Social security

[Dirtrider]

I Believe that over 65 yrs old, there is no penalty for making over the set amount (around 19K per yr)

 

[towboater]

I Believe that over 65 yrs old, there is no penalty for making over the set amount (around 19K per yr)

That is true when u reach full retirement age which varies depending on the month and year u were born. In my case August of 56 made full retirement age 66 and 4 months. My first check hit the bank yesterday. Plus I work full time and gave my employer my 2 year notice

 

[RoamerRV428]

remember too that money we calculated in a way longer ago is not gonna carry us all that great either with massive price increasing and it will continue for a while to do just that.

I know we thought, WOW we got that amt of money per month to live? great......now, not so great at all truly. But everyone wiggles/jiggles and waggles their way thru what it takes for survival and live best they can on what they got and so individual how that goes down for each of us. Getting old ain't for any Sissy out there HAHA Getting old and finances is a tough test of us all.

 

[Gr8ful]

Here's a You Tube on SS earnings for 2023

 

[Zerpersande]

That is true when u reach full retirement age which varies depending on the month and year u were born.

Not if you are living outside the US, then they extend the date for full benefits. And if you are receiving social security benefits from another country your US benefits are reduced. I think mine are reduced in the 15-25% range. Don’t remember because it doesn’t matter, they tale it. Also don’t remember because my memory is failing.

 

[SLB_SA]

Here is a new article titled "Major Cuts to Social Security Are Back on the Table — What’s Being Proposed Now?"
One feature of the proposal is "The 176-member House Republican Study Committee (RSC) approved a fiscal blueprint that would gradually increase the FRA to 69-years-old for seniors who turn 62 in 2033. The current full retirement age is 66 or 67, depending on your birth year. For all Americans born in 1960 or later, the FRA is 67." However I am unaware of all of the details. This proposal seems highly unlikely to be enacted. If there is a change of administration and Congress beginning in 2025, something like this proposal might be enacted?

 

[user 37446]

What I'd rather see is SS taxes taken out on every dollar of earned or investment income with no limits. Why is earned income SS witholding capped at (2023 level) $160K? Shouldn't someone earning $250K pay on the extra 90? Imagine what Bill Gates saves on his declared income.

That would help the solvency problem a bit, me thinks. I'm no accountant but heck, there would certainly be a more $ coming in.

 

[Gr8ful]

Here's the avg SS by age if you're interested.
https://clark.com/personal-finance-credit/investing-retirement/average-social-security-check/

 

[RonDean]

Here's a wild thought.

How about we ALL stop voting for the politicians that want to balance the budget by cutting back on SS benefits? There are segments of the US population that are doing much better financially than the average SS recipient and paying a MUCH lower percentage of their wealth.

 

[user 37446]

I had thought that the original intent of SS was merely a “supplement” to a persons savings etc for old age. I spent some time reading the lengthy and a bit complicated wikipedia article about the legislation, court challenges, amendments etc and still never quite figured out the answer.

if decisionmakers deem SS to be a full replacement of income for the various categories of recipients then it‘s not fulfilling that “vision”. If instead it is to only supplement a recipients income than perhaps it is.
We have to determine that question (what was the intent or what do we now consider to be the intent) first before we get all wound up about cuts/raises etc.

While I am happy to be receiving my full SS, I doubt that I have paid that much into the program compared to what I may be drawing out if I live a few more years, thus depending on younger workers to subsidize me.
Kinda like a Ponzi scheme on a national level, ha ha.

So eventually, without increased participation (numbers of payees) and/or increased levels of taxation, the system could easily fail. The latest date of shortfall was supposed to be 2035 without some “adjustments”.

 

[WanderingRose]

There is an effort ot take SSI private, because there is money to be made

Money to be made by those receiving the funds to privatize, also political influence thru these same monies.

SS would end up costing the government more, but having to pay outside sources to manage it.

