Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Lower Social Security Checks for 1947-Born Retirees
Old 05-28-2010, 12:47 AM   #1
Recycles dryer sheets
Nova's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 270
Lower Social Security Checks for 1947-Born Retirees

Looks like there is no way around this disadvantage. Thank you very much SSA.

Lower Social Security Checks for 1947-Born Retirees - Yahoo! Finance
__________________

__________________
Nova 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 05-28-2010, 06:03 AM   #2
Moderator Emeritus
Bestwifeever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 16,375
The article doesn't make clear why (or if) this applies only to 1947 babies, does it? It seems like it would apply to 1947 and later.

Also, "For a 1947-born retired couple receiving $2,347 monthly, this benefit decrease costs them $749 per year." I first thought it meant the benefit decrease would cost them $749 per month, since the article gives us the monthly SS amount, but no, it would actually be $62.42 per month not being paid because the CPI didn't actually change.

Maybe AARP will get on it
__________________

__________________
“Would you like an adventure now, or would you like to have your tea first?” J.M. Barrie, Peter Pan
Bestwifeever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 06:16 AM   #3
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
teejayevans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,222
They are not getting screwed, they are going to enjoy the benefits of the 2008 inflation
jump as well, its just their bump was pre-loaded. No different if it was 2.8 in 2008 and
2.8 in 200, instead of 5.8 and 0
TJ
__________________
teejayevans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 07:45 AM   #4
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by teejayevans View Post
They are not getting screwed, they are going to enjoy the benefits of the 2008 inflation
jump as well, its just their bump was pre-loaded. No different if it was 2.8 in 2008 and
2.8 in 200, instead of 5.8 and 0
TJ
Since folks who were born in '47 did not qualify for inflation-based increases until 2009, they aren't getting the benefits of the 2008 adjustment.

Your statement above is just plain wrong and I encourage others, if interested, to read the article which is fairly clear in it's explanation and consistent with the same information that was widely published several months ago and discussed in another thread on the same subject last autumn.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 07:52 AM   #5
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bestwifeever View Post
The article doesn't make clear why (or if) this applies only to 1947 babies, does it? It seems like it would apply to 1947 and later.

Also, "For a 1947-born retired couple receiving $2,347 monthly, this benefit decrease costs them $749 per year." I first thought it meant the benefit decrease would cost them $749 per month, since the article gives us the monthly SS amount, but no, it would actually be $62.42 per month not being paid because the CPI didn't actually change.
The article does give the root cause, but probably doesn't emphasize it enough. The issue was explained by Bikerdude in an earlier thread on the same subject. See his post (#8).

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f28/bad-news-for-those-born-in-1947-a-46838.html
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 08:12 AM   #6
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Tadpole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,170
Won't this affect the 1948's too?
__________________
Tadpole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 08:36 AM   #7
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tadpole View Post
Won't this affect the 1948's too?
I would say no or very little, since those born in '48 (as I was) could not claim early SS till this year - 2010.

Our rates are computed for the current year, before the COLA situation came about.

As to my own case? I was born Jan 1948. I received my SS statement in October of 2009. It stated my age 62,66,70 benefit.

In January, I ran the on-line SS Estimator:

Benefits Calculators: About the Social Security Retirement Estimator

and it returned the same age benefits as my statement.

I also ran it several months after and it increased my age 62 benefit (ages 66/70 remained the same), since I did not claim and started receiving "longivity credits".

Anyway, since I'm not claiming my own SS till age 70 (for the benefit of my DW, but I will file against her for 50% of her benefit at age 66, when she will claim, and we're the same age), I will get an increase of 8% a year from age 66-69 (32%) so whatever short-term mis-calculations were made, I/we can overcome them.
__________________
rescueme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 08:41 AM   #8
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tadpole View Post
Won't this affect the 1948's too?
It will affect the '48 folks as well if there is no SS inflation adjustment for 2011, and that appears to be the case right now. It will be a smaller impact however.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 09:16 AM   #9
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Tadpole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,170
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet View Post
It will affect the '48 folks as well if there is no SS inflation adjustment for 2011, and that appears to be the case right now. It will be a smaller impact however.
Yes, that is why I asked about it. I too think this will be a zero year and I am a '48. But, aside from expectations from projections, I cannot see how this is such a big deal. CPI effects everyone.
__________________
Tadpole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 09:26 AM   #10
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tadpole View Post
Yes, that is why I asked about it. I too think this will be a zero year and I am a '48. But, aside from expectations from projections, I cannot see how this is such a big deal. CPI effects everyone.
It's only a big deal if getting a few kilobucks less SS over your lifetime is of consequence to you.

