nm

[haha]

Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur

Mikey, with all respect, Burns is a MIT graduate.

Remember Charlie, George W. Bush is not only a Yale graduate, he is a Skull 'n Bones Yale graduate.

Not sure these college credentials are very strong proof that these gentlemen aren't either stupid or dishonest. (Or as I posited above, both.)

Mikey

 

[Nords]

Re: Age-adjusted SS eligibility

I've got to disagree with you here Nords!

Well, I certainly can't argue with census data. If I read the graph correctly, a 60-year-old in 1935 could expect to live ~15 years. And a 60-year-old in 1998 could expect to live ~22 years. So equating 10 years of full SS eligibility at age 65 in 1935, 10 years of full SS today would start at age 72. And the age of full eligibility has already been raised to age 67. Hmmmmm....

My life expectancy at birth (1960) was about 69. At age 20 it had risen to ~74. By 1998 (when I was 38) it was about 79. IOW, although progress of the age-specific lines was flattening out, I'm gaining five years every two decades. Does that mean that at age 60 my life expectancy will be 84 and at 80 it'll be 89? (Financially I'm planning for age 120.) Does this include any hedonic adjustments?

Didn't another thread refer to the IRS raising the IRA RMD divisors to reflect a longer lifespan? So whose longevity numbers is the IRS using? But that might also be an issue with IRAs compounding far better than expected.

Personally, this graph reveals some interesting cognitive dissonance. I'm willing to believe that the stock market's future will resemble its (median) past. But I'm not willing to believe that my lifespan will resemble this graph!

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur

HI Nords and C-T. Nords, I have a little different take on
this lifespan debate. You say you are planning for
"120 years", and I understand how your expected lifespan increases as you age. In my head though
I kind of go the other way, i.e. I keep reducing my
expectations about the years I have left, which of course
is literally true. This has the effect of making me a bit more reckless with spending which fits in with the
"you can't take it with you " theory. Anyway, as I
begin to loosen the purse strings, I will keep my back-up
plans firmly in place in case things start to "gp south".
The prospect of fretting and stewing over SWR right
up to my demise is unappealing. I would rather roll the
dice and deal with the fallout, if any.

JG

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur

Hi GD-ER. Looking to "political combinations" to solve
any problems (much less this one) is a fool's errand IMHO.

JG

 

[unclemick]

Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur

Yep

No matter what party hat they wear - sooner or later Congress has to belly up to the bar and work the numbers.

Hopefully sooner.

P.S. - caught the French finance minister on Charlie Rose last night - !!!you think we have problems!!! with pensions/SS. I believe he said 57 was when 'they' stopped working.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur

When pigs fly.

 

[charlie]

Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur

OK, so I can't read my calculator right .... the extra
$436 of tax on $7082 SS income is 6.16% instead
of 61.6%......sorry about that! :

I may be a little fuzzy on what "marginal tax rate"
means. I have always assumed it was the tax rate
you paid on your last dollar of taxable income.

Cheers,

Charlie

 

[unclemick]

Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur

Ah yes

One man's puke is another's fond wish. I remember(60's) the bulletin board at the Longshore Hall - the long missives - why we should trade with Red China.
and the Aussie prof's at the U of W in my Far East Studies - about the 150 year wait for the China trade - 'if each Chinese bought a yard of British texile - wow!'

My SS annual came yesterday:

2005: $15380
2009: $20364
2013: $26880

Reform SS, The China Trade - hope springs eternal.

De Gaul, the Norwegian widow - AND I'm leaning toward taking early SS.

Keep the faith.

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur

Semper Fi

 

[Cut-Throat]

Re: Age-adjusted SS eligibility

From http://www.actuary.org/pdf/socialsecurity/automatic_0902.pdf

The 1983 amendments included a schedule of gradual increases in the normal retirement age to age 67, beginning with workers born in 1938 and ending with workers born in 1960 and later...

For example, increasing the normal retirement age gradually to age 70 by 2030 would eliminate about two-thirds of the system's long-term deficit...

IF these 'adjustments' were already reflected in current benefits, there would be NO deficit or problem to consider.  
As I said less than a year of the 5-7yr increase in life expectancy is reflected in those current SS recipients.
This will slowly increase to 2yrs, but not 5 or more w/o a change... I'll happily spend my 'windfall', but at some point someone is going to need to make the system actuarily sound. IT wasn't done in '83 or to date. NOT with Republican Executive - Democratic Congress OR Democratic Executive - Democratic Congress OR Democratic Executive - Republican Congress OR Republican Executive - Republican Congress... That's all the possible combinations with a couple mixed control of Congress thrown in along the way. We haven't seen a political combination yet leading to an actuarily sound system... Soooo, the debate goes on and the blame game continues...