Social security was never intended to be the sole source of income for retired people, as it has become for so many who have been unable and/or unwilling to save for their later years,

 

[RvNaut]

Social security was never intended to be the sole source of income for retired people,

I see no evidence of this claim, in fact I see the opposite, that it was specifically intended as an income source for those over the age of 65 in their retirement.

 

[WanderingRose]

It was intended as an income source, but never intended to be the only income source.

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10024.pdf
Page 1 of this document, and also what I have been told all of my adult life.

 

[Dirtrider]

SS is the worst "investment" anyone could make and if not forced to "invest ", you would be fool less to do so since it loses over 4% over time. Your estate loses every penny left when you die also.
All these programs and pension plans are basically pyramid schemes because in order for you to get your money after employment, someone has to to pay into it. It all work out just peachy until you run out of other peoples money

 

[WanderingRose]

it loses over 4% over time. Your estate loses every penny left when you die also.

If you die without a spouse and/or dependents, what you have paid in stays in the system, which is the way it was built and intended.

If you leave a spouse, their benefits depend on their status at the time of your death, and whether your or their social security was the greater amount.

I got $100 a month additional when my husband died, the difference between mine and his, then COLA raises on that total whenever those occur.

Not a ton of money, but something.

 

[rruff]

SS is the worst "investment" anyone could make and if not forced to "invest ", you would be fool less to do so since it loses over 4% over time. Your estate loses every penny left when you die also.

If you are young now, yes. But... on average all prior generations would get more than they put in, adjusted for inflation. If you are retiring now it's probably near even.

I think our declining life expectancy will have some effect on this, as projections were expecting this to keep rising.

 

[maki2]

As to your estate loosing every penny when you die that is not exactly true in all cases. . If you die with dependent children they will receive monthly support checks based on your Social Security. A spouse MIGHT also be eligible to receive some benefits based on the deceased person’s Social Security benefits as well as their own if they are also receiving benefits.

Of course you need to read up on it for yourselves as I am not up to date on all the current information. There are charts and tables for these things on the Social Security website.

 

[SLB_SA]

SS is the worst "investment" anyone could make and if not forced to "invest ", you would be fool less to do so since it loses over 4% over time. Your estate loses every penny left when you die also.
All these programs and pension plans are basically pyramid schemes because in order for you to get your money after employment, someone has to to pay into it. It all work out just peachy until you run out of other peoples money

Many people accept statements like "It all work out just peachy until you run out of other peoples money." The federal government cannot (willingly) run out of money; it owns the printing presses. The function of money at the individual ("household") level is different than the function of money at the Federal level. At the national and international level, a principal function of money is to facility economic activity (e.g. store of value, unit of account & medium of exchange). In order for economies to grow, it is necessary to expand the money supply; if we used gold today as the medium of exchange and assuming huge new discoveries of gold (and the mining, refining & distribution of such discoveries) had not occurred frequently over the last 150 years, our economies would be much, much smaller and our "progress" (medical, scientific, economic, technological, etc) would have been much slower. The ability of human society to produce "goods" has greatly increased over the last 150 years and an expanding money supply was necessary to keep up.

Can a government "overprint" its currency (money supply)? Of course. Can it "underprint" as well? Absolutely!! Look at the Great Depression.

 

[RonDean]

SS does not exist in a vacuum, nor does it necessarily have to serve the same function now as it was originally intended. It was enacted as a response to the Great Depression when far too many people were left destitute by the failure of our economic system. I don't care if it was originally intended as 100% or some portion of that. The question we should be asking is in TODAY'S economy are there enough guardrails for most people not to end up starving and homeless. And back to the original post, are we OK with cutting benefits knowing what the results will be?

My personal opinion is that unless or until we are willing to watch people starve and live on the street in their old age, whether because of their lack of planning or because of an unfair economic system, then we need to have some kind of system in place to prevent that. Right now SS seems to accomplish that - if just barely for many people.

 

[rvwandering]

I've deleted a few posts. Please avoid political discussion and bickering.