Join Early Retirement Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-06-2019, 12:06 PM   #81
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,404
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
Where did I say anything about decreasing benefits? If we increased the cap and added an additional bend point for high income earners the increase in taxes would far exceed the increase in benefits and help fund existing benefits to all others.
Quote:
This would be a good first step, in addition to increasing the FRA to reflect mortality improvements since it was last reset in 1982 (I think?).
It looked to me like you were supporting the idea of raising the FRA. That is a decrease in the monthly benefit. I suppose you could argue that increasing longevity has been increasing the PV of the benefits, so decreasing the monthly benefit simply keeps the PV the same. Was that your point?

If so, I think it's worth noting that the bottom half of income earners don't seem to be participating in this extended longevity.
__________________

Independent 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 05-06-2019, 12:16 PM   #82
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 21,410
I was supporting the idea of raising the FRA commensurate with improved longevity... but that doesn't necessarily equate to a reduction in benefits since a participant would receive benefits for the same number of years as they did when the FRA was changed from 65 to 67.

So for example, if in 1981 the change in the FRA from 65 to 67 was based in part on an expected life of 82 and due to medical advances, etc the expected life is now 84, then the FRA would be increased from 67 to 69.... in both cases a participant would be expected to collect benefits for 15 years on average (82-67 or 84-69). I don't see how you can characterize this as a decrease in benefits.

I'm skeptical that lower earners are not participating in increased longevity... I can see that they might be benefitting less than higher earners, but I think it would be hard to say that they are not benefiting at all.
__________________

__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56...60/35/5 AA
pb4uski is offline  
Old 05-06-2019, 12:42 PM   #83
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Cut-Throat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
I was supporting the idea of raising the FRA commensurate with improved longevity... but that doesn't necessarily equate to a reduction in benefits since a participant would receive benefits for the same number of years as they did when the FRA was changed from 65 to 67.

So for example, if in 1981 the change in the FRA from 65 to 67 was based in part on an expected life of 82 and due to medical advances, etc the expected life is now 84, then the FRA would be increased from 67 to 69.... in both cases a participant would be expected to collect benefits for 15 years on average (82-67 or 84-69). I don't see how you can characterize this as a decrease in benefits.

It is definitely a Decrease in benefits. Maybe not on 'Average', but for a certain individual it is most certainly. If Person a lives to age 95 (regardless of what life expectancy says) -- He will collect much less, if the FRA age is increased.
Cut-Throat is offline  
Old 05-06-2019, 03:06 PM   #84
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 21,410
I'll agree to disagree. The total collected is the same... 15 years at whatever he is due per month based on his earnings record.

If you don't increase the FRA to reflect improved longevity then you are increasing benefits... he'll collect for 17 years rather than for 15 years.

With logic like yours, it is no wonder that the system is in peril.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56...60/35/5 AA
pb4uski is offline  
Old 05-06-2019, 03:15 PM   #85
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Cut-Throat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
I'll agree to disagree. The total collected is the same... 15 years at whatever he is due per month based on his earnings record.

If you don't increase the FRA to reflect improved longevity then you are increasing benefits... he'll collect for 17 years rather than for 15 years.

With logic like yours, it is no wonder that the system is in peril.

First of all the System is NOT in Peril!


Sorry, you are explaining Averages, not for the individual Retiree. If a retiree is going to live to age 82 years, regardless of improved longevity, he'll collect less if you raise FRA.... You make the assumption that EVERY retiree gets to live 2 years longer when they raise the FRA! Do you understand that some retirees may not even live to Age 62?



Some retirees exercise, don't smoke and eat a balanced diet and will live longer regardless of the FRA .... People are not limited to collecting for 15 years! -- They collect until they die! --- If they start collecting later, then that is a DECREASED Benefit for them!



With logic like yours, ---- Do I have to explain it to you?
Cut-Throat is offline  
Old 05-06-2019, 03:47 PM   #86
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,541
I think the social security ages should be gradually raised and then permanently indexed to longevity. All of them should be indexed - the earliest age (currently 62), the FRA (currently going to 67) and the max benefit age (currently 70).

That won't get us back to having a growing trust fund though.

Consequently, the social security tax rate should be gradually increased, such that the 75 year projection for social security is positive.

To me those are the simplest solutions, both financially and politically. No other changes are needed.

I have no comment on when or if that could actually be passed.
__________________
Old enough to know better.
joeea is offline  
Old 05-06-2019, 04:10 PM   #87
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 21,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cut-Throat View Post
First of all the System is NOT in Peril!


