to the time you became disabled. Thus, when you reach FRA the benefit remains the same unless you try working while receiving disability (contact SSA) in which case your additional earnings will be used to eliminate one or more of those zero years.

Trust me on this one.

Well this is certainly interesting. I had about 30 months of disability benefits where I was unable to work the first 18 months and then returned to work, which triggered the Trial Work Period during which I was able to continue receiving benefits while working - with benefits ending after the 12-month trial work period.

Since I did not yet have 35 years of earnings, I expected to receive a modest annual benefit increase (on top of the annual COLA) during the trial work period because two of the zero years would be replaced by my earnings over the two calendar years in my trial work period.

I'm reading this as saying that since my earnings record was frozen at the disability onset, that's why my benefit did not increase on the basis of my trial work period earnings, but those earnings will be reflected in a benefit increase once I reach FRA?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2016, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Tucson for awhile longer
8,872 posts, read 13,545,637 times
Reputation: 29032
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disgustedman View Post
Here's my situation: I would have to pay $400-$650 just for rent for an apartment. Then the utilities, then gas, insurance (Car&renters) then food then cable, then internet....
Instead, I live out of my van.

No rent
Showers/wifi/workout $37 a month (I'd do Planet Fitness but they are across town)
Gas $160 a month
food $75-125
Vehicle Insurance $34 a month ($206 every 6 months)
Mailbox $75 a year ($6 a month)
Some other expenses, but can crunch $450 easy.

Changing job to $1,450 a month....So if careful, save $800 a month?

Thing is, if I work till 62, I'll get $759 a month. I can easily survive at that rate as I have shown....
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukas1973 View Post
Ohh, that sounds really sad. There is no such thing like a public pension? $1,450 per month is not that much. But I would expect that someone can life a modest but normal lifestyle on such an amount.
Well, if you would "expect that," do tell us how how it would work. Many Americans live on far less than $1,450 a month and some of them are raising children.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2016, 03:52 PM
 
10,812 posts, read 8,058,272 times
Reputation: 17010
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquietpath View Post
That's why I thought it might be best to retire early and only work part time. The SS + part time work would equal what she would receive working full time, and she'd have the ability to enjoy some free time and her life while she still has her health.
And what happens when she is no longer able to work part-time and has no income to supplement the reduced SS she took?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2016, 04:10 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas
13,885 posts, read 25,311,688 times
Reputation: 26361
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins View Post
I dont know the details but this might be reasonable at some stage. Until then she should make the most out of her job and find a way to save a little if working...at least an emergency fund. cutting expenses or sharing expenses with a live-in might help if she can handle a roommate.
If she wants to go the low income route there are very specific guidelines on how much she can have. They monitor bank accounts and if you have too much, you are in jeopardy of losing your benefits. You have to be very careful. Many low income seniors put nothing in their accounts other than their monthly benefits. If there is a chance she will need to go this route, she needs to start studying now.

My low income friend lives here. It's a great place. I would live there. Ovation Property Management
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