Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
You should take SS at 62
Old 05-21-2015, 05:40 PM   #281
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,035
You should take SS at 62

I always find it odd people assume SS will be cut. I find it more likely the taxes will be increased. The reason t-bills are "risk-free" return is that the government can always create revenue via tax.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum
__________________

__________________
dallas27 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 05-21-2015, 05:53 PM   #282
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 1,248
Quote:
Originally Posted by dallas27 View Post
I always find it odd people assume SS will be cut. I find it more likely the taxes will be increased. The reason t-bills are "risk-free" return is that the government can always create revenue via tax.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum
+1

It is possibility..... but I would say 10 times more likely are tax increases. And that may mean taxing 100% of SS benefits.

Contemplating cutting it is political suicide.

I think people who take SS at 62 want something to be happy about. So this is one of their spins. I will be rational about my decision at that means not at 62 and not at 70 either. 65-67 looks like right age for me
__________________

__________________
eta2020 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 05:56 PM   #283
Moderator
Walt34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern WV Panhandle
Posts: 16,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Hitter View Post
not to go too far off topic on the subject of long-tailed pension payments, but the last civil war pension beneficiary just passed away a few years ago - she married young to an old veteran around the turn of the century
I remember reading about that. Also IIRC, the pension was $10/month.
__________________
I heard the call to do nothing. So I answered it.
Walt34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 06:08 PM   #284
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,423
Quote:
Originally Posted by dallas27 View Post
I always find it odd people assume SS will be cut. I find it more likely the taxes will be increased. The reason t-bills are "risk-free" return is that the government can always create revenue via tax.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum
Not so sure about that.

There's a strong anti-taxes, pro small govt. fervor that isn't going away any time soon.

Coupled that with disdain for "entitlements" as if people who get them have a sense of entitlement which is undeserved and it's a vocal and well-funded faction which will resist any kind of tax increases for the foreseeable future.

If they cut the benefits of seniors, what are they going to do, march on Washington in their walkers?

Meanwhile the younger cohorts don't believe SS will be there 20 or more years from now when they'd be eligible, so they'd rather have their taxes lowered (even if it's mostly the highest brackets which get most of the cuts) than cuts in SS benefits, which they don't think they're going to collect in the first place.
__________________
explanade is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 06:17 PM   #285
Moderator
Walt34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern WV Panhandle
Posts: 16,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by explanade View Post
If they cut the benefits of seniors, what are they going to do, march on Washington in their walkers?
No, but they will vote en masse, in part because they're not partying or working, raising kids (most anyway) or have many other distractions that keep folks away from the polls, including apathy. And the politicians know it.

I may be mistaken, and my crystal ball is as cloudy as the next guy's, but that'd be my bet.
__________________
I heard the call to do nothing. So I answered it.
Walt34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 08:48 PM   #286
Full time employment: Posting here.
NYEXPAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Miraflores,Peru
Posts: 884
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivinsfan View Post
That's a true statement, but I would be interested in knowing the amount overall that goes to the minor children of retired parents.Look at your average 60 year male movie star for more examples of 20 year age differences.
Well you found me out!

In 2011 (last #'s I've seen) there were 594,355 children collecting a combined total of about $7,132,260,000 per year and 2,291,792 collecting $27,501,504,000 on their spouses record.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
+1 I know of one couple with a 20 year age difference... that's the most I can think of for people that I know.
It must be an "overseas thing" for the most part, as all of my married friends (age 60 and older) all have young wives and only five or so with young children. The oldest is 74 with a 36 y/o wife and a two year old daughter, He is a German national and we have never discussed his benefits. In the States my two closest friends have young Wives 62/26 and 62/40 but neither of them are retired or have children with their 2nd and 3rd Wives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
It is so extreme that it really does not need to be addressed.... the amount saved would be very tiny compared to the amount being paid out.... do you know any couple with a 20+ age difference I have only met one in my life...
If we move to Texas as we are planning, I'll be sure to drop by with the missus and say hello!
__________________
NYEXPAT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 08:59 PM   #287
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Mulligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt34 View Post
I remember reading about that. Also IIRC, the pension was $10/month.

Well now it all makes sense. She married for the money! I bet $10 bought more around 1900 than it did a few years ago though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
Mulligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 09:15 PM   #288
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ivinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYEXPAT View Post
Well you found me out!

In 2011 (last #'s I've seen) there were 594,355 children collecting a combined total of about $7,132,260,000 per year and 2,291,792 collecting $27,501,504,000 on their spouses record.