I think the guys with the Military Pensions that have the 'answer' for Social Security solvency might want to help a bit with the 'problem'. Since the money all comes out of the same pot and the Military never even had to contribute real dollars just their time. And even I contributed 6 years in the Military and will receive no pension at all.  

Since Life expectancy has been growing for Social Security, it has also been growing for Military Pensions. Maybe they should be adjusted exactly the way they are proposing for Social Security. When Military Pensions were set, they never intended life expectancies to rise as high as they are today.

I won't try to 'Fix' your entirely tax payer funded Military Pension, if you won't try to 'Fix' my Social Security.

BTW - The tax payers paid your salaries also. And If the military 'promised' you a Pension, they also promised me my Social Security. A deal is a deal. Same Government, Same Money. I worked to pay the Military Salaries.

 

[Nords]

Re: Age-adjusted SS eligibility

Awright, Cut-Throat, it's time to critically examine your rant before some of the less-cynical board members start believing all of it...

... the guys with the Military Pensions that have the 'answer' for Social Security...

Just because I think that SS is gonna lose wage indexing doesn't mean that I should be a member of your club.  I think this has been a Chicken Little red herring from re-election day, if you'll tolerate the mangled metaphor.  Some putative solutions are worse than the alleged problems.

... the Military never even had to contribute real dollars just their time.

There have been a variety of programs over the years, but the latest incarnation of the military service wage credits ended in 2002.  During my 25-year working life I've contributed a total of $45,442 to the SSA and I want it back.  With interest.

Since Life expectancy has been growing for Social Security, it has also been growing for Military Pensions. Maybe they should be adjusted exactly the way they are proposing for Social Security. When Military Pensions were set, they never intended life expectancies to rise as high as they are today.

We can only speak for the survivors here, let alone for those disabled veterans only able to "type" with their cheek muscles.

I think body armor improvements have more of an effect on that greater life expectancy, but the military pension was never designed to consider life expectancy.  It's part of the cost of attracting a quality recruit!  The last attempt to "fix" the pension "problem" was REDUX, which quickly made its impact on recruiting & retention.  Of course if REDUX had been allowed to continue then the Army wouldn't have had enough soldiers to go to GWII, but that's another issue.

I'd like to see an update to that old urban legend about retired CPOs only collecting 18 months of military pension.  There's a lot of truth in that, although today's retired CPOs are probably a much healthier bunch.

I won't try to 'Fix' your entirely tax payer funded Military Pension, if you won't try to 'Fix' my Social Security.    

BTW - The tax payers paid your salaries also. And If the military 'promised' you a Pension, they also promised me my Social Security. A deal is a deal. Same Government, Same Money. I worked to pay the Military Salaries.

I think we're both far enough along our lifespans that neither of us will be affected by the fixes.  I hope.

BTW the recruiters promised military healthcare for life, too, and look how long it took to fix that issue.  SS won't be any less of a struggle.  In the meantime, thank you for your contributions...

And even I contributed 6 years in the Military and will receive no pension at all.

I'm pretty sure that the day you joined up you knew how long it'd take to vest that pension.  When you separated you had a chance to join the Reserves, complete an additional 14 years of "weekend a month & two weeks a year" and STILL collect a military pension eventually, right?

Let's compromise.  When we reach SS elegibility, let's contribute our SS payments to the charities of our choice.  You're senior-- you go first!

 

[Cut-Throat]

Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur

Awright, Cut-Throat, it's time to critically examine your rant before some of the less-cynical board members start believing all of it...

They'll believe it, mostly because it makes so much sense!

Let's compromise.  When we reach SS elegibility, let's contribute our SS payments to the charities of our choice.  You're senior-- you go first!

Well, since I spent my working life in the private sector banking on my Social Security and you spent your working life in the public sector banking on your Military Pension, I've got a better idea and more lucrative for the charities.

I will contribute my Naval Pension and you contribute your Naval Pension. You first, as you have already started drawing it.

 

[Nords]

Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur

Good one!

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur

Seriously, a 10 to 15% reduction in our SS benefits
would be a major hit (no kidding). I wouldn't need
to go back to work in Walmart, but still..................

JG

 

[Cut-Throat]

Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur

Seriously, I'm sure a 10-15% reduction in OUR SS would NOT significantly impact either of OUR standards of living...

Maybe that's the difference between myself and those that think like yourself. When I was concerned about Civil Rights, it was because it was the Right thing to do, not because I was a minority. I did not think about how it benefited myself.

But, if Congress enacts a 10-15% reduction in all public pensions, including your Military Pension., I would like to see a Means test to see who could really afford it. - I would gladly give up mine under those conditions. I understand why you are so willing to give up 10-15% of your Social Security Pension. Are you also willing to give up 10-15% of your Military Pension? Same Country, Same Money, Same Reasons! - Why do you think that your Pension is exempt?

