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.
Thanks, bUU. That statement I bolded bears repeating. Over and over. This is the crux of the issue and everyone in this country needs to examine their hearts and ask themselves if this is how they want their country run.
Some of us have already asked ourselves that and I think that's largely why the last presidential election turned out the way it did. Save Mr. Romney's characterization of Social Security recipients as "takers" and corporations as "people," his binders full of women, his barely disguised sneering at lower-wage earners, and his persistent belief that we all can get a loan from Daddy to start our own small businesses or go to Harvard, he would be sitting in the White House today.
But for decades that has been the s case for most of the rich at top. For example once unions were formed they took over the stake all members have in company compensation.They became the agent of the employee just like a sports agent. Just as now that government is creating insurance pools they will take over more and more stake on insurance of people as time goes by, At some point we may see where no employers provide insurance. its already having major effects on retiree supplements to retirees as after as promised contribution of those who have adopted the mandates in the healthcare bill. Often it does not effect so much present workers as are covered under terms of employment when hires d as to contribution. just as auto unions bargain away future employee benefits while new hires are quite different. If you want control then you must accept the risk and insecurity that comes with it; plain and simple.
The argument against raising the minimum age would be that some people who have had physically demanding jobs may simply be too worn out to continue on until a later age. Examples of such physically demanding careers might be brick layers, waitresses, blacksmiths, miners, etc.
While SS was never intended to be anything but a supplement it's turned into a full retirement package for many.
As for me SS isn't my only retirement but like many Americans it does make up a large (more than 50%) part of it. Luckily for me I have a job where I can continue to work beyond FRA and I am seriously looking at retiring in 2 years when I am 67 or maybe even 68 where at 68 my retirement benefit will be increased by $368 which makes up for a lot of sin I committed by not saving enough.
But not everyone is as fortunate as I am to be able to work beyond FRA but some, such as the field people that do the actual installation work based on drawings I engineer, simply will not be able to work beyond FRA. In fact I will go farther than that, some (I would guess 75%) will be unable to do the physical work beyond age 60 because it's so demanding.
This work I could do when I was 50 but no way could I do it once I hit my 60's.
But maybe SS could be set up where if someone wanted to pay more they could retire sooner than FRA without having the reduced benefits? How about the worker having the option of paying 10% over his lifetime and for that be able to retire at 60 with full and not reduced benefits?
While SS was never intended to be anything but a supplement it's turned into a full retirement package for many.
Without commenting on the premise you're putting forward, it is important to note that very few people prefer or even choose SS to be their full retirement package. It is the end-result of an inescapable pattern of inadequate compensation that we see developed in our economy over the last thirty years. I have a colleague who is an account executive at our company. So I'm not even just talking about those with limited education and skills, but someone with a college degree, doing a pretty high pressure job in a technical industry. I got into a casual conversation about the 401k plan at work, and she basically revealed that if she has enough left over (after paying her mortgage, her children's college tuition, etc.) to save $5,500 a year (i.e., in an IRA instead of the company's cheap-ass 401k plan), she'll be lucky. The extent to which SS is becoming the full retirement package is a reflection of how employers and our government are colluding to craft an economy that makes that the inescapable end-result of a lifetime of work.
My personal opinion is at age 62 to 65 folks are tired after working 40 years and they want to enjoy what's left of their life. Let the young 'uns have the jobs. I found when I retired at nearly 63 I was discriminated against big time, being the oldest in the office. Work til your 69 or 70...I think not. The old body starts getting aches and pains!
I know a man who proudly refers to himself as a "triple-dipper." He served in what in the 1950-60s was referred to as the "nuclear Navy" (with President Jimmy Carter, among others). He had a bachelor's degree in engineering when he joined and the military paid for the rest of his education. The minute he was eligible to retire from the service (age 42), he took a job with Westinghouse, then a leader in the nuclear field. The minute he was vested in Westinghouse's retirement plan, he got one of his friends in the Department of Energy to hire him as consultant. Now that he's collecting his third retirement, he's finally living a life of leisure as a very wealthy Republican and he's not alone. The beach-front houses of Rhode Island, California, and Hawaii are filled with them.
