Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 06-07-2020, 02:55 PM   #81
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: To be determined
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwraigty View Post
I'm not defending him, but based on an experience I had several years ago, your congressman may not be aware you made contact. The interns/office staff screen stuff and only pass on what they think is important. The staff probably don't read any emails/messages thoroughly enough to determine it's not just another constituent demanding they do something to fix the impending SS shortfall, which they've heard a thousand times already.
I agree. But is still have to vent on the congressman. They hire the staff and the staff should do a better job.
djsander is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 06-07-2020, 03:01 PM   #82
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: To be determined
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time2 View Post
Read this and see if it really affects you.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html#Series
Note where it says 62 not 60.
My answer is yes it affects me. The indexing is based on AWI for the year you turn 60. For 2020 the AWI is expected to decrease. It is well discussed here and elsewhere. They look back two years from the year you turn 62 to determine your AWI. So that is the year you turn 60.
djsander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2020, 03:04 PM   #83
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time2 View Post
This page has number of workers and workers (x 1000) and income
(x 10^6) and it calculates out to average amount for the current year.
Then there is an increase, that is 'added on to your AWI. The 'add on' comes from the increase from the previous year.
I was born in 1955, 2015 was a good year. My wife's year is 2019, not on the chart yet.


https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/awidevelop.html


OR Maybe we have it all wrong.


https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html#Series


When indexing an individual's earnings for benefit computation purposes, we must first determine the year of first eligibility for benefits. For retirement, eligibility is at age 62. If a person reaches age 62 in 2020, for example, then 2020 is the person's year of eligibility. We always index an individual's earnings to the average wage level two years prior to the year of first eligibility. Thus, for a person retiring at age 62 in 2020, we would index the person's earnings to the average wage index for 2018, or 52,145.80. We would multiply earnings in a year before 2018 by the ratio of 52,145.80 to the average wage index for that year; we would take earnings in 2018 or later at face value. (See two examples of indexed earnings.)
No, I don't think so. I bolded the part that says the AWI is done two years before first eligibility, so AWI is calculated at age 60.
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2020, 03:08 PM   #84
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 565
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time2 View Post
Read this and see if it really affects you.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html#Series
Note where it says 62 not 60.
Yes, if one turns 62 in 2020 that means a 1958 birthday, and the 2018 AWI is used.

If one turns 62 in 2022 that means a 1960 birthday, and the 2020 AWI is used.

The latter situation is the focus of this thread.
SevenUp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2020, 03:16 PM   #85
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 2,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by SevenUp View Post
Yes, if one turns 62 in 2020 that means a 1958 birthday, and the 2018 AWI is used.

If one turns 62 in 2022 that means a 1960 birthday, and the 2020 AWI is used.

The latter situation is the focus of this thread.

Ahh, I missed a line, "We always index an individual's earnings to the average wage level two years prior to the year of first eligibility."
Thanks for setting me straight.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/AWI.html#Series
Time2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-24-2020, 05:36 PM   #86
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by RetireBy90 View Post
I would think AARP might be an effective advocate for this as they already have plenty of influence with the boys and girls in DC.


Have not been able to get the time of day from AARP lobbying office. Anyone have a better contact there? Please send me their contact info. Thanks
rrppve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2020, 09:56 AM   #87
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Coronado
Posts: 3,137
Those born in 1960 may want to follow the progress of bill H.R.7499, which was introduced in the House on July 9th, to change the SS law to use "the highest national average wage index (as so defined) for any calendar year before such second calendar year" when calculating the PIA. So, if the 2020 wage index is indeed lower than 2019's, SSA would use the 2019 wage index for those who turn 60 in 2020. This would continue to apply going forward, but it's not retroactive to the 2009 downturn.

There's a lot of other stuff in this bill that I didn't try to parse out, such as "SEC. 4. ACROSS-THE-BOARD BENEFIT INCREASE." and "SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF CHILDíS BENEFIT FOR FULL-TIME POST-SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS UNDER AGE 23." I don't know if these additions will help or hinder, but I'm sure there will be much debate to come.

The current status is "Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned."

Link to the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...bill/7499/text
cathy63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2020, 11:31 AM   #88
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by cathy63 View Post
Thanks! I saw an article on that but it was pretty weak on details.

I can't help but notice that there are 47 co-sponsors, and every one says "[D-" next to their name. Not one "[R-."

I'm not mentioning this to spark partisan debate. Only that in the current environment, nothing supported only by those with a "[D-" next to their name is likely to get passed.

