Social security

[SLB_SA]

I just started receiving my SS benefit this year, when I turned 69. The increase of my monthly SS benefit in 2024 will be 3.75% larger than my monthly 2023 benefit. This is because the SSA "discounts" one's benefits in the first year (unless one waits until age 70 to claim benefits) and provides the "correct" amount in the second and subsequent years. My 2024 annual benefit increase will be larger than $1400 but I used up 2/3 of my retirement accounts between ages 63 and 69; waiting is far from free!!!

 

[Tony's Dream]

I just started receiving my SS benefit this year, when I turned 69. The increase of my monthly SS benefit in 2024 will be 3.75% larger than my monthly 2023 benefit. This is because the SSA "discounts" one's benefits in the first year (unless one waits until age 70 to claim benefits) and provides the "correct" amount in the second and subsequent years. My 2024 annual benefit increase will be larger than $1400 but I used up 2/3 of my retirement accounts between ages 63 and 69; waiting is far from free!!

Not only is not waiting free.......you risk losing thousands of dollars if you pass away early. What if you wait until age 70 to start drawing it and you die at age 72. You would bank only $67,000 plus you would reduce your retirement accounts. If you started drawing it at age 62 (assuming a $1400 a month) you bank over $117,000 betwen age 62-70.....plus your retirement accounts stay intact....earning an additional $150,000. The retirement funds could then be inherited by your children, making their retirement years easier......where as your SS ends with your death (unless you have a spouse or disabled children under 18).

 

[bullfrog !]

My wife and I compromised. I took Social Security at 62 years old because it enabled us to take off 6 months a year, travel and make some investments. She is several years younger than me and since we were able to get by using my early Social Security just fine and her family tends to live well beyond 85 years old on average she has waited and will start it at 66 1/2 years of age when we both will stop working seasonally. Really our income and expenses should stay about the same so only difference will be we won’t have to work unless we just want to. She will have a little more Social Security should I pass before her to live on.

 

[mpruet]

Not only is not waiting free.......you risk losing thousands of dollars if you pass away early. What if you wait until age 70 to start drawing it and you die at age 72. You would bank only $67,000 plus you would reduce your retirement accounts. If you started drawing it at age 62 (assuming a $1400 a month) you bank over $117,000 betwen age 62-70.....plus your retirement accounts stay intact....earning an additional $150,000. The retirement funds could then be inherited by your children, making their retirement years easier......where as your SS ends with your death (unless you have a spouse or disabled children under 18).

If you should die at 72, why (and how) would you even care if you could have lost some potential SS income. You’re dead. You no longer need income.

I waited and am glad I did. Because I waited, my SS income and my spouse‘s SS income takes us well over the median family income. If I had started SS payouts early, my annual SS income now would be roughly 40% less than is currently is. That means I’m able to let a larger portion of my nest egg remain invested. Because of that the retirement nest egg is larger than it was when i actually retired, even though I’ve been withdrawing from it annually for eight years.

As for children - the best inheritance they can receive is to have gotten into a profession that can supply their needs, and the time to help them get that was many years ago.

 

[WanderingRose]

My husband and I began drawing our social security at age 62, he then died suddenly a month after his 65th birthday.

 

[user 22017]

My husband and I began drawing our social security at age 62, he then died suddenly a month after his 65th birthday.

Sorry Rose. So you had three additional years with him, because he retired at 62?

 

[SLB_SA]

Not only is not waiting free.......you risk losing thousands of dollars if you pass away early. What if you wait until age 70 to start drawing it and you die at age 72. You would bank only $67,000 plus you would reduce your retirement accounts. If you started drawing it at age 62 (assuming a $1400 a month) you bank over $117,000 betwen age 62-70.....plus your retirement accounts stay intact....earning an additional $150,000. The retirement funds could then be inherited by your children, making their retirement years easier......where as your SS ends with your death (unless you have a spouse or disabled children under 18).

The reduced benefit amount I would have collected between 63 and 69 is larger than your numbers but much less than I will receive from SS if I live to 90. One can view SS as "longevity insurance." You don't care once you are dead but you do care if you live to 95 and have run out of money; a larger SS benefit is insurance against living too long and to allow living with dignity. A lot of my retirement account(s) spending was to benefit my kids and one might criticize my spending. I might slow down when I get to 90? I drove a few (500++) miles on Friday to view the eclipse, slept in my car (because of $5000+ of equipment in the car-telescopes, cameras, big battery, compressor fridge, etc.), viewed the eclipse, got the photos and got home by midnight Saturday. Every person has to evaluate SS in their own way. I picked the "longevity insurance" point of view.

 

[WanderingRose]

Sorry Rose. So you had three additional years with him, because he retired at 62?

Thank you.

Well, we had three years of both drawing our social security before he died, after which I got the difference between mine and his, which was $100 a month.

