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 08-30-2017, 06:25 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia/South Jersey area
2,879 posts, read 1,407,237 times
Reputation: 10108

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieHere View Post
WSJ had an article only 25% of the retiree population relies solely on SS. The result of analyzying people 's tax returns.
??? not sure I'm following newbie, supposedly there are 46.2 million retirees (according to US news and world report since 2014) so if 25% of them rely solely on SS, that's still approx. 11 millions senior having a tough time.

that's alot of folks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-30-2017, 06:45 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,747,361 times
Reputation: 32309
Not everyone who relies solely on Social Security is necessarily having a tough time. The highest SS retirement benefit is something like $3,000/month. (I'm too lazy to look it up). Since we are assuming no other income, then the SS will not be subject to federal income taxation.


If we assume a paid-off house in an area with a moderate cost of living and moderate property taxes, that gives us a nice comfortable but not lavish way of life. True, it is not luxurious, but neither is it "having a tough time".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-30-2017, 07:07 PM
 
Location: 5,400 feet
2,625 posts, read 2,581,534 times
Reputation: 3679
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheEmissary View Post
Well, since soooo... many these days, seem to be nostalgic for the 50's, let's go back to the taxes rates then ...90% on Capital Gains and 70% on the highest Income Tax bracket. Social Security and Medicare would be rolling around in cash! But let's see who screams the loudest, if that were to happen!
It's pretty much a wash vs. today's tax as s percent of income. In the 1950s, there were a multitude of ways that one could shelter income that are not available today, many items that are income today that were not then and a lot of tax deductions one could take that are not available today. I have read that in the late 50s, only 200-300 taxpayers in the US paid at the top rates. I expect someone clever would pay about the same, as a total %, as now. Some, probably less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2017, 03:58 AM
 
71,662 posts, read 71,801,099 times
Reputation: 49256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Not everyone who relies solely on Social Security is necessarily having a tough time. The highest SS retirement benefit is something like $3,000/month. (I'm too lazy to look it up). Since we are assuming no other income, then the SS will not be subject to federal income taxation.


If we assume a paid-off house in an area with a moderate cost of living and moderate property taxes, that gives us a nice comfortable but not lavish way of life. True, it is not luxurious, but neither is it "having a tough time".
3538.00 a month is a max benefit . that is 42,456.00 a year . so a professional couple can see almost 85k in ss. we get around 40k a year combined . my wife had a low work history but she does get a 20k pension so i guess that brings it up to the 60k area
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2017, 08:01 AM
 
13,926 posts, read 7,422,661 times
Reputation: 25432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Yep, the first 34 posts in this thread were from 2008. The interesting thing to me is that we seem to be no closer now, nine years later, to a meltdown than we were in 2008. All this "the-government-is-the-root-of-all-evil" nonsense gets tiring.
What meltdown? The program is 70% funded. Compared to most government programs, it's in great shape.

If you want to get worried, consider Medicaid and funding for elderly long term care. Right now, it's about 30% of Medicaid spending. Most Boomers didn't save for their retirement. Easily 70% of the Boomers who land in nursing homes are going to need Medicaid to pay the bill. That's the ticking time bomb.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2017, 08:05 AM
 
Location: SoCal
13,238 posts, read 6,345,210 times
Reputation: 9854
Quote:
Originally Posted by eliza61nyc View Post
??? not sure I'm following newbie, supposedly there are 46.2 million retirees (according to US news and world report since 2014) so if 25% of them rely solely on SS, that's still approx. 11 millions senior having a tough time.

that's alot of folks
No disagreement there. But the not the majority of people, not what the media wants us to believe, like there is a retirement crisis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2017, 08:09 AM
 
13,926 posts, read 7,422,661 times
Reputation: 25432
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
3538.00 a month is a max benefit . that is 42,456.00 a year . so a professional couple can see almost 85k in ss. we get around 40k a year combined . my wife had a low work history but she does get a 20k pension so i guess that brings it up to the 60k area
My defer-to-age-70 Social Security check will be a bit more than $44K. My girlfriend's will be about $40K. The math problem is bridging to age 70 to get that full benefit. Most people haven't accumulated the wealth and have to start collecting Social Security the minute they stop working.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2017, 08:10 AM
 
6,455 posts, read 3,461,270 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovesMountains View Post
I agree with you Em, and it is sad - but in this day and age there is no excuse for people looking at social security as such an entitlement program - there has been info around for YEARS informing people that they'd better do more to look out for themselves.
My money is in that pool, money the government "forced" me to pay into as part of my retirement savings plan. That money could not be self-directed into an account of my choosing and control where I could control my investment strategy. I was forced to entrust the government to hold my retirement money, and I feel I am entitled to the amount I paid into it. The employer match amount I cannot say I'm entitled to, and that's a cost of business the employer eats although they do get a tax savings from the deduction, whereas the employee doesn't.

So they can take trust fund money, my FICA/Med withholding and tell me it's gone. Yet an employer who doesn't pay payroll taxes back (trust fund money) gets hit hard with penalties, owner liability, and more, which is deserved. The government doesn't hold themselves to the same standards they dictate in tax law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2017, 08:18 AM
 
13,926 posts, read 7,422,661 times
Reputation: 25432
Quote:
Originally Posted by metalmancpa View Post
The employer match amount I cannot say I'm entitled to, and that's a cost of business the employer eats although they do get a tax savings from the deduction, whereas the employee doesn't.
Sure you're entitled to it. The employer part of the contribution is part of your total compensation just like employer contributions to things like health insurance, dental, vision, 401(k) safe harbor or match, etc.

Inflation-adjusted, I'd have to live to 100 to break even on the combined employer and employee contributions to the Social Security program. I've been high income since I was 22.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-01-2017, 04:35 PM
 
Location: Grove City, Ohio
10,135 posts, read 12,392,750 times
Reputation: 13985
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
3538.00 a month is a max benefit . that is 42,456.00 a year . so a professional couple can see almost 85k in ss. we get around 40k a year combined . my wife had a low work history but she does get a 20k pension so i guess that brings it up to the 60k area
If my wife and I had collected at 62 we would be in extremely serious trouble collecting maybe a combined $2,200 monthly.

But I am waiting until 70, one year to go, and will collect somewhere right at $3,100. My wife started to collect at FRA last year and gets around $1,250 total combined social security and very small state pension that was wepped. But it comes to $4,350 so by waiting we nearly doubled our benefit and while we have a little more we can live very comfortably on our social security alone. That is $52,200 annually and seeing how it is exempt from state and federal taxes it is equivalent to having a $65 to $70k job without the cost of going to work.

Now for the Ponzi scheme thing.

It is impossible for Social Security to be a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme one eventually runs out of other peoples money but in the case of Social Security it will NEVER run out because they can simply print more which they will do.
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