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 01-29-2017, 07:00 PM
 
Location: North Carolina
3,293 posts, read 2,324,870 times
Reputation: 4467

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasperhobbs View Post
I really don't know if original poster of this thread is complaining about how much they will get in social security or if the real point of their post is to tell us how successful they have been all their life.
Don't we all on here make 100k+ a year, and have a 2nd house on the beach. If he does make that much, and his mother only gets $1200 a month. HELP HER OUT!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-29-2017, 07:36 PM
 
25,986 posts, read 33,003,034 times
Reputation: 32213
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlantaNative1968 View Post
If ever there were an argument for privatizing Social Security... I am 55 years old. For over 20 years I have made over six figures a year. My mother, who is still alive at 86 and is getting my deceased father's social security, receives $1200 a month from the government. My father was an uneducated blue collar worker who never made more than 8 bucks an hour base pay. He retired at 62 back in the mid 80s, so he didn't get the full benefit. My mother never worked...a home maker her entire life. So...$1200 a month...which is based on meager increases over the last 15 years. Now me, I have worked constantly since I was 15 years old, the only gap is when I took a year off while going to school when I was in my early 20s. Over 20 years now I have made over $100K a year each year. According to the SSA.gov web site, my benefit if I retire at the same age that my dad did will be $1900 a month. Yes, only $700 more than my mother who never worked and my father who was a low income worker who retired early over 30 years ago.


I am speechless. Where the heck has all our money gone for these decades paying into the government fund? This is a lesson to everyone out there in their 30s and younger. Don't even consider SS as potential income in retirement. Save as much as you possibly can as early as you can and take advantage of as many investment opportunities as you can - like 401K and Roth IRAs. Your government is squandering your social security so do not expect to get anything resembling a return on what you are paying in.
That sounds just a little off. I have SS earnings records since the age of 15 (part time of course), and have made far less than you the last 20 years, but if I retire at 62 (which I have no intention of doing) my SS benefit would be $1860 a month. I suggest you check your SSA earnings online and make sure you have the correct numbers. However, $1900 in the mid 80's is quite a bit more in today's dollars. Are you forgetting that??

And I am fine with my benefit. Frankly I think you've misunderstood the purpose of SS.

"An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children" among other things.

It is not intended to be a retirement plan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2017, 07:51 PM
 
Location: Grove City, Ohio
10,133 posts, read 12,387,762 times
Reputation: 13981
Quote:
Originally Posted by selhars View Post
And of course, if you want more you can always work longer (or make more money). Nothing says you have to start taking SS at 62.

Retire on your own savings at 62, and delay SS as long as you can to get more.
That is exactly what we are doing and it is working out well. Another year and a half and I will be 70 at which time I will take social security and receive more than $3,000/month. My wife is already getting half of my full retirement age benefit (I was among the last to be able to file and suspend) and together we will get over over $4,300 monthly which, for us anyway, will be exempt from federal and state income taxes. Yeah, we can retire on social security alone. That is exactly $1,000/week "take home" which has always been my goal.

The biggest reason I worked longer was for my wife. If I die first, statistics say I will, my wife will pick up my benefit of just under $3,100 and with a house paid and no debt she should be able to live a decent life. That is why I worked longer.

If I had taken benefits at 62 I seem to remember I would have received $1,700. Eight years of putting it off can pay greatly.

But then social security is a whole lot more than retirement. What would have happened to your wife and children if you had been killed in an auto accident 30 years ago? Imagine a young widow with two young children; what about them? Life insurance? Half a million would be nice and all but it wouldn't last through college and then what about the widow after the money runs out?

What if you had suffered a horrible injury and never been able to work again? Wife and home and two kids age 3 and 6. What then? As for me the last thing I would want to see in our country is a widow with young children begging on the street just to live. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

Social security is one of the best systems we have. It's insurance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2017, 08:06 PM
 
1,190 posts, read 659,455 times
Reputation: 1021
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlantaNative1968 View Post
If ever there were an argument for privatizing Social Security... I am 55 years old. For over 20 years I have made over six figures a year. My mother, who is still alive at 86 and is getting my deceased father's social security, receives $1200 a month from the government. My father was an uneducated blue collar worker who never made more than 8 bucks an hour base pay. He retired at 62 back in the mid 80s, so he didn't get the full benefit. My mother never worked...a home maker her entire life. So...$1200 a month...which is based on meager increases over the last 15 years. Now me, I have worked constantly since I was 15 years old, the only gap is when I took a year off while going to school when I was in my early 20s. Over 20 years now I have made over $100K a year each year. According to the SSA.gov web site, my benefit if I retire at the same age that my dad did will be $1900 a month. Yes, only $700 more than my mother who never worked and my father who was a low income worker who retired early over 30 years ago.


I am speechless. Where the heck has all our money gone for these decades paying into the government fund? This is a lesson to everyone out there in their 30s and younger. Don't even consider SS as potential income in retirement. Save as much as you possibly can as early as you can and take advantage of as many investment opportunities as you can - like 401K and Roth IRAs. Your government is squandering your social security so do not expect to get anything resembling a return on what you are paying in.
It's called Social Security Insurance. You did save some of that money right??
Especially considering you think $1900 month won't sustain your livelihood?? Even with a paid for home??
Do you have a pension or does your company offer a retirement plan, or can you open one up so do not flounder away your money?

Also your Father getting $1200 a month SS yet has worked hard yet for low wages all his life, you almost seem to want to begrudge him getting enough back to sustain his needs. This greatly concerns me. We all benefit from his hard labor, including you. Be thankful your Father was an honest hard working man. And that his efforts and others allow you to benefit from a program which is there in case you need it (disability, etc)

I cannot see your problem except the one you are creating for yourself in your mind.

