Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-28-2015, 01:56 PM   #61
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
mickeyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Texas~29N/98W
Posts: 5,884
Quote:

bill will eliminate "unintended loopholes"
"Loopholes" are what other people use to scam the system. Benefits are what I use to get what's mine in the system. Yes, they are usually the same thing.
__________________

__________________
Part-Owner of Texas

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. Groucho Marx

In dire need of: faster horses, younger woman, older whiskey, more money.
mickeyd is online now  
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 10-28-2015, 01:59 PM   #62
Recycles dryer sheets
Focus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
I also read in paper they are robbing Peter to pay Paul. The disability part of the fund is about empty and they are going to shift funds from SS retirement fund to bulk it up. Well if memory serves, that fund isn't funded so fully either.... Avoiding the problem as long as possible I guess is the plan.
Robbing Peter to pay Paul is exactly what this is. From an Oct. 28 article in Money:

Quote:
The Social Security Disability fund is scheduled to run out of money in about a year. The draft bill will permit Social Security to pay all its disability claims until 2022 by shifting payroll tax revenue away from the larger retirement fund and into this program. Without this reallocation, those on disability would have seen 20% cuts when the funds were exhausted.

Right now, employees and employers each pay a 6.2% payroll tax (the wage ceiling is $118,500 this year) or a total of 12.4% into the agency’s trust fund. Of this, 1.8 percentage points is allocated to the disability fund. Under the bill, this allocation would rise in 2016, 2017 and 2018 by roughly half a percentage point to 2.37%.
__________________

__________________
-
"Wealth consists not in having great possessions, but in having few wants."
--Epictetus
Focus is offline  
Old 10-28-2015, 02:52 PM   #63
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,417
Quote:
Originally Posted by thefinancebuff View Post
You don't. Because you are already 62 you can still file for spousal while deferring your own. Because your husband's benefit isn't suspended, you will still get the spousal.
this is wrong . , you can only get your own at 62 , there is zero choice . the only thing you can get is a step up if 1/2 your husbands full is more than your full would have been . the difference is added to your own early benefit .

so my wife filed at 62 and got her early benefit . her early benefit is 8500.00 . her full is 10,700. when i file regardless of my age they take 1/2 my full which is 15k , subtract 10,700 and add the difference to her early benefit .

she gets no other choice at 62
__________________
mathjak107 is online now  
Old 10-28-2015, 03:05 PM   #64
Recycles dryer sheets
thefinancebuff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 262
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
this is wrong . , you can only get your own at 62 , there is zero choice . the only thing you can get is a step up if 1/2 your husbands full is more than your full would have been . the difference is added to your own early benefit .

so my wife filed at 62 and got her early benefit . her early benefit is 8500.00 . her full is 10,700. when i file regardless of my age they take 1/2 my full which is 15k , subtract 10,700 and add the difference to her early benefit .

she gets no other choice at 62
I meant filing for spousal at FRA. 62 was mentioned because it's the age for being grandfathered by this coming law. Whoever is already 62 can file for spousal at FRA while deferring his/her own benefit to 70.
__________________
thefinancebuff is offline  
Old 10-28-2015, 03:07 PM   #65
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,417
thats better ......

however their husband would have to be collecting and not suspended if this bill passes . which in this case he is already collecting . .
__________________
mathjak107 is online now  
Old 10-28-2015, 03:33 PM   #66
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3,012
Thanks for the clarifications! I know it's ever-changing and even without these latest moves, I'd have to look at whatever the current law was when I hit FRA.

Right now, I agree that at age 62, my only choice is to file for SS on my own record. I have every intention of waiting till 70 to do that. When I hit FRA I'll see what the situation is with spousal SS and if filing for it somehow shortchanges me on my own SS.
__________________
athena53 is online now  
Old 10-28-2015, 05:10 PM   #67
Recycles dryer sheets
Dd852's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: London/UK
Posts: 213
Here's another discussion on this issue that provided me with a bit more clarity: https://www.kitces.com/blog/congress...b0459-57061137



Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum
__________________
Dd852 is offline  
Old 10-28-2015, 06:50 PM   #68
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Htown Harry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,516
I did a double take at post #50, which quoted this from the Kotlikoff article posted by the OP.

