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 08-10-2019, 09:55 PM
 
Location: Las Vegas & San Diego
284 posts, read 48,362 times
Reputation: 303

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieHere View Post
They already are, what do you mean by means testing.
Means testing meaning that if make above a certain amount or have assets above a certain amount that they cut SS benefits - here are some discussions.

From Motley fool - https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018...fect-soci.aspx

Quote:
Of the more than one dozen fixes that have been considered in the past, the idea of means-testing eligible beneficiaries is one possible solution. In its simplest form, means-testing would look at the annual income of Social Security beneficiaries and determine, based on that income, whether they'd receive a reduced benefit check, or no benefit check at all.

As an example, lawmakers could choose to implement partial reductions at say $80,000 in adjusted gross income (AGI) and cut benefits completely at $120,000 in AGI. That would mean anyone currently receiving benefits, who earned less than $80,000 in AGI in the previous year, would receive their full Social Security monthly benefit in the current year. However, if someone earned between $80,000 and $119,999 in AGI, their monthly benefit would be partially reduced. Should they make $120,000 or more in AGI, they'd forfeit their benefit entirely.
From AARP - https://www.aarp.org/content/dam/aar...i-econ-sec.pdf

Quote:
For example, under one plan individual retirees with more than $55,000 of non-Social Security retirement income would see their monthly benefits reduced. For every $1,000 of income they have over $55,000, their Social Security benefits would be reduced by about 1.8 percent. So if they had non-Social Security retirement income equal to $65,000, their benefits would be reduced by 18 percent. If they had retirement income over $110,000, they would receive no Social Security benefits. Again, the decision would be based only on their non-Social Security income.

Couples would see the means test start to reduce benefits if they had non-Social Security income equal to $110,000, and they would receive no benefits if their income was over $165,000. In the case of both individuals and couples, the decision would be based on their annual tax return.
From American Academy of Actuary -https://www.actuary.org/sites/defaul...means_0104.pdf
Quote:
Social Security expenditures could be reduced over the long term by applying a means test to retired workers and their dependents and beneficiaries otherwise eligible for benefits under the current program. Means testing would reduce or eliminate benefit payments to participants whose current income or assets exceed specified thresholds. There are many ways this could be done. For example:
● An income test could take into account all income or only “wealth-related”income, such as investment income or income from a business;
● Similarly, an asset test could include all assets or exclude widely held assets such as houses and cars;
● The means test could be applied one time when benefits begin or at regular intervals after benefits begin;
● The test could eliminate benefits altogether for those exceeding the threshold, or phase out benefits gradually as income or assets increase beyond the threshold.
● The Medicare reform package enacted by Congress late in 2003 includes means testing provisions,which increase the Part B premium for high-income retirees, and bases the cost to the participant of the new drug benefit in part on current income and assets.
Several proposals for applying means testing to Social Security benefits have been made,but the proposal that has gained the most public attention came from the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group of fiscal conservatives. The Concord Coalition made its proposal, which it calls “affluence testing,”in the mid-1990s and has not updated it recently, so some of the specific dollar thresholds are now outdated. Under affluence testing as originally proposed,Social Security benefits would begin to be reduced if family income exceeds $40,000 with reductions reaching 85 percent if family income exceeds $120,000.
From National Tax Journal - http://www.ntanet.org/NTJ/70/1/ntj-v...26893815398216
Quote:
A Social Security means test targeting benefit recipients in the top quarter of the income distribution will have substantially different distributional effects from a means test targeting the top quarter of wealth holders. Only 14.5 percent of individuals fall in the top quarters of both the income and wealth distributions. A means test based on income will reduce benefits for 10.5 percent of individuals who fall outside the top quarter of wealth holders, while a means test based on wealth will have similar consequences for those who fall outside the top quarter of the income distribution.

