|
This page may contain links that result in small commissions to keep this free site up and running.

Welcome Guest! Registering and/or logging in will remove the anchor (bottom) ads. It's Free!
To participate in the forum you must log in or register. | Author |
Replies: 60 / Views: 4,933 |
|
|
|
Valued Member
United States
302 Posts |
Quote: 'm 43. My wife and I both should have Social Security coming plus I should have union benefits coming add 401k to that and we should do pretty well. What are the odds all 4 of those will still be there in 20+ years? ZERO
|
|
Valued Member
United States
362 Posts |
Just to clarify, from a website Quote: The idea at the time was that people currently working would pay into the system, and their money would immediately go back out in the form of benefit checks. Each generation of retiring workers would get paid by the people currently working, and therefore the system would fund itself forever despite the fact that the system had no money to start with. The government taking this money to pay off debt seems very unconstitutional. If I did that with someone elses money, I'm pretty sure I would be thrown in jail...
Edited by ICanSeeYou7687 09/05/2011 5:05 pm
|
|
Bedrock of the Community
United States
10284 Posts |
I don't know why they steal from the Social Security contributions. They come from hard earned money. Why doesn't the Govt steal from the third and fourth generation welfare check low life lazy parasites, take away the free food stamps, eliminate subsidized housing and take away free health care and use that money to give themselves raises and what they use to buy votes and campaign air time.
Use the welfare pool to pay off the debt and force the bums to work for a living. This is still the Americaqn dream and land of opportunity.
ICanSeeYou7687 Your font makes this page to wide for this page. please edit.
|
|
Valued Member
United States
362 Posts |
Ya it wasnt the font, it was one of the delimiters, but I changed it, no worries
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Yep, still a coin forum, where some of us remember paying $61 for krands that sell for closer to $2000 today. Since there aren't that many more collectors, we're trying to make sense of the situation.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Quote: If I were in charge of this mess, I would increase the SS contribution to 7% for both employees and employees, remove the salary cap, It's close to 7% now. The salary cap is meaningless. You pay more in, you get higher benefits. As it stands now, they figure someone making six figures doesn't need a nursemaid in the form of SS. The problem is someone making $20,000 (poverty) is paying $3000 into SS. That's way more than any legitimate insurer would charge for a million dollar life insurance plus retirement annuity.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4008 Posts |
Quote: The gubmint recently closed a loophole on SS. If you took benefits early, let's say $10,000 a year, when you hit the "last chance" date, you could pay back the money you have gotten so far, then re-apply, and get more money per month. Indeed they did, Fredd, and that was a feature that I had every intention of using. I did find their explanation quite illogical, though. Speaking through both sides of their mouth at once (easy for politicians and bureaucrats), they said that 1) not very many people use this feature, so let's get rid of it; and 2) this is costing the government $18B per year and is too expensive to continue. So... which is it? Nobody uses it or lots of people use it and it is too expensive? They never answered that question. Quote: This was promoted as a great way to rip off the system. You had the interest-free use of a $30,000 annuity for three years, and now you'll get the maximum SS income. Sweeet! So at that point I was wondering, why not simply charge a fair rate of interest and then see how many people still want to do it? Some might, others would not but now we'll never know. Quote: The only way it would be vaguely practical is if you didn't need the early SS payments (otherwise why did you take them, and you had a liquid investment to put them in for 1-36 months, so you had cash to return to SS. I looked at it more in the light of, "Do I trust the gubmint to hold MY money any longer than absolutely necessary, or do I get it from them ASAP?". The answer just came to me about 2.874 nano-seconds later.  In practical terms, my father passed away at age 67. Had he opted to wait until age 70 and the max SS payment, he would have gotten zilch from SS. As it was, he got 5 years worth of payments that he and my Mom really needed. I am quite a bit like my dad physically, so who knows? Quote: But there's another catch. You already have $30,000 in your fat little fingers. You're gonna return it to SS in exchange for a bigger monthly check. again? Maybe. What you DO know is that you are still alive and kicking at an older age. If a person is in good health at that point, it bodes well for a longer than expected lifespan wherein it may very well pay to accept fewer but larger checks. Quote: If you die before those 30 months are up, you lost on the deal. Yes, there IS a lot of this involved in SS planning. Unfortunately, none of us has a crystal ball that will tell us just how much time we have left. :-/ Quote: Yet this kind of "advice" was given out by experts charging big bucks. Isn't that the truth? Lots of so-called professional quality advice is filled with the same guesswork and estimates that all of us make when trying to make plans for an unknown and unknowable future. We just have to take our best shot and call it good. As for myself... I will be taking SS early (1st check should arrive Oct 12-15, 2011) and I will be investing the money. This keeps it in my hands and for my family when SS becomes means tested and I would not otherwise qualify for it. I paid a lot of money into SS and am interested in getting at least some of it back. SS is in such a financial hole that they literally do not have the option of not means testing it any more. I am just hoping that those already collecting it will be allowed to continue doing so. Hmmm... converting that monthly check into silver DOES have some appeal. 
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4008 Posts |
Quote: Yep, still a coin forum... Indeed it is. But politics has a HUGE impact upon the prices of PMs, the value of the US dollar, and many other PM related things, so is discussed here from time to time. Purely political discussion is discouraged here but that which relates to PMs should still be OK.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
3670 Posts |
Ed my dad is 57, what is the earliest he can draw, and would it be wise to do so asap as I am figuring it would be?
Wish I could draw today at 37, I would take what I could get, an put like 90% of it right into G & S....