Quote:
Finally, there is egregious inequality in the treatment of those born a few years apart. Someone who is now 70 and who has collected a full spousal benefit since 1966 and waited until this year to collect her retirement benefit will have received as much as $50,000 more from the system than someone in the same circumstances but who just turned 66.
Someone who is now 70 was 21 in 1966. (2015-1966 = 49 years ago. 70 - 49 = age 21 in 1966.)

But doesn't eligibility for collecting a spousal benefit depend on the older spouse being at least 62?

So...

Kotlikoff is using a married couple with 41 years of age difference to build a case for outrage? (62 y.o married to a 21 y.o in 1966)

Worse, is he using the case of a 62 year old married to a 17-year-old for comparison?

I hope I'm missing something here.
__________________
No doubt a continuous prosperity, though spendthrift, is preferable to an economy thriftily moral, though lean. Nevertheless, that prosperity would seem more soundly shored if, by a saving grace, more of us had the grace to save.

Life Magazine editorial, 1956
Htown Harry is offline  
Old 10-28-2015, 06:51 PM   #69
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Colorado Mountains
Posts: 2,152
I'm collecting on my deceased wife's account until I am 70. I can't figure out if this might impact my benefits or not. I think it depends on how SS rules writers interpret the new law.
__________________
Hermit is offline  
Old 10-28-2015, 06:52 PM   #70
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ivinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Htown Harry View Post
I did a double take at post #50, which quoted this from the Kotlikoff article posted by the OP.

Someone who is now 70 was 21 in 1966. (2015-1966 = 49 years ago. 70 - 49 = age 21 in 1966.)

But doesn't eligibility for collecting a spousal benefit depend on the older spouse being at least 62?

So...

Kotlikoff is using a married couple with 41 years of age difference to build a case for outrage? (62 y.o married to a 21 y.o in 1966)

Worse, is he using the case of a 62 year old married to a 17-year-old for comparison?

I hope I'm missing something here.
I'm guessing that is a typo and he means age 66, not 1966.Actually after reading it again, that might be the worst run on sentence I've ever seen.I have no idea what he means!
__________________
ivinsfan is offline  
Old 10-28-2015, 06:57 PM   #71
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Htown Harry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivinsfan View Post
I'm guessing that is a typo and he means age 66, not 1966.
I hope so. Either way, I'm thinking there's some hyperbole involved.
__________________
No doubt a continuous prosperity, though spendthrift, is preferable to an economy thriftily moral, though lean. Nevertheless, that prosperity would seem more soundly shored if, by a saving grace, more of us had the grace to save.

Life Magazine editorial, 1956
Htown Harry is offline  
Old 10-28-2015, 07:03 PM   #72
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ivinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermit View Post
I'm collecting on my deceased wife's account until I am 70. I can't figure out if this might impact my benefits or not. I think it depends on how SS rules writers interpret the new law.
This is survivor benefit not spousal and treated differently,so who knows. My friend did this , for example at 66 you are entitled to 100% of the deceased spouse's actual benefit..not just 50% of their 65 benefit. There is really no double dipping involved, as obviously the deceased spouse will never collect any more checks.
__________________
ivinsfan is offline  
Old 10-28-2015, 08:52 PM   #73
Dryer sheet aficionado
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 28
I'm probably in the minority here, but here goes. Relying on a government loophole to fund your retirement is a flawed strategy.
__________________
AtlasShrugged is online now  
Old 10-28-2015, 08:57 PM   #74
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Colorado Mountains
Posts: 2,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivinsfan View Post
This is survivor benefit not spousal and treated differently,so who knows. My friend did this , for example at 66 you are entitled to 100% of the deceased spouse's actual benefit..not just 50% of their 65 benefit. There is really no double dipping involved, as obviously the deceased spouse will never collect any more checks.
Thanks, ivinsfan. I'm hoping that is the way it will work.

