AARP worth it?

[Koolau]

One that I recall is that they were at one time saying that SS FRA and benefits should not change at all, and I don't agree with that, especially freezing the FRA given changes in longevity. When SS was started, the FRA of 65 was such that benefits were expected to be paid for about 13 years on average, so to age 78. With longevity increases it is now more like 85 (83 for men and 86 for women)... an additional 7 years, but the FRA has only been increased another 2 years (from 65 to 67).

That data would suggest that the FRA should be more like 72 to pay 10 years of benefits. Even if you split the difference to reflect that an increase in the FRA may result in more years of work and more contributions, that would suggest a FRA of 70 but if increasing the FRA from 67 to 70 for people currently in their 30s is proposed then there is a huge hue and cry that SS is being "cut".


It's not being cut, it is being adjusted due to changes in longevity so the program can continue to pay full benefits.

Politicians use the word "cut" when the rate of increase of something is reduced, so it's just the way of the (our) world. Right now, no one has the guts to deal with the issue. They probably won't until it's a crisis that can no longer be avoided.

Eventually, when SS actually begins to "fail" (you know - when there isn't enough to actually pay out the benefits) some politicians will swoop in and "save" SS by (wait for it) changing FRA (and/or other previously "3rd rail" issues.) Then, they will be dubbed as the "heroes" who saved SS. It's just the game and we shouldn't blame the politicians. They just hear "us" scream and then they give us what we want. Our fault - not theirs, but YMMV.

 

[target2019]

The cost is minimal. Why not try it out and write a review?

There are quite a number of AARP threads already, but I suppose with benefits changing you'd want new input. Note that the subject has lead to locked thread in the past.

Here's an old post I wrote:

AARP is a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization. Posts mentioning AARP always trigger political comments. It is no secret that they send offers for various products seniors are probably buying. Whatever. Their level of intrusion into my life does not apporach the data-gathering of most companies, organizations, etc.

AARP (formerly called the American Association of Retired Persons) is a United States–based interest group focusing on issues affecting those over the age of fifty. According to the organization, it had more than 38 million members as of 2018. The magazine and bulletin it sends to its members are the two largest-circulation publications in the United States.

AARP was founded in 1958 by Ethel Percy Andrus (a retired educator from California) and Leonard Davis (later the founder of the Colonial Penn Group of insurance companies). It is an influential lobbying group in the United States. AARP sells paid memberships, and markets insurance and other services to its members.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARP

My mother subscribed, so I've seen the magazine and papers they send out over a long period, since 1980 or so. Definitely a plus for the elderly. Got a preview of what would be my lot in future years. I send $50 to continue the subscription for a few years. We enjoy reading about proposed bills in our state and how it may affect us. You'll see a presentation of the views of presidential political candidates. They have a forum. There's always a glossy cover with another personality who is 75 and looks 60. And they look in-depth at certain subjects, like Medicare and all the other essential services for seniors.

For a few years we went to Financial Advisor dinners and reported our findings to AARP for their database.

As with any offer, you personally may get a significant financial benefit from reading or using an offer they approve of. But maybe you won't. YMMV.

Recent benefits for us include:

• Successful lobbyist for our interests
• Tax Aide program
• Monthly magazine
• United Health Care supplement
• Travel options
• AARP Free Lunch Monitor Program
• Mulch mail

 

[target2019]

Seems I recall something about AARP supporting the ACA at the expense of seniors on Medicare and SS. I might be mis-remembering. We're not AARP members.

That would be interesting to read about. Do you have a link?

 

[Fabricio Marques]

 

[CaptTom]

...Sure, the rich folks on this board are willing to sacrifice money (they probably don't need) to fix the funding problem, but many more seniors can't afford to do so. For this reason, I can't really blame AARP for advocating for no benefits cuts (SS or Medicare).

This was my thought, too, when reading the post it references.

I think we can agree that the politicians aren't succeeding in finding workable compromises. There are calls on the one side to significantly reduce or eliminate SS, without presenting any real alternatives. I don't blame AARP for taking the opposite position.

If you're going to negotiate, you need to stake out a firm starting position. You can compromise back from there. You don't start with a bunch of nuance and compromise. Those come during the negotiating process.

 

[Ian S]

If you're going to negotiate, you need to stake out a firm starting position. You can compromise back from there. You don't start with a bunch of nuance and compromise. Those come during the negotiating process.

+1! Do folks here think the Big Pharma lobbyists started with a position permitting Medicare to begin negotiating drugs prices with various drugs being phased in over a period of many years? Hell no! But that's what the negotiated result was.

 

[GenXguy]

If you're going to negotiate, you need to stake out a firm starting position. You can compromise back from there. You don't start with a bunch of nuance and compromise. Those come during the negotiating process.

^^^^^ This.

I was going to post the same thing. You can't start with a weak position where you've already given partially to the other side before the negotiations even start.

