On SS means testing

[marko]

I agree with Ziggy.



If you're "59, 60, 61 years old" or "with a 4-5 year horizon" and it comes as a surprise to you that you're Soc Sec benefits may not be what earlier projections have shown, you're not paying attention. "Suddenly" - you must be joking...

It isn't that the SS benefits may not be according to earlier projections.

My point is that SS benefits may not be according to what they are projected NOW, looking 2-4 years into the future.

How is it right to change someone's current 2-4 year projections being so close to retirement?

I"m fine with making changes for those who have time to recoup and adjust to different expectations.

How is it fair to make changes to something you've paid into for 45 years and, literally months away, have them change the benefits?

 

[Midpack]

I agree with Ziggy.

If you're "59, 60, 61 years old" or "with a 4-5 year horizon" and it comes as a surprise to you that you're Soc Sec benefits may not be what earlier projections have shown, you're not paying attention. "Suddenly" - you must be joking...

It isn't that the SS benefits may not be according to earlier projections.

My point is that SS benefits may not be according to what they are projected NOW, looking 2-4 years into the future.

How is it right to change someone's current 2-4 year projections being so close to retirement? Because they know that now as you state, and it shouldn't be a surprise, we've known for years if not decades something was going to have to give. May have to delay retirement or plan on spending less. Working people have lost jobs, their houses and whatever else - they've had to make radical adjustments too. You want to ask them to pay more to support their parents generation?

I"m fine with making changes for those who have time to recoup and adjust to different expectations.

How is it fair to make changes to something you've paid into for 45 years and, literally months away, have them change the benefits?

OK, I'll be more direct, how do you plan to pay for maintaining benefits? Other than making our children/grandchildren pay more...then we can talk about "fair", "right", "selfish" - your words.

 

[MasterBlaster]

How is it fair to make changes to something you've paid into for 45 years and, literally months away, have them change the benefits?

It isn't fair. But we are broke so changes are coming.

You will be part of the solution... Like it or not.

And by the way, Do you really care whether they cut SS or jack tax rates (on you) up. Either way you'll have less. The effect is the same.

 

[MichaelB]

Heck, see my post from just after midnight

http://www.early-retirement.org/for...y-not-deal-it-once-was-for-workers-62476.html

Of course, "somebody" saw little value in it at the time ...

You obviously posted in the wrong thread.

 

[marko]

I guess I'm confused.

This is the "Finanically Independent, Retired Early" site isn't it? I've learned a lot about financials, retiring early, taxes, investments and such here.

Suddenly a lot of people here seem in favor of cutting SS benefits (which I personally don't need) in favor of "the children" (which I dont have) due to a national debt (which I didn't approve of creating).

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but it seems to me that a site that focuses on helping people retire might have participants more sympathetic to the cause.

I fully understand that we're broke. They WILL cut our SS AND raise our taxes to the detriment of those who are retired and the rest of those who want to.

I just find it interesting that so many here are so negative on a "paid into" benefit that has helped a lot of people RE.

 

[MichaelB]

Did anyone read the blogpost linked in the original post?

"Another Voice for Social Security Means Testing" is a blogpost defense against a proposal the blogger attributes to someone else (Bill Keller, here) Following that link back to the original article that started this whole discussion, Keller wrote:

So the question is not whether entitlements have to be brought under control, but how

then

FELLOW boomers, we have done more than our share to make this mess. It’s not our fault that there are a lot of us, but we have resisted any move to fix the system. We should make a sensible reform of entitlements our generation’s cause. We should stiffen the spines of our politicians, and push lobby groups like A.A.R.P. to climb out of the bunker and lead. (And, by the way, we should resist the boomer temptation to take every cent of the reform from the pockets of our kids.) We should keep the heat on Congress and the president to double down on the cost-saving provisions in Obamacare.

He didn’t suggest means testing, the blogger did, and then attributed it to Keller. So the blogger creates a straw man that never was, makes up a lazy defense (it's hard). This thread picks up where the blogger left off and now its about changing the rules with just a few years to go.

Talk about thread drift.

