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.
Survivor benefits are based on the amount of benefits the deceased retiree was receiving at time of death. So, yes, waiting until you are 70 years of age to collect will provide the greatest benefit to the surviving widow/widower (assuming the survivor benefit is greater than the surviving spouse's retirement amount on his/her own record.) Here's a link to a paper that mentions this and also explores tax ramifications of collecting social security versus withdrawing IRA distributions. http://www.prudential.com/media/mana...Strategies.pdf
Excellent, thank you.
Very good from the start where it points out something that worries me no end.
Quote:
For years, financial services companies have downplayed the role of Social Security in bolstering financial security in retirement. But considering the increased financial risks retirees now shoulder, the tax preferences that Social Security receives, and the income options that Social Security now offers, we would argue that Social Security should play an even greater role in a retiree’s financial picture than it ever has before.
Think back to 10 years ago when the 60 year old Enron employee was getting ready for his retirement. Suddenly his world collapsed and all he was left with was social security.
What about the 66 and 64 year old couple who invested $4 million with Madoff, planning their future based on a $400,000 annual return on investment, where are they today?
I am operating under the belief the only thing we have for sure is social security and I would to get our lives set up in such a way we can survive, in relative comfort, on half of what social security provides.
Half is a tall order. $3,800/2=$1,900 for two. Should be possible to do as long as you live in a relatively low tax area (good bye Long Island, NY) and you have zero debt.
So we have the other half, plus what we get from IRA's etc, for trips to see the grand kids and travel if we want.
Like most we need to maximize this turkey any way we can.
I hear what you're saying. My DH and I are both nurses (I'm an NP, he's an RN). We are currently 56 and 59 and enjoy good health. Although we still enjoy our work, it seems in the past year we talk about retirement constantly! Mainly the financial end but it has gotten to the point that we now are so looking forward to retiring! We've pretty much decided that we'll retire at 66. My SS at 66 will be just over $2400/mo and would go to just over $3000 if I worked until 70. My husband's benefits are just a little less. In past years, we both thought we'd wait until we were 70 but now, no way! 66? Bring it on!!
That a girl. I hear ya. I plan to rent my condo in Alaska and getting ready to purchase a condo in Arizona then travel to Arizona on a travel contract (company pays housing) then corporate rent the AZ condo and come back here. Many travel companies now are owned by hospitals so they give very good health benefits. I will see how it all plays out but that is the plan. If I can make up the difference between 66 $2200 and 70 $2900 you better believe I will not work. Like Guad said "I want to stop work NOW" =)
In these scenarios I probably wait til 66 and get around $2800? That amount is allowing for no cuts in social security and I continue to earn at my current level at this point about $110/per year? Then if I want I can continue to work 1 day week and not have my benefits reduced/taxed.
If you can live on $110 a year, you are the financial genius of the century!
Posted by Nicet4: "Think back to 10 years ago when the 60 year old Enron employee was getting ready for his retirement. Suddenly his world collapsed and all he was left with was social security.
What about the 66 and 64 year old couple who invested $4 million with Madoff, planning their future based on a $400,000 annual return on investment, where are they today?"
The excellent examples you cite point out the wisdom of not putting all one's eggs in one basket. Sure, it wasn't the Enron employee's fault that the company went belly up, but he could have had some personal savings under his own control so as not to be stuck with Soc. Sec. alone. As for the couple who invested $4 million with Madoff, that is just way too much. Greed. The impossibly high rates of return Madoff was offering were just that - impossible. While I have nowhere near $4 million to invest, I would have put $1 million in four different places in their shoes, even if that meant accepting a lower return in three of the places. Dear Abby (or maybe it was Ann Landers) used to always say, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably isn't true".
Even with no debt and assuming a paid off house or condo, I think Nicet4's plan to live on $1900 (two people) shows an impressive amount of self-discipline. Please, would you care to share a few details about your plans and your thinking on this? And congratulations. More people should probably think hard about the expense side of retirement and get it in line with the income side, instead of assuming that the income side has to somehow get up to X level.
Given the track record.....whatever the government is recommending (probably to delay taking SS funds)....I would recommend you do the exact opposite!
SS is a Ponzi Scheme at its worst. Yes, it has helped keep a lot of folks out of poverty, like it was supposed to. But there are also PLENTY of rich people collecting that would do just fine without it.
Given the track record.....whatever the government is recommending (probably to delay taking SS funds)....I would recommend you do the exact opposite!
SS is a Ponzi Scheme at its worst. Yes, it has helped keep a lot of folks out of poverty, like it was supposed to. But there are also PLENTY of rich people collecting that would do just fine without it.
Can't argue; there are rich people collecting who don't need it. However, what about the fundamental fairness of if you paid into it, you have earned it? Also, have you considered that the calculation of the retirement benefit favors low wage earners over high wage earners? (I.e., low wage earners get a higher percentage of their earnings back in benefits than high wage earners). Also, have you considered that rich people are paying federal income taxes on 85% of their Soc. Sec. benefits, while the poor are not taxed on them at all? Also, don't forget that the rich are paying higher Medicare Part B premium rates than most people. Full disclosure: I am solidy middle class, not even close to being rich. But I still try to look at the overall structure of the system, and at its rationality, rather than how I could personally benefit from some change.
Even the working poor pay FICA taxes. And that raises an issue. If a worker's earnings are fully taxed (FICA only) but he or she doesn't earn enough to obtain the 4 credits/year, what happens to the excess taxes? For example, in 2010 you need $1120 per quarter to earn 1 credit. Your annual earnings are $3300. You would earn 2 credits ($1120x2 equals $2240) That leaves $1,060 in taxable wages, but the worker doesn't earn any credit for the remainder. (Of course, the $1060 will be included in final calculations when or if this poor person eventually earns 40 credits.) I don't think this is fair. Perhaps it's time we allowed folks to roll over the remainder to apply towards credits the following year.
Even the working poor pay FICA taxes. And that raises an issue. If a worker's earnings are fully taxed (FICA only) but he or she doesn't earn enough to obtain the 4 credits/year, what happens to the excess taxes? For example, in 2010 you need $1120 per quarter to earn 1 credit. Your annual earnings are $3300. You would earn 2 credits ($1120x2 equals $2240) That leaves $1,060 in taxable wages, but the worker doesn't earn any credit for the remainder. (Of course, the $1060 will be included in final calculations when or if this poor person eventually earns 40 credits.) I don't think this is fair. Perhaps it's time we allowed folks to roll over the remainder to apply towards credits the following year.
This is an interesting issue that never occurred to me before. I would imagine that not all that many people fall under the circumstance that you describe, as $1120 per quarter divided by three equals $373 per month, and even at minimum wage, a full-time worker would earn quite a bit more than that. However, in cases of illness, accident, irregular (on/off) work with periods of unemployment, part time work, etc. then of course such a stituation could very well arise. So regardless of how many or how few people are in this boat, I agree that it is unfair to them, and that your proposal in your final sentence above has a lot of merit.
If a person retires early, not getting FULL SS ~~ when they get to, let's say, 66 ~~ does their benefits go up to the FULL SS amount??
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.
Not all in one basket
