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.
This person put in their time, paid in to this system for 43 fricken years...yah, don't see the issue here.
Me, neither. I worked 52 years and was laid off at age 67. Granted, I'd always worked in offices, so wasn't as beat down as those who do factory/plant work. Never collected a dime of UE or anything else, for that matter, my entire life. Felt guilty as hell applying for UE. Would have worked until 70 b/c my retirement accounts needed the cash. The UE helped me over the hump during my financial restructuring. I applied for jobs, went on a few interviews. Overqualified, too experienced and, of course, too old. So, nothing came of it.
As I recall, OP has been applying off and on and wants to do something part-time. Maybe he will, maybe he won't. He's already losing 30% of his SS at age 62. His FRA is 66. So, this is a costly layoff, not only from the standpoint of a reduced benefit, but also future COLAs which become exponentially more significant with time. He's hardly in the catbird seat, but he'll manage.
Quote:
If you start your retirement benefits at age 62, your monthly benefit amount is reduced by about 30 percent. The reduction for starting benefits at age
I'm not going to be popular here but I have to say, maybe the OP does deserve it.
He put in 43 fricken years of work. Some of us haven't even been alive that long. He didn't scam the system for 43 years, he WORKED for 43 years.
Now let's do some math.
Let's say that he got this job at 20 years old. He's at least 63 now. Let's be serious, in today's market with employers finding all kinds of excuses NOT to hire people, do you really think it's easy for the OP to find a job at his age? Seriously? And if he was willing to wash tables at a hot dog stand, I would say that is far more than some people I've seen on this forum who claim they won't work for less than x amount of dollars per hour.
As I said, I am not going to be popular with this opinion, but this is one Republican who has NO PROBLEM with someone like this "getting a hand out" after all this time. This is not even the same as someone who has worked a few years and then sits on unenjoyment for two years. This person put in their time, paid in to this system for 43 fricken years...yah, don't see the issue here.
Some might be surprised to read I agree with you up to a certain point. I 100% agree the O.P. did deserve an initial benefit through unemployment. BUT.... flsh fwd to subsequent extensions and what he has offered I draw the line of support.
The door has been fairly opened to extend that benefit but when you don't or won't willingly make an effort to meet the criteria to get that extension and brag that you don't look for employment and you don't really need it even though he may not mean any ill will and feels safe admitting that here in an anonymous situation you and I both know that statement becomes the poster child example for cutting it off. In fairness I have to believe he doesn't go around in public sharing this.
I am eternally grateful for his service to this country. If all of that is real. I think it stinks that ageism abounds to the point of limiting a persons fair and equal right to be competitive in the current job market but please do not brag outloud if you've come up with a plan to give the middle finger back at them because many of us would like at least one shot at an extension if it's needed.
I'm not going to be popular here but I have to say, maybe the OP does deserve it.
He put in 43 fricken years of work. Some of us haven't even been alive that long. He didn't scam the system for 43 years, he WORKED for 43 years.
Now let's do some math.
Let's say that he got this job at 20 years old. He's at least 63 now. Let's be serious, in today's market with employers finding all kinds of excuses NOT to hire people, do you really think it's easy for the OP to find a job at his age? Seriously? And if he was willing to wash tables at a hot dog stand, I would say that is far more than some people I've seen on this forum who claim they won't work for less than x amount of dollars per hour.
As I said, I am not going to be popular with this opinion, but this is one Republican who has NO PROBLEM with someone like this "getting a hand out" after all this time. This is not even the same as someone who has worked a few years and then sits on unenjoyment for two years. This person put in their time, paid in to this system for 43 fricken years...yah, don't see the issue here.
Neither do I. I am a democrat but I have some conservative values. This is not one of them. Employers hire employees to MAKE A PROFIT off them.
Anyone who qualifies for EU has paid for them . The employer simply calculated all those costs and paid you less in salary to make up for it.
However, as for extensions go, people do not WANT to get some half baked job because its simply not worth the benefits they give up.
I turn in my "clean tables at a hot dog stand" tomorrow. Maybe they will need an old man like me. I think places get a "bonus" from the goverment if they hire a military vet. I was in the Army from June 1968-June of 1970. Drafted.