 

[gauss]

Good news for the younger generation: boomers retiring today have for the most part paid more into Social Security than they will get back, so the whippersnappers are off the hook for paying for us! Now the younger folks can just worry that they will be paying even more into the system than they will get back.

Retiring soon? You probably paid more in taxes than you will get in Social Security benefits - chicagotribune.com

Are they comparing the SS benefits to only what the employee pays in taxes, or are they lumping in the employers share also?

Seems a bit deceptive if it is the latter and they don't mention this.

 

[FinanceDude]

As for shared sacrifice, I would be more than willing to pay say 10% more in income tax IF they cut REAL spending by 20%... not the fake spending cuts, but spending 20% less money next year than you spent this year... and get rid of a lot of those tax credits that do very little for the money that is spent...

+1

I think the $5 billion annual subsidy for ethanol is 1 thing that could go away and noone would care but the corn growers. Would anyone buy E85 if it was the same cost as the real stuff? Didn't think so..........

 

[rescueme]

You obviously posted in the wrong thread.

Yeah, I do that a lot.

A mind (especially an old one) is a terrible thing to waste ...

 

[rbmrtn]

I suspected SS would be means tested at some point, and I have not included SS in my planning. But as the article mentions it may be easier said than done. It seems crazy for Bill Gates to collect a SS check just because he paid into the system. Maybe they could adjust how they tax SS benefits so it's all taken back above a certain income level.

There was an article this weekend about SS and the gvmnt "raiding" the money.

Three Things You Know about Social Security That Aren't True - CBS News

 

[rescueme]

Are they comparing the SS benefits to only what the employee pays in taxes, or are they lumping in the employers share also?

I would say they are counting total contributions, since the total amount reflects just under what I/DW contributed, plus the match from our respective employers after some 40+ years of contributions for each of us, and the article refers to a "couple".

 

[kombat]

If people have 15, 20, 25 years to adjust to new rules, that's one thing. To screw those with a 4-5 year horizon...how can that be fair?

Because they're the ones who got us into this mess.

It wasn't the 20 year olds or the 30 year olds that passed all those deficit budgets and refused to address the elephant in the room that is unsustainable entitlement programs. It was the Boomers.

 

[noone]

I think the $5 billion annual subsidy for ethanol is 1 thing that could go away and noone would care but the corn growers. Would anyone buy E85 if it was the same cost as the real stuff? Didn't think so..........

There you go again, dragging me into the discussion when I'm not even remotely interested.

And what the heck does ethanol have to do with Social Security? You been sipping the E85 again?

 

[Midpack]

I guess I'm confused.

This is the "Finanically Independent, Retired Early" site isn't it? I've learned a lot about financials, retiring early, taxes, investments and such here. Me too.

Suddenly a lot of people here seem in favor of cutting SS benefits (which I personally don't need) in favor of "the children" (which I dont have) due to a national debt (which I didn't approve of creating). No one is in favor of cutting benefits, but our fiscal imbalance has to be addressed, and it can't be done without modifying entitlements in the mix. We don't have children either, but it's still not fair IMO to expect other peoples children to pay more to preserve benefits that were "promised" to me and all seniors when we've known (or should have) something was going to have to give. I started planning many years ago and I never used the full Soc Sec projections they sent me, I've known they may be reduced and planned accordingly all along. For anyone about to retire who is surprised they may not receive the benefits that are being projected today is being disingenuous, and that's being kind.

The debt belongs to all of us like it or not, you approved through your representatives like the rest of us.

Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but it seems to me that a site that focuses on helping people retire might have participants more sympathetic to the cause. The site does a great job of focusing on helping people retire. But IMO that doesn't mean helping retirees maintain unrealistic benefits at the expense of generations to follow, that's what the AARP is for.

I fully understand that we're broke. They WILL cut our SS AND raise our taxes to the detriment of those who are retired and the rest of those who want to.

I just find it interesting that so many here are so negative on a "paid into" benefit that has helped a lot of people RE. All true, but you understand it's a paygo system. What we all paid in was spent shortly after it was received.

Speaking for myself only...

 

[MichaelB]

Generation blame and unrelated taxes discussions have led to the closing of this thread.


Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!" - YouTube