Last edited by ddeemo; 08-10-2019 at 10:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-10-2019, 10:43 PM
 
Location: SoCal
13,780 posts, read 6,554,801 times
Reputation: 10349
How do they know your AGI, through tax of course, which is the same as what they do now. Just do your ax and you’ll see. If I just plug in SS, I see no tax, start adding all our other income, effectively raise my AGI, and the tax is there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 02:25 AM
 
6 posts, read 1,672 times
Reputation: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasperhobbs View Post
Who are the so-called experts predicting future stock market returns?
If you Google the phrase "expected stock market returns" many websites will come up by respected financial institutions that will tell the reader that the next ten years will bring no more than 2-3% real returns AT MOST. Here is an example linked below:

[url]https://www.morningstar.com/articles/907378/experts-forecast-longterm-stock-and-bond-returns-2[/url]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 06:34 AM
 
Location: Ypsilanti, MI
2,489 posts, read 3,702,954 times
Reputation: 4901
Quote:
Originally Posted by gamboolman View Post
We are planning to take the Lump Sum.
Have a plan in place for the money before it is received.

If you read my earlier post you already know I selected the same option for the same reasons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 07:24 AM
 
290 posts, read 114,100 times
Reputation: 622
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
If you don't mind my asking, which multi-employer plans are these? All I read about are multi-employer plans that are in trouble, not multi-employer plans that are on sound financial footing.

DH's pension is from the operating engineers union. Not all of the locals are sound, but his is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 07:48 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
31,389 posts, read 13,837,119 times
Reputation: 22475
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8 Vega View Post
California is approaching a trillion in public employee union pension debt. The politicians ignore it, never say anything.
Of course they talk about it and they are trying to do something about it. PEPRA was passed in 2013 which cut pension formulas and increased employee contributions. What is needed now is an answer from the courts on the question of reducing the pension formula for current employees for non-vested wages. The state is aware of the problems and Governor Brown pushed through significant changes to mitigate the problem. You might want to google the issue rather than assume that it is being ignored.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Sylmar, a part of Los Angeles
4,060 posts, read 2,593,626 times
Reputation: 8753
I read two newspapers daily, and have the TV and radio on news on all the time. It's being ignored. Public employee unions fund California politicians election so nothing of any consequence will ever happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 08:03 AM
 
Location: SoCal
13,780 posts, read 6,554,801 times
Reputation: 10349
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8 Vega View Post
I read two newspapers daily, and have the TV and radio on news on all the time. It's being ignored. Public employee unions fund California politicians election so nothing of any consequence will ever happen.
I think they have photos of Newsom naked for ransom.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 08:26 AM
 
226 posts, read 80,152 times
Reputation: 523
Quote:
Originally Posted by V8 Vega View Post
I read two newspapers daily, and have the TV and radio on news on all the time. It's being ignored. Public employee unions fund California politicians election so nothing of any consequence will ever happen.
It has been sad to watch the California state pension system. Failure of management on numerous levels. State not funding like it should, cities that contribute to the state public pension not funding their promised contribution amount out of not having the budget to do it. Getting financial advise, and ignoring it. Without being political, what a mess they made.

I am lucky to have a pension from a county that is not part of the state system. We are in very good shape.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2019, 09:08 AM
 
29 posts, read 7,236 times
Reputation: 118
In my previous post I said our company left the multi employer pension. So the pension was not "eliminated" as the company did not run it. We just participated in it. Employees put in 7%, company put in 7%. So all reasons that pensions are usually eliminated, running them, market risk, etc. did not really apply. What did apply was the company did not want to contribute 7% across the board. They also did not want new employees that only stayed a year or two having to deal with a pension. They wanted a 401k where people came and went with their retirement. Of course, they do not run the 401k either. They outsourced that to a company that more or less resells funds. We found out later that the former CEO had run up about a million dollar black hole and it needed to be filled. So the pension change was a chance to grab a bunch of cash. Drop the contribution to 2.5% and also have some people not participate. The pension was mandatory. Sadly, I am not sure most employees knew what a bad deal it was leaving the pension. After some protests older employees were allowed to stay in the pension. So you now have a small minority that are still in the multi employer plan,and contribute the extra 4.5% that the company offloaded. The majority are in an outsourced 401k. Fend for yourself, and good luck! Things have never been the same after that and I look forward to retirement. At this point I am just hanging on for a couple more years. Watch the PBS show "can you afford to retire?" to see how United Airlines got out of their pension obligation with bankruptcy, and how 401k's can be a loser. I feel like things are worse today for people retiring, and you really need to save as a young person. That is what I tell younger workers. I hope they listen.
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
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