We'll need to keep politics our of this discussion if we want it to continue ..
That's not the case. Kotlikoff saidSome of us are already on spousal or divorced spousal benefits, and waited to do this until FRA in order to allow our own benefits to grow until age 70 (at which point some of us planned to switch to our own, by then higher benefits). I am not sure but there is a concern that the pending legislation will change SS law on us in midstream so that we cannot get our full (age 70) benefits when we are 70.
Forbes Welcome
I know that in my case, had I known this in advance I would NOT have collected my divorced spousal benefits at all. I have always planned on, and counted on, my full age 70 benefits from age 70 on.
Tadpole, my understanding is that we are NOT grandfathered.
Note induce, not force. If you don't fall for the inducement, you still get your higher benefits at 70.Worse, it will induce those who have suspended their benefits in order to collect higher benefits at 70 to restart their benefits at permanently lower levels in order to maintain their family’s immediate living standards.
won't happen - one of the founding principles of SS (and any other social insurance program) is that need is presumed
That's not the case. Kotlikoff said
Note induce, not force. If you don't fall for the inducement, you still get your higher benefits at 70.
Right. One of the other principles was the promise that the SS number would never be used as an official ID number for other purposes. Politicians break promises all the time and I maintain that taxation of benefits for those with higher income is a form of means testing.
.
The only source so far on this is Kotlikoff, and this is his bread and butter. I'm a bit skeptical things are as severe as he claims, especially the part that reduces current payments.
won't happen - one of the founding principles of SS (and any other social insurance program) is that need is presumed
I agree that Kotlikoff's language is extreme "devastating, Draconian".The only source so far on this is Kotlikoff, and this is his bread and butter. I'm a bit skeptical things are as severe as he claims, especially the part that reduces current payments.
7 ‘‘(3) In the case of an individual who requests that
8 such benefits be suspended under this subsection, for any
9 month during the period in which the suspension is in effect—
11 ‘‘(A) no retroactive benefits (as defined in subsection (j)(4)(B)(iii)) shall be payable to such individual;
14 ‘‘(B) no monthly benefit shall be payable to any
15 other individual on the basis of such individual’s
16 wages and self-employment income; and
17 ‘‘(C) no monthly benefit shall be payable to
18 such individual on the basis of another individual’s
19 wages and self-employment income.’’
(3) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made
25 by this subsection shall apply with respect to bene-
1 fits payable for months beginning at least 180 days
2 after the date of the enactment of this Act.
22 (3) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made
23 by this subsection shall apply with respect to individuals who attain age 62 in any calendar year after 2015.
They do have means testing. It's in the form of taxation of SS benefits if your income is over certain levels.
.EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made
23 by this subsection shall apply with respect to individuals who attain age 62 in any calendar year after 2015
Is this really the same thing?Wow. Very interesting. One of the arguments frequently used by the wait till 70 crowd is that they will have plenty of warning of proposed legislation so as to take evasive action before any law modifying SS benefits is enacted. I first heard of this today. It looks like it will be passed by the house tomorrow, the senate shortly thereafter and then signed into law by the President when - next week?
For Section 831(a), yes. I'm not sure which section is more important to you..
So, if one hit 62 in 2015, the old rules apply?
+1
Priceless, I turn 62 next month!
(page 73 of the doc I linked above)22 (3) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made
23 by this subsection shall apply with respect to individ-
24 uals who attain age 62 in any calendar year after
25 2015
24 (3) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made
25 by this subsection shall apply with respect to bene-
1 fits payable for months beginning at least 180 days
2 after the date of the enactment of this Act.
Talk about squeaking in under the wire:
(page 73 of the doc I linked above)
Unfortunately for many here - the file and suspend section becomes effective 180 days after the law passes. (page 76 of the doc)
so two grandfathers? one for the deemed filing (age 62) and the other for retroactive payments (180 days). Hopefully he sold a bunch of his $40 software.
... has joined the Bogleheads.org discussion on this subject (thread title "Changes to SS regulations in new funding bill"). Here is a quote regarding his reading of the proposed bill: "It essentially makes the restricted application strategy dead in the water (for some people), via changes to deemed filing. Specifically, deemed currently only applies prior to full retirement age. If this bill passes, it would apply regardless of age."
I'm surprised they are even allowing this discussion on Bogleheads, especially since it isn't even law yet.
Boehner submitted an amended version of the bill - this thing is evolving
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.