Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-29-2015, 02:52 PM   #121
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 309
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet View Post
In the case of SAHM's married to high wage earners, that couple should send in additional FICA dollars to fund a 50% of hubby's SS benefit for her. It's giving the SAHM, who's making the spouse's high wages possible, SS benefits without corresponding contributions that's the problem......
It is important to remember that a lot of the SAHM's are raising the next generation of workers
paying into SS so the SAHM's are making a in-direct contribution.
These are workers who will be helping pay for our SS.
__________________

__________________
homestead is offline  
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 10-29-2015, 02:55 PM   #122
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ivinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corporateburnout View Post
A former boss' wife did not work at all but was busy shopping and relaxing by the pool all day. They had no kids but she will collect 50% of his SS benefits. How is that fair?
Fair doesn't enter into it ..it's the way the law is written right now..I'm learning a lot on this thread and I'm afraid comments like this will bring about a swift closing...I don't want that to happen.
__________________

__________________
ivinsfan is offline  
Old 10-29-2015, 03:07 PM   #123
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,433
Quote:
Originally Posted by homestead View Post
It is important to remember that a lot of the SAHM's are raising the next generation of workers
paying into SS so the SAHM's are making a in-direct contribution.
These are workers who will be helping pay for our SS.
Great point. A lot of us fail to look at the big picture.
__________________
Retired in 2016. Living off dividends / interest and a mini pension. Freedom.
foxfirev5 is offline  
Old 10-29-2015, 03:13 PM   #124
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
RetireAge50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,121
These kind of things are outside of my control so whatever.
__________________
RetireAge50 is offline  
Old 10-29-2015, 03:15 PM   #125
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,433
The program has been tinkered with from the start. Misallocation of trust funds?? Loopholes etc. I am firmly in favor of an actuarially neutral benefit plan that will pay out fairly if you collect at 60 or 80. Why not just take what I get at 62 and forget the rest? And I'm a guy who goes to great lengths to plan taxes and everything else far in advance. The SS puzzle looks pretty shaky and I don't see a clear resolution in the near or midterm future.
__________________
Retired in 2016. Living off dividends / interest and a mini pension. Freedom.
foxfirev5 is offline  
Old 10-29-2015, 03:20 PM   #126
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,413
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet View Post
You keep throwing in the word "completely" which was not originally used. That changes the meaning.

I think that FIRE wanabee's who counted on the SS file and suspend loophole to be more than a small and incidental part of their FIRE plans made an avoidable mistake.

While eliminating the file and suspend loopholes will be mildly annoying for a few, it's unlikely to be any sort of meaningful financial setback for the folks here for the reasons you describe above. And the elimination does seem to level the playing field a bit. We all pay FICA at the same rate. Why should married couples have this type of bonus opportunity when it comes time to collect?
actually divorced couples had the best deal . they could file spousal on each other . married couples only got 1 spousal benefit .
__________________
mathjak107 is offline  
Old 10-29-2015, 03:31 PM   #127
Recycles dryer sheets
MissMolly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 471
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bestwifeever View Post
So to be unaffected by the loophole closing it sounds like one has to be

*older than 62 by the date the amendment specifies,
*with a spouse already collecting,
*financially able to wait until 66 to claim spousal,
*and for the maximum loophole benefit have a spousal benefit that is more than one's own benefit at 66 but less than one's own benefit will grow to by age 70

This works for me. For my numbers with simple calculations, looks like it will give me a bonus of around $35k over the next 20 years, or an average of $1750 a year. I promise to give it to charity. If this interpretation is wrong, oh well.
Can anyone clarify some of this for my situation?

*Spouse is 63 (will turn 64 in Feb) - not yet collecting SS
*I will turn 62 in about 3 more weeks, so will be 62 in the year 2015.
*I had planned to have spouse file for his own when he is 66
*Once I tuned 66 I planned to claim 50% spousal
*I am the higher earner so I planned to delay claiming my own until I am 70

So given that we are both at/over 62 (or will be in another 3 weeks), does this mean my spouse will have to file now for SS in order for me to be able to claim 50% spousal when I turn 66 and continue to delay my own until 70, or does this mean that since we are both over/at 62 years of age in 2015 that we are totally grandfathered into the old rules and we can continue with my previous plan?
__________________
And whatever your labors and aspirations in the noisy confusion of life, keep peace in your soul. With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.- Desiderata by Max Ehrmann
MissMolly is online now  
Old 10-29-2015, 03:34 PM   #128
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,413
fidelity just cancelled our consultation tomorrow with their new social security tool . with the new changes they are pulling the tool from the branches until things are resolved .
__________________
mathjak107 is offline  
Old 10-29-2015, 03:42 PM   #129
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,705
Seems to me that the most interesting (frightening?) part of this discussion is not that it is happening but how quickly (quietly?) it took to pass.

