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.
i think you need to step back and understand how insurance/annuity systems survive . they survive not because of just the contributions .
they survive because of mortality credits .
imagine 30 of us buying a 30 year bond that pays 3% ;. if one of us dies a year at the end of 30 years who ever survives get as a max a 3% return or our heirs do , no matter how long we live . so the return is just 3% .
but let us structure that deal differently .
the deal is now if anyone dies their bond goes back in the pool . if one of us dies a year the others share in that money . the pool for paying out allows more and more money to each person as the pool grows from contributions and mortality credits . .
at the end of 30 years last man standing gets an incredible return off a bond that only paid 3% .
so in the first example if you lived 30 years you got 3%
in the 2nd example that 3% bond paid you 12% or so .
so the ss system as all annuity and pension systems do , use the money from those who die to keep paying for those who live . without mortality credits no system could last when rates drop
Last edited by mathjak107; 02-03-2017 at 05:14 AM..
I beg to differ. The whole process needs to be overhauled. What about those poor souls who worked all their lives, paid into SS, die without any heirs/dependents All that money just suddenly "disappears"?
How does that differ from you saving all your life into a 401k or other retirement plan, you invest it, let it grow, then you die before you get to spend it? That money "disappears" also. At least the SS money that would have been paid to you now goes to someone else who needs it.
I am not sure what you expect in an over-haul. Are you wanting the government to give all of us a free pension that nobody pays for? That doesn't make sense.
Jesus people....I know how the system works. I'm just saying that the checks and balances don't add up to benefit the people who have "invested" more during their working years. And don't give me that "life isn't fair" BS. You should at least be awarded the max at an earlier retirement age since you busted your ass to earn more $$.
Yes but he was thinking of taking his SS at 62. And you replied your wife did earn much but has higher SS. But you forgot to mention she didn't take it out at 62. She delayed taking it out to get a higher payment. Get with the program please. Stop injecting inaccurate information for the purpose of insulting OP.
I did not forget to mention that.
Quote:
Your numbers do not make sense because they are wrong. My wife gets over $1900/month, and no way did she make 6 figures for 20 years. Maybe if you are planning early retirement your benefit could be reduced that far. You also didn't pay FICA on your whole income.
The OP was just whining because he thought he should get a bigger check while he was still short of retirement age.
Can't wait to go on medicare, how pathetic is that! 30 years ago no one at 60 would say that.
Pay $919.00 per month for health insurance. Yes its a good policy. Bought through the exchange. No I get no tax payer money bennies. Self employed - pickings for insurance suck in this state.
But my husband who has excellent medicare and supplement pays about $480.00 He can go anywhere in the country for care. Never has a co pay.
Yeah I got insurance envy.
30 years ago a comprehensive medical insurance plan would cost less than $100/month, and most employers provided health insurance to their employees. Even at that, medical bankruptcies were on the rise, and Reagan was pushing a federal "Catastrophic Health" oxymoron.
I thought about this thread as I opened my W2 a minute ago. The general feeling is with no SS we could have done much better with our own investments. Well I just looked at my 2017 SS contribution. I used that figure, compounded the sum by factoring in this same yearly contribution for the past 45 years at 5% and came up with a sum of money that when drawn at 4% is considerably lower than my estimated SS benefit. Now 5% is probably too conservative but keep in mind for nearly all of the 35 years I have on record with SS I didn't earn nearly the amount of money I do now so obviously my SS contributions were much much lower.
So it doesn't look like such a bad deal after all to me..
Make sure you go to your local Social Security office and speak with someone who is knowledgeable, experienced, and cares. I was misinformed along the way over the phone. Face-to-face is best. It took me several months to get my messed up situation straightened out.
Be calm,
Jay
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.