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur

Damn, Cut-Throat, you are confrontational
(at least on this site), just like me. Alas, your posts
always seem to be left leaning. Lighten up a bit.
All of us are going to wind up the same way. Only the details of how we lived and are remembered will
differentiate, and in time even that will fade away.

JG

 

[haha]

Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur

Damn, Cut-Throat, you are confrontational.

At least he makes sense. The Nords, GDER, etc contingent are only buttering their own already well buttered bread.

And Nords, what a lot of BS about body armor and life expectancy. Many people drawing military pensions have never even faced a bullet, let alone taken one.

The men who actually do the fighting are drawn to combat units because they are aggeessive and patriotic, and maybe life in Alabama didn't look to good. This kind of person isn't really into pensions.

Military pensions are of interest to "lifers", a special breed in any case. I read a study of retention- at least among enlisted men, many men of a actual fighting age left becaue of military bullshit, family stresses, etc-and  not any problems with pensions.

A clerk in a 7-11 probably runs more lifetime mortal risk than most military personnel.

BTW, my FIL retired O-6 in 1964 or '65. He has drawn much more in retirement than he ever earned on active duty. His only actual war was Korea. On the Army dime he managed to get a PhD in applied mathematics, which enabled him to garner another public pension from the U. of Maryland. This guy is 91. and with his high income, cheap commissary food, and Walter Reed Medical care, he looks to be drawing his pension for a good long time beyond the 40 years he already has.

If they mashed their pensioners somewhere close to reality, maybe they could afford to buy amored personnel carriers for the people who are actiually fighting?

Lots of military are good at flying desks.

Mikey

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur

Can't we all just get along?

I am my own fav. charity. Beyond that, I told DW
tonight that I was thinking of leaving my youngest
daughter's share of my estate to The NRA. I was about
half serious. DW was not amused

JG

 

[laurence]

Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur

One could almost take this thread as evidence of a conspiracy, take all of you passionate, actual productive citizens/contributors to society at each others throats over some idealogical issues the two party system made up to keep you from uniting to tar and feather the crooks in D.C. who continue to live fat on your backs!

Still, even when you guys really slug it out, it's still very civil and intelligent when compared to the usual debate at my work.

"maybe a five day waiting period on howitzers is a good idea-"

"COMMIE FAG!!!!"

 

[unclemick]

Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur

A true ER will build his own howlitzer - made my first one at twelve for the 4th of July. Give up the craft for girls at 15 though.

Any red blooded American can build a howlitzer.

 

[Nords]

The military is being "fixed" plenty-- part 1/2.

And Nords, what a lot of BS about body armor and life expectancy. Many people drawing military pensions have never even faced a bullet, let alone taken one.

The men who actually do the fighting are drawn to combat units because they are aggeessive and patriotic, and maybe life in Alabama didn't look to good. This kind of person isn't really into pensions.

Military pensions are of interest to "lifers", a special breed in any case. I read a study of retention- at least among enlisted men, many men of a actual fighting age left becaue of military bullshit, family stresses, etc-and  not any problems with pensions.

I'm not trying to fix SS and I certainly can't change your mind, Mikey.  But let me make some comments for everyone's consideration.

I spent 24 years AVOIDING bullet situations-- not seeking them-- and I think we're all glad that I did the same with nuclear weapons.  With apologies to Patton, if you have to fight a war then you win it by making the other country's dumb SOBs face the bullets.  Funny thing: for most of my career we were more undermanned in the submarine force than in both the Army and USMC infantry, despite the relative scarcity of bullet wounds.  I don't think the bullets tell the whole story.

That's my opinion on body armor.  I don't know what affects military pension longevity (just as I was wrong on lifespan gains) but I suspect that body armor has a lot to do with it.  The statistics show that a lot more severely-wounded soldiers are living through combat and able to stay on active duty to collect that pension someday.  We're at one of the few times in history where more soldiers are surviving formerly lethal wounds, and that's the fact that influenced my opinion.  If you were making a joke, well, then, I missed the point.

Of course military survival (even without subsequent disability) costs much more than death benefits, but I think it's worth it.  Hopefully we taxpayers aren't slapping a cost-benefits analysis on that expense.

You read a retention study.  I lived through 20+ years of that crap and I read more studies than reactor plant manuals.  During the Cold War, a pretty aggressively patriotic time, my submarines were chronically undermanned by an average of 15% (some couldn't even get underway) and my shore-duty commands routinely gapped billets by four-six months.  Then it got worse.  