I have to assume at this point that this is nothing more than a gesture, with no real hope of passage into law.

Without hearing the reasons both parties can't agree on this, I can't even be sure *I* want to support it. Perhaps there's an alternative bill in the works from the other side of the aisle. I wish there was a way to find out.
CaptTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2020, 11:53 AM   #89
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: To be determined
Posts: 114
Quote:
Originally Posted by cathy63 View Post
Those born in 1960 may want to follow the progress of bill H.R.7499, which was introduced in the House on July 9th, to change the SS law to use "the highest national average wage index (as so defined) for any calendar year before such second calendar year" when calculating the PIA. So, if the 2020 wage index is indeed lower than 2019's, SSA would use the 2019 wage index for those who turn 60 in 2020. This would continue to apply going forward, but it's not retroactive to the 2009 downturn.

There's a lot of other stuff in this bill that I didn't try to parse out, such as "SEC. 4. ACROSS-THE-BOARD BENEFIT INCREASE." and "SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF CHILDíS BENEFIT FOR FULL-TIME POST-SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS UNDER AGE 23." I don't know if these additions will help or hinder, but I'm sure there will be much debate to come.

The current status is "Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned."

Link to the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...bill/7499/text
Thanks for the update. Iím following this one as Iím a 1960er. Iíve contacted my congressman which was a dud.
djsander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2020, 02:08 PM   #90
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Posts: 2,676
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptTom View Post
Thanks! I saw an article on that but it was pretty weak on details.

I can't help but notice that there are 47 co-sponsors, and every one says "[D-" next to their name. Not one "[R-."

I'm not mentioning this to spark partisan debate. Only that in the current environment, nothing supported only by those with a "[D-" next to their name is likely to get passed.

I have to assume at this point that this is nothing more than a gesture, with no real hope of passage into law.

Without hearing the reasons both parties can't agree on this, I can't even be sure *I* want to support it. Perhaps there's an alternative bill in the works from the other side of the aisle. I wish there was a way to find out.

I suspect it would get the 'R' support if it was just the, "highest national average wage index (as so defined) for any calendar year before such second calendar year". That issue seems to be an issue of fairness. However, when you start adding on additional large government programs the adults need to draw the line. I hope it gets sent to the senate, they get some things removed and it can be passed.
Time2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2020, 06:28 AM   #91
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 2,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time2 View Post
I suspect it would get the 'R' support if it was just the, "highest national average wage index (as so defined) for any calendar year before such second calendar year". That issue seems to be an issue of fairness. However, when you start adding on additional large government programs the adults need to draw the line. I hope it gets sent to the senate, they get some things removed and it can be passed.
Right. I always thought each individual line item on a bill should stand alone.

At any rate, I hope all the extra "fluff" is just there to allow compromise. I wish there were bi-partisan support. I'm tired of every issue becoming a political football.
CaptTom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2021, 05:09 PM   #92
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by cathy63 View Post
Those born in 1960 may want to follow the progress of bill H.R.7499, which was introduced in the House on July 9th, to change the SS law to use "the highest national average wage index (as so defined) for any calendar year before such second calendar year" when calculating the PIA. So, if the 2020 wage index is indeed lower than 2019's, SSA would use the 2019 wage index for those who turn 60 in 2020. This would continue to apply going forward, but it's not retroactive to the 2009 downturn.

There's a lot of other stuff in this bill that I didn't try to parse out, such as "SEC. 4. ACROSS-THE-BOARD BENEFIT INCREASE." and "SEC. 7. EXTENSION OF CHILD’S BENEFIT FOR FULL-TIME POST-SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS UNDER AGE 23." I don't know if these additions will help or hinder, but I'm sure there will be much debate to come.

The current status is "Referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned."