It must be an "overseas thing" for the most part, as all of my married friends (age 60 and older) all have young wives and only five or so with young children. The oldest is 74 with a 36 y/o wife and a two year old daughter, He is a German national and we have never discussed his benefits. In the States my two closest friends have young Wives 62/26 and 62/40 but neither of them are retired or have children with their 2nd and 3rd Wives.


If we move to Texas as we are planning, I'll be sure to drop by with the missus and say hello!
See, Texas Proud even little amounts of money add up to a big total!
__________________
ivinsfan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 09:45 PM   #289
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort View Post
I don't understand all the financial "expert" articles where this issue is not even mentioned. A true business analysis would take a probability tree approach or something similar and factor reduced benefits in as a real possibility, since that is actually what is funded currently and as such a non-zero probability outcome.

As a project manager I would not have planned a very long term project on a 100% budget if only 77% of the project was actually funded.
I'm not sure that the exhaustion of the "trust fund" will be a giant issue. The resources in the "trust fund" are just a special type of US bonds, and they are redeemed in order to pay current benefits. When they are redeemed, the money comes from the general fund. There's no (greater) need for more tax revenue when the "trust fund" runs out.
Example:
Year 2032 (last full year before the trust fund runs out of bonds): 77% of money for SS benefits comes from taxes paid by present workers, 23% comes from the general fund (after redemptions of the SS special bonds).
Year 2033 (First year that the bonds have all been redeemed): 77% of money for SS benefits comes from taxes paid by present workers, 23% comes from the general fund.
Either way, the general fund (taxpayers) pay 23%.
The bonds and the trust fund are just an accounting mechanism (some would say "artifice" or "trick", but they are real and legitimate). If there were gold bars or even currency in that "lock box" it would be different, but they are just IOUs, and they need have no impact on the cash flows--the 23% comes from taxpayers now, and it can come from them after 2033 without need for higher taxes.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 10:06 PM   #290
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 5,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
I'm not sure that the exhaustion of the "trust fund" will be a giant issue.
I would prefer to see my benefits not reduced, but did you see the proposals by the Heritage Fund representative in the AARP link above? Benefit cuts being proposed on as low as $55K in other income, which is not exactly a one percenter lifestyle in higher COL areas.
__________________
Even clouds seem bright and breezy, 'Cause the livin' is free and easy, See the rat race in a new way, Like you're wakin' up to a new day (Dr. Tarr and Professor Fether lyrics, Alan Parsons Project, based on an EA Poe story)
daylatedollarshort is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 10:12 PM   #291
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort View Post
I would prefer to see my benefits not reduced, but did you see the proposals by the Heritage Fund representative in the AARP link above? Benefit cuts being proposed on as low as $55K in other income, which is not exactly a one percenter lifestyle in higher COL areas.
No matter how this is approached, it will take money out of some pockets. What we all hope is that it is someone else's pockets. Toward that end I recommend not being at all reasonable; just raise hell whenever they are getting anywhere close to your money. That is what everyone else is doing, and some of them have advantages beyond what most can marshal to see that someone else pays.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is online now   Reply With Quote
You should take SS at 62
Old 05-21-2015, 10:18 PM   #292
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Mulligan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 7,382
You should take SS at 62

Quote:
Originally Posted by haha View Post
No matter how this is approached, it will take money out of some pockets. What we all hope is that it is someone else's pockets. Toward that end I recommend not being at all reasonable; just raise hell whenever they are getting anywhere close to your money. That is what everyone else is doing, and some of them have advantages beyond what most can marshal to see that someone else pays.

Ha

And seniors do that quite well and also do more than complain...They vote...Which seems to me the most likely outcome is lower amount for people who are still young "to make the numbers work long term" or raise retirement age again with the way lower 62 provision still in place. Drastic overhauls of important programs such as this would seem not likely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
__________________
Mulligan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 10:31 PM   #293
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
And seniors do that quite well and also do more than complain...They vote...Which seems to me the most likely outcome is lower amount for people who are still young "to make the numbers work long term" or raise retirement age again with the way lower 62 provision still in place. Drastic overhauls of important programs such as this would seem not likely.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
LOL. true enough. Old people (como yo) are like divorce litigants. They know there is a pie in question. Some are going to pay for it, and some are going to eat it. We "senior citizens" are like any other interest group, we want to minimize our weaknesses and exploit our strengths. I've even worked out a theory as to why this is the only way that democracy is served. I'll spare you, but I feel that it is as good as anyone else's theory, and equally full of bull!