A recurring theme on this forum is that there's always plenty of time to adjust and, at worst, be grandfathered into to some situation or another.

From what I can tell, nobody saw this coming and, it's too late to do much about it.

No?
__________________
Living well is the best revenge!
Retired @ 52 in 2005
marko is online now  
Old 10-29-2015, 03:51 PM   #130
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Vienna
Posts: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by MissMolly View Post
Can anyone clarify some of this for my situation?

*Spouse is 63 (will turn 64 in Feb) - not yet collecting SS
*I will turn 62 in about 3 more weeks, so will be 62 in the year 2015.
*I had planned to have spouse file for his own when he is 66
*Once I tuned 66 I planned to claim 50% spousal
*I am the higher earner so I planned to delay claiming my own until I am 70

So given that we are both at/over 62 (or will be in another 3 weeks), does this mean my spouse will have to file now for SS in order for me to be able to claim 50% spousal when I turn 66 and continue to delay my own until 70, or does this mean that since we are both over/at 62 years of age in 2015 that we are totally grandfathered into the old rules and we can continue with my previous plan?
Based on what I've read about the proposed changes, your original plan seems fine. Your plan involves filing a restricted application, but not filing and suspending. Since you are at/over 62, you will likely retain the option of filing a restricted application. You might have had a problem if your spouse planned on suspending benefits after filing at 66 as that option is going away under the proposed legislation.
__________________
MildlyEccentric is offline  
Old 10-29-2015, 03:56 PM   #131
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 4,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko View Post
Seems to me that the most interesting (frightening?) part of this discussion is not that it is happening but how quickly (quietly?) it took to pass.
The future is uncertain.

Wait until they have to make some real changes to SS. My cohort will get a huge haircut I'm sure.
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is online now  
Old 10-29-2015, 04:02 PM   #132
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko View Post
Seems to me that the most interesting (frightening?) part of this discussion is not that it is happening but how quickly (quietly?) it took to pass.

A recurring theme on this forum is that there's always plenty of time to adjust and, at worst, be grandfathered into to some situation or another.

From what I can tell, nobody saw this coming and, it's too late to do much about it.

No?
I'm pretty sure we had a thread about Obama budget proposals in the last year or two that had a number of retirement related issues. This was one of them.

However, I looked at it and said "Maybe part of some big SS overhaul, not going to happen as a stand-alone budget proposal". So, I was wrong on that.

The original wording in this bill would have impacted people who are already collecting. I don't know whether that was a drafting mistake or a political mistake, but they seem to have reversed it within a day.

It didn't grandfather in many pre-62 people - applies to people who are already 61. But, I expect they thought this is a pretty obscure thing, probably mostly used by higher income people who had good advice or the time to analyze this.
__________________
Independent is offline  
Old 10-29-2015, 04:08 PM   #133
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Big_Hitter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: In the fairway
Posts: 4,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent View Post
But, I expect they thought this is a pretty obscure thing, probably mostly used by higher income people who had good advice or the time to analyze this.
Agreed - generally only higher income people would have the wherewithal to game the system correctly.

FAs are probably happy - they will get more customers paying retail trying to decide whether to draw down 3, 3.5 or 4%...
__________________
Swing hard, look up
Big_Hitter is online now  
Old 10-29-2015, 04:40 PM   #134
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Kerrville,Tx
Posts: 2,718
It should be noted that the end of file and suspend was proposed in the Presidents budget: Here is a link to an article about the proposal in the 2015 budget from 2014:
http://www.fa-mag.com/news/-file-and...ire-17384.html So it has been in the presidents budget for a while. It is just surprising that it took 2 years to get thru. Note also that because of the increase in Full Retirement age starting with folks born in 1955 the strategy would work less every year as the period between full retirment age and 70 decreases to only 3 years in 10 years, so the benefit for folks born in 1960 would only be 24% at most.
__________________
meierlde is offline  
Old 10-29-2015, 05:22 PM   #135
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by W2R View Post
I'm probably in the minority here, but here goes.

