Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-15-2019, 05:00 AM   #21
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
would it make you feel better if they left the FRA alone and just reduced the PIA to adjust outflows to inflows?
A cut is a cut no matter how you get there. Start it later, take less starting at the same time - it's still a cut. (That's the whole point).

Quote:
The last time that FRAs were changed in 1983, the people most impacted were 45 years old... and were 20 years from FRA... their FRA was changed to 65.2... BFD.
When I was 45 years old I had already been working for 30 years. You can conclude it wasn't a BFD if the rules are changed after more than half your working life if you like, but it's still a cut.

Quote:
If you go back to why the FRA was increased in 1983 you will find that part of the rationale for increasing the FRA was because of increased longevity... so it sort of is, albeit very imperfectly. In 1983 they increased FRAs for longevity improvements from 1940 to 1983... so 43 years... now 36 years later we need to take another bite at the apple.
I don't disagree with changing the FRA due to longevity changes. As I wrote, I believe it should be permanently indexed to longevity.

I just call these FRA increases under the current rules what they are - a cut in lifetime benefits.

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 cut my expected lifetime benefits by over $40,000. You can call that "closing an aggressive claiming strategy loophole" or any other euphemism you like. But it clearly cut my benefits.
__________________

__________________
Old enough to know better.
joeea is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 05-15-2019, 08:05 AM   #22
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 21,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeea View Post
.... I don't disagree with changing the FRA due to longevity changes. As I wrote, I believe it should be permanently indexed to longevity.

I just call these FRA increases under the current rules what they are - a cut in lifetime benefits.

The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 cut my expected lifetime benefits by over $40,000. You can call that "closing an aggressive claiming strategy loophole" or any other euphemism you like. But it clearly cut my benefits.
On the first part, you say that an increase in the FRA is a cut but at the same time you favor indexing the FRA to longevity... right?

If so, then you favor building cuts into the system?

It seems that if an increase in the FRA is programmed and happens with regularity then it is a-ok, but if the same thing is done every couple generations then it is a cut.

On the second part, it impacted us too but to a lesser degree. It was clearly a loophole in the rules that some smart people figured out and hoards of people started to take advantage of so they closed the loophole.

So I guess your view is that if they take away something that you were never entitled to to begin with, be it file and suspend or longevity gains, then it is a cut. I get it, but I just disagree... I think of it as a prudent adjustment to put the system back on track to its original intent.
__________________

__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56...60/35/5 AA
pb4uski is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Another Article On Social Security Running Out of Money Blue Collar Guy Other topics 54 07-20-2017 09:59 PM
when should you take social security article veremchuka FIRE and Money 117 02-21-2011 05:04 PM
SS benefits, delay taking Social Security, Scott Burns article landover FIRE and Money 11 11-29-2005 05:58 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:14 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.