Military pensions have actually changed twice in the last 25 years.  First was the change from the "final pay" to the "high-three" system (started in 1980) which reduced pensions by about 5%.  No one blamed retention on that.  But in the mid-80s, when REDUX started and retention plunged, many of my best troops were stripped away by the detailers to boost the recruiting duty.  In the '90s I went to 5-10 retirement ceremonies a month for several YEARS as many were forced to retire despite the fact that we were still falling short of recruiting goals.  I even watched my budgets get cut 20-30%, perhaps to pay Spike Lee's recruiting commercials of "cool" sailors jamming on the flight deck in their own rock bands.  Despite all those studies & recruiters, the retention picture didn't improve until we stopped booting out the senior people, started paying higher re-enlistment bonuses, and modified REDUX.  (Then we cut back the recruiting corps by 25% and STILL made goals.)  The submarine force is still paying the price for the 1995-6 recruit shortage and I suspect it's not the only community.  Each one of those changes affected a specific group of people, and the money spent on them spoke a lot louder than any of the retention studies read by either one of us.

 

[Nords]

The military is being "fixed" plenty-- 2/2

A clerk in a 7-11 probably runs more lifetime mortal risk than most military personnel.

BTW, my FIL retired O-6 in 1964 or '65. He has drawn much more in retirement than he ever earned on active duty. His only actual war was Korea. On the Army dime he managed to get a PhD in applied mathematics, which enabled him to garner another public pension from the U. of Maryland. This guy is 91. and with his high income, cheap commissary food, and Walter Reed Medical care, he looks to be drawing his pension for a good long time beyond the 40 years he already has.

If they mashed their pensioners somewhere close to reality, maybe they could afford to buy amored personnel carriers for the people who are actiually fighting? Mikey

I wonder how long those 7-11 clerks have to wait until they vest their pensions. And I wonder how long they waited for a 401(k) program-- ask your FIL about the TSP! (I think you're also pretty optimistic about Walter Reed's quality, but that's my opinion and perhaps even your FIL's too.) I pulled down ~$880K nominal (no inflation adjustment) over 24 years. At ~$34K/year it'll take me about 25 years to pull ahead, less if the COLA beats inflation. (And I think it'll take even longer when those numbers are adjusted for inflation.) When the aggressive patriotism cools a little after the first decade of service, pensions are much more important to families than the "thrill of combat"-- and it has a much stronger effect on retention.

I agree with you that no one should join the military just for the benefits or the pension. They're not satisfiers but they sure are dissatisfiers, and long-term retention jumps every time we improve them. It's hard to assess the cost-effectiveness of training when soldiers are getting graduate degrees instead of shot at. But perceptions of overly generous pensions also overlook the pensioner's risk of getting killed (or disabled) before being eligible to draw it. We're encouraging these desk jockeys to stick around and train the junior patriots, or otherwise our military would look like Russian conscripts or the Japanese aviators at the end of WWII. I think a high-risk occupation merits a generous pension or the aggressive patriots won't stay beyond their first enlistment. What's next-- firefighters & police officers? Are too many of them flying desks too?

Here's another data point. The Reserves aren't making recruiting quotas during the last couple years and they're telling Reservists to expect to be mobilized one year out of every five or six. (This hasn't happened since WWII.) Several studies have shown that Reserve mobilizations will reduce civilian 401(k) contributions, civilian promotions, and self-employed business owners. When the legislation passes, let's see what the Reserves age 55 retirement does to recruiting & retention. The extra five years of retired pay is expected to encourage more people to be aggressively patriotic without forcing their families to go on food stamps.

One final question-- if the military pension is so generous, then where are all the other military ERs?

 

[unclemick]

Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur

GD-ER

Girls, drive in's, cars, rock and roll - a poster child of the late 50's/early 60's. Like the movie - Happy Day's.

1955 Pontiac Chieftain, 1954 Modified Plymouth, 1937 Chevy Coupe - Loretta, Carol and Flo.

You gotta love the suburbs.

 

[Nords]

Re: The military is being "fixed" plenty

Your cut is significantly more choosing to leave at 20.

Well I was certainly ready to leave, but it wasn't my choice. By then I'd already been turned down for TERA three times so I think that my desires were pretty clear.

Good point on enlisted pensions. Today's 20-year high-three E-6 pension is about $17,400 and a 24-year CPO pension is about $25,600.

I met Ron Hays this week, former USCINCPAC who retired in 1988 after 38 years of service. He's between 76-80 years old and he's still working as a consultant with his second company. In his "spare" time he's a member of the board of the USS MISSOURI Memorial Association and he's on the board of the proposed Ford Island Naval Aviation Museum. In his defense, he's still smiling and he looks like he's in his 50s.

He asked me "Who are you with?" It took me a few seconds to realize he wasn't speaking of my spouse. I probably passed up the job-interview opportunity of the year...

 

[laurence]

Re: My 1 on 1 with a US Congressman - Social Secur

even - iffff - it's NOT exactly constitutional??! :

I cede the point. But there are so many laws on the books that violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution I have sadly resigned myself to our fate(what does a hate crime have to do with interstate commerce).