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 Today, 08:20 AM
 
Location: SoCal
13,323 posts, read 6,375,629 times
Reputation: 9947

Advertisements

a little bit ahead of the pack, but not much. At least my husband got 90% of his FRA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Today, 08:26 AM
 
Location: Sylmar, a part of Los Angeles
4,006 posts, read 2,554,397 times
Reputation: 8586
I retired and started collecting at 62 and never regretted it one second. You don't have to work!

Note I just hit 4,000 posts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 08:58 AM
 
237 posts, read 65,462 times
Reputation: 498
I expect that ACA subsidies will cause at least a small push to taking SS at 65.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Coastal New Jersey
56,250 posts, read 54,695,623 times
Reputation: 66754
Quote:
Originally Posted by numsgal View Post
It's easy enough to check what your actual SS payment will be. The lack of knowledge lies directly at the feet of those who don't take advantage of obtaining the facts around their benefit.
Yes, that information is sent to everyone every year. I don't understand how people can claim to think it will be different from what they are told.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: http://www.city-data.com/terms.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:34 AM
 
Location: Arizona
184 posts, read 112,531 times
Reputation: 739
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
Donít forget the numbers are skewed downward too ..many get a WEP REDUCTION so they get a small ss check and and a nice pension instead... others only get spousal with no work history of their-own so they drag down the average check for those who do have a record .
I don't follow?? The benefit for those who have a work record doesn't decline if someone else is collecting on that record and it doesn't increase if there was no spousal, ex-spousal benefits etc.

This looks like a very simple graph showing the range of benefits collected, the only two criteria's being, someone who gets ss benefits and how much they are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
Think about the person who has 2 or 3 ex spouses who collect off their record for their ss and survivor benefit ...should than not be counted as additional check amounts for the provider of those ex spouseís income too ?
You're talking about a whole different kind of graph. One that showed spousal benefits would have to show how much of those benefits were from their own contributions and how much was from spousal etc. A lot more complicated to set up although it would be interesting to see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:36 AM
 
Location: SoCal
13,323 posts, read 6,375,629 times
Reputation: 9947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
Yes, that information is sent to everyone every year. I don't understand how people can claim to think it will be different from what they are told.
I think most do know, but they like the birds in the hand idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:36 AM
 
165 posts, read 93,075 times
Reputation: 328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
Yes, that information is sent to everyone every year.


i got that information once because i asked for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 10:47 AM
 
211 posts, read 151,331 times
Reputation: 633
If you like to play with actual data, here is the data tables (benefit by age) for June 2019, one for all retires, one for just men and one for just women.
Retired worker beneficiaries in current payment status at the end of
June 2019
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:24 PM
 
71,855 posts, read 71,919,037 times
Reputation: 49413
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sibay View Post
I don't follow?? The benefit for those who have a work record doesn't decline if someone else is collecting on that record and it doesn't increase if there was no spousal, ex-spousal benefits etc.

This looks like a very simple graph showing the range of benefits collected, the only two criteria's being, someone who gets ss benefits and how much they are.



You're talking about a whole different kind of graph. One that showed spousal benefits would have to show how much of those benefits were from their own contributions and how much was from spousal etc. A lot more complicated to set up although it would be interesting to see.
You are not following what I said ... a working record that shows a payout of 1650 dollars which is supposedly average is only part of the payout against that persons record ..

he can have a non working spouse get half and Ex spouses who can file restricted get half of his benefit off his record . ...so now you have lots of payouts off the same benefit record ...his work record really has 825 x every ex spouse plus his own 1650 as a benefit because that is the real deal ....there is a difference in computing the payout at 1650 vs 1650 plus every one who got a piece of his record .

There would be a huge difference in average payouts if they really calculated them as they are ...counting him at just 1650 and all the ex spouses and spouse at 825 really lowers the average and does not really reflect what is paid out on a record .


They should add all those benefits paid out to the 1650 and use that as his number ... the averages are far more then they really show if you account for spousal properly....

Just think of a paycheck .... like a paycheck where you take your gross check and distribute the alimony to as many wives as you have ...it still stays your gross earnings... if they are tracking wages they count your full check as it was paid , they don’t only count it after alimony for computing median wages.

So it is really the way they do their calculating that makes these average payouts per benefit seem far lower then is actually paid out on someone’s benefit.

What do you think median wages would like if the only counted everyone's check after alimony and child support was paid out .....

In effect they really are doing that ...while it physically is not taken off your check , it is not counted as part of your record ,but then they count the half non working spouses and ex’s get by reducing the averages of those who have the record being used .....that really lowers the averages

Last edited by mathjak107; Today at 12:35 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 12:36 PM
 
29,818 posts, read 34,907,142 times
Reputation: 11735
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
You are not following what I said ... a working record that shows a payout of 1650 dollars which is supposedly average is only part of the payout against that persons record ..

he can have a non working spouse get half and Ex spouses who can file restricted get half of his benefit off his record . ...so now you have lots of payouts off the same benefit record ...his work record really has 825 x every ex spouse plus his own 1650 as a benefit because that is the real deal ....there is a difference in computing the payout at 1650 vs 1650 plus every one who got a piece of his record .

There would be a huge difference in average payouts if they really calculated them as they are ...counting him at just 1650 and all the ex spouses and spouse at 825 really lowers the average and does not really reflect what is paid out on a record .


They should add all those benefits paid out to the 1650 and use that as his number ... the averages are far more then they really show if you account for spousal properly....

Just think of a paycheck .... like a paycheck where you take your gross check and distribute the alimony to as many wives as you have ...it still stays your gross earnings... if they are tracking wages they count your full check as it was paid , they don’t only count it after alimony for computing median wages.

So it is really the way they do their calculating that makes these average payouts per benefit seem far lower then is actually paid out on someone’s benefit.

What do you think median wages would like if the only counted everyone's check after alimony and child support was paid out .....

In effect they really are doing that ...while it physically is not taken off your check , it is not counted off your record but then they count the half non working spouses and ex’s get by reducing the averages of those who have the record being used .....that really lowers the averages
And that is a major reason for SS having financial problems. Benefits for folks that far exceedtheir contributions if any.
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

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
Similar Threads
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