He will not be able to draw full retirement for both his military and government pension. There are two offset penalties in play. WEP (Windfall Elimination Provision) and GPO (Government Pension Offset). Don't know which one if not both would apply to him, but one certainly would.
WEP applies to pensions on which FICA taxes weren't paid for the years of employment that determines the pension. Both the military and federal civil servants pay FICA taxes. The WEP doesn't apply. GPO applies to spouses who can draw on the other spouse's SS, but are receiving a non-SS contributed pension.
There is no reduction in SS, for military retired pay or civil service pensions, that prevents drawing them in full concurrently. The only caveat is that some civil service retirees are under an older system, where they did not pay FICA taxes. They are subject to WEP. But it has nothing to do with military service. It's strictly based on the non-contribution of FICA taxes under the old civil service plan, and that they also have contributed enough FICA taxes in other employment to qualify for an SS benefit
What about those who can't find work at 62? Bad idea. Did you know that eliminating the wage limit for Social Security taxes would solve 97% of the problem while impacting only 6% of wage earners?
What about those who can't find work at 62? Bad idea. Did you know that eliminating the wage limit for Social Security taxes would solve 97% of the problem while impacting only 6% of wage earners?
How do you know it would solve "97% of the problem"? Where is your source for that?
An additional point: I have to assume you mean provided that the benefit cap is not also eliminated at the same time. You must know that just as FICA taxes are capped at a certain level, so are the benefits one can receive.
Went on line to review my SS benefit numbers and it reminded me to throw out, that when deciding what age to take SS at and also what age to retire at you MIGHT want to consider the following:
SS is based on your highest 35 years of income.
The difference between your current working income and your lowest years might really suprise you depending on how high it is now.
If you haven't worked 35 years the absent years are given a dollar value of $0 and that can be a big ouch.
Not taking SS at 62 and still working is going to allow you to replace your lowest years with hopefully your highest on a one to one basis. For many especially those who took off to raise children waiting can increase your benefit by more than8% a year. This of course assumes you continue working full time at a higher paying job and that is different from person to person. Although if your income is high enough and you are maxed out or close to it the difference may not be that much. It is all your individual history and going to the SS site helps to remind you of it. If this has already been mentioned ooops my bad.
"For example, if the maximum taxable earnings amount had been raised in 2005 from $90,000 to $150,000—roughly the level needed to cover 90% of all earnings—it would have eliminated roughly 40% of the long-range shortfall in Social Security. If all earnings were subject to the payroll tax, but the base was retained for benefit calculations, the Social Security Trust Funds would remain solvent for the next 75 years." [Source: "Social Security: Raising or Eliminating the Taxable Earnings Base". Congressional Research Service. September 24, 2010.]
Went on line to review my SS benefit numbers and it reminded me to throw out, that when deciding what age to take SS at and also what age to retire at you MIGHT want to consider the following:
SS is based on your highest 35 years of income.
The difference between your current working income and your lowest years might really suprise you depending on how high it is now.
If you haven't worked 35 years the absent years are given a dollar value of $0 and that can be a big ouch.
Not taking SS at 62 and still working is going to allow you to replace your lowest years with hopefully your highest on a one to one basis. For many especially those who took off to raise children waiting can increase your benefit by more than8% a year. This of course assumes you continue working full time at a higher paying job and that is different from person to person. Although if your income is high enough and you are maxed out or close to it the difference may not be that much. It is all your individual history and going to the SS site helps to remind you of it. If this has already been mentioned ooops my bad.
As most people know, earlier years amounts are adjusted for inflation. BH has worked 52 years and
is still working parttime, but will never eliminate the earlier years because of the adjusting.
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.