Better than nothing, of course, but if we’d waited to draw it til 65 or 70 may not have received much or any of his if his death preceded our “wait to draw” date.

We had both worked since we were 15, and many told us our best chance of getting back what we paid in was to begin drawing at 62.

We had already been retired several years from 25 years of worker-bee state employment, which came with very modest pensions, and we had saved hard for 10 years to be able to retire early.

We’d both had our children young, so they were all grown and out on their own, so we saved so that hopefully we could enjoy some retirement at fairly young ages.

And, I’m glad we did.

 

[bullfrog !]

I made my decision to draw mine at 62 braised on the fact it would have taken me till I was in my 80’s to match what I had collected by starting at 62. Since the average life span was the late 70’s at the time, I felt the odds were against making more by waiting. The final realization that I could afford to do things that I enjoyed more than working while I could still physically do them and the fact my wife would probably make more than enough Social Security by waiting till she could get full benefits at 66 1/2 which would be enough most likely for us to live on sealed the deal. Basically for us we decided to wait to start drawing benefits until we felt we “needed” them. I worked low paying state government jobs in order to get a small pension, health insurance and retire as early as possible and transferred to my wife should I pass before her which gave me some flexibility to do jobs I wanted to do in places I wanted to be until I became to old to physically do them after I “retired” Lol!!! We have always considered Social Security a mandatory investment/savings plan and are thankful for it as we were not very good at keeping cash for very long in our younger life. Basically my advice is learn to live simply, work and live in places you enjoy being, take advantage of opportunities while you are physically able for as long as you can, consider Social Security like a savings account and only take it out when you need it or when you are too old or unable to work at something you enjoy. Odds of living independently on Social Security alone without living simply in the future in our 90’s if we make it are slim in my opinion. Our investments in my seventies with and managed by our children seem to be working best for us as we are still able to pay our expenses and save with limited work on our part. My wife will retire and start drawing Social Security this next year. I will continue to do my easy “old man” jobs a few days a week as long as I am able.

 

[RvNaut]

62
I worked for 50 years. The SSI rep even had my input from my paper route, but somehow 2 years in the middle were missing in my 30s.... huh... Between working for others and running my own companies, I managed to have a decent level of funds available. Waiting until I was 67 meant working 5+ more years and somehow not losing my house to foreclosure.... instead I was able to sell at near the top of my local market in Maine, ,which gave me the head start I would need to convert to nomadity.. I am near broke now, but am well established in my rig for the last 20 months. I smoked ciggs for 20 years, but quit at 38... a couple of potential genetic issues could take me out... then there are the generic odds of coming down with some other malady that cuts life short... Living for tomorrow my entire life was a rat race I was never going to win for so many reasons, so filing at 62 allowed me to cut loose the hampster cage... for the most part.
.
I started on SSI two years ago at $1250approx and the increases have certainly been welcome. I chose to take a camp host job over the summer at 20 hours a week. This will afford me shocks and tires for my gigando class A. I am not traveling around as much as I dreamed, mostly because it just costs too damn much, but I am ok with this.
.
Quality of life.... living off the food bank, with a mortgage over my head, and surviving through the winters in Maine, worrying about hurting myself on the snow and ice... it wasn't a happy time. I no longer have that pressure..... no mortgage or taxes.... no clearing a driveway of snow .... not being cold all the time.... life as a nomad is not simple and carefree, nor is it easy.... but it is a damn site better than rotting away in Maine in some trailer park.....

 

[RonDean]

I agree with the thinking that once you are dead your concerns about SS (or anything else) are moot.

However, I started collecting shortly after I hit 62. In my case this was forced on me by a business and marriage failure. But I don't regret it now. Since starting my SS I have realized that collecting SS and retiring are two different things. I voluntarily decided to return to work 4 times in the last 17 years since starting my SS. Although I didn't track the difference, I think whatever monthly income I may have lost by not waiting longer to collect was more than made up for by the extra income I made when I worked and by collecting in those years I didn't wait. What having the earlier SS did for me was give me many more choices in where, when, and what those work experiences were and I think made those years more enjoyable.

Perhaps if I had made better choices in my younger years and had a much larger stash put aside for retirement my outlook would be different. For those folks maybe waiting makes perfect sense.

 

[Tony's Dream]

Each of you have your own situations and deciding when to draw seems to work best for you. The idea is to do what is best for you so that you enjoy your "golden years." We choose to retire early so we can do that very thing. Traveling in my van is something I have wanted to do for a long time.......and my decisions have allowed me to do that! I'm glad for anyone who can enjoy their retirement.

 

[SLB_SA]

New House Speaker Had Proposed Trillions in Cuts to Social Security and Medicare
During his tenure as chair of the Republican Study Committee (RSC) between 2019 and 2021, Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) helped craft budget resolutions that called for roughly $2 trillion in Medicare cuts, $3 trillion in Medicaid and Affordable Care Act cuts, and $750 billion in Social Security Cuts, noted Bobby Kogan of the Center for American Progress.

