Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 06-03-2016, 07:34 PM
 
519 posts, read 579,871 times
Reputation: 986

Advertisements

Bottom line: author makes a convincing case that a new phase in public support for SS is happening based upon of all people, Donald Trump. He, the author, sees a coalescing of opinion around eliminating the cap on income for FICA, which will push solvency out another 40 years.

Why Social Security Benefits Won't Be Cut
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-04-2016, 03:58 AM
 
Location: SoCal
20,160 posts, read 12,682,624 times
Reputation: 16993
Most likely scenario. It goes with tax the rich and the poor whole heartedly agree.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2016, 05:30 AM
 
Location: Central Ohio
10,810 posts, read 14,877,674 times
Reputation: 16474
Quote:
Originally Posted by larsm View Post
Bottom line: author makes a convincing case that a new phase in public support for SS is happening based upon of all people, Donald Trump. He, the author, sees a coalescing of opinion around eliminating the cap on income for FICA, which will push solvency out another 40 years.

Why Social Security Benefits Won't Be Cut
Very good article that demonstrates why social security will never be cut because it can't be. Imagine the politician who advocates for a cut in benefits and what would happen to his political career.

Of any "pension" type program in the country the safest bet is social security and if you don't believe that go ask some who have pensions with teh Mid States Pension Fund.

As a hard right winger the last thing I want to see is poor elderly Americans on the streets and being of retirement age I certainly don't want to be one and to solve the social security solvency issue all we need do is raise the earnings cap.

With the demise of private pension funds, like the Mid States Pension Fund, I would like to see where working people can opt to put more into social security in order to get more money when they do retire and/or be able to retire earlier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2016, 06:17 AM
 
Location: NC Piedmont
4,023 posts, read 3,784,238 times
Reputation: 6549
I really wish we would simplify benefits. If there was a straight up or down vote on whether we will provide basic services for people who are unable to afford them, I think we would agree to provide them. We want people to deserve them by putting in some effort or in the case of retirement having put in effort. We want to reward those people and give them more while scolding those who did little or nothing to deserve benefits and giving them little more than the bare minimum. Instead of doing this in one comprehensive package, we do it piecemeal and make it really complicated. One of the pieces is SS. It is the primary mechanism that provides income to seniors so they can afford room and board. At its current levels of support it has to be supplemented by other programs.

If we were to cut SS benefits, then either we abandon the premise that we will provide basic services or we end up having to increase benefits in supplemental programs. If you read many of my posts, you know I lean left more than a little and you might think I would support that since it shifts more money to helping the poor. I do think we could do a better job with helping the poor but since we don't, the last thing we need to do is create more poverty and I think cutting benefits in any meaningful way would do exactly that. "In any meaningful way" is admittedly a pretty major disclaimer; while I may support some forms of means testing I know the math isn't on my side as far as an overall solution to solvency.

Many people are totally reliant on SS in retirement and basic service costs aren't going down. Encouraging people to save money when they are barely making ends meet isn't going to fix that. Even those who should be able to save aren't doing it at a high enough rate. Voluntary savings for retirement doesn't work for everyone and I don't think it ever has or ever will.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2016, 09:56 AM
 
7,898 posts, read 7,082,094 times
Reputation: 18586
It is interesting to see all the support for a $15 per hour wages for bottom level jobs. Meanwhile many of us worked hard and contributed to social security for many decades only to receive a full time equivalent of way less than $15 per hour. In fact many retirees are getting the equivalent of less than $7 per hour.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2016, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Concord, CA
7,140 posts, read 9,224,569 times
Reputation: 25408
I thought it was interesting to discover that Trump's supporters were even more favorable to Social Security than Hillarys.

For way too many people of retirement age, SS is all they've got.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2016, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Central Ohio
10,810 posts, read 14,877,674 times
Reputation: 16474
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrkliny View Post
It is interesting to see all the support for a $15 per hour wages for bottom level jobs. Meanwhile many of us worked hard and contributed to social security for many decades only to receive a full time equivalent of way less than $15 per hour. In fact many retirees are getting the equivalent of less than $7 per hour.
From The Motley Crew The Average American Gets This Much From Social Security. How Do You Compare?

Quote:
More than half of retirees take Social Security benefits right at age 62, when they first become eligible. Only about 20% waited at least until full retirement age of 66, with only a small portion of those waiting beyond 66.
Only 20%? Why? Unless you are a)wealthy, b)dying or c)really financially desperate with nowhere else to turn, why would anyone collect at 62 and yet nearly half collect at 62



Until I looked into it I thought nearly everyone would wait until at least FRA or later yet it appears only 5% put off any time after FRA?

I my life it the willingness to work beyond 66 and not claim benefits, I am 68 now so I got myself 2 more years, is a very big deal the difference between $1,725 at 62 and $3,040 at 70 and seeing that is totally exempt from all federal and state taxes, as long as I do not have any substantial other income, I can live comfortably on SS alone. That's equivalent to a weekly "take home" paycheck of $702 which is equivalent to a $902/week gross pay here in Georgia. That's $22.55/hour and add my wife's benefit to that and we don't have any worries on social security alone only because I worked longer to get it.