Last edited by NancyDrew1; 01-29-2017 at 08:31 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2017, 08:07 PM
 
Location: Canada
5,879 posts, read 2,382,671 times
Reputation: 5340
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChessieMom View Post
That sounds just a little off. I have SS earnings records since the age of 15 (part time of course), and have made far less than you the last 20 years, but if I retire at 62 (which I have no intention of doing) my SS benefit would be $1860 a month. I suggest you check your SSA earnings online and make sure you have the correct numbers. However, $1900 in the mid 80's is quite a bit more in today's dollars. Are you forgetting that??

And I am fine with my benefit. Frankly I think you've misunderstood the purpose of SS.

"An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children" among other things.

It is not intended to be a retirement plan.
Precisely Chessie~~ I worked full time most my life then partime last 10 years ( Self-employed)..Always payed into OUR OAP ( Old age pension plan) and back in the 70's it was advised to put aside Retirement funds ( like American 401K's) as upon retirement.. NO way would OLD AGE pension ( your SS) ever keep up with COL inflation!! I know my OAP doesn't come close to making ends meet!!

My OAP amounts to about $1550.00 per month minus TAX.. yet my COL is over $3000.00 per month! So certainly do rely on my personal retirement funds to make ends meet! The only thing different for Canadians is that HC premiums are NOT an issue... Sure we may want to purchase extended Health Insurance of uncovered costs.. but compared to American's it' negligible! I also will never fear that my Home nor my assets get taken away because of catastrophic circumstances...

Complaining about SS seems rather petty.. I'd be more worried about privatizing it.. therefore NO GUARANTEE's ..It'd depend on those WALL STREET folks who wager, speculate and hedge their views.. get millions in bonus's on Citizen Dollars ..but NEVER EVER get held accountable. To demonize Government about SS and returns.. yet believe that the Wall Street Vultures would actually be on your side or in case of Retirement folks who buy into the VULTURE CULTURE Will live by the sword or DIE by the SWORD>


Example~~ Back in 2009.when the Market Dumped over 50%.. ALL Investors lost (on paper) their nest eggs. Everybody LOST ( regular citizens) lost 50%+ of their future support for retirement . BUT the actual folks who's money was INVESTED LOST BUT paid Multibillions in those bonus's .. even tho they cause innocents to LOOSE!

Anyway, old fashion ( going back 75 years +) thought was to hide CASH ( Mattress or buried ) .. My how things have changed!!

All I am saying is, Live within your means, avoid needless credit usage for immediate self gratification! THINK about tomorrow.. COL escalates regardless and income doesn't come anywhere near close to that!
Evidence is clear~~ Income levels ( living wage) have not only NOT increased ( save a few STATES) ..so need assistance.

Those who suffer get demonized.. meanwhile upper/Élitists happen to grow. Trickle down didn't work considering DOW went from 6000 to 20,000 + since 2009 crash. Ask your selves just who benefited.. Where's that TRICKLE DOWN ? This goes back over 4 decades!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2017, 08:14 PM
 
5,281 posts, read 3,321,375 times
Reputation: 6467
Quote:
Originally Posted by adams_aj View Post
Social Security is a forced retirement account which favors lower-earning workers over higher-earning workers as far as payouts go.

The assumption being that higher-earning workers had the means to create additional retirement savings from their excess earnings.

Social Security was meant to be a retirement SUPPLEMENT, not the SOLE means of support in retirement.

That's about as simple as I can phrase it. Anyone else want to take a crack at it?
You forgot to add that there was a time in US history, not too long ago (less than 85 years) when social security didn't even exist! And now people just take it for granted and think it's been around since the beginning of time!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2017, 10:46 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,916 posts, read 14,238,717 times
Reputation: 16096
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjseliga View Post
You forgot to add that there was a time in US history, not too long ago (less than 85 years) when social security didn't even exist! And now people just take it for granted and think it's been around since the beginning of time!
85 years ago 35 States had social security-like or social insurance programs. In fact, the first program was instituted in 1914 in Arizona, followed by programs in Montana, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Washington, Colorado, Maryland, California, Utah, Minnesota and Wyoming up through 1929. More States added programs between 1930 to 1935, including New York, where FDR was governor prior to being elected president in 1932.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2017, 11:03 PM
 
Location: On the road
5,947 posts, read 2,895,036 times
Reputation: 11392
Quote:
Originally Posted by markg91359 View Post
Brilliant reply, E.R. I wish I could rep you, but have to spread some around first.
I got him for you.

You owe me a pot pie.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2017, 11:06 PM
 
6,972 posts, read 3,870,340 times
Reputation: 14871
"The maximum monthly Social Security benefit payment for a person retiring in 2016 at full retirement age is $2,639. However, the maximum allowable benefit amount is only payable to those who had the maximum taxable earnings for at least 35 working years." - Investopedia

The OP's full retirement age is 67. If he retires at age 62 he will be eligible for only 70% of the maximum if he otherwise qualified for it. In 2016 that would have been $1873 so it is probably right around $1900 in 2017. I notice he has not been back and did not really ask a question; I wonder what the point of his rant was.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2017, 12:14 AM
 
1,190 posts, read 659,455 times
Reputation: 1021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
85 years ago 35 States had social security-like or social insurance programs. In fact, the first program was instituted in 1914 in Arizona, followed by programs in Montana, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Kentucky, Washington, Colorado, Maryland, California, Utah, Minnesota and Wyoming up through 1929. More States added programs between 1930 to 1935, including New York, where FDR was governor prior to being elected president in 1932.
Thank you Teacher Mircea
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