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Quote: The idea at the time was that people currently working would pay into the system, and their money would immediately go back out in the form of benefit checks. Each generation of retiring workers would get paid by the people currently working, and therefore the system would fund itself forever despite the fact that the system had no money to start with. If you open an insurance company, you start with no money, except what you borrow. The premiums taken in pay normal claims and some is put back for huge future claims.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
SS retirement insurance should have been a "pay into policy--meet the terms--get the benefits you paid for" deal.
If you had other insurance, annuity, or pension income, it shouldn't affect this policy at all.
|
|
Rest in Peace
United States
9104 Posts |
Quote: In practical terms, my father passed away at age 67. Had he opted to wait until age 70 and the max SS payment, he would have gotten zilch from SS. As it was, he got 5 years worth of payments that he and my Mom really needed. I am quite a bit like my dad physically, so who knows? If you "really needed" that money, where were you going to get enough to pay back eight years of it if he lived to 70? If you're physically similar, and were planning on using the gambit, you'd be lucky to make 70, much less hand them money you wouldn't get back until 72.5.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4008 Posts |
Quote: If you "really needed" that money, where were you going to get enough to pay back eight years of it if he lived to 70? If you're physically similar, and were planning on using the gambit, you'd be lucky to make 70, much less hand them money you wouldn't get back until 72.5. There are TWO situations considered here. My father's and my own. My current situation and his previous situation were not the same. He needed the money and took it early. As it turned out, he died at age 67 so ended up getting more from SS than if he had waited longer for a higher monthly benefit amount. I do not need the money but am taking it early anyway as a possible way to ensure that I get it should means testing come out of the current House / Senate debate on SS. While not guaranteed to occur, means testing seems quite likely to me. It also seems likely that anyone who is already receiving SS benefits will continue to do so regardless of any new rules on means testing. Either way, there are no guarantees here. A huge problem with SS planning is that no one knows when their life will end, yet we have to make various irrevocable decisions as if we did. For me, it would have been worth the set up of the option to repay the money IF I made it to age 70 and IF my health was reasonably good at that time... neither of which is known to me at age 62. If I do not make it to 70, then my family gets whatever I draw between now and the time of my demise. If I wait until age 70 to draw and do not make it, my family gets zero. That is not acceptable to me, hence the plan to draw ASAP and invest the funds. Others will have to thoroughly evaluate their personal situation to see what course of action seems most appropriate for them. There definitely is no "one size fits all" option here.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
United States
4008 Posts |
Quote: Ed my dad is 57, what is the earliest he can draw, and would it be wise to do so asap as I am figuring it would be? Well, I am no SS expert by any means, so take my comments accordingly. He may be able to retire at any age if he has a disability that is severe and of indeterminate duration. Basically, a person has to be judged unfit for work by a qualified physician and for an extended period of time. The qualifications for this are extensive and a lot of info would be needed. My sister had a stroke at age 60 and was able to qualify for this. Other than that, he should be able to retire at age 62, if he chooses. Doing this results in a smaller monthly benefit but for more months. The SS actuaries have set the system up such that a person living an average lifespan will get very close to the same total benefit whether they take the benefit at age 62 or at their full retirement age. The whole issue revolves around how long a person expects to live. If their health is good, they take good care of themselves, and their parents / grandparents had long lives, then the odds favor them also living a long life. For these people, waiting for the higher monthly benefit might very well pay off. If they do not have these features in their lives, then waiting longer might not be a good idea. There are no guarantees in any of this, so about all we can do is try to shave the odds a bit in our favor, if and when we can. His Full Retirement Age should be listed on the SS web site. There should be a chart there that shows various birth year ranges and the FRA for those born in each range. My FRA is 66, for example, with a birth year of 1949. Of course, in all this SS discussion, politics is very involved. All of the so-called "entitlement programs" will be discussed and probably modified. The demographics of our situation has put great pressure on these systems as they are currently designed. Previously, the older generations were smaller than the younger generations so their SS payments easily paid the benefits of those who had retired. The huge bulge in the size of the so-called "baby boom generation", however, is making this unworkable. There are too many retirees for the number of younger workers to support them at the current benefit levels. The current economic climate with its reduced employment and stagnant wages is also not helping the situation very much. The politicians will HAVE to do something about all this, whatever that might be. Whatever it is, a scaling back of the current benefit levels seems pretty much assured. A good retirement plan will consider all these political solutions as well. Not that there is much we can do about them but they may influence when we elect to take benefits, which they have in my case, and from what I have read on-line in the cases of many others as well. Whether or not it is wise to take the SS benefit at any particular age is a very complicated and personal question. We each have to figure this out for ourselves.
|
|
Pillar of the Community
 United States
3670 Posts |
Hey thanks Ed for taking the time to share the insight, it all makes much sense.... 
Edited by Silverhawk74 09/06/2011 11:32 pm
|
| |
Replies: 60 / Views: 4,933 |
To participate in the forum you must log in or register.
Disclaimer: While a tremendous amount of effort goes into ensuring the accuracy of the information contained in this site, Coin Community assumes no liability for errors. Copyright 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Family- all rights reserved worldwide. Use of any images or content on this website without prior written permission of Coin Community or the original lender is strictly prohibited.
Contact Us | Advertise Here | Privacy Policy / Terms of Use
|
| Coin Community Forum |
© 2005 - 2026 Coin Community Forums |
| It took 0.37 seconds to rattle this change. |
 |
|
| |
| |