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.
If that's the case then I should be able to file my claim with State Farm 40 years after paying monthly premiums and receive a check every month from them whether I need it or not. Insurance doesn't pay you back unless you have an incident and file a claim. SS was designed to pay pack those who put money into it. There's no need to show how you have suffered an injury.
You may have misunderstood the analogy; no one is saying you need to be injured or destitute before you collect. But it WAS designed/intended to function as insurance (against pooled risk)... and not as a personal bank account, where you "get out what you put in" (with interest).
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760
The money is there because it's yours.
Not entirely true. The money is there because you and I and millions of others paid in. Depending on how the cosmic dice rolls, you could get out much more than "your money"... and more power to you, if that happens. Like insurance pools work in other regards (which was the point of examples).
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760
SS expects you to file and get some money out if it without the need of being destitute.
Agree 100%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760
If you want to treat it as auto insurance and never get a penny back after paying into it for 40 years, then no one is stopping anyone else from not filing and getting benefits.
No one is arguing that you shouldn't get anything back. Only that people should realize some will get back less than they put in, others the same amount plus a reasonable return, others much much more. Again, like insurance works, but without the need for injury or disaster to occur, before it pays out.
Not a bad deal, when you think about it!
Last edited by HeelaMonster; 06-11-2019 at 09:32 AM..
a safe withdrawal rate is based on the worst inflation numbers to date as well as the worst outcomes ..anything better is a plus ... that is the idea around planning around what is called a safe withdrawal rate ..it takes the guess work out
a safe withdrawal rate is based on the worst inflation numbers to date as well as the worst outcomes ..anything better is a plus ... that is the idea around planning around what is called a safe withdrawal rate ..it takes the guess work out
I have zero guess work with my age 70 Social Security check. I know the number within a couple bucks today and next year when I'm 62 and my inflection points are locked in, I'll know it exactly. Personally, I place a lot of value in that.
What about taxes? 100% of my portfolio withdrawals are taxable, while only 85% of my SSI would be taxable. My taxes will go down if I draw at 62, leaving me more money.
If only it were that simple. SS benefits and other sources of income can interact in unexpected ways.
Everyone needs to look at their own situation. For myself and my wife, drawing down the taxable 401k early and delaying SS will give a lesser total tax bill over the years. And for the one of us that survives the longest, having a higher amount of income coming from SS will be a benefit at tax time. This is in part due to the way that provisional income is calculated.
a safe withdrawal rate is based on the worst inflation numbers to date as well as the worst outcomes ..anything better is a plus ... that is the idea around planning around what is called a safe withdrawal rate ..it takes the guess work out
We were probably on the same page but in different books !!
I haven't touched any of my retirement funds yet so my current withdrawal rate is 0%.
This is such a personal decision . . . are you still working part-time, which would cut into the funds received? Do you need the cash for day to day living, spouse's social security options?
In my case, I am still working part-time, will be quitting at the age of 64.4. My wife is getting SS now at the FRA rate because of disability. I'm still a bit in limbo as to take my SS at 64.4? use my other funds which are not really needed? Wait and see regarding my spouse's health (stage 4 cancer ;-( ) and whether I might prefer to take survivor's benefits if the unfortunate occurs. Family history is pretty normal, not real long lives but within the normal range on average.
It is like shooting blind..... I will accept whatever when the decision is eminent.
Because I was still gainfully employed and did not want the tax burden.
Like just about everyone else I needed to buy insurance somewhere, so I kept working. Drawing Social Security at age 62, and then paying taxes on it made no sense at all.
Good for you for many staying in the job past 62 might not be a good option healthwise. Consider yourself lucky
What I've personally seen is at 85 people start to decline more rapidly.
I don't think people realize what getting older can be like. Both my parents passed at 85. Dad - eyesight almost gone, stint in his heart, could not drive, no short term memory. Mom - eyesight almost gone, A-Fib in heart, dementia, and passed in assisted living. So all the math geniuses about social security and getting every dime - remember, by the time you get the extra money you might not be in any shape to enjoy it.
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.
So true
