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)
 
Old 02-01-2017, 01:38 PM
 
Location: Metropolis IL
1,595 posts, read 1,890,013 times
Reputation: 2333

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
you mean like "i met her for some drinks so i could get her drunk " ?
No, I mean "pocket change" doesn't literally mean pocket change. Mad money, spending money, don't need SS but I'll file for it when I'm 70 money. That kind of pocket change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-01-2017, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Texas
1,970 posts, read 1,372,876 times
Reputation: 6740
As I said before, I did everything wrong. Inducing rolling my total retirement into a self directed IRA, because I knew that I could invest better. That was before the market crash. Thankfully, SS does not allow this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2017, 02:17 PM
 
Location: SoCal
13,202 posts, read 6,308,074 times
Reputation: 9815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell View Post
If you want to take the 32% to 40% reduction in your benefits by claiming at age 62, it's your business. That's the deal. You can hardly complain when it's your choice. You can insert yourself into the actuarial tables wherever you want. If your health is poor and you need the money right now, early retirement at a lower income can be a good choice. If you are in excellent health and everybody in your family lives into their 90s, at least wait to FRA if not later.
That's not what is being discussed here. Your post implied the person is not correct, your wife earned less but has more in SS. It's not a debate whether to take SS at 62 or FRA or 70. You can't compare apples with oranges. You might want to clarify your comment with my wife took SS at FRA that's why it's more, not because she earned less and got more than OP as you implied.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2017, 02:35 PM
 
25,972 posts, read 32,970,649 times
Reputation: 32158
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLS2753 View Post
No, I mean "pocket change" doesn't literally mean pocket change. Mad money, spending money, don't need SS but I'll file for it when I'm 70 money. That kind of pocket change.
Yeah know what you meant. I make a good salary, but my SS definitely is not mad money, spending money, or whatever. It will be a substantial part of my retirement income. I would not want to to have to go without it!!

Last edited by ChessieMom; 02-01-2017 at 03:57 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2017, 03:20 PM
 
5,425 posts, read 3,442,945 times
Reputation: 13698
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChessieMom View Post
From the SSA site:
The maximum benefit depends on the age you retire. For example, if you retire at full retirement age in 2016, your maximum benefit would be $2,639. However, if you retire at age 62 in 2016, your maximum benefit would be $2,102. If you retire at age 70 in 2016, your maximum benefit would be $3,576.

Quote:
Originally Posted by matisse12 View Post
To clarify, most or many people never come anywhere close to those numbers. Those are just the 'maximum' amounts one can receive. (after having worked a very good job with high taxable earnings for many years)

The average amount or most common amount of Social Security people receive is $1200 or $1300 per month.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
that is and will be changing . in the past most americans took an early reduced benefit . that trend has been changing as folks get better educated as to the benefits of delaying ss . the old what if i die is slowly now turning in to what if i or my spouse live ?
Those very high maximum amounts of Social Security are received by only the people who have very high paying jobs - and most people in the U.S. have dramatically lower paying jobs compared with the highest.

Very few people receive anywhere near those maximum amounts of Social Security. I think the average salary is around $45,000 and to receive those maximum amounts one needs to make over $100,000 or quite a bit over $100,000 or have a very high salary for many years. And even though the average salary is $45,000, there are a good number in the U.S. who make less than $45,000.

Quoting the 'maximum' amounts of Social Security which can be received is very misleading.
Most people do not have that kind of high paying job which would elicit those very high amounts of Social Security nor have they received a high enough salary for the high number of years necessary. People who are new to Social Security info (and not retired yet) would get an erroneous idea about their future from reading this.

The average amount of Social Security received is $1200 or $1300. The age people take Social Security is moving upward extremely slowly, yes, but most people still don't make the high salary necessary to get anywhere close to the 'maximum' amounts. Most or many people are not able to put off taking Social Security until one's late 60's or age 70 nor are they often able to work that long. Nor do they receive a salary that is anywhere near what it takes to receive anywhere near those maximum amounts of Social Security.

