Are you counting on SS?

[RunningBum]

Yes, with a 25% haircut. But per FIRECalc I'm OK with zero SS as well.

Same here. I include PV of 75% of SS when calculating my investment net worth * VPW factor to give me my target budget for the year.

 

[joeea]

Are people not counting on SS?

Yes. I am completely confident that I will begin drawing social security benefits when I reach ago 70 in six years.

 

[mountainsoft]

Yes, we are counting on social security in retirement, but I am only planning to receive 75% of what SS estimates we'll get.

 

[Dash man]

We both turn 62 next month and at the moment are going to hold off on collecting and reevaluate each year. We’re pretty confident we don’t need it, but hope to leave a nest egg for our kids and some charities.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

I would count on it once I decided to take it. Do not take away my benefits once I am getting them or else.... My big decision is whether I take it at 65 (January) or FRA (66) when I apply for Medicare and have it deducted from it. I am waiting to see what the ACA turns out for DW in 2019 who is only 60 this year as it would put our MAGI up. The difference for me if I take it at 65 vs 66 is only (-150pm or $1800pa). If by taking it at 65 vs 66, it increases DWs ACA by ~$400 a month, that is $4800pa, I will wait.

 

[6miths]

We're counting on getting it. Canada's plan is in good shape. But we are not needing it to make ends meet. Will both collect at maximum age likely but have to crunch the numbers a few more times again as the years progress.

 

[corn18]

I am counting on it insofar as it will be nice longevity insurance. COLA military pension + SS + Tricare = more than we need.

My black SWAN scenario is zero SS and a 40% hit to my portfolio the day I retire. Drops me down to $88k / year, which we could survive on or I could just work a few more years.

 

[aja8888]

Yes - I deserve my money back with interest.

Exactly and DW and I are collecting it now.

 

[YVRRocketSurgery]

I'm expecting to receive the Canadian version of SS.
Would it be realistic to see any significant changes to SS programs in the US or Canada that would impact people older than age 50? It's possible but I'm inclined to think changes would be graduated in at lower ages.

However, I'm not factoring SS for my core retirement spend. I'm hoping to use it for an extra layer of security if my main retirement savings run into problems or some extra discretionary spend if my main retirement savings are fine.

 

[UnrealizedPotential]

Yes, of course I'm counting on something from SS. I'm not too worried about it right now, I still have 14 years to 62. That doesn't mean I will take it then, but I do keep track of my benefits and what I might receive in the future , but surely I shall receive something.

 

[Aerides]

I think there should be a sliding scale of how much one "counts on it" relative to planned retirement age. While I do think in large part it will still exist for decades, things like pushing up the FRA, or slight haircuts, aren't impossible to imagine.

Should any changes like that occur, I would be very surprised if they didn't get grandfathered by age. IE, everyone already on it or 5 years away? no change. 10? eh.... 20 - ok the goal post is over here now. that sort of thing.

In short, the earlier retirement one plans for, the less they should count on SS.

 

[Markola]

I think SS will be there, because we’ve all paid into it our whole careers, as have even our politicians, so it’s unimaginable to me that SS would be allowed to just collapse and go away. It’s the only income source for so many retirees (who vote) that there would be pitchforks and torches in the streets if that happened. Military cuts and tax increases, etc. will almost certainly have to happen, too, I think. The country’s demographics trends and deficit projections are so daunting that, like others, our plan assumes 75% benefits at FRA.

 

[97guns]

I can literally not count on it because I only put 12 years into the system, I’d be lucky to get $700-800 when it comes my time

 

[Lakewood90712]

Yes, but my eligibility is still a few years down the road , so I am not counting on 100% , and I am subject to the gov. pension haircut off of the potential . I paid in for 26 years before becoming a government employee. if I see only 50% I would not be too surprised.

 

[mexexpat]

Retired at age 50 with decent local government retirement. We downsized from DC-Metro and had tons of savings.

Age 62 we took SS and it's just gravy.

 

[Cobra9777]

I think there should be a sliding scale of how much one "counts on it" relative to planned retirement age. While I do think in large part it will still exist for decades, things like pushing up the FRA, or slight haircuts, aren't impossible to imagine.

Should any changes like that occur, I would be very surprised if they didn't get grandfathered by age. IE, everyone already on it or 5 years away? no change. 10? eh.... 20 - ok the goal post is over here now. that sort of thing.

In short, the earlier retirement one plans for, the less they should count on SS.

I can imagine certain types of benefit cuts that might not be grandfathered, such as additional taxation, COLA changes, and means testing. Outright cuts or FRA changes would likely be grandfathered as you said.

 

[ER Eddie]

I think one reason you don't see SS included in calculations is because most people are cutting out well before the usual SS draw date (avg age of retirement here is 56), so they need to base their calculations on other sources of income, at least for the first 10 years of ER or so.

As for me, I think about it, and I include it in my calculations.

 

[timo2]

You betcha I'm counting on SS. especially for DW survivor benefits.

 

[Dtail]

I think one reason you don't see SS included in calculations is because most people are cutting out well before the usual SS draw date (avg age of retirement here is 56), so they need to base their calculations on other sources of income, at least for the first 10 years of ER or so.

As for me, I think about it, and I include it in my calculations.

+1 and Firecalc incorporates it nicely on an overall basis. Just need to find the funds each year until collection of SS.

 

[Souschef]

As many here have said, SS is one leg of our 3-legged stool. I get a small pension that is about 50% of my SS, and DW gets a small pension that is about 30% of her SS.
All totaled, the amount is more than my take home pay was.Other expenses such as taxes come from part of my RMD.

 

[Major Tom]

I'll be able to manage OK without SS, but it sure will be nice to have the extra dosh. I am not counting on it, but am indeed hoping to get it - or at least most of what is currently projected. For me, it's a 2-legged stool, made up of my own investments, and SS. I can get by quite nicely with just one leg, but it would be good to have two. (There's a joke there - I know there is!)

 

[Independent]

I'm currently receiving SS. By deferring to 70, our combined benefit is over $50k. That covers all our "normal" spending, including gifts and major repairs/replacements.

I would not have retired when I did if I had believed that SS would go away before we could collect.

 

[Independent]

Yes - I deserve my money back with interest.

I'd say that 90% of the taxes I paid were used to pay benefits to my parents, my wife's parents, and our grandparents (or, at least, people in their generations).

I'm confident I'll get the other 10% back with interest.

 

[Cobra9777]

A few days ago, DS (who is 29) was explaining to me how he will never see any of the SS deducted from his paycheck. It's no consolation to him when I explain that I thought the same thing at 29, and thus never planned for it. He says it's different now. And maybe it is.

Then I joke about how his Mom and I are going to blow our SS windfall on sports cars and fine wine. He said the noble thing would be to pass it on to heirs and that could be his SS "payoff." To which I replied, "You'll probably get the sports car, but not the wine."

 

[Focus]

Yes, I'm counting on it -- like others here, at least 75% after 2035. That's for the sake of arriving at a conservative estimate in my retirement planning. But I'm not giving up on the remaining 25%. Any politician wishing to make the 75% permanent will have a major battle on their hands.