Would you take this risk of maybe running out of assets?

[BuysToys]

I am assuming the 25% reduction is the default for planning purposes since that is what is currently funded. Anything better will be great, but I am not counting on it.

+1

If we receive more than 75%, it's gravy.

 

[footenote]

I never thought to model a 75% reduction before, so thanks for the nudge to do that. (The combination of RMDs + 75% of scheduled benefits still meets our annual core expenses.)

Having said that, coping with the Social Security shortfall is a relatively easy combination of fixes. (Analysis: Social Security is fixable but changes are politically tough - The Denver Post)

I do worry about Medicare, which will be very difficult to patch up.

 

[SumDay]

This is an interesting (and timely) conversation. My mega-corp provides Financial Engines with our 401(k), and last night I discovered their Income Planner > Cash Flow Income & Expense Details report. I ran it the first time with our projected SS payments beginning at 70. It lists yearly tax detail, expenses (adjusted for inflation), Minimum Required Distributions, withdrawals needed yearly to meet your expenses, and projected shortfall for each year. According to this report, if we begin SS at 70, we'll be leaving our kids about $1.8M, each. If we begin at 62, they'll each get $1.3M.

Now I need to go back and see how they'll fare if we only get 75% of our SS. Great insights in this thread!

If you have access to Financial Engines, this is a pretty cool report to generate.

 

[Fermion]

SS is not going to get cut 25% for everyone.

What they will eventually do is:

1) Eliminate the income cap on SS tax

2) Increase the FRA by a year

3) Increase the amount of SS that is taxed (perhaps 100% of benefits will be taxed for people with incomes above $44,000)