We were friends with a couple where he could not wait until he hit 62 so he could retire which he did. But five years later they have complications because, sob, sob, they are getting so little yet I find it hard to feel sorry for them. For my wife and I the difference between 62 and 70 is nearly DOUBLE.

Now I am at the point that if I didn't work, if I had to quit or whatever, our standard of living would be impacted very little and that brings to me a great deal of tranquility. I am almost at the point I don't care if I work or not and I really like that feeling. Go ahead and lay me off, ask me if I care!

Two more years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2016, 12:34 PM
 
519 posts, read 579,871 times
Reputation: 986
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
From The Motley Crew The Average American Gets This Much From Social Security. How Do You Compare?



Only 20%? Why? Unless you are a)wealthy, b)dying or c)really financially desperate with nowhere else to turn, why would anyone collect at 62 and yet nearly half collect at 62



Until I looked into it I thought nearly everyone would wait until at least FRA or later yet it appears only 5% put off any time after FRA?

I my life it the willingness to work beyond 66 and not claim benefits, I am 68 now so I got myself 2 more years, is a very big deal the difference between $1,725 at 62 and $3,040 at 70 and seeing that is totally exempt from all federal and state taxes, as long as I do not have any substantial other income, I can live comfortably on SS alone. That's equivalent to a weekly "take home" paycheck of $702 which is equivalent to a $902/week gross pay here in Georgia. That's $22.55/hour and add my wife's benefit to that and we don't have any worries on social security alone only because I worked longer to get it.

We were friends with a couple where he could not wait until he hit 62 so he could retire which he did. But five years later they have complications because, sob, sob, they are getting so little yet I find it hard to feel sorry for them. For my wife and I the difference between 62 and 70 is nearly DOUBLE.

Now I am at the point that if I didn't work, if I had to quit or whatever, our standard of living would be impacted very little and that brings to me a great deal of tranquility. I am almost at the point I don't care if I work or not and I really like that feeling. Go ahead and lay me off, ask me if I care!

Two more years.
Sadly the reason so many folks take SS at 62 is because they have to in order to make ends meet. Count yourself lucky (no doubt for good planning among other reasons) that you can wait until 70. Most, as I said, do not have that luxury.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2016, 01:02 PM
 
1,587 posts, read 1,178,882 times
Reputation: 6732
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
From The Motley Crew The Average American Gets This Much From Social Security. How Do You Compare?



Only 20%? Why? Unless you are a)wealthy, b)dying or c)really financially desperate with nowhere else to turn, why would anyone collect at 62 and yet nearly half collect at 62



Until I looked into it I thought nearly everyone would wait until at least FRA or later yet it appears only 5% put off any time after FRA?

I my life it the willingness to work beyond 66 and not claim benefits, I am 68 now so I got myself 2 more years, is a very big deal the difference between $1,725 at 62 and $3,040 at 70 and seeing that is totally exempt from all federal and state taxes, as long as I do not have any substantial other income, I can live comfortably on SS alone. That's equivalent to a weekly "take home" paycheck of $702 which is equivalent to a $902/week gross pay here in Georgia. That's $22.55/hour and add my wife's benefit to that and we don't have any worries on social security alone only because I worked longer to get it.

We were friends with a couple where he could not wait until he hit 62 so he could retire which he did. But five years later they have complications because, sob, sob, they are getting so little yet I find it hard to feel sorry for them. For my wife and I the difference between 62 and 70 is nearly DOUBLE.

Now I am at the point that if I didn't work, if I had to quit or whatever, our standard of living would be impacted very little and that brings to me a great deal of tranquility. I am almost at the point I don't care if I work or not and I really like that feeling. Go ahead and lay me off, ask me if I care!

Two more years.
Agreed that waiting till beyond FRA is good sense. And filing at 70 is best- unless you are not working during the 8 years of delay. If you're not, you will end up drawing years of additional living expenses out of some other investments that you would not have had to if you had filed earlier. Case in point; looks like my numbers are similar to yours, but I will walk at FRA, and we will file at 67, not at 70. If we file at 70, we will have burned through $84K in other investments to compensate for the same yearly draw we would have had if we filed at 67. Granted, filing at 70 would make a few thousand per year more income, but it would then take us until age 82 for our 'age 70 file' income to surpass our 'age 67-file' income+$84000; it's just not worth it to us, and I assume, to others that had similar math.
YMMV
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-04-2016, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Ohio
24,623 posts, read 19,068,157 times
Reputation: 21733
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
Only 20%? Why? Unless you are a)wealthy, b)dying or c)really financially desperate with nowhere else to turn, why would anyone collect at 62 and yet nearly half collect at 62.
You fail to understand that living longer does not equate to working longer. Those are two separate things.

Many people file at 62, because it is far easier than applying for Social Security Disability.

Consider that 51.43903% of the working population earn less than $30,000 per year.

https://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2014

Why wouldn't they retire at 62 years?
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top