I think the pisser is that this is simply an unfortunate nuance of the formulas and procedures the SS folks use. An irritant. Like realizing you were short changed by the hot dog vendor at the ball park who gave you change for a $10 and you gave him a $20. It isn't going to change your life. It's just an irritant.

This is the second time this has happened to me. The first involves my MIL. She's in the "notch" SS group. Since I supplement her meager income to she can lead a decent life, the reduced SS she receives just causes me to dig a little deeper into my own pocket. Sigh.........

I'm irritated. But I'll get over it!
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 09:29 AM   #11
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet View Post
I supplement her meager income to she can lead a decent life, the reduced SS she receives just causes me to dig a little deeper into my own pocket. Sigh.........
It's a good thing that you are financially independent (I didn't say "rich") ...
__________________
rescueme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 09:48 AM   #12
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by rescueme View Post
It's a good thing that you are financially independent (I didn't say "rich") ...
Well..... actually I am rich in a number of ways.... family, friends, decent health. But money-rich, nah, not so much! But, as you say, it's good to be financially independent even if barely so.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 11:26 AM   #13
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
teejayevans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tadpole View Post
Won't this affect the 1948's too?
Its confusing, they have a average wage (index to inflation), but they don't
use it when you turn 62, instead they use the factor from when your were
60. So if inflation jumps up when you turn 61, you miss it.
TJ
__________________
teejayevans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-28-2010, 03:00 PM   #14
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 404
Quote:
Originally Posted by teejayevans View Post
Its confusing, they have a average wage (index to inflation), but they don't
use it when you turn 62, instead they use the factor from when your were
60. So if inflation jumps up when you turn 61, you miss it.
TJ
For whatever reason, the AWI is always 2 years old. It usually is posted in October, the same time as the CPI, on the SSA site. So the 2011 AWI will be based on 2009 data.

Currently, the last tabulation is 2008:

Average Wage Index (AWI)
__________________
ACC USN-(Ret)
BLS53 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2010, 09:33 AM   #15
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 731
I'm a '48. I went through the SS site and actually input my wage numbers and it calculated my theoretical benefit both in today's dollars and inflated dollars (I think that was it). Anyhow, quite helpful. I give up, I'm retiring in a few weeks and what will be will be.
__________________
Retired July 2, 2010 at 62. My only regret is that I couldn't do it sooner.
thinker25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2010, 10:22 AM   #16
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nova View Post
Looks like there is no way around this disadvantage. Thank you very much SSA.

Lower Social Security Checks for 1947-Born Retirees - Yahoo! Finance
Of course, it's not the SS Adminitstration, but the law, that's causing this.

I don't see Congress fixing this because the rules are so complex that the people who get hit don't understand what's happening. I'm glad that Bigg's current estimate is less than 3%. He was originally thinking it could be as much as 5%.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2010, 05:39 PM   #17
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
teejayevans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent View Post
I don't see Congress fixing this because the rules are so complex that the people who get hit don't understand what's happening.
Maybe it's just me, but I think they that do on purpose.
TJ
__________________
teejayevans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-29-2010, 07:46 PM   #18
Administrator
W2R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 38,905
It's very confusing, I agree. I am another '48 and have been wondering about its effect, if any, on my SS. Mostly I just assume that I will get the worst of it in comparison with those born in other years. I know about what I should be getting, so it can only affect me in a relative way. If it turns out that I am not affected much by the 2008 "raise", well, that will be a nice surprise.
__________________

__________________
Already we are boldly launched upon the deep; but soon we shall be lost in its unshored, harbourless immensities.

- - H. Melville, 1851
W2R 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
Bad News for Those Born in 1947 Independent FIRE and Money 40 10-20-2009 08:04 PM
Social Security COLA for Early Retirees hogwild FIRE and Money 46 01-16-2009 09:01 PM
Social Security Benefits Cut For Early Retirees Michael Other topics 12 01-05-2005 01:45 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:12 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.