SS benefits, delay taking Social Security, Scott Burns article

[landover]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...2.9678e0b.html

I guess its better to have more money coming from SS than managing my own money when I am 85 aprt from tax issue.

[peggy]

I have a problem with this statement from the article:

The longer you delay taking Social Security, the greater the benefit. The reason for this is simple: The real "return" on delaying benefits is about equal to the long-term real return on common stocks.

Unlike common stocks, however, this return is guaranteed.

Guaranteed? Right - untill Congress changes the laws again, or adds means testing, or whatever.

I'm not planning on SS to be there when I reach 67, but if it is, I'll take the money then rather than delay it.

[MRGALT2U]

Originally Posted by WhodaThunkit

Hi, Peggy.* I'm not trying to be confrontational (honest!), but I wonder if you have any kind of quantitative background (math, engineering).* The Burns column gave us some new information by reporting the solution, for one set of assumptions, to a barely tractable optimization problem.*

Everybody, most certainly including Burns, understands that the rules can change.* Nevertheless, I think the column is well worth reading, and that the advice is well worth giving serious consideration.

If Mr. Burns should happen to read this forum, I would like to thank him for his work!

I like Burns a lot. He's not perfect. Who is?

JG

[Nords]

Originally Posted by WhodaThunkit

Hi, Peggy.* I'm not trying to be confrontational (honest!), but I wonder if you have any kind of quantitative background (math, engineering).

I've had plenty of that background, and I still agree with Peggy. You don't need to be an engineer to predict that Congress will find some way to meddle with that set of given assumptions, which kinda makes all the analysis redundant!

The other assumption that's frequently overlooked is ensuring that you'll live to collect all of these deferred benefits...

[Nords]

Originally Posted by WhodaThunkit

Hi, Nords.* I guess I just don't understand the chip-on-the-shoulder attitude toward the govt and toward SS.

I think most of it comes from being forced to surrender a large percentage of our income with few investment options. If it was called "insurance" then maybe it'd be more palatable. But those of us who are contributing always feel like we're the ones with the fewest options, no matter how much we "communicate" with our elected representatives.

Originally Posted by WhodaThunkit

A lot of changes have been discussed in the last year, and none has been implemented to date.

Which is probably a good thing, but I'm pessimistic that will be the case for the 17 years I have left to observe this debate before I can start getting any of my money back.

[MasterBlaster]

WhodaThunkit:

You might change your tune if when the shoe drops the govenment eliminates your benefit.

I'm in the Nords camp, in that I'm disgusted with the poor job that our government is doing to plan for the boomers retirement. The head-in-the sand approach isn't good for anyone.

[MasterBlaster]

Where does this idea come from?

Well, I'm not going to have the SS debate (again).

However some people think that the (increasing) levels of public and private debt, and the lack of a SS trust fund indicates trouble. Combine this with millions of boomers expecting to retire with a generous SS-pension and medicare benefits and that makes for a dismal future.

If do to the levels of public and private debt, income and other taxes must be dedicated to other causes (like debt payment) then taxes just cannot be raised enough to support SS as it has been.* As to who gets hit, in terms of means testing, benefit cuts, extended retirement dates, or increased borrowing (meaning future taxes) is yet to be decided.

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

WhodaThunkit:

You might change your tune if when the shoe drops the govenment eliminates your benefit.

I'm in the Nords camp, in that I'm disgusted with the poor job that our government is doing to plan for the boomers retirement. The head-in-the sand approach isn't good for anyone.

Why do guys believe that Social Security is this nation's biggest financial problem? We are currently running a surplus and the program does not start running a debt for years to come. In fact the surplus is being used to fund the other 'idiot' programs like the War in Iraq and the Defense Contracts that the Congressman in California was Nailed for!

Why aren't *you concerned about the $500 Billion debt Bush is currently running up? The money comes from the same pot! The only reason Bush brought up Social Security was to eliminate it. It is a FDR 'New Deal' program and Bush Jr. wanted to be the neocon that 'Took it down' - *Now that Bush Jr. has more serious problems, the program should be safe for years to come! *

So get a Grip and start focusing on the real money issues that this country faces. Not just what Bush Jr. wants for his personal legacy!

[MasterBlaster]

Who is to say that I am not concerned about the current deficit spending ?

And you can cut the Ted Kennedy talk now.

- Get a grip

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

Who is to say that I am not concerned about the current deficit spending ?

And you can cut the Ted Kennedy talk now.

- Get a grip

Oh! - You mean cut the truth, because you can't handle the Truth!

[MasterBlaster]

Why don't you just try to be a little bit nicer

- and get a grip

[haha]

Originally Posted by MasterBlaster

Why don't you just try to be a little bit nicer

- and get a grip

Hey, you let Cut-throat alone.* His nature photos alone are worth coming by here.*

Ha