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 10:39 PM   #294
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mulligan View Post
Drastic overhauls of important programs such as this would seem not likely.
Of course, they wouldn't have to be drastic if done soon enough. We could make the inflow match the outflow for a LONG time with a few minor modifications now, announced early enough so that people could make their own plans. But, that's not how our system works. So, if we won't do the responsible thing as a group, I guess we are left to do the best we can as individuals to avoid personal pain due to the general shortsightedness.
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 10:50 PM   #295
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,287
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivinsfan View Post
See, Texas Proud even little amounts of money add up to a big total!
But we do not know how many of those are the big age difference.... that is total kids and some are due to a parent dying...

Also, in the scheme of things, $7 bill is not that much...


Very few people have talked about getting rid of spousal.... so until it gets any kind of traction it is not worth worrying about...
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-21-2015, 10:55 PM   #296
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,287
Someone mentioned second and third marriages....


I wonder how much is going out the door due to multiple marriages... As an example... I have a sister who was married for 11 years before getting divorced... she was married 33 years to her second husband.... he got SS... she got spousal... he died... she is getting 100% of his benefit...

BUT, whenever first husband dies her SS goes up!!! She will qualify for survivor benefits on any husband she was married to for 10 years... her first husband has a much larger benefit... as she has said, I do not wish him any harm, but I will get something when he passes...
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2015, 12:06 AM   #297
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 473
Look, we don't even know for sure that the Trust Fund exhaustion will take place as projected. The SSA projections for the economy have typically been pessimistic. The main problem over the past seven years has been the severe recession and slow recovery. When folks don't work, they don't pay FICA. Wage stagnation hasn't helped either.

Regardless, it seems strange to me that we have no problem spending trillions on a couple of wars and bailing out crooked bankers but then talk about cutting Granny's meager retirement funds. Maybe when the kids find they have a choice between shelling out a bit more in taxes to keep Granny independent or having poor Granny move in with them, the answer will be a bit clearer.
__________________
Ian S is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2015, 12:27 AM   #298
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Sunset's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,743
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian S View Post
Look, we don't even know for sure that the Trust Fund exhaustion will take place as projected. The SSA projections for the economy have typically been pessimistic. The main problem over the past seven years has been the severe recession and slow recovery. When folks don't work, they don't pay FICA. Wage stagnation hasn't helped either.

Regardless, it seems strange to me that we have no problem spending trillions on a couple of wars and bailing out crooked bankers but then talk about cutting Granny's meager retirement funds. Maybe when the kids find they have a choice between shelling out a bit more in taxes to keep Granny independent or having poor Granny move in with them, the answer will be a bit clearer.
+1
There are enormous budget categories the gov't has that could have their funds reduced to pay for SS, where the US currently spends 10x more than any other country.

Its really a matter of shifting priorities.
__________________
Sunset is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2015, 05:52 AM   #299
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
target2019's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 3,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big_Hitter View Post
I think FAs are hard-wired to automatically spit out the number 70 in any SS conversation
I found that for one FA group. When they ran their recommendation it was clear that waiting until 70 really helped their agenda. I see the wisdom in waiting to get more for a surviving spouse. But they never brought to our attention other SS strategies. That was the advertised come on, that they would put your numbers into their advanced software and it would show various options. But their spreadsheet really did not adequately analyze our situation.
__________________
target2019 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-22-2015, 06:51 AM   #300
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ivinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas Proud View Post
Someone mentioned second and third marriages....


I wonder how much is going out the door due to multiple marriages... As an example... I have a sister who was married for 11 years before getting divorced... she was married 33 years to her second husband.... he got SS... she got spousal... he died... she is getting 100% of his benefit...

BUT, whenever first husband dies her SS goes up!!! She will qualify for survivor benefits on any husband she was married to for 10 years... her first husband has a much larger benefit... as she has said, I do not wish him any harm, but I will get something when he passes...
Is this info direct from the SS admin, I have a friend whose sister was a multiple marriage type... I helped her do some reading up on this and my understanding is if you are no longer married to the person and wanting to collect the spousal benefit that one of the rules is you cannot actually be re-married to another person. Or in other words, once you remarry you have given up the right to collect survivor bennies from another spouse. You can either be divorced and not remarried, or a widower/widow of someone to qualify for a survivor benny.

Does anybody else have experience with this?
__________________

__________________
ivinsfan is online now   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
When Should You Take Social Security? wanaberetiree FIRE and Money 20 09-02-2014 02:56 PM
when should you take social security article veremchuka FIRE and Money 117 02-21-2011 06:04 PM
why you should ALWAYS take SS as soon as you can endthefed FIRE and Money 69 06-05-2010 09:38 AM
Iraq and the Kansas Tornado. You should be angry. We all should. newguy88 Other topics 16 05-08-2007 08:20 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:34 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.