When will New York start respecting Retirees (Florida: house, income)

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

pensions just as like social security were never meant to support anyone 100% . retirement was always supposed to be the 3 legged proverbial stool .pension-social security-your own savings .

for most of us it has become a 2 legged stool , just social security and our own savings . but certainly pension alone was never supposed to be the main support for those who had them . if they were big enough ,great but very few had pensions that supported them 100% and let them own real estate in high cost areas .

From the moment they came into being both social security and pensions were indeed meant to be the sole means of support, as retirees generally would not have other forms of income. You never had a period in which the average person invested adequately enough to live off investments.

[mathjak107]

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

From the moment they came into being both social security and pensions were indeed meant to be the sole means of support, as retirees generally would not have other forms of income. You never had a period in which the average person invested adequately enough to live off investments.

false !!!! do you even research stuff first ? .social security was put in place as a safety net . the first check was 24.00 bucks in 1940 , that is about 400 bucks a month today. can you live on 4800 a year?

ss was designed to be A BASE of protection not sole support , it is insurance!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
right from social securities own website:

Social Security: a simple concept

Social Security was never meant to be the only source
of income for people when they retire. Social Security
replaces a percentage of a worker’s pre-retirement
income based on your lifetime earnings. The amount
of your average wages that Social Security retirement
benefits replaces varies depending on your earnings and
when you choose to start benefits. If you start benefits
at age 67, this percentage ranges from as much as 75
percent for very low earners, to about 40 percent for
medium earners, to about 27 percent for high earners. If
you start benefits after age 67, these percentages would
be higher. If you start benefits earlier, these percentages
would be lower. Most financial advisers say you will
need about 70 percent of pre-retirement income to live
comfortably in retirement, including your Social Security
benefits, investments, and personal savings.
We want you to understand what Social Security can
mean to you and your family’s financial future. This
publication, Understanding the Benefits, explains the
basics of the Social Security retirement, disability

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10024.pdf

[Wakanda18]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

a couple with a solid work history can get more than 80k in ss today if they delay to the max . not exactly chump change . we get 40k and my wife has a crappy work history . it would have been 50k if i wanted to delay longer.

just because someone has a low work history does not mean the system is chump change .

Social security doesn’t take account of rising cost of living and

If you have all your ducks in a row, home paid off, assets etc. yes 40k isn’t chump change, but if you have 4K mortgage to pay off which is on the low spectrum of nyc housing prices, that frankly isn’t enough. Cost will also continue to rise while that 40k stays 40k for 20 years

[mathjak107]

no one is or was ever expected to live on just social security . what someone gets from their work record or their cost of living is a personal situation unique to them . my point is social security does not have to be chump change .

social security is cola adjusted based on the 1500 mini economies that make up this country and make up a basket of goods and services . it is not a gauge of a personal cost of living .

your personal cost of living is unique to you . it is unique to how many times you personally buy something , the quality of what you buy since higher end goods see more price inflation but can last longer , and your willingness or ability to substitute .

no index can reflect your buying habits and match your lifestyle or living arraignments

in fact studies show retirees are least effect by inflation . retirees tend to spend in a smile shape when they have discretionary income . they spend more during the go years , less in the no go later years and eventually healthcare costs kick up creating a smile pattern . all the things that retirees no longer buy or do offsets a lot of costs that went up in things in contrast to someone raising a family ..

there have been loads of studies on this aspect .

[Gantz]

I have said it before. If the State wants to stop hemorrhaging population (especially upstate), they should eliminate any taxes on private pension benefits. I wouldn't mind if someone in the Finance department did some math on this to see the impact on state revenue. I am not convinced it would be as bad as many people think.

[mathjak107]

considering that ny does not tax the first 20k in private pensions nor social security at all .

[Coney]

Originally Posted by Mr.Retired

Cop?
Well hell.......................he must of worked round the clock for 20 years straight.
God Bless him then. He'd deserve it.

But getting real......Grew up with a bunch of kids and it was always the bad asses that became cops.
Don't know any of them pulling $80G's a year on a straight 40 a week.
He might be a cop but I doubt it very much he's a city cop.

Overtime pay rates, my friend. It adds up. Pension is based %of income.

[NyWriterdude]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

false !!!! do you even research stuff first ? .social security was put in place as a safety net . the first check was 24.00 bucks in 1940 , that is about 400 bucks a month today. can you live on 4800 a year?

ss was designed to be A BASE of protection not sole support , it is insurance!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
right from social securities own website:

Social Security: a simple concept

Social Security was never meant to be the only source
of income for people when they retire. Social Security
replaces a percentage of a worker’s pre-retirement
income based on your lifetime earnings. The amount
of your average wages that Social Security retirement
benefits replaces varies depending on your earnings and
when you choose to start benefits. If you start benefits
at age 67, this percentage ranges from as much as 75
percent for very low earners, to about 40 percent for
medium earners, to about 27 percent for high earners. If
you start benefits after age 67, these percentages would
be higher. If you start benefits earlier, these percentages
would be lower. Most financial advisers say you will
need about 70 percent of pre-retirement income to live
comfortably in retirement, including your Social Security
benefits, investments, and personal savings.
We want you to understand what Social Security can
mean to you and your family’s financial future. This
publication, Understanding the Benefits, explains the
basics of the Social Security retirement, disability

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10024.pdf

Yes and what you really posted from the SSA is pure BS.

Of course social security was INTENDED to be AND IS the sole source of income for many retirees.

I know you like to brag about all your real estate investments, but that has never been the situation of most retirees. Practically speaking, when most people stop working their income is just going to be social security, or if they have a pension that will supplement social security.

[Gantz]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

considering that ny does not tax the first 20k in private pensions nor social security at all .

That's my point. I don't think the State collects a lot of taxes from retirement income anyway. The governor should just eliminate all taxes on any retirement income, go on TV and announce to everyone that "hey NYS does not tax retirees at all! Everyone is welcome!" NYS has a stigma of being a high tax state, and I am sure most people do not even consider NYS when looking for places to retire. Some low cost communities in upstate could definitely benefit from it.

[mathjak107]

Originally Posted by NyWriterdude

Yes and what you really posted from the SSA is pure BS.

Of course social security was INTENDED to be AND IS the sole source of income for many retirees.

I know you like to brag about all your real estate investments, but that has never been the situation of most retirees. Practically speaking, when most people stop working their income is just going to be social security, or if they have a pension that will supplement social security.

stop with this nonsense . personal situations do not determine what the purpose of social security was initially as designed . as stated by ss , IT WAS NEVER THE INTENDED PURPOSE TO HAVE SS ANYONE'S SOLE MEANS OF SUPPORT , so you are dead wrong in what you stated when you said it was always intended to be that way ..

personal situations or need may have made it that way for many but that is different from what it was supposed to be and designed to be . .

ssdi was never designed to be the new unemployment insurance either but it has become just that as social security retirement had to shift billions to refund ssdi which went broke under the excessive amount of claims ..