Forum members here comprise a group of uncommonly intelligent and forward looking individuals planning their retirement, and in my minority opinion none would rely completely on SS of any kind, or on Uncle Joe's coin collection, or on the Tooth Fairy, to fund their retirement.
For my wife and I at age 70 SS projections indicate over $50,000 per year in income, what is the amount of this Tooth Fairy fund that I should reasonably be able to count on? This is not a minor amount of money and worth about 1.3 million dollars in retirement savings at age 70 in today's dollars, how much should I have reserved in my own savings to offset?

To place Social Security in the same category as the Tooth Fairy or Uncle Joe's coin collection as investment advice at age 59 implies to me I should either cut my spending plans early in my retirement or else go back to work and earn another 1.3 million by age 70.

An alternative plan would be to just count on the 30K we could have at age 62 and therefore the 320K I was planning to use as bridge spending to get me to age 70 will now be available as 12.8K of withdrawals and use $42,800 as my new income from the "Social Security Funding" portion of my retirement plan, forgoing 7.2K per year or else go back to work until my retirement portfolio grows by another 180K.

Somehow in my investment plans, I must come to grips with the 320K I have for bridging to SS age 70 and how much I can even count on SS with that number being somewhere between 320K and 1 million dollars.
__________________
Running_Man is offline  
Old 10-29-2015, 05:50 PM   #136
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
braumeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Northern Kentucky
Posts: 8,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ed_The_Gypsy View Post
from the SSA website: https://www.ssa.gov/planners/maxtax.html

How much anguish could be avoided if there were no upper limit on SS taxes? Many times in my career I have made more than the upper limit, as have my colleagues and our managers. Personally, I would have been/will be happy to pay SS/Medicare taxes on every dollar I made or might make in the future. At the higher income levels, I can well afford it. It is such a simple thing that would have great general benefit as distinct from actions intended to reduce benefits. Has this issue been covered before somewhere? I am baffled. Thanks.
Same here. This has always mystified me completely. Even though there were only a few years when I was over the upper limit (back in the early 70s), I always felt it was strange that there even was an upper limit. It certainly wouldn't have bothered me to pay a little more.
__________________
braumeister is online now  
Old 10-29-2015, 05:58 PM   #137
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,425
There has been an upper cap in contribution, because there has been a corresponding limit in benefits. This makes the tax feel more equitable, although the benefit is already severely reduced at the high end.

When SS was first enacted, perhaps it was promoted to be just a safety net or supplemental income, hence a cap in benefits and also in the tax. I surmise that SS might be difficult to be passed into law otherwise.

SS was not meant to be the sole source of income for retirees. How did old people manage prior to SS? But as the years go by, more and more people rely on SS for sole income, claim disability, have children late (dependent benefits), get divorced (spousal benefits), and live longer, and here we are.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is online now  
Old 10-29-2015, 06:30 PM   #138
Recycles dryer sheets
Theseus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 484
F&S never seemed to be a strategy that would have been of much benefit for us, so I'm probably a less than neutral about it. I think the writing was on the wall for this to happen, and what gives me the jitters is once this one is is done, what is the next "loophole" target? Yes, we've all heard the grim statistics for decades on how SS, Medicare, etc. will go broke if "something" isn't done.

If anything, this has me reconsidering the strategy of even delaying SS until FRA. The phrase "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" has been around much longer than we have, perhaps it is not so unsound advice.
__________________
Theseus is offline  
Old 10-29-2015, 06:57 PM   #139
Full time employment: Posting here.
Accidental Retiree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theseus View Post
F&S never seemed to be a strategy that would have been of much benefit for us, so I'm probably a less than neutral about it. I think the writing was on the wall for this to happen, and what gives me the jitters is once this one is is done, what is the next "loophole" target? Yes, we've all heard the grim statistics for decades on how SS, Medicare, etc. will go broke if "something" isn't done.



If anything, this has me reconsidering the strategy of even delaying SS until FRA. The phrase "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" has been around much longer than we have, perhaps it is not so unsound advice.

/\ /\ /\ This.
__________________
Chief Retirement Strategist
The AR Group
Accidental Retiree is offline  
Old 10-29-2015, 07:09 PM   #140
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,049
Didn't give us much time to go into our garages and dig out our torches and pitchforks, did they? No one seems to have anticipated this - Fldelity calling people to cancel meetings means they were not in the know. They spent a lot of money on their new Social Security planner, which is now worthless.

Since all those unemployed folks were shifted to disability to bring down the unemployment rate, someone had to pay. Used to be old folks were exempt from attacks, because they voted. Congress must be counting on another constituency.

Not that it will matter much in my case, but I turn 62 at the end of December. I already filed and the award letter is in hand. Try taking THAT away, Congress....
__________________

__________________
Another Reader 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 02:04 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.