I didn't know about a bump in benefits at 66. I assume you mean when I turn 66, which is next February. I'll look into that.

Edit: I looked it up and that is dependent on when you start collecting benefits. Just like collecting your own at 62, if you start earlier, the amount is permanently reduced. If I had waited until 66 to claim, they are then 100% of deceased spouses FRA benefits.
__________________
Hermit is offline  
Old 10-28-2015, 09:21 PM   #75
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,699
Well the house approved it and the idea that Social Security would never implement changes for anyone currently receiving benefits will now no longer be able to be stated. That these changes could be proposed and approved so quickly without discussion is stunning. Less than 24 hours from when I heard of it to being approved by the House.

This makes claiming at 70 less valuable, takes 40K or 6.1 percent of what my lifetime benefits would have been to be claimed away. This has the effect of adding 1.3 years to the break even point in my case. More importantly it makes planning for any benefit not presently being claimed even more in jeopardy than it was a week ago.
__________________
Running_Man is offline  
Old 10-28-2015, 10:05 PM   #76
Dryer sheet aficionado
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlasShrugged View Post
I'm probably in the minority here, but here goes. Relying on a government loophole to fund your retirement is a flawed strategy.
+1
__________________
Boss2014 is offline  
Old 10-28-2015, 10:12 PM   #77
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
2017ish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,848
Quote:
Originally Posted by AtlasShrugged View Post
I'm probably in the minority here, but here goes. Relying on a government loophole [program] to fund your retirement [may be] a flawed strategy.
FTFY. This is, all in all, a small change. But, as has been the case since the 80s, we continue not to include social in our planning.... Will accept the icing and give it to our kids if it is there when we are 70.
__________________
OMY * 3 2ish Done 7.28.17
2017ish is offline  
Old 10-29-2015, 03:13 AM   #78
Dryer sheet aficionado
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2017ish View Post
FTFY. This is, all in all, a small change. But, as has been the case since the 80s, we continue not to include social in our planning.... Will accept the icing and give it to our kids if it is there when we are 70.
I agree with you that the potential elimination of file and suspend is minor in the grand scheme of things. I also agree with you that relying on social security at all is a risky proposition. However, F&S is a loophole. Congress and the President wouldn't have the guts to go after it if it wasn't.
__________________
AtlasShrugged is online now  
Old 10-29-2015, 04:49 AM   #79
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,417
only 8% of those taking ss wait until 70 so it isn't going to effect a lot .
__________________
mathjak107 is online now  
Old 10-29-2015, 06:11 AM   #80
Recycles dryer sheets
fosterscik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 183
A little more information here:
Are You About to Lose $50,000 in Future Social Security Benefits? - Bloomberg Business
Quote:
When would the change go into effect?
An original version of the budget deal ended file and suspend in six months for everyone using the strategy. That would have abruptly cut off checks to thousands of retirees, or many more. Today the deal was amended so it affects only retirees who file for benefits in the future, and the change wouldn't go into effect for six months. That means older workers who want to use the strategy could still do so until early next year.
__________________

__________________
fosterscik is online now  
Closed Thread


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
File and Suspend versus File and Restrict Chuckanut FIRE and Money 12 10-18-2014 08:19 AM
I signed up for file-and-suspend, but they didn't suspend Ed_The_Gypsy FIRE and Money 25 01-03-2014 02:15 PM
File for SS at 62, Draw Until FRA and Suspend to get Delayed Retirement Credits Brett_Cameron FIRE and Money 23 11-27-2013 06:48 PM
SS File and Suspend scenario for us fh2000 FIRE and Money 7 09-10-2013 11:47 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:05 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.