Haha - ok - so just one of several links pointing to this....issue.I get all my information from the Heritage Foundation.
If people are modeling/hoping for status quo, then isn't this built into that?
Haha - ok - so just one of several links pointing to this....issue.I get all my information from the Heritage Foundation.
Anybody here modeling the scenario based on the 'rumors' that in 2033 SS benefits will be cut by 23%?
Social Security Trustees Report: Unfunded Liability and Projected Insolvency
And does that factor into your decision to take SS early?
"The theoretical combined OASDI trust funds have a projected depletion date of 2033, unchanged from last year’s report. After the depletion of reserves, continuing tax income would be sufficient to pay 77 percent of scheduled benefits in 2033 and 72 percent in 2088. "
I don't understand all the financial "expert" articles where this issue is not even mentioned. A true business analysis would take a probability tree approach or something similar and factor reduced benefits in as a real possibility, since that is actually what is funded currently and as such a non-zero probability outcome.
As a project manager I would not have planned a very long term project on a 100% budget if only 77% of the project was actually funded.
I am in a similar situation, but with a 10 y/o and 7 week old to boot.
I plan to take SS in 6 mos. at age 62 (suspend at 66 and restart at 70) My number is similar to yours but my Wife's is wildly different (She will only collect survivor benefits (28 years younger) starting at 67. She will also participate in the family benefit, once the oldest hits 18.
My benefit 951,808 dead at 94 (location to be determined)
Family benefit 96,886 child 1
261,145 child 2
125,775 Spouse portion of family benefit
Spouse Survivor bene 3,008,415 till age 100 (all numbers Cola'd at 2.5%)
Total 4,444,031
I find these #'s crazy as according to SS, I had only put in a little over 100k
Just goes to prove my theory," that sometimes it's better to think with the little brain"!
Your family is definitely an extreme example, but shows why some areas of SS simply scream for reform and change...I don't how any reasonable person could think this was appropriate. That said, if it's there for you, no reason you shouldn't take it.
My initial thought on this is that when cuts are made, they will only affect those under 62, and those already collecting or eligible to collect would not see changes. So once you hit 62, whether you start taking it or not, you benefit is set (other than COLA changes).Anybody here modeling the scenario based on the 'rumors' that in 2033 SS benefits will be cut by 23%?
Social Security Trustees Report: Unfunded Liability and Projected Insolvency
And does that factor into your decision to take SS early?
there is no sequence risk since you are not spending down the way he is figuring . you are taking ss instead so the comparison is really what you are getting , which is the ss checks and the 6% average return on a 50/50 mix .
kind of a one sided view i guess.
some areas of SS simply scream for reform and change...
The people for whom SS is gravy is suppose to be a tiny percentage.
Anybody here modeling the scenario based on the 'rumors' that in 2033 SS benefits will be cut by 23%?
Social Security Trustees Report: Unfunded Liability and Projected Insolvency
And does that factor into your decision to take SS early?
why do you say that?
one of the principles of social insurance is that need is presumed - i.e. everyone gets it
I see taking SS early as a way to increase my estate value. I'm able to either;
A. Invest my early SS payments if I don't need the money. All of which is inheritable if I don't spend it.
B. Spend my early SS payments and leave my investments untouched to continue and grow. Again inheritable if I don't spend it.
Personally, I prefer to count my birds in my hand, not those in the bush. A promise by the government for a future SS benefit is susceptible to revisions as I haven't actually received a benefit yet, so logic dictates, I haven't actually lost anything yet. (Congressmen and Senators think just this way!) Whereas, a benefit I'm currently receiving is harder to take away.
I am willing to bank on the sure thing, taking the SS early, locking in my claim to the payment by actually receiving it and either spending it to shelter my own current investments or to invest along with my current investments if I don't need the money at the time.
Playing the 'waiting' game, banking on a gamble that SS will be around, let alone grow at a 8% annual rate by delaying is tantamount to banking on a gamble that the stock market is going to average 10% growth just because it has in past years. Only now the government has your money.
Speaking of which; The government does not consider your SS account your money. Oh no!! That's THEIR money that they decide how to distribute. If they decide to means-test, and I think there is a strong chance they will someday, then folks like us are screwed.
Your family is definitely an extreme example, but shows why some areas of SS simply scream for reform and change...I don't how any reasonable person could think this was appropriate. That said, if it's there for you, no reason you shouldn't take it.
There just are not that many wealthy retirees where SS is all extra income, and not a significant sources of retirement income -
Means Testing Social Security | Mother Jones
.... do you know any couple with a 20+ age difference I have only met one in my life......
Agree 100%. You left out taxes.
In my state, my IRA W/Ds are taxed at full flat income tax of 5.1% SS...not at all.
In my case, I'm automatically putting an extra a grand in my pocket by taking SS vs my IRA.
I didn't see any numbers or percentages anywhere
The article had many specifics on bend points and taxes. If you want an income based article here is one from AARP with both sides presented:
The against side states that only 2% of benefits go to retirees with $100K in other income, meaning any significant savings would have to cut into the middle class benefits.