Michelle Singletary from the Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/04/07/social-security-shortfall-impact/
I have a problem with extending the retirement age. I worked in an office and probably could have worked to 70. My brother worked in construction and he barely made it to 62. We need to recognize that all jobs are not created equal when it comes to how long someone can work.
The SS fund "depletion" will result in SS only paying $~73% of the normal amounts.
This will be if lawmakers do nothing.
This will mean people getting smaller amounts will get 73% of their smaller amount, people getting the max will get 73% of the max.
I will vote against any lawmaker that damages SS payments to me via action or inaction, hopefully lots of others will as well, even if it goes against their entrenched party line.
I'm still waiting for age 70 claim as I'd rather have 73% of that than 73% of a lesser amount.
Michelle Singletary from the Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/04/07/social-security-shortfall-impact/
I have a problem with extending the retirement age. I worked in an office and probably could have worked to 70. My brother worked in construction and he barely made it to 62. We need to recognize that all jobs are not created equal when it comes to how long someone can work.
"Take the money and run" has been a phrase that has served me well over my lifetime. Lots of talk recently of haircuts, extended eligibility (and my personal life expectancy) make me glad to have taken it at 62.
Has anyone done a comparison of the "break even point" between the program today and the program of 73%? According to some references the difference between taking SS at 62 and 70 gives a break even age at around 80 yrs + or - a year or two. How would a 73% reduction affect the break even age between today and 2033?
Just curious since anything can happen to my sell by date before a potential change in 2033 at it would be a non-issue for me.
Cheers!
Cheers!
.Does Life of Social Security Trust Fund question when to claim yours ??.......
Not sure the 73% would be static. Would be a declining percentage without reform I would guess.
It is ok as a worst case or a Boogeyman but this is not what will happen in my strong view.
If it does there will be much larger issues afoot.
OASI | DI | HI | SMI | |
Type of benefit paid from the trust fund | Retirement and survivor benefits | Disability benefits | In-patient hospital and post-acute care (Part A) | Physician and out-patient care (Part B); prescription drugs (Part D) |
Full scheduled benefits are expected to be payable until | 2033 | At least through 2097 | 2031 | Indefinitely |
Percentage of scheduled benefits payable at time of reserve depletion | a77 | — | b89 | — |
75-year actuarial balance, as a percent of taxable payroll | -3.62 | 0.01 | -0.62 | — |
Michelle Singletary from the Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/04/07/social-security-shortfall-impact/
Yes, I was thinking that too.Would you mind giving us at least a highlight of the article?
“Social Security’s total cost is projected to be higher than its total income in 2023 and all later years,” the trustees’ report said.
I think 2023 is correct. Withdrawals from the trust fund will fill the gap until 2033 when it is projected to run out of money.
WADR, I think that the "take the money and run" approach is a very ignorant and short-sighted depending on the circumstances... what if one is in great health and has outstanding family longevity?
From the article,
“Social Security’s total cost is projected to be higher than its total income in 2023 and all later years,” the trustees’ report said.
I think they mean 2033. I often find typos in the synopses of articles of major newspapers posted on their FB pages, but not so often in the body of the article itself. It's just a minor typo, but I wish they'd get it right.
Yes, I was thinking that too.
In theory, if you start anytime between 62 and 70, your lifetime benefits will be about the same for a single unisex plan participant.I have read that no matter