So it Begins: "Proposals" for Soc. Sec.

[2017ish]

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is expected to call for reduced Social Security benefits for seniors earning over $80,000 and eliminating the benefit entirely for individuals making $200,000 and up, along with raising the retirement age to 69 from 67.

Christie to Call for Raising Age for Social Security, Cutting Benefit for Some Seniors - WSJ (Link is from email sharing, so probably will work for a while)

This is vague and likely won't go anywhere, but it gets the conversation started. (My fear of this is why I've never included this income source in our retirement calculations)

 

[athena53]

Does he know that in those income brackets, 85% of SS is taxed already? Smells like a benefit reduction to me, and it's been that way for years.

 

[Bestwifeever]

Politics schmolitics.

 

[2017ish]

The hypothetical, complete removal of benefits for some would, if it occurred, be an additional reason for Roth conversions in the years prior to RMDs and SS claiming (unless and until Roth withdrawals were also roped into the calculations).

 

[timo2]

My POV on these sort of discussions is not financial or political, but medical and fitness for work. This forum has already had some discussion on this. Even though people are living longer, I have not noticed that many people still being in working condition (mental and/or physical) past 65-67. Also, many organizations do not want employees hanging around that long. IMO, this should be the starting place for any proposals. If we don't want any major disruptions to the order of things, we should avoid the nightly news stories of destitute 66 year olds languishing in Walmart parking lots.

 

[LRDave]

I am not sure why he would touch this lightning rod at this point in his campaign.

 

[growing_older]

This would substantially change the calculation for when Roth is preferable to Trad, we well as the cost/benefit of Roth conversions. But even if it goes forward as an actual proposal, it's a long time before anything becomes definite, not to mention it will be a long time to enact (if ever).

 

[Jack_Pine]

I am not sure why he would touch this lightning rod at this point in his campaign.

He is trying to differentiate himself from what could be a large field of candidates. Surprised to not see any talk from him about removing the payroll tax cap. Maybe I missed it.

 

[Fermion]

He is trying to differentiate himself from what could be a large field of candidates. Surprised to not see any talk from him about removing the payroll tax cap. Maybe I missed it.

If they do that they should also allow more credits to be accumulated in a year by high earners.

If I work a high stress job for a few years, putting in 70 to 80 hour weeks and gain high income, I would expect a few more credits than someone working a low stress 40 hour work week.

 

[Jack_Pine]

If they do that they should also allow more credits to be accumulated in a year by high earners.

If I work a high stress job for a few years, putting in 70 to 80 hour weeks and gain high income, I would expect a few more credits than someone working a low stress 40 hour work week.

I am with you.

 

[jim584672]

Wow, jumps right on third rail. Bye bye CC.

 

[athena53]

If they do that they should also allow more credits to be accumulated in a year by high earners.

If I work a high stress job for a few years, putting in 70 to 80 hour weeks and gain high income, I would expect a few more credits than someone working a low stress 40 hour work week.

If they kept the benefit formula consistent, you'd get more SS but not at a very good rate. Right now the formula is 95% of your first $826 of average indexed monthly earnings, plus 32% of the amount between $826 and $4,980 plus 15% of the remainder (where the remainder has already been limited to the SS max in the averaging formula).

And don't even get me started on the huge discrepancy between what high-earners and the 40-quarter minimum-wage group pay for the exact same Medicare A coverage over their careers.

 

[Texas Proud]

If the retirement age is to be raised, then laws must be put into place to prevent age discrimination. Or some type of retirement 'phase-in', and/or employment 'phase-out' needs to be put into place.

I have seen to many 50 and 60 'somethings' drain their retirement accounts when they were prematurely laid off, and the jobs handed to younger workers, foreigners, or sent over seas.

Of course, the individual who has learned to LBYM often will not suffer the full consequences of premature job loss. Relying on employer loyalty no longer makes sense.

There already are laws.... they are just not followed.... and it is very hard to prove a case in court... new laws will not make any difference...

 

[Texas Proud]

If they do that they should also allow more credits to be accumulated in a year by high earners.

If I work a high stress job for a few years, putting in 70 to 80 hour weeks and gain high income, I would expect a few more credits than someone working a low stress 40 hour work week.

What would more credits do He is also proposing to scale back SS if you make too much... (have not yet read the article... so maybe I am just blowing smoke....).

 

[athena53]

What would more credits do He is also proposing to scale back SS if you make too much... (have not yet read the article... so maybe I am just blowing smoke....).

Ah, but what is "too much"? Especially in NJ, which has some of the most atrocious property taxes in the nation, even if you can afford to buy a house in a decent enighborhood. Glad I don't live there anymore.

 

[HFWR]

Politics schmolitics.

+1

Just think, only nineteen months until the election...

Wow, jumps right on third rail. Bye bye CC.

I am not sure why he would touch this lightning rod at this point in his campaign.

Warren Buffett and Ken Langone (of Home Depot) are among the rich/famous who have said that they don't want or need SS. Of course, most of us aren't billionaires...

 

[M Paquette]

Ignore it. As with many other proposals we will hear over the next year, the proposal is not intended to actually get to the House or Senate floor for a vote. It's just intended to appeal to selected core constituencies and differentiate the person making the proposal from others.

These sort of things have no real impact on retirement planning, beyond the consideration we give to other possible events of similar likelihood in our retirement years such as meteor strikes and global thermonuclear war. In other words, it is far more likely that we would go through a major market fluctuation or an outbreak of stagflation than that this proposal would make it into law.

There are more important things to worry about than fluff intended to draw attention. There are kittens that need their tummies rubbed, and puppies that are desperate for a game of tug-o-war.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Walt34]

It's been an interesting political discussion.