Could you retire without social security?

[harley]

I suspect the numbers on this poll will be quite different than if it was asked of the general population.

As with most here, I don't need it to retire. I never counted it in when doing Firecalc. I started paying into SS at age 15, so I have 35 years in, although a fair number of them were pretty low earning years. If I don't start it until age 70, I still have 15 years to wait. So while I'll get something, I doubt I'll get what I was promised. I'm not thrilled about that, but truthfully don't see any way around it. We (the U.S.) don't have the money, and I'm on the rich side of the bell curve. As far as it not being fair to change the promise, I w*rked in the private side, and have gotten used to them pulling the rug out from under us. One of my cow erkers used to keep a big jar of Vaseline on his desk, so it wouldn't hurt so much. It's going to happen on the public side too. Just a little later in the game.

 

[Westernskies]

I suspect the numbers on this poll will be quite different than if it was asked of the general population.

As with most here, I don't need it to retire. I never counted it in when doing Firecalc. I started paying into SS at age 15, so I have 35 years in, although a fair number of them were pretty low earning years. If I don't start it until age 70, I still have 15 years to wait. So while I'll get something, I doubt I'll get what I was promised. I'm not thrilled about that, but truthfully don't see any way around it. We (the U.S.) don't have the money, and I'm on the rich side of the bell curve. As far as it not being fair to change the promise, I w*rked in the private side, and have gotten used to them pulling the rug out from under us. One of my cow erkers used to keep a big jar of Vaseline on his desk, so it wouldn't hurt so much. It's going to happen on the public side too. Just a little later in the game.

Vaseline is a petroleum-based product. Why do you think think the price of oil is going up?

 

[rescueme]

One of my co-workers used to keep a big jar of Vaseline on his desk, so it wouldn't hurt so much. .

Yes, I was formerly a member of the B.O.H.I.C.A. club before I retired ...

 

[M Paquette]

Regardless of the age you choose to retire, and regardless of whether you plan receiving on the projected amount of social security, or have budgeted something less for social secuirty (but you are still counting on sonething), could you/can you retire without any social security?

This would not be a serious problem.

However, as with any deferred annuity, I would insist on a refund of the purchase value upon cancellation prior to annuitization.

 

[Meadbh]

I can and I will. Since I have not worked in Canada for my entire career, I will be eligible for only a portion of the Canada Pension Plan, and by the time I am eligible for Old Age Security it will probably be "clawed back" if my income is too high. I don't include them in my calculations. If I get CPP I will be happy but it will be icing on the cake.

 

[Chester_A._Riley]

I agree with DAWG52: "SS will be the icing on the cake. Not required, but will help protect my portfolio."

All of my expenses are usually accommodated by pension and SS, with little need for withdrawing from the portfolio (once SS became available.)

 

[BTravlin]

We could manage without SS benefits but our budget would be fairly tight and not nearly as much fun as it would be with the bennies.

 

[79protons]

It seems stupid and silly to not count SS in your retirement plans. Why include anything other than cash you have hidden in a jar in the backyard then? Why would SS benefits be considered so at risk and yet pensions, 401Ks, IRAs (both traditional and Roth) be considered rock solid firecalc safe? With the general lack of saving by the average US citizen, SS is probably one of the few benefits you *can* count on in retirement. The ability to withdraw from your fat pension, 401K, or Roth without having a significant portion of that money redistributed to the average US citizen is much more up in the air.

 

[martyb]

I won't get social security since I'm a retired federal employee under CSRS. I paid in for a number of years but don't have the 40 quarters to qualify for a reduced benefit unless I were to work for awhile under SS which is unlikely.

I'm CSRS too, but I do have the 40 quarters. I started working at 15 in a job where I paid into SS and continued to pay into it until after I separated from active duty in 1981.

 

[DeborahB]

As someone who has paid into SS with the expectation of a benefit in return, the question is moot. It's my money, the feds have just been borrowing it from me every two weeks for nearly 40 years... and it's getting closer to payback time.

+1
I'm at payback time and I expect a check (starting in Feb. 2011, as it happens). I probably could manage without it, but why should I.

 

[easysurfer]

I'm not old enough to take SS yet. But put it this way, I'd rather have it than not. So I voted for #1 above

 

[samclem]

N.B: The question posed in the OP is not: "If Social Security had never been enacted, would you be able to retire?" If SS had not been enacted, I'd have kept my half of the payroll tax and likely gotten most of what my employer paid, too. Invested, that would have produced a tidier sum than I'll get from SS, so I'd have been better off.

But, to the asked question--we could get by if we didn't get SS checks after having paid into the system for decades.

 

[akck]

My early planning didn't include SS. Now that I'm within 10 years of receiving it, I included it, allowing me to retire a couple of years earlier. Like others, it would delay retirement, unless I could maintain a 10% return on investments (not going to happen). I'd also have the option to cut expenses down to where a reasonable return would suffice.

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

My full retirement age corresponds to the year we will probably finish burning through our post-tax assets. SS will easily cover the grossing up for taxes once I start drawing from my tax-deferred funds. Unless taxes reallly take off, that is.

Either way we'd be OK without SS but it would leave a dent.

