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.
Are there really that many questions/situations that require you to cite exact figures? If not, then yes, it's a humble-brag.
Yes ,there are free flow discussions with actual numbers all the time on other forums ... to get proper advice or suggestions amounts are needed ..so many things are based on income in retirement ..how you allocate and invest is dependent on assets as well ...
The friction between the haves and have nots here stifles what could otherwise be a far more useful forum for developing or improving one’s plan.
Unlike other popular forums where people come to learn or improve , you have a broader range of people here ranging from wealthy to just squeaking by . Many here are more interested in reading all these articles about how lousy everyone supposedly is doing or how little they have
Last edited by mathjak107; 10-13-2019 at 05:00 PM..
Adding a little bit more to the above insightful post (matisse12).
I worked for a large corporation for many years and after a few years started to receive statements showing me what my retirement income would be if I worked to a certain age and put in a certain number of years. It always looked so good to me, never worried.
But they didn't add to those statements that there would be massive layoffs, forced retirements well before that magic number happened (age+years service). This did happen to me and so many others. It really wrecked any future thoughts or reality of a nice retirement.
Just a word of warning to those who may feel confident their retirement will go well. Remember to take care of yourself first, savings accounts, investments, etc. are to be taken seriously.
Very true. I worked for a sub of Prudential from 1985-1995 and got downsized. Fortunately I was vested in a pension of $900/month, non-COLA. I also worked for a GE sub but it was acquired after 5 years and the acquiring company had closed its plan to new entrants although it did have a very generous 401(k). That's was another $900/month non-COLA pension from GE. I'm happy to have both but neither ended up being a gold-plated pension that was typical for those companies, and I didn't walk away from either voluntarily.
Fortunately, I'd had to read an 800-page book on Social Security for an actuarial exam and knew all about SS being part of a 3-legged stool.
It's always good to remind random readers of City-Data posts who are in their ages of 20's thru 50's that many of them will have small Social Security checks in the future and that means they need to have savings and 401(k) money in addition to Social Security......
that's who the comments on Social Security income are directed to - to help younger people know that Social Security checks can be quite small even with working 35 or 40 years with a decent income.
Many younger people do not know this. They think they will automatically receive $2000 or $2500 or more per month from Social Security which is far from the actual reality of the average check in 2019, for example, being $1461 per month....and that's before the Medicare amount of $135 or $144 per month is removed from it......
and that a large number of Social Security recipients receive way below the average of $1461. And the average Social Security check in 2017 was $1300.
A good part of the reason that the average Social Security check is so low because so many take SS at 62. I think the stat is close to 50% take at 62, maybe 1/3 wait to take at FRA and just 2% or so wait till 70. Those that wait to FRA or longer should get much more than these averages. The reason that as many do wait to even FRA is because if still working, benefits are reduced.
A good part of the reason that the average Social Security check is so low because so many take SS at 62. I think the stat is close to 50% take at 62, maybe 1/3 wait to take at FRA and just 2% or so wait till 70. Those that wait to FRA or longer should get much more than these averages. The reason that as many do wait to even FRA is because if still working, benefits are reduced.
With half the country not even earning enough to file income taxes it is no surprise their checks based on their earning would be low ....that weighs down the averages for those who have higher earnings making their checks appear lower looking at the average check size.
Personally I don’t give a rats butt about averages of anything ..all that matters at the end of the day is what I get... many with low incomes work off the books or are part of a trillion dollar under ground economy and do better then higher income earners.
Throw in the fact many don’t wait until their fra and take a reduced benefit lowers them even more. Plus you have spousal benefits which start at half for those who are claiming them pulling things down .
All I know is my wife barely worked full time in decades and was a lower wage earner and between mine which I took pre fra at 65 and hers we end up with 40k. She also gets an additional 20k survivor pension from her deceased husband .
Had she not been married to me her own ss check would be quite low but that does not reflect the fact she gets a 20k pension too ...so I have no clue what these average check number of 1600 bucks or so are really supposed to mean as publicized
Last edited by mathjak107; 10-14-2019 at 06:00 AM..
I find it interesting that many people who do not work 35 years of anything appreciable, still think they should be getting a lot larger SS check. My mother was lucky to get 40 quarters in with the occasional work she did, all of it low income. She paid herself a low salary when they started their own company, but did a lot of corporation transactions to avoid taxes, and SS. And if course when she and DF both filed at 62, she ranted about how it was way less than it was supposed to be “for as much as we paid in”. After she died and we were destroying her paperwork, I found her last SS statement where she had contributed less than 15k total!! Both of them received way more than they contributed, even with moderate interest, despite her passing at 69 and DF at 80, (so yes, filing at 62 actually ended up making sense for them)
They both retired at 53, never put in 35 years, and collected early. This attitude is so inexplicable to me. I absolutely will not file before FRA, (unless something health wise forces it) and will push it as far as I can/want. DW is already hinting at I should file earlier because “what good is that money later, it wouldn’t have helped our parents at all”. I can’t seem to make her understand it means more available income funds NOW, by delaying, not less, IF either of us lives past 82. A lot of people are math challenged.
Last edited by Perryinva; 10-14-2019 at 07:03 AM..
I find it interesting that many people who do not work 35 years of anything appreciable, still think they should be getting a lot larger SS check. My mother was lucky to get 40 quarters in with the occasional work she did, all of it low income. She paid herself a low salary when they started their own company, but did a lot of corporation transactions to avoid taxes, and SS. And if course when she and DF both filed at 62, she ranted about how it was way less than it was supposed to be “for as much as we paid in”. After she died and we were destroying her paperwork, I found her last SS statement where she had contributed less than 15k total!! Both of them received way more than they contributed, even with moderate interest, despite her passing at 69 and DF at 80, (so yes, filing at 62 actually ended up making sense for them)
They both retired at 53, never put in 35 years, and collected early. This attitude is so inexplicable to me. I absolutely will not file before FRA, (unless something health wise forces it) and will push it as far as I can/want. DW is already hinting at I should file earlier because “what good is that money later, it wouldn’t have helped our parents at all”. I can’t seem to make her understand it means more available income funds NOW, by delaying, not less, IF either of us lives past 82. A lot of people are math challenged.
Perhaps you should check your math. You realize that the amount “she had contributed” has to be adjusted to its future value? At minimum that $15K would be worth at least double after twenty years.
As for what age a person decides to collect SS, that depends on many factors, current health, family longevity, savings, etc. There is no correct answer.
Ss is means tested in the sense that low income earners get up to 6x the benefits per dollar paid in that a high earner gets back ....low income earners will always look better per dollar
Well, it is better than nothing, but a $32.00 a month increase to a currently $2,000 SS benefit won't even buy an extra five days' worth of groceries for the average person or even a full tank of gas.
Still, as I said, it's better than nothing.
I think that the tank of gas and a whole bunch of other costly things were eliminated from the federal government's official definition of COLA. Look it up. Happened about 10 years ago.
Groceries, for example increased 40% in the brief period 2008 - 2014. No surprise to see Kroger and others building these illustrious multimillion dollar stores all over the place. They got your money and, well, I guess the construction guys gotta eat!
Last edited by TwinbrookNine; 10-14-2019 at 09:47 AM..
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.