Last edited by matisse12; 02-01-2017 at 03:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2017, 03:40 PM
 
Location: RVA
2,164 posts, read 1,264,598 times
Reputation: 4451
Quote:
Originally Posted by JOinGA View Post
Women who qualify on their own are penalized for any years they take out of the workforce to care for family. Where is society's value for them?
Exactly. My wife was a single working mother of 2 when we met. She had only NOT worked (as a teacher) for two years (one for each child), whether married or not. She continued to work after we married, and retired at 56. She filed and collected SS from age 62 of about $1200. My ex wife, never remarried, who worked far fewer years, at lower paying jobs, will collect almost the same amount (slightly less) off of my earnings, as her own SS based on her earnings will be miniscule in comparison. She never raised kids or kept house. Watched a lot of tv and ate a lot of ice cream. She was "in school" for most of our 10 years of marriage.

The only reason my wife kept working was to increase her small pension. I encouraged her to stop working. Why keep paying in to a system for so little benefit?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2017, 03:46 PM
 
5,425 posts, read 3,442,945 times
Reputation: 13698
good points, Perryinva. I worked 38 years and my Social Security at age 62 was $1248, and I had a very decent salary the last 22 years.

Last edited by matisse12; 02-01-2017 at 04:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2017, 04:00 PM
 
Location: OH>IL>CO>CT
5,230 posts, read 8,388,588 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed303 View Post
SSA has several calculators at https://www.ssa.gov/planners/benefitcalculators.html depending on what you are looking for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rocafeller05 View Post
I guess when I previously visited that calculator I missed where you can go beyond the basics and change when you plan stop working. Running the numbers and stopping @ 60 but delaying to FRA or 70 didn't have as much disparity as I thought it would.
Many posters here, who have done the same careful "what-if" review of their estimated benefits, have come to a similar conclusion.

Many times what happens in the last few years before claiming benefits has little effect on your FRA (aka PIA) amount. Claiming early @ 62, or delaying til 70 has its own effect on the actual payout, but not on your PIA, on which everything else is based.

In many cases, having "0" years, or even max earnings, late in the game has little effect because of the "35 highest years" being averaged, a few 0 or max years does not "move the needle" by much.

Many folks also don't realize that the numbers used in the 35 year average are adjust for inflation. Two of my own "highest 35" are actually among the lowest "real at the time" dollars. ($4800 in 1963 &1964, my first 2 years out of high school)

As always, YMMV..........
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2017, 04:05 PM
 
25,972 posts, read 32,970,649 times
Reputation: 32158
Quote:
Originally Posted by matisse12 View Post
[/color]




Those very high maximum amounts of Social Security are received by only the people who have very high paying jobs - and most people in the U.S. have dramatically lower paying jobs compared with the highest.

Very few people receive anywhere near those maximum amounts of Social Security. I think the average salary is around $45,000 and to receive those maximum amounts one needs to make over $100,000 or quite a bit over $100,000 or have a very high salary for many years. And even though the average salary is $45,000, there are a good number in the U.S. who make less than $45,000.

Quoting the 'maximum' amounts of Social Security which can be received is very misleading.
Most people do not have that kind of high paying job which would elicit those very high amounts of Social Security nor have they received a high enough salary for the high number of years necessary. People who are new to Social Security info (and not retired yet) would get an erroneous idea about their future from reading this.

The average amount of Social Security received is $1200 or $1300. The age people take Social Security is moving upward extremely slowly, yes, but most people still don't make the high salary necessary to get anywhere close to the 'maximum' amounts. Most or many people are not able to put off taking Social Security until one's late 60's or age 70 nor are they often able to work that long. Nor do they receive a salary that is anywhere near what it takes to receive anywhere near those maximum amounts of Social Security.
The actual "average" for retired workers in 2016 was 1360.13. I hoped to be above average, and apparently I succeeded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-01-2017, 04:09 PM
 
5,425 posts, read 3,442,945 times
Reputation: 13698
And then they automatically remove $104 (or $105) every month for Medicare from that very low amount of Social Security received monthly.

(no need to mention that some very low wage earners can sometimes get help with paying the $104 or $105 - one needs to be a low wage earner to possibly get any help)

Last edited by matisse12; 02-01-2017 at 04:34 PM..
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