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.
If ever there were an argument for privatizing Social Security... I am 55 years old. For over 20 years I have made over six figures a year. My mother, who is still alive at 86 and is getting my deceased father's social security, receives $1200 a month from the government. My father was an uneducated blue collar worker who never made more than 8 bucks an hour base pay. He retired at 62 back in the mid 80s, so he didn't get the full benefit. My mother never worked...a home maker her entire life. So...$1200 a month...which is based on meager increases over the last 15 years. Now me, I have worked constantly since I was 15 years old, the only gap is when I took a year off while going to school when I was in my early 20s. Over 20 years now I have made over $100K a year each year. According to the SSA.gov web site, my benefit if I retire at the same age that my dad did will be $1900 a month. Yes, only $700 more than my mother who never worked and my father who was a low income worker who retired early over 30 years ago.
I am speechless. Where the heck has all our money gone for these decades paying into the government fund? This is a lesson to everyone out there in their 30s and younger. Don't even consider SS as potential income in retirement. Save as much as you possibly can as early as you can and take advantage of as many investment opportunities as you can - like 401K and Roth IRAs. Your government is squandering your social security so do not expect to get anything resembling a return on what you are paying in.
Nobody can analyze your data if you don't post the itemized year over year statement. AND what you entered when you ran the report. What about from your 20's till age 35 which you failed to mention what your income was. You only stated you made >100K AFTER age 35.
Because I'm getting alot more than you and never consistently made over 100K per year - let alone for 20 years. But I DID work in the corporate world since 17 years old full time for around 30 years (not including my current sole prop business). I'm not projected to collect the max but close TO IT.
Plus - I don't think you understand how it works. Your contributions, limits etc. "OVER 6 figures" can be 101,000 or hundreds of thousands more.... but you're not paying in against the full range. And you only get the max if you had max earnings for 35 years. IS THAT WHAT YOU ENTERED for your estimate?
Also, nobody stopped you from "privatizing" your own retirement - which you should have been doing all along being a high earner. Saving money and considering SS to be a supplement. I don't think that's a new concept for those of us even in your age bracket.
BTW you said you "worked". OKAY, well LOTS of people come on here and fail to mention they were Independent Contractors or self employed and imply they were employees. Were you an EMPLOYEE all those years? Because it's possible you didn't even pay into your SS if you were self employed.
Just because you sleep with someone for X number of years you get SS money for that? What is SS? A popularity contest? Is staying single illegal or something?
Wow. I'm surprised more folks haven't chimed in on this one. With all due respect, I believe many spouses feel that their marriages amount to a bit more than "sleeping with someone for x number of years." A spouse, in my mind, is a partner, without which many would find success in life to be unobtainable, and some would find pointless.
Cheers,
DC
that goes both ways . married can pay more under certain circumstances .
individually both husband and wife may be in the 15% bracket . added together the combined total gets hit at 25%
Good example of why it should be changed. As is the high wage earner married to a stay at home spouse who file a joint return and get taxed at a lower rate than the worker would be filing alone.
Your numbers do not make sense because they are wrong. My wife gets over $1900/month, and no way did she make 6 figures for 20 years. Maybe if you are planning early retirement your benefit could be reduced that far. You also didn't pay FICA on your whole income.
You need to check the link for maximum for SS at 62, it is $2100. $1900 is not that far off. Are you sure about your wife amount? Did she take her SS at 62?
The reason I'm curious is that my husband always been a high earner and he took his SS at 64.5 and he only receives $2043 from SS.
Last edited by NewbieHere; 01-31-2017 at 09:56 AM..
Nobody can analyze your data if you don't post the itemized year over year statement. AND what you entered when you ran the report. What about from your 20's till age 35 which you failed to mention what your income was. You only stated you made >100K AFTER age 35.
Because I'm getting alot more than you and never consistently made over 100K per year - let alone for 20 years. But I DID work in the corporate world since 17 years old full time for around 30 years (not including my current sole prop business). I'm not projected to collect the max but close TO IT.
Plus - I don't think you understand how it works. Your contributions, limits etc. "OVER 6 figures" can be 101,000 or hundreds of thousands more.... but you're not paying in against the full range. And you only get the max if you had max earnings for 35 years. IS THAT WHAT YOU ENTERED for your estimate?