Link to the bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-...bill/7499/text
So a little update here. This bill died in Committee. It was introduced by John Larson (CT-1). My understanding is that he wants to re-introduce it this session and I'm trying to connect with committee staff on it.
The latest estimate from the CBO is that the effect may not be that bad. Only 0.5%. The actual AWI for 2020 should be released in October.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56973
I'm considering/playing with the idea of forming a lobbying group, maybe a PAC, to advocate on this issue.
rrppve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2021, 06:04 PM   #93
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by rrppve View Post
So a little update here. This bill died in Committee. It was introduced by John Larson (CT-1). My understanding is that he wants to re-introduce it this session and I'm trying to connect with committee staff on it.
The latest estimate from the CBO is that the effect may not be that bad. Only 0.5%. The actual AWI for 2020 should be released in October.
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/56973
I'm considering/playing with the idea of forming a lobbying group, maybe a PAC, to advocate on this issue.
I suppose we shall see, but I have a hard time reconciling a .5% difference. There were huge numbers of people who were laid off in March (and rolling periods thereafter). Even if they were hired back after a few months, their yearly wage would still be down. My employer still has people on furlough; and has not restored Covid-Cut salaries.
__________________
Use it up, wear it out, make it do or do without.
MarieIG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2021, 07:39 PM   #94
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarieIG View Post
I suppose we shall see, but I have a hard time reconciling a .5% difference. There were huge numbers of people who were laid off in March (and rolling periods thereafter). Even if they were hired back after a few months, their yearly wage would still be down. My employer still has people on furlough; and has not restored Covid-Cut salaries.


I agree. I was surprised that it was that low. CBO estimated 3.8% in the Fall. Iíve heard estimates up to 9.5%
Regardless, it represents a permanent reduction in decades of benefits received in return for 35 years of work simply due to a 1 year recession. In this case, due to the Covid pandemic. Since the Covid relief bill is likely going to be passed through the budget reconciliation process, it canít be attached to that bill.
The 2009 decline in the AWI was 1.5% affecting those born in 1949.
rrppve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2021, 07:54 PM   #95
Dryer sheet wannabe
 
Join Date: Feb 2021
Posts: 10
In this "1960" boat as well. I doubt that estimate...even so, any decline is not nearly as good as the usual increase. I have been tweeting lawmakers to remind them of this bill...bummed.
Blue_Bird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2021, 08:02 PM   #96
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
2017ish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Nashville
Posts: 2,250
Yeah, old news (poster neurosphere on bogleheads was way ahead of curve). Will be interesting to see if any changes to the law (and to see how bad awi is hit.) If we get any social, it is more than we expect, but hoping for other's sake that it isn't too bad.

(Me, 1960; DW, 1961)
__________________
OMY * 3 2ish Done 7.28.17
2017ish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2021, 11:25 PM   #97
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Al in Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Columbus
Posts: 1,103
Well thankfully I was born in 1961.
__________________
Ohio REFI PE ENG and Investor as of 2016
Al in Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2021, 07:56 AM   #98
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 12,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al in Ohio View Post
Well thankfully I was born in 1961.
1961ers like us may face the same problem if jobs don't recover.
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2021, 02:49 PM   #99
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: lincoln
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptTom View Post
Thanks! I saw an article on that but it was pretty weak on details.

I can't help but notice that there are 47 co-sponsors, and every one says "[D-" next to their name. Not one "[R-."

I'm not mentioning this to spark partisan debate. Only that in the current environment, nothing supported only by those with a "[D-" next to their name is likely to get passed.

I have to assume at this point that this is nothing more than a gesture, with no real hope of passage into law.

Without hearing the reasons both parties can't agree on this, I can't even be sure *I* want to support it. Perhaps there's an alternative bill in the works from the other side of the aisle. I wish there was a way to find out.
I looked on congress site and on govtrack site and bill now has 83 co sponsors all appeared to be democrat. I would think if any bill would generate interest on both sides this would. Workers of both parties earn their SS benefits. I will be writing to my rep on Monday yes as luck would have it I was born in 1960.
ERObjd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-20-2021, 11:08 PM   #100
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERObjd View Post
I looked on congress site and on govtrack site and bill now has 83 co sponsors all appeared to be democrat. I would think if any bill would generate interest on both sides this would. Workers of both parties earn their SS benefits. I will be writing to my rep on Monday yes as luck would have it I was born in 1960.


Agreed that this should garner bipartisan support. People born in 1960 belong to both parties. Iíll try to speak with the Republican committee staff, as well as the Democratic side.
rrppve is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Corona Government program 1960 Lakewood90712 COVID-19 | Containment Area 0 03-24-2020 04:58 PM
Fed cut 0.25% ... do you expect high-CD rates to go down? cyber888 Active Investing, Market Strategies & Alternative Assets 11 08-04-2019 06:48 AM
Lower Social Security Checks for 1947-Born Retirees Nova FIRE and Money 17 05-29-2010 06:46 PM
Social Security Cuts- What do you expect? bizlady Other topics 32 07-14-2009 12:21 PM
Social Security Benefits Cut For Early Retirees Michael Other topics 12 01-05-2005 01:45 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:39 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.