 

[GenXguy]

Eventually, when SS actually begins to "fail" (you know - when there isn't enough to actually pay out the benefits) some politicians will swoop in and "save" SS by (wait for it) changing FRA (and/or other previously "3rd rail" issues.) Then, they will be dubbed as the "heroes" who saved SS. It's just the game and we shouldn't blame the politicians. They just hear "us" scream and then they give us what we want. Our fault - not theirs, but YMMV.

But SS doesn't ever totally fail. When the trust fund runs out, if the politicians do nothing, then the benefits get cut 23%, but it will keep paying reduced benefits from the funds coming in from SS taxes. No heroes needed. We all end up with that big cut, though. I'm not sure what incentive there is for legislators to prevent that cut. Many proposals would amount to a cut as well, including raising the FRA for those under 60.

 

[Midpack]

I think this has to do with the fact that far more members of their 50+ membership are in a position that they can't afford to have their current or near-term benefits reduced. Sure, the rich folks on this board are willing to sacrifice money (they probably don't need) to fix the funding problem, but many more seniors can't afford to do so. For this reason, I can't really blame AARP for advocating for no benefits cuts (SS or Medicare).

Just taking more from top earners (without increasing their benefit) won't fix solvency. So how much more should your children and grandchildren pay to leave all benefits to all seniors, including some who haven't even claimed yet? That was my point.

And AARP lobbying is one of the many, but main, influences that threatens your legislators from acting sooner rather than later. I wonder how many AARP members criticize legislators for not acting?

And I already acknowledged "obviously benefit cuts to people already relying on SS isn’t workable..." That's a given constraint.

 

[Sunset]

This is why I won't join:
https://community.aarp.org/t5/Membe...haring-and-selling-my-information/m-p/2461867

Right now I get very little junk mail and not that many spam calls. I strongly suspect that will change if I join AARP. Not junk from AARP, but from all of the places they've sold my info.

Just like Apple, Google, MS, and practically all other companies will sell your info before you get to say NO, and then they will still sell it indirectly.
Not just personal information, but location, websites visited, your machine/phone ID, etc..

It's so pervasive the FBI buys our data instead of trying to get warrants.
https://www.wired.com/story/fbi-purchase-location-data-wray-senate/

 

[GenXguy]

And I already acknowledged "obviously benefit cuts to people already relying on SS isn’t workable..." That's a given constraint.

They actually already are getting effectively cut for many current recipients due to the tax thresholds not being increased for inflation since 1983.

But also, many of the proposals would amount to cuts for many or all current recipients also, including a flat cut across the board (the default), changes to the COLA adjustments to reduce yearly increases, and means testing (cutting benefits for households with higher incomes).

I think it would be best if there were no changes for people 55+ as has been stated in the past with some proposals, and certainly not for anyone 60+. And a 69 year old who hasn't started SS shouldn't be penalized with cuts by waiting until age 70 compared to the 62 year old who already started taking SS benefits.

 

[PatrickA5]

Just taking more from top earners (without increasing their benefit) won't fix solvency. So how much more should your children and grandchildren pay to leave all benefits to all seniors, including some who haven't even claimed yet? That was my point.

And AARP lobbying is one of the many, but main, influences that threatens your legislators from acting sooner rather than later. I wonder how many AARP members criticize legislators for not acting?

And I already acknowledged "obviously benefit cuts to people already relying on SS isn’t workable..." That's a given constraint.

I expect my children and grandchildren will get a "cut" in benefits just like I did when my parents were collecting. FRA went up 2 years when I was younger. I expect the same to happen to my kids. Several things can be done to "fix" SS. The politicians know what they are. They know how to do it. They won't do it until the last minute - mainly because doing the things to fix the problem might make the other side "look good" and they're afraid their fringe voters will primary them out of office if they were to actually do something useful.

 

[Koolau]

But SS doesn't ever totally fail. When the trust fund runs out, if the politicians do nothing, then the benefits get cut 23%, but it will keep paying reduced benefits from the funds coming in from SS taxes. No heroes needed. We all end up with that big cut, though. I'm not sure what incentive there is for legislators to prevent that cut. Many proposals would amount to a cut as well, including raising the FRA for those under 60.

Yeah. I was just (over)simplifying. We're all aware of the potential SS "haircut" looming. We all get those yearly letters telling us how much and when. BUT does anyone think politicians will let the haircut happen? I suppose it's possible, but I'm guessing there will be politicians who see an "opportunity" by becoming the hero that prevents the haircut. We'll see and YMMV.

 

[GenXguy]

Yeah. I was just (over)simplifying. We're all aware of the potential SS "haircut" looming. We all get those yearly letters telling us how much and when. BUT does anyone think politicians will let the haircut happen? I suppose it's possible, but I'm guessing there will be politicians who see an "opportunity" by becoming the hero that prevents the haircut. We'll see and YMMV.

