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.
I woud bet you that it will never happen on the COLA and I see no one proposing that;point out a link to that specifc proposal.The last committee on socail security was headed by senator Breaux(D) and never came out with that. What they did come to a conclusion on was that it would take a redcution in benefits and/or a rise in payroll deduction like the last time they "fixed it". Democrats in congress clearly stated that it was fixed and that their was no problem until 2040 that needed to be addressed at that time. Nothing was done.Name the sentors or congressmen proposing that by name please.
It's only been mentioned in discussions as possible future changes. Much like a wide range of different years have been mentioned in discussions when SS will become insolvent. No one knows what changes will be made or when changes will be made, but it's a pretty good bet that changes will be made...
The cap goes up a couple of thousand dollars every year. It seems a simple fix to just raise the cap, by a lot. I know I've hit the cap twice and it seems very arbitrary to suddenly get a much bigger check in December.
Now Medicare, that's the bear. But Soc. Sec. seems simple.
Agreed, every time I hit the cap and got a bump in salary and read about the woes of SS I shook my head and said duh!!!!!! Keep taking it out.
That was a little misleading... However, one of the many considerations Washington is looking at in changing the Social Security plan, other than increasing the full benefit retirement age, is to reduce or even eliminate the COLA for people choosing early SS benefits. No one knows if that will actually happen, but it would be a way for Washington to slow the stampede of early baby-boomer retirees.
Any member of congress who suggest that should be forced to answer the following questions.
Sir/Mam we keep hearing that you should wait until 66 to start taking benefits is that correct?
We hear that the reason for that in the long run is that you will receive more in benefits and that the break even point is within the normal life span for a person already in their mid 60's. Is that correct?
We are told that if you elect benefits at 62 you will be cutting yourself short in the long run and receive less in benefits compared to waiting until your full retirement age. Is this correct?
Sir/Mam if these assertions you have agreed to are correct what planet and what math calculation are you using to say that folks by retiring at 62 are draining the system? Aren't they saving the system money in the long run? It can't be both ways can it?
There have been articles written that the rush to take early retirement is a short term hit to the system but in the long run it is a wash or a plus. However that isn't headline worthy and doesn't get play. Also the average person believes they will be ahead taking it now so it is easy to play with their thinking.
Retired at 55 after 34 years work,took SS at 62,SS now more than pension.My total income more than what I earned at retirement.I chose life over money,you do not know what is in the cards for down the road.I am 77 now and in good health.
I woud bet you that it will never happen on the COLA and I see no one proposing that;point out a link to that specifc proposal.The last committee on socail security was headed by senator Breaux(D) and never came out with that. What they did come to a conclusion on was that it would take a redcution in benefits and/or a rise in payroll deduction like the last time they "fixed it". Democrats in congress clearly stated that it was fixed and that their was no problem until 2040 that needed to be addressed at that time. Nothing was done.Name the sentors or congressmen proposing that by name please.
President Barack Obama's new deficit commission might give Americans a slap in the face about the sacrifices needed to avoid bankrupting future generations -- maybe working until age 70, paying higher taxes and spending more of their own money for doctors' visits and prescriptions.
Here are the kinds of steps the panel is likely to consider as it seeks to tackle deficits that never dip below $700 billion under Obama's budget:
Raise the retirement age for full Social Security benefits to more than 67 years old and have benefits grow at a less generous (COLA) inflation rate.
Expose more income to Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes.
Require seniors to pay more Medicare costs out of their own pockets and curb payments to health care providers.
I think raising the payroll cap would be the best solution (I think it was the overwhelming favorite in an AARP poll). Millionaires and billionaires collect SS benefits too. Course the bums in Washington would just "borrow" the added money anyway, no matter how much is in there and waste it.
Social Security will no doubt have to be changed at some point, but it will likely only affect people that are not yet qualified to receive benefits. To make the decision to take SS benefits as early as possible because the plan's future is unknown is a weak excuse. We all know that SS is not simply just going to be thrown out with after millions of people have paid into the plan.
My call on it is that one dividing line could be those currently receiving benefits are protected while those who waited will receive a reduced benefit. Of course that requires that I'm able to start before anything is enacted. When I first thought that a change was needed, I thought those within 10 years of retirement would be protected. Now, I'm not so sure. My plans will likely change as I get closer and any changes are firmed up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by highcotton
Taking early SS does not necessarily allow tax-deferred retirement investments to grow larger. It all depends on how the investments are invested, and if the investments involve securities or bonds - whether they will increase or decrease, which in the case of securities and bonds would be a complete unknown.
While it doesn't guarantee retirement investments will grow larger, it will keep it from shrinking because of withdrawals. Investmetns will go the way of the market. Historically, they have increased and while there is a lot of doom and gloom out there now, this current market is no different than any of the past downturns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by highcotton
But, that's just part of the [getting ready for early retirement] picture. It is very desirable if possible, after funding all non-taxable retirement funds, to have enough liquid savings set aside to live on between the time you take early retirement and when you turn age 66, when you can take full SS benefits with inflation adjustments for life. Surely you didn't retire without a sizable amount of liquid cash savings... It would most favorable to have enough cash in savings to live on until age 66. Then you wouldn't have to take early SS benefits at age 62 to get by. If you didn't plan for enough cash savings to get you by until age 66 maybe you decided to retire too soon in order to maximize the legacy you hope to leave your kids...
Still, you must also consider the 25% reduction in benefit amount if taken at age 62... That's a big hit over-time with a breakeven only around age 80 or so. I plan on living much longer than just 80!
When I first started planning for retirement, I didn't know when I'd be able to retire, but thought it likely to be beyond age 65. As time past and my numbers started to firm up, that retirement age dropped to age 62. When I was about 10 years from retirement, I felt comfortable including SS in my plan and I'll now retire at age 60.
Over this same time period, I thought I'd need $1 million in my retirement account. As plans firmed up, that number dropped to $650K, then $500K and now stands at $250K. Even that last number is conservative in that my plan will survive with a 2% rate of return.
What it comes down to is, will your income sources support your expense needs through your retirement years? In my case, yes they will so I won't need that 25% I'll lose by taking SS at age 62. On the other hand, my retirement account would be seriously depleted if I wait until age 66. That is, I'd be very uncomfortable with only $250K.
I'm not interested in maximizing income in retirement. I'm just interested in making sure we have enough to live comfortably and if taking SS early will help do so, that's the plan I'll follow.
My call on it is that one dividing line could be those currently receiving benefits are protected while those who waited will receive a reduced benefit. Of course that requires that I'm able to start before anything is enacted. When I first thought that a change was needed, I thought those within 10 years of retirement would be protected. Now, I'm not so sure. My plans will likely change as I get closer and any changes are firmed up.
While it doesn't guarantee retirement investments will grow larger, it will keep it from shrinking because of withdrawals. Investmetns will go the way of the market. Historically, they have increased and while there is a lot of doom and gloom out there now, this current market is no different than any of the past downturns.
When I first started planning for retirement, I didn't know when I'd be able to retire, but thought it likely to be beyond age 65. As time past and my numbers started to firm up, that retirement age dropped to age 62. When I was about 10 years from retirement, I felt comfortable including SS in my plan and I'll now retire at age 60.
Over this same time period, I thought I'd need $1 million in my retirement account.As plans firmed up, that number dropped to $650K, then $500K and now stands at $250K. Even that last number is conservative in that my plan will survive with a 2% rate of return.
What it comes down to is, will your income sources support your expense needs through your retirement years? In my case, yes they will so I won't need that 25% I'll lose by taking SS at age 62. On the other hand, my retirement account would be seriously depleted if I wait until age 66. That is, I'd be very uncomfortable with only $250K.
I'm not interested in maximizing income in retirement. I'm just interested in making sure we have enough to live comfortably and if taking SS early will help do so, that's the plan I'll follow.
Everyone is different, and has different needs and comfort levels. Personally I would only start to feel comfortable with 10 times that $250K amount, but I only plan to use interest and dividends and allow my assets to continue to grow larger. I retired in my early/mid-50s.
I am collecting unemployment benefits presently. I am thinking of applying for social security at age 62. How do they effect each other. Does the unemployment benefit stay the same or change? Do unemployment benefits count as income? Any info wouldgrealty be appreciated.
I am collecting unemployment benefits presently. I am thinking of applying for social security at age 62. How do they effect each other. Does the unemployment benefit stay the same or change? Do unemployment benefits count as income? Any info wouldgrealty be appreciated.
Does one contribute to SS while receiving unemployment?
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.