Sorry, you are explaining Averages, not for the individual Retiree. If a retiree is going to live to age 82 years, regardless of improved longevity, he'll collect less if you raise FRA.... You make the assumption that EVERY retiree gets to live 2 years longer when they raise the FRA! Do you understand that some retirees may not even live to Age 62?



Some retirees exercise, don't smoke and eat a balanced diet and will live longer regardless of the FRA .... People are not limited to collecting for 15 years! -- They collect until they die! --- If they start collecting later, then that is a DECREASED Benefit for them!



With logic like yours, ---- Do I have to explain it to you?
If you have a system that is likely to have a 20% cut in benefits because it has NO assets left and outflows will exceed inflows in 15 years, I would call that peril. If a private pension plan had that degree of underfunding the feds would be all over the plan sponsor to increase contributions.

What does the fact that we agree on that some retirees may not live to age 62 have to do with what the FRA should be? The system is designed around averages with full knowledge that some will die earlier and some will live longer... so what?

One of the premises for the FRA originally was that retirement at age 65 would provide a certain number of years of retirement benefits given average longevity when that age 65 FRA was set.... then they later expanded the FRA from 65 to 67 to reflect improved longevity... and with technology and medical advances over the last 30 years we are due for another adjustment.

And these later FRA's are not a reduction in benefits because participants will be collting benefits for the same extent of time as participants of earlier generations.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56...60/35/5 AA
pb4uski is offline  
Old 05-06-2019, 04:12 PM   #88
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 21,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeea View Post
I think the social security ages should be gradually raised and then permanently indexed to longevity. All of them should be indexed - the earliest age (currently 62), the FRA (currently going to 67) and the max benefit age (currently 70).

That won't get us back to having a growing trust fund though.

Consequently, the social security tax rate should be gradually increased, such that the 75 year projection for social security is positive.

To me those are the simplest solutions, both financially and politically. No other changes are needed.

I have no comment on when or if that could actually be passed.
I like both of those ideas, but I would also include increasing the cap (and indexing it to inflation) and adding another bend point.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56...60/35/5 AA
pb4uski is offline  
Old 05-06-2019, 04:19 PM   #89
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Cut-Throat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
And these later FRA's are not a reduction in benefits because participants will be collting benefits for the same extent of time as participants of earlier generations.

You keep talking about Averages... When I collect benefits, I don't care about averages... I care about me... My father is still alive at age 97... He was born in 1922...



Bottom Line is you don't collect S.S. for a Set number of years. You collect until you die.... That is why we delay S.S. to Age 70 -- Old age Insurance. If you delay my start date, I don't get to Live Longer. I still die at the same age and I get LESS money.


THIS IS A DECREASE IN BENEFITS --- That is why one Party is pushing it -- It CUTS Benefits.
Cut-Throat is offline  
Old 05-06-2019, 04:31 PM   #90
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 21,410
Well, you're irrational, so there is no point in any further discussion. You prefer to expand benefits by refusing to recognize that longevity has improved... that's ok.... just don't complain when you benefit gets cut by 20% in 2034.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56...60/35/5 AA
pb4uski is offline  
Old 05-06-2019, 04:39 PM   #91
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Cut-Throat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,084
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
just don't complain when you benefit gets cut by 20% in 2034.

If you believe that you have been suckered in, and are not paying attention.
Cut-Throat is offline  
Old 05-06-2019, 04:48 PM   #92
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 21,410
Look in the mirror, sucker.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56...60/35/5 AA
pb4uski is offline  
Old 05-06-2019, 06:16 PM   #93
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2,541
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
I like both of those ideas, but I would also include increasing the cap (and indexing it to inflation) and adding another bend point.
I agree, that's a good feature as well.

I vote to include that change in the next round - whenever that may be.
__________________
Old enough to know better.
joeea is offline  
Old 05-07-2019, 10:09 AM   #94
Moderator
samclem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 13,715
Thanks for the interesting discussion.

__________________

samclem is offline  
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 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
100% in Wellesley? 2035? Breitling FIRE and Money 15 09-04-2007 03:32 PM
Fidelity Freedom 2035 Expense Ratio increase! Dude FIRE and Money 0 06-13-2007 07:53 PM
Starting small with 2035 portfolios One4g Young Dreamers 3 01-18-2005 04:47 AM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:56 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.