Ok, thought you probably did. At least it wouldn't just end completely. The only reason I can see them letting the haircut happening is because they have so much trouble passing things like government funding bills, and if they can't come to agreement on SS, the haircut would require them to do nothing, and benefits will still be paid albeit at a lower rate. If they "actively" cut benefits to shore up the system, that could come across even worse.

Just to be on the conservative side of things in my retirement spreadsheet, I have my future SS benefits estimated at 25% below the promised benefit and that they will be 80% taxed. That wouldn't even pay for my bare bones expenses, coming up well short - thank goodness for stash $.

Edit: That's based on taking SS benefits at 65.

 

[Koolau]

Ok, thought you probably did. At least it wouldn't just end completely. The only reason I can see them letting the haircut happening is because they have so much trouble passing things like government funding bills, and if they can't come to agreement on SS, the haircut would require them to do nothing, and benefits will still be paid albeit at a lower rate. If they "actively" cut benefits to shore up the system, that could come across even worse.

Just to be on the conservative side of things in my retirement spreadsheet, I have my future SS benefits estimated at 25% below the promised benefit and that they will be 80% taxed. That wouldn't even pay for my bare bones expenses, coming up well short - thank goodness for stash $.

Yeah, the proposed haircut (or even 25%) would cause us to dig deeper into the stash. So glad we funded it so well. It turns potential disaster into more of an "annoyance." I do think Congress will step up - when they have no other choice. They don't want the "Gray Panthers" on their doorstep at election time.

 

[Midpack]

The politicians know what they are. They know how to do it. They won't do it until the last minute - mainly because doing the things to fix the problem might make the other side "look good" and they're afraid their fringe voters will primary them out of office if they were to actually do something useful.

True, but AARP also leans on legislators to do nothing. This (below) is deliberately vague and understated. If anything they want present SS benefits and more!

There are millions of hypocrites who want something done, as long as it’s on their self serving terms. It’s going to take a compromise, and “we” won’t let politicians do that.

Social Security and Medicare: AARP worked hard to keep Social Security and Medicare off the chopping block during the debt ceiling debate this year in Congress, and we will continue to work to protect and strengthen these programs for generations to come.

https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-2023/aarp-prepares-2024-election.html

 

[aja8888]

\I wonder how many AARP members criticize legislators for not acting?

Uhhhh, probably all of us. Some even write letters to their Congressperson (with no action on the letter's points). Some even vote!

But, then again, it's been shown that Congress only acts when a crisis emerges.

 

[Koolau]

Uhhhh, probably all of us. Some even write letters to their Congressperson (with no action on the letter's points). Some even vote!

But, then again, it's been shown that Congress only acts when a crisis emerges.

AND when there's something it it for THEM. But maybe I'm being too cynical.


NAAAAHHHhhhhhhh!

 

[teej1985]

I'm not even AARP age appropriate and I joined around Black Friday because it cost $12 and there was $23 cash back through a Capital One portal. You also can get on board credit on Holland America cruises. https://www.doctorofcredit.com/swag...aarp-membership-signup-12-cost-1000-aa-miles/ Make sure you opt out of their privacy sharing, they share a lot!!! Wish i could turn off the Magazine portion as it's not relevant to me as an under-40 person.

 

[dtusia]

I would not join

I was a member for multiple years. I recently decided not to renew as they sell their membership information to all kinds of places. Since I am no longer a member I have stopped getting so many random emails and phone calls.

 

[DP73]

We joined AARP when we turned 50 last year. Just came across the benefit of bumping the savings rate from 4.5 to 4.6% for our Marcus account if you are AARP member. Not a bad deal.

 

[Rusa]

Do you wear glasses? Many glasses providers give a 20% discount on lenses and frames to AARP members.

 

[mikes425]

Anyone at any age, let alone those in a retirement forum- who isn't 100% opposed to SS funds being TOUCHED /raided to fund ANYthing except that which they were intended for, boggles my mind.

This shouldn't be a partisan issue but damned if it hasn't become one. Here's the simple truth. Anyone who's paid into it has 100% right, to 100% of the SS benefits that they are owed. And yeah, it IS an entitlement to the benefits that I paid for, and into, for a lifetime. There is no defensible opposing argument to that, no matter how it might be politically twisted otherwise. I love the villainization that's occurred with the mispappropriation of this trigger word, "entitlement" as if it is some sort of 'demand' - No. It is an earned benefit, and you ARE entitled to it- every penny of the return on that investment.

 

[ERhoosier]

DW & I joined to gain access to the AARP/UHC Medical Supplement plan as the other alternatives in our region were unappealing. According to UHC one does NOT need to keep AARP membership to stay on their Supplement plan once enrolled. Other Senior discounts can generally be matched in other ways- like just showing proof of age, vet status, etc..

I've kept my AARP membership due to low cost......and some gravitas in writing to them about their often misguided political advocacy (like opposition to even studying SS reform, advocacy of inflationary Fed deficit spending, etc.).

 

[meleana]

We don’t belong to it. I mean it’s cheap enough, but we find no need as most places have senior discounts.