Also, nobody stopped you from "privatizing" your own retirement - which you should have been doing all along being a high earner. Saving money and considering SS to be a supplement. I don't think that's a new concept for those of us even in your age bracket.
BTW you said you "worked". OKAY, well LOTS of people come on here and fail to mention they were Independent Contractors or self employed and imply they were employees. Were you an EMPLOYEE all those years? Because it's possible you didn't even pay into your SS if you were self employed.
I think you should read the link I posted. OP is not making mistake. The max anybody got contributing the max is $2100 something at age 62 assume that person starts working at age 22. I hate to keep beating the horse. So $1900 is not far off. I've always earn very high salary immediately after college and I would get nearly the same amount. Same with my husband. We may not have worked 40 years though but certainly more than 25 years.
Wow. I'm surprised more folks haven't chimed in on this one. With all due respect, I believe many spouses feel that their marriages amount to a bit more than "sleeping with someone for x number of years." A spouse, in my mind, is a partner, without which many would find success in life to be unobtainable, and some would find pointless.
Cheers,
DC
Indeed, the reason why a surviving spouse gets to collect their partner's social security is because of a value that society places on the home and on families. Rightly or wrongly, the policy is that marriage and family create a certain stability that is good for society. There is some truth to it. Life insurance companies have statistics indicating married men live longer than unmarried men do. Some people think family doesn't count. I couldn't disagree more. Marriage and family are the central fact in my life.
If ever there were an argument for privatizing Social Security... I am 55 years old. For over 20 years I have made over six figures a year. My mother, who is still alive at 86 and is getting my deceased father's social security, receives $1200 a month from the government. My father was an uneducated blue collar worker who never made more than 8 bucks an hour base pay. He retired at 62 back in the mid 80s, so he didn't get the full benefit. My mother never worked...a home maker her entire life. So...$1200 a month...which is based on meager increases over the last 15 years. Now me, I have worked constantly since I was 15 years old, the only gap is when I took a year off while going to school when I was in my early 20s. Over 20 years now I have made over $100K a year each year. According to the SSA.gov web site, my benefit if I retire at the same age that my dad did will be $1900 a month. Yes, only $700 more than my mother who never worked and my father who was a low income worker who retired early over 30 years ago.
I am speechless. Where the heck has all our money gone for these decades paying into the government fund? This is a lesson to everyone out there in their 30s and younger. Don't even consider SS as potential income in retirement. Save as much as you possibly can as early as you can and take advantage of as many investment opportunities as you can - like 401K and Roth IRAs. Your government is squandering your social security so do not expect to get anything resembling a return on what you are paying in.
The govt ALREADY squandered the SS fund. How do you think Clinton balanced the budget? That SS fund has a boatload of IOU's....I'm kind of glad I'll be dead by the time the fund hit dire straights (In 2040) because I'll have died long ago.
I think you should read the link I posted. OP is not making mistake. The max anybody got contributing the max is $2100 something at age 62 assume that person starts working at age 22. I hate to keep beating the horse. So $1900 is not far off. I've always earn very high salary immediately after college and I would get nearly the same amount. Same with my husband. We may not have worked 40 years though but certainly more than 25 years.
I agree that $1900 sounds reasonable for the OP and am not sure how others are getting so much SS at age 62 if not contributing the max. I turn 62 this year and my SS estimate is $2000 a month at age 62. This is based on paying the max for 24 years, income for 4 years in the $80K range (in today's value), 4 years in $50-70K range, and 3 in $30K range (from a previous lower paying career).
And thank you Mathjak for seconding my thoughts on means testing/ACA subsidies should be dependent on all income and the issue of spousal SS. My SIL's SS would be $900 a month at FRA based on her part time earnings but spousal benefit will be $1500 a month and she and my brother do not need the extra money. My single sister had low earnings and will not get much SS and could really use that extra $600 a month. And she also raised a child. My sister made lots of bad decisions in her life and is responsible for her poor financial situation. But she worked just as hard as my married SIL if not harder. If I'm getting a smaller portion of SS than others based on what I paid into the system and am a candidate for means testing, at least distribute the extra money based on need and not on marital status.
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.
Wife/mother= Partner