 

[harley]

It seems stupid and silly to not count SS in your retirement plans. Why include anything other than cash you have hidden in a jar in the backyard then? Why would SS benefits be considered so at risk and yet pensions, 401Ks, IRAs (both traditional and Roth) be considered rock solid firecalc safe? With the general lack of saving by the average US citizen, SS is probably one of the few benefits you *can* count on in retirement. The ability to withdraw from your fat pension, 401K, or Roth without having a significant portion of that money redistributed to the average US citizen is much more up in the air.

Well, since you asked so politely , I'll give you my answer. I have much more control of my money than I do of SS. I don't trust the gov't to follow through, and can't really see how they can, given the financial situation. Since they probably can't fulfill their promise as stated, they'll be looking for someone to steal from. I'm well off, and have a big bullseye on my back. I have no doubt they'll give me something, but I don't know what. So I don't count on it.

As far as pensions, I doubt most people in private industry would consider them rock solid. But the money in my personal accounts is as safe as I can make it. Even if the gov't adds a VAT, I can play various tax games to minimize the bite. I guess it comes down to being a bird in the hand type. I don't have it yet, so I'm not counting on it. As others have said, whatever I get will be icing, and I'll use it to shrink my SWR and leave some money to DD when I die.

 

[saluki9]

Thanks to the boomers it will not be a choice for me.

 

[79protons]

Well, since you asked so politely , I'll give you my answer. I have much more control of my money than I do of SS. I don't trust the gov't to follow through, and can't really see how they can, given the financial situation. Since they probably can't fulfill their promise as stated, they'll be looking for someone to steal from. I'm well off, and have a big bullseye on my back. I have no doubt they'll give me something, but I don't know what. So I don't count on it.

As far as pensions, I doubt most people in private industry would consider them rock solid. But the money in my personal accounts is as safe as I can make it. Even if the gov't adds a VAT, I can play various tax games to minimize the bite. I guess it comes down to being a bird in the hand type. I don't have it yet, so I'm not counting on it. As others have said, whatever I get will be icing, and I'll use it to shrink my SWR and leave some money to DD when I die.

Other than money you hide from them, I could see a situation where they take the bird out of your hand or at least get a good chunk of breast and wing. If things got really bad where 50% of joe public needed SS income to eat, then I wouldn't put it past the government to tax Roths or something else we now consider unthinkable.

 

[DeborahB]

Thanks to the boomers it will not be a choice for me.

You know, most boomers paid a lot of money into SS. It probably will still be there for you.

What is this boomer hate that is becoming so vocal? I really don't understand it (it's not just in this post - I see this more and more). I don't mean it as a criticism of this poster, because it's being said a lot.

My experience of the 30 - 40 somethings is that they spend a hell of a lot more than I ever did if they make a lot of money, and save very little. I don't mean to generalize but this IS my experience.

I retired by bringing my lunch to work, not getting coffee at Starbucks, eating at home, maxing out all savings plans, and living below my means. I don't see that happening a lot outside this forum.

 

[harley]

Other than money you hide from them, I could see a situation where they take the bird out of your hand or at least get a good chunk of breast and wing. If things got really bad where 50% of joe public needed SS income to eat, then I wouldn't put it past the government to tax Roths or something else we now consider unthinkable.

I'd have cashed out and run off to Costa Rica before that happened. I wouldn't be able to take SS with me. Another reason to not count on it.

 

[M Paquette]

You know, most boomers paid a lot of money into SS. It probably will still be there for you.

What is this boomer hate that is becoming so vocal? I really don't understand it (it's not just in this post - I see this more and more). I don't mean it as a criticism of this poster, because it's being said a lot.

Guess what group of people is being set up as the villain for the coming federal budget battles involving entitlements. I sense a semantic disturbance in the language...

 

[Gumby]

I have never counted on receiving social security. Given that it is by no means impossible to fix the problems facing the system, I suspect that I will receive something eventually, but it seems the more conservative planning assumption would be zero. If and when I do get anything, I can use it as "mad money".

While it is not the case for me, the only downside to assuming zero SS would be that it could cause you to delay your retirement.

 

[Westernskies]

Guess what group of people is being set up as the villain for the coming federal budget battles involving entitlements. I sense a semantic disturbance in the language...

The naives are restless....

 

[W2R]

I retired by bringing my lunch to work, not getting coffee at Starbucks, eating at home, maxing out all savings plans, and living below my means. I don't see that happening a lot outside this forum.

That is one of the great things about this forum. Some, though not all, of us got to retirement just like you did and we have that in common.

 

[79protons]

Not counting SS in your retirement could cause you to delay doing some of the things that are a bit easier when you are young.

If we count on SS, then we can probably ER at age 45 and do the sail around the world thing along with some extensive hiking and roughing it (would like to spend some time in Australia too). If we have to save an additional amount to invest in an anuity with a return equal to SS, then we probably couldn't retire until 49 or 50. Is it worth missing those "young" years when your health (may) be a bit stronger just because you are scared that SS will not be around? The bird in the hand strategy could also apply to your youth and health...retire early and count on SS being there while you still have the ability to do some of the things that are much harder when you are in your 60s and 70s.

 

[GregLee]

SS is 40% of our retirement income. Doing without it would be possible, but quite uncomfortable.