Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
The Social Security 2100 Act
Old 08-11-2019, 08:06 AM   #1
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 3,508
The Social Security 2100 Act

Since discussion of the Secure Act was permitted, it seems like it might make sense to discuss the impact of The Social Security 2100 Act on FIRE and claiming strategies.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/10/cong...-security.html

"In July, the House Ways and Means Committee held a hearing on a new bill introduced by Rep. John Larson, D-Conn., called the Social Security 2100 Act.

The plan also would increase the amount of non-Social Security income one can earn before benefits begin to be taxed. The new limits would go to $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for couples, up from today’s $25,000 and $32,000 thresholds.

In order to pay for those changes, the bill calls for raising payroll taxes on wages over $400,000. Wages up to $132,900 are currently taxed.

It also calls for increased payroll contributions from workers and employers. That rate would increase to 7.4% from 6.2% and would be gradually phased in from 2020 to 2043.

The bill currently has more than 200 co-sponsors in the House. Supporters plan to hold a markup of the legislation in the fall, and then move it to the House floor for a vote.


[mod note - post edited to ensure copyright compliance Copyright, the DMCA, and "cut and paste" ]


So if this were to pass into law, would this change anyone's approach to FIRE?

Would this change anyone's claiming strategy? I would imagine with the "21% benefit cut in 2034" off the table, more would be willing to delay until 70?
__________________

joeea 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 08-11-2019, 08:20 AM   #2
Administrator
MichaelB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Rocky inlets
Posts: 30,327
The thread was moved to the policy forum
__________________

MichaelB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2019, 08:21 AM   #3
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 3,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelB View Post
The thread was moved to the policy forum
Thank you for moving it!
joeea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2019, 08:26 AM   #4
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Rianne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Champaign
Posts: 2,226
It would certainly make our strategy secure. $100K SS income before taxes.
"The plan also would increase the amount of non-Social Security income one can earn before benefits begin to be taxed. The new limits would go to $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for couples, up from today’s $25,000 and $32,000 thresholds."
Also, if we knew SS was secure at the current income at 62, we definitely would re consider taking early (well 63-64), since we're 62 this year and did not plan for it anyway.
__________________
"If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.
Rianne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2019, 08:27 AM   #5
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: 23,687
While I am enthusiastic about SS reform, I can't find much enthusiasm for this bill.

The notion of expanding minimum benefits to 125% of poverty would be hugely expensive, effectively doubling the minimum benefit I think, as can be seen in the increase in the tax rate needed to support it.

That provision seems to be intended to change SS from one leg of a three-legged stool to three legs.... there is no need to waste brain cells on how it would affect my claiming strategy because it will never become law (and it should not become law).
__________________
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   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2019, 08:32 AM   #6
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Long Island
Posts: 1,151
We had already planned to postpone DH's SS until age 70, but this is good to know.

The plan for mine at this point is age 62, but I will need to speak with our accountant as to whether I should also postpone as I will be doing Roth conversions.
__________________
Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without.
MarieIG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2019, 08:32 AM   #7
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 1,193
Anyone want to hazard a guess on the chances of this thing passing both houses and Executive?

No need to get political; I've just noticed that there's always a lot of noise when a new bill is proposed, but very few of them make it to becoming law. It's not really worth wasting a lot of time speculating about something that's just a pipe dream, with no real hope of being enacted.

I'm just wondering which category this one might be in.
CaptTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2019, 08:35 AM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 3,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rianne View Post
Also, if we knew SS was secure at the current income at 62, we definitely would re consider taking early (well 63-64), since we're 62 this year and did not plan for it anyway.
Hmm, I don't think I understand this.

You are saying that if SS was secured by this new legislation, you would be more inclined to start early at 62? If so, why?
joeea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2019, 08:56 AM   #9
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Rianne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Champaign
Posts: 2,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeea View Post
Hmm, I don't think I understand this.

You are saying that if SS was secured by this new legislation, you would be more inclined to start early at 62? If so, why?
Currently at 62, our SS per year is $32,364 (combined)
With 25% haircut, $24,264.

If this legislation goes through, say next year, we know we'll get $32,364 provided all the other considerations...early death and survivorship benefits. All those calculations will be adjusted.

We're 62 this year and had not planned on taking it, the 25% haircut is a consideration in our decision. And if you're not taxed up to $100K income in new legislation, that makes a difference, if I'm understanding this correctly.

Say we take at 64, this is a guess right now, have not looked at the income tables for before FRA, but say, $40K/year at 64, we do not have to pay any tax with new legislation, again if I understand this.
__________________
"If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.
Rianne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2019, 09:41 AM   #10
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 3,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rianne View Post
Currently at 62, our SS per year is $32,364 (combined)
With 25% haircut, $24,264.

If this legislation goes through, say next year, we know we'll get $32,364 provided all the other considerations...early death and survivorship benefits. All those calculations will be adjusted.

