Lower Social Security Checks for 1947-Born Retirees

[Nova]

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

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

[Bestwifeever]

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

[teejayevans]

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

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by teejayevans 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.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bestwifeever 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

[Tadpole]

Won't this affect the 1948's too?

[rescueme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tadpole 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.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tadpole 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.

[Tadpole]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet 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.

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tadpole 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!

[rescueme]

Quote:

Originally Posted by youbet 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") ...

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rescueme 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.

[teejayevans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tadpole 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

[BLS53]

Quote:

Originally Posted by teejayevans 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)

[DeborahB]

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.

[Independent]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nova 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%.

[teejayevans]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Independent 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

[W2R]

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.