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 02-07-2017, 06:45 AM
 
1,985 posts, read 1,309,934 times
Reputation: 3400

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Whether or not Social Security retirement benefits are "pocket change" depends on a number of factors, including number of working years, salary/wage level, age when starting benefits, and whether we are talking about two wage earners (husband and wife) or just one.


I agree that in the case of a married couple, when both of them have 35 years of pretty good earnings under Social Security, and when they wait until age 70 to claim, then the amounts are pretty substantial - enough to live on in reasonable comfort (although not lavishly) even if there is no other income. You and your wife should be all set = congratulations!


But not everyone has all those favorable factors. Some women took years away from the work force to raise children. Other workers (both men and women) may have been out a few years due to serious illness. Others have had relatively menial jobs for a lifetime (not everyone is brilliant like all us C-D posters - LOL). Even though the latter get a favorable deal percentage-wise (as compared to high wage earners), their gross amounts are relatively low.


Still others, like myself, were in careers not subject to Social Security wages. I qualified for a minimal SS retirement (less than $200 a month at present) because of part-time jobs while in college and moon-lighting jobs during some years during my regular career. So my SS is literally pocket change, but that's O.K. because I have a decent though not lavish inflation-adjusted pension which is larger than the maximum SS payout for one individual.


It's all relative and there are many factors.
Those numbers are based on my SS earnings and her as the survivor benefit or whatever it is called.

My wife IS taking years off to raise our child, and was in jobs (teaching) that did not get subjected to SS. You just have to understand the system and plan accordingly. IF she works again it could be better. EVERYONE can take 5-10% off the top and invest in an IRA.

And I understand about the menial job thing- but that's life. Its been like that for thousands of years. You have to work to get paid.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-07-2017, 06:51 AM
 
71,763 posts, read 71,853,273 times
Reputation: 49311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Remington Steel View Post
It's called "insurance" for a reason. You GET a majority of it back in case of whatever they deem "accidental". You are saying u shouldn't get ANY SS if u make over 6 figures.
nooooo , some else said it , i said in response , that if they wanted to see anyone with 100k income not get it ,perhaps they should area adjust it . perhaps 50k in his area wouldn't get it since that is the equal to 100k here in nyc .

i am looking forward to our nice fat checks . i am just delaying filing as long as we can .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 06:55 AM
 
1,659 posts, read 823,273 times
Reputation: 2767
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
nooooo , some else said it , i said in response , that if they wanted to see anyone with 100k income not get it ,perhaps they should area adjust it . perhaps 50k in his area wouldn't get it since that is the equal to 100k here in nyc .

i am looking forward to our nice fat checks . i am just delaying filing as long as we can .
Alrighty then.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 07:28 AM
 
2,952 posts, read 1,642,565 times
Reputation: 5292
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bygeorge View Post
When I hear the word "privatize" I think scam, thievery, etc. Do I want the SS program in the hands of say Wells Fargo which scammed over 2 million customers by opening fraudulent accounts? Do I want Goldman Sachs or some fly by night hedge fund managing SS? Sorry, fuhgettaboutit. If the GOP wants to lose future elections, just mess with SS and Medicare. The Pentagon can be shut down completely and the money used for SS and MC and it will have more chance of being accepted than monkeying with SS. Yes, of course the nation is broke with a 20 trillion debt but altering SS and MC will never pass in congress. You want to see a march, just try that one. I have no solution mind you, only the feelings among those who expect SS and MC to be there as is. I have seen many "high earners" ***** about SS but who have busted a gut impoverishing ma and pa to get them on Medicaid. Yes, those rules got changed but there are still loopholes and strategies if you have the money to hire a pro to manage it. Who is kidding whom? When it comes to SS and Medicare even conservatives become socialists.

BRAVO - POST of the day! You speak the truth - all of it. Especially about the high income earner doing what they can to get mom and dad on medicaid. I know a couple, they'd let the parents be homeless before they'd pay a dime for the care. But they think they are 'good people.'


We went to BIG Bank the other day to get new credit cards (great promotion, why not) I was telling them how nice it is to come to this bank, plenty of tellers, yada yada. Somehow Well Fargo's name came up. The VP said 'we all did it because that is how the incentive was created. Then we figured out what was going on and changed the reward system. So they didn't get caught, nor did it get as big as WF.'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 08:37 AM
 
Location: Living on the Coast in Oxnard CA
15,751 posts, read 26,796,503 times
Reputation: 20398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clemencia53 View Post
Isn't there an upper limit on the amount your income is taxed for SS? Only 115K or so is taxed.
$127,000 I think for 2017
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 09:11 AM
 
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
7,328 posts, read 4,172,231 times
Reputation: 18387
Quote:
Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE View Post
$127,000 I think for 2017
Yes, the cap went up this year.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 10:10 AM
 
9,216 posts, read 9,286,664 times
Reputation: 28891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aredhel View Post
Yes, the cap went up this year.
Personally, I'd like to raise the cap and the benefits for high earners as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 12:17 PM
 
Location: Arizona
183 posts, read 112,365 times
Reputation: 734
Quote:
Originally Posted by galaxyhi View Post
I think if you have a salary of six figures or over for even HALF of those 35 of working years, there should be NO Social Security for them, PERIOD, even if they have paid in.

If they are the lucky ones to have an income exceeding the ceiling for paying into social security, they should GET NONE.

Those who reach the ceiling still contribute, they just stop paying in after they reach the max for the year. (in 2016 it was $7347...I think?? ) They start the process all over again the next year. No reason why they shouldn't be entitled to a program they contributed to.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 12:21 PM
 
71,763 posts, read 71,853,273 times
Reputation: 49311
whatever the lifestyle someone sets for themselves based on the income they have nothing that changes should ever be in their income range , just the level above
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2017, 12:56 PM
 
Location: Metropolis IL
1,603 posts, read 1,895,147 times
Reputation: 2352
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Personally, I'd like to raise the cap and the benefits for high earners as well.
I've always thought raising the cap AND the benefits, from a SS reform perspective, would defeat the purpose of raising the cap. Although, I understand why high earners would think otherwise.

One thing that can be almost certain, any future reforms in SS will benefit the government, not the recipient. The best example of this is the lobbying effort from the AARP for an enhanced elder CPI formula. This proposal has never been given the time of day in any of the many reform proposals. However, the reduced Chained CPI is included in most all of them.
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