Likelihood of future changes to Soc. Sec. and Medicare rules, taxation, etc. (retiree, benefits)
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.
But isn't the COLA much less? It isn't necessarily the amount of money but always, the act of money versus how much it costs to get your daily needs met. Beyond that, we have WANTS.
Which COLA, and how much less is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BalloonLady
In 1965, a typical grocery store bagger made an income enough to cover the needs of his wife and two kids. They were poor but had modest home, healthcare, & real food. This was FAIR. Now, well we are far removed from that.
What kind of income did a typical grocery store bagger have in 1965? I wasn't born yet, have no idea.
I was just mentioning the low income projects I grew up in above .
Friday we went to do some photography of the graffiti in the area called the welling project …fabulous art work .
orse now then it was … But there is a fabulous fish market that has been there a long long time …they do all kinds of fried or steamed fish and seafood as a boil with corn and potatoes ..it is amazing ….needless to say we got a feast to go for our New Year’s Eve dinner.
It was minimum wage ….I did it in 1968 or so . Minimum wage was around 1.60 I think. that is like 12-13 dollars today .
I looked up minimum wage history, you were right about 1968.
1963: $1.25
1967: $1.40
1968: $1.60
So in 1965 min wage was $1.25/hour or about $2,500 per year, well under the poverty level in 1965 for a family of four which was $3,223. Even with median home prices in 1965 at $20kish I'm not sure the average grocery store bagger supporting a family of four would own a home and have quite the rosy existence being painted here.
Home ownership rate in 1965 was actually lower than today, 63% to 65%. Obviously that is a pretty blunt tool for measuring how many people are actually capable of buying a home because would be influenced by other factors.
I looked up minimum wage history, you were right about 1968.
1963: $1.25
1967: $1.40
1968: $1.60
So in 1965 min wage was $1.25/hour or about $2,500 per year, well under the poverty level in 1965 for a family of four which was $3,223. Even with median home prices in 1965 at $20kish I'm not sure the average grocery store bagger supporting a family of four would own a home and have quite the rosy existence being painted here.
Home ownership rate in 1965 was actually lower than today, 63% to 65%. Obviously that is a pretty blunt tool for measuring how many people are actually capable of buying a home because would be influenced by other factors.
which is why it made no sense what balloon lady said . i lived it as a kid and we were in a low income housing project struggling and my dad was not a minimum wage earner like a bagger , he worked for the post office.
the projects take 1/3 of your income as rent so rent was way lower then markets would be at that time . buying was not even in the cards
The ss formula does not pay every one equally based on what is paid in .that is false
Per dollar paid in the lowest wage earners get 6x back
The formula breaks down your average monthly wage into three parts. In 2022, it is:
90 percent of the first $1,024 of your AIME;
plus 32 percent of any amount over $1,024 up to $6,172;
plus 15 percent of any amount over $6,172.
The sum of those three figures is your PIA, also known as your full retirement benefit. The sliding scale is designed to weight the benefit to help low-wage earners, who need retirement money the most.
And then there's the windfall elimination provision (to which I'll be subject). Thanks for this info on the 2022 breakdown MathJack.
Wonder if I could ask you a general question privately, since you seem to know your way around financial matters. Not financial 'advice' just a general question.
And then there's the windfall elimination provision (to which I'll be subject). Thanks for this info on the 2022 breakdown MathJack.
Wonder if I could ask you a general question privately, since you seem to know your way around financial matters. Not financial 'advice' just a general question.
... The higher income people often have spouses that are being paid with free dollars they never earned, that is not factored in either.
Tell us about these 'free dollars'.
Are there free dollars going into someone's S.S. account?
Where are they? Where did they come from?
Quote:
... Low income couples must both work in order to survive, no free SS money for them.
There is no free S.S. money for anyone. Everyone who has chosen to have a S.S. account is then supposed to pay into their S.S. account.
Quote:
... Also the higher income people put in more money into SS
6.2% is 6.2% the world around. If you earned $10,000 a year, that same is if you earned $50,000 a year. You would still pay 6.2%.
Quote:
... yet were often unfairly paid more and to boot
I do not know anything about the 'fair' you speak of. I suspect it is an illusion that does not exist.
Quote:
... they complain the SS formula won't credit them as much $.
People find a wide array of things to complain about.
What do they say, Complain into one hand and shyte into the other hand, see which hand fills first.
Quote:
... I say then stop contributing to the SS system. They have a choice afforded to them to stop where the poor WORKERS do not.
I have assisted many people to revoke their S.S. policies. It makes no difference if you are poor or wealthy. If you have a S.S. policy that means you asked for it [or more likely your parents asked for it when you were a child].
If you think that wealthy people have an easier process to revoke their S.S. policy, you are mistaken.
If your religious belief includes that our government is ungodly, and if you belong to one of the specifically listed denominations, ...
Quote:
... All Earners accumulate interest on delaying SS equally. Or taking SS early docking us a percentage.
Hold on. If you take SS benefit at age 62, or if you take SS benefit at age 70, and if you live to be 80yo before you die, you will have received the same amount of benefit, in both scenarios. Your total SS benefit DOES NOT increase by delaying.
I am not saying I either agree or disagree with the points made in the articles. Since Congress can change the program at any time (like they did recently with the file and suspend rules); it might be good to know the various thought processes out there on the subject.
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.