We're 62 this year and had not planned on taking it, the 25% haircut is a consideration in our decision. And if you're not taxed up to $100K income in new legislation, that makes a difference, if I'm understanding this correctly.

Say we take at 64, this is a guess right now, have not looked at the income tables for before FRA, but say, $40K/year at 64, we do not have to pay any tax with new legislation, again if I understand this.
Okay thanks.

I'm surprised because some folks claim that their expectation of a "haircut" makes them decide to start benefits at 62 rather than waiting. (I'm not saying that I agree with that thought process.)

You had not planned on starting at 62. Wouldn't the delayed retirement credits, along with the assurance that there will be no "haircut" make you more confident in delaying at least the higher earner's benefits until 70?
joeea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2019, 10:29 AM   #11
Recycles dryer sheets
4legsgood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Seattle
Posts: 188
I would definitely take SS later if something gets passed that keeps it solvent, unless my heath fails.
__________________
Retired 2015 at age 55...50/45/5 AA
4legsgood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2019, 10:53 AM   #12
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Tampa
Posts: 4,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by 4legsgood View Post
I would definitely take SS later if something gets passed that keeps it solvent, unless my heath fails.
+1 or my TIRA goes down too much as the substitute for SS between 65 and 70 y.o.
__________________
TGIM
Dtail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2019, 11:03 AM   #13
Administrator
Alan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Eee ba gum
Posts: 25,055
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeea View Post

Would this change anyone's claiming strategy?
Not me.
__________________
Retired in Jan, 2010 at 55, moved to England in May 2016
Enough private pension and SS income to cover all needs
Alan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2019, 11:03 AM   #14
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Mr._Graybeard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptTom View Post
Anyone want to hazard a guess on the chances of this thing passing both houses and Executive?

No need to get political; I've just noticed that there's always a lot of noise when a new bill is proposed, but very few of them make it to becoming law. It's not really worth wasting a lot of time speculating about something that's just a pipe dream, with no real hope of being enacted.

I'm just wondering which category this one might be in.
Yep. At the newspaper we had a policy that whenever we covered the introduction of a bill, that legislation process had to be covered until it either a) became law; b) died in committee; or c) foundered anywhere in between. That eliminated a lot of meaningless hoopla from lawmakers seeking headlines.
Mr._Graybeard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2019, 11:13 AM   #15
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 797
Taking social security at 62 because long lives are not in my family genes. Better to get some than none. Not worried about a hair cut with ss. We have prepared (hopefully) for the worst.

This will be an interesting thread to keep up with.
kimcdougc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2019, 11:22 AM   #16
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Beaverton
Posts: 1,215
This thread isn't really about when we plan to take SS. It's about legislation in the House to deal with a number of issues. These proposed changes are attempting to delay or eliminate "taking a haircut" like many of you suggest.

I do like the idea of raising income limits to not tax our 85% of SS. We'll see if that goes.

I love the idea of raising the income levels from current $100,000+ to $400,000 limit. I have been a huge supporter of this and I was a high earner so it certainly would have affected me. But, I feel that this is the only re-distribution of wealth policy that I've ever agreed with.

Also the raising of the withholding rate makes sense to me.

For much of the legislation I've seen recently, this I think has more overall value than anything else.

Just my two cents
__________________
Jump in, the water's warm.
Bir48die is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2019, 11:30 AM   #17
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 204
I think it was still limiting at current ~$132k, but starting back at $400k+ (creating a donut hole)?
__________________
Hoping 2023 - 2024
Tiger8693 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2019, 11:37 AM   #18
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 3,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger8693 View Post
I think it was still limiting at current ~$132k, but starting back at $400k+ (creating a donut hole)?
Yes.
joeea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2019, 11:43 AM   #19
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
frayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Chattanooga
Posts: 2,992
I'd rather see the RMD age bumped up to 72-74.
__________________
The only thing constant in life is change.
frayne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2019, 11:43 AM   #20
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 3,508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bir48die View Post
I love the idea of raising the income levels from current $100,000+ to $400,000 limit. I have been a huge supporter of this and I was a high earner so it certainly would have affected me. But, I feel that this is the only re-distribution of wealth policy that I've ever agreed with.
This law doesn't exactly do what you seem to love.

Instead, it leaves the basic cutoff where it is, but it starts again when income is above $400,000.
__________________

joeea is offline   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
Started Social Social Security at age 62 but my break even date is well into my 80s Retired and Restless FIRE and Money 96 12-24-2016 12:49 PM
Social Security Fairness Act of 2009 H.R. 235 Zoocat FIRE Related Public Policy 52 05-26-2009 03:41 PM
Energy policy act of 2005 azanon Other topics 3 05-09-2006 04:05 PM
Act now to get rich fast! Nords FIRE and Money 6 11-06-2005 08:20 PM
Everbank seems to be a class act. GTM FIRE and Money 0 03-03-2005 07:24 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:52 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
×