 

[Steve]

New House Speaker Had Proposed Trillions in Cuts to Social Security and Medicare
During his tenure as chair of the Republican Study Committee (RSC) between 2019 and 2021, Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) helped craft budget resolutions that called for roughly $2 trillion in Medicare cuts, $3 trillion in Medicaid and Affordable Care Act cuts, and $750 billion in Social Security Cuts, noted Bobby Kogan of the Center for American Progress.

I would recommend reading the proposals in their entirety before judging them based on a carefully crafted headline. It may not be what you're expecting, and you might even agree with the logic.

https://mikejohnson.house.gov/sites/mikejohnson.house.gov/files/final rsc fy 2020 for print.pdf

 

[beavergod1]

For us it was a matter of simple math. We both took SS at 62.5 because it was the lowest returning vehicle of our portfolio, (house and investments). SS colas return on average was 2.1% for the 25 years before, far under performing our other investments. Added to the fact that my wife had already survived 2 open heart surgeries and the decision was rather easy. Tomorrow and good health is not promised to anyone. Enjoy each day as best you can...

 

[SLB_SA]

I would recommend reading the proposals in their entirety before judging them based on a carefully crafted headline. It may not be what you're expecting, and you might even agree with the logic.

https://mikejohnson.house.gov/sites/mikejohnson.house.gov/files/final rsc fy 2020 for print.pdf

I do not wish to get into a disagreeable or political (long) debate/discussion. I do not believe that the details of a proposal from 2021 or 2019 are significant. I believe that the general inclinations regarding social security and medicare of the current Speaker of the House are significant. (Each person is welcome to investigate and reach a conclusion about the historical and current opinion of social security and medicare held by the GOP and its members.) Under current law, social security cannot go bankrupt but its benefit payments could be reduced (by 20%-30%??) in about ten years. It would seem wise to find additional revenue to maintain benefit payments and this may require politicians in both parties to work constructively together to accomplish this. The opinion of the Speaker, among others, seems significant to accomplishing this task.

 

[RonDean]

I do not wish to get into a disagreeable or political (long) debate/discussion. I do not believe that the details of a proposal from 2021 or 2019 are significant. I believe that the general inclinations regarding social security and medicare of the current Speaker of the House are significant. (Each person is welcome to investigate and reach a conclusion about the historical and current opinion of social security and medicare held by the GOP and its members.) Under current law, social security cannot go bankrupt but its benefit payments could be reduced (by 20%-30%??) in about ten years. It would seem wise to find additional revenue to maintain benefit payments and this may require politicians in both parties to work constructively together to accomplish this. The opinion of the Speaker, among others, seems significant to accomplishing this task.

I fail to see how a 20-30% reduction in SS would do much beyond bankrupting the majority of seniors that depend on it. Think the homeless problem is bad now? Just wait for that to happen. I think we would need to at least provide sufficient and wide spread low cost senior housing to avoid that scenario. As far as the 2 major parties actually working together to solve ANY problem, I don't see that happening either. We have a better chance of finding sufficient funding to keep the current system going. Perhaps a little bit higher taxes on those that are not hurting already?

 

[SLB_SA]

I fail to see how a 20-30% reduction in SS would do much beyond bankrupting the majority of seniors that depend on it. Think the homeless problem is bad now? Just wait for that to happen. I think we would need to at least provide sufficient and wide spread low cost senior housing to avoid that scenario. As far as the 2 major parties actually working together to solve ANY problem, I don't see that happening either. We have a better chance of finding sufficient funding to keep the current system going. Perhaps a little bit higher taxes on those that are not hurting already?

I completely agree with "I fail to see how a 20-30% reduction in SS would do much beyond bankrupting the majority of seniors that depend on it." Some people (e.g. Nikki Haley ("And then you've got Social Security, which is going to go bankrupt in ten years. Medicare is going to go bankrupt in eight years."))
have been saying something like "Social security will go bankrupt in 10 years." I wanted to dispel this idea. A 27% cut to SS would be tragic.

 

[camperdan]

I am
new to this forum and enjoying the discussions so far. Looks worthwhile, so the question for me is "why has the fund drive raised so little? " I am ready to pitch in, but WHY have so few done that so far?
SOCIAL SECURITY Does anyone know of a powerful voice for seniors to reach out to our govt? How about AARP? What are your thoughts on this? I would think a good hike in SS payroll tax is long overdue. Balance: either cut expenses and/or increase income. This is not rocket science. The younger folks should not scream if SS payroll went from 6.2% to7.5%. They are too busy just paying the rent.

 

[dreamrunnerjt]

I am woefully political ignorant. Didn’t congress borrow money from SS for other projects? Has that money been paid back? Is SS not an annuity? Are they not using that money to make more money?
We the people must do two things. Reduce what we pay the people in congress and make term limits. We are cutting our own throats with what we currently have.