The extensions compensate OP for lost earnings, especially since he's so close to retirement. 62 is TOO EARLY to be collecting SS. It is too expensive a luxury at this age. Here's why:
As I said above, his SS benefit is reduced 30% FOR LIFE, plus compounded COLAs. Over time, this becomes very expensive.
Let's say, he is now collecting a reduced benefit of $1,260 at age 62. By the time he is 75, that benefit will be, assuming a 2% COLA, $1,633/mo.; at age 85 - $1,995.
Now, if he continued to work until age 66. His full retirement benefit would be $1800. At age 75, the benefit would be $2,154; at age 85 - $2,631.
If OP could have lasted until age 70, which many do because the benefit is so much higher, he would have received 32% over and above $1,800, or $2,376 at age 70. At age 75, that benefit would be $2,625; at age 85 it would be $3,206.
All of this is predicated on FRA benefit of $1,800/mo. If OP's FRA benefit is higher, the numbers get higher in all categories.
So, forced retirement at age 62 is very costly. The extensions help somewhat to mitigate the pain of that cost. But, cost it does. For what remains of his retirement.
We've had extensive discussions over on the Retirement Forum on the advantages of not collecting SS until age 70, if at all possible. Especially, if one is healthy and comes from a long-lived family, or has a spouse who is expected to live a long time.
There is a lot more to OP's particular picture than his statements he is NOT looking for work, which I doubt is 100% true, frankly, much as he likes to stir the pot around here.
the truth is its a benefit and he needs it i don't understand why he talks the way he does about it though. i wish him well even if he is a fool because people who work hard for 40 years should be able to retire and life an ok life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22
The extensions compensate OP for lost earnings, especially since he's so close to retirement. 62 is TOO EARLY to be collecting SS. It is too expensive a luxury at this age. Here's why:
As I said above, his SS benefit is reduced 30% FOR LIFE, plus compounded COLAs. Over time, this becomes very expensive.
Let's say, he is now collecting a reduced benefit of $1,260 at age 62. By the time he is 75, that benefit will be, assuming a 2% COLA, $1,633/mo.; at age 85 - $1,995.
Now, if he continued to work until age 66. His full retirement benefit would be $1800. At age 75, the benefit would be $2,154; at age 85 - $2,631.
If OP could have lasted until age 70, which many do because the benefit is so much higher, he would have received 32% over and above $1,800, or $2,376 at age 70. At age 75, that benefit would be $2,625; at age 85 it would be $3,206.
All of this is predicated on FRA benefit of $1,800/mo. If OP's FRA benefit is higher, the numbers get higher in all categories.
So, forced retirement at age 62 is very costly. The extensions help somewhat to mitigate the pain of that cost. But, cost it does. For what remains of his retirement.
We've had extensive discussions over on the Retirement Forum on the advantages of not collecting SS until age 70, if at all possible. Especially, if one is healthy and comes from a long-lived family, or has a spouse who is expected to live a long time.
There is a lot more to OP's particular picture than his statements he is NOT looking for work, which I doubt is 100% true, frankly, much as he likes to stir the pot around here.
Last edited by around1999; 11-20-2012 at 10:14 PM..
you don't even know what a conservative is because everything you wrote is the total opposite of the conservative party view. i am a liberal but i found your post funny.
"The Conservative Party will rectify the consistent failures and corruption of the current two-party system. The Conservative Party will impose fiscal discipline, restrain the reach of the federal government as outlined in the Constitution and defend America’s traditional family values."
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomasdavie
Neither do I. I am a democrat but I have some conservative values. This is not one of them. Employers hire employees to MAKE A PROFIT off them.
Anyone who qualifies for EU has paid for them . The employer simply calculated all those costs and paid you less in salary to make up for it.
However, as for extensions go, people do not WANT to get some half baked job because its simply not worth the benefits they give up.
Last edited by around1999; 11-20-2012 at 10:22 PM..
There is no proposal for any extensions from either party, and Congress has just a few weeks to go before they recess.
A few months ago, I assumed they would keep one or two tiers of EUC, but given the lack of discussion, 0 appears to be the future.
This is what I believe as well. I do not believe they can simply cut people off at the state level all at once. I believe they will start with tier 4 and 3 , but leave at least one tier of federal benefits or even two.
Perhaps at the end of 2013 they will cut off all or most of the federal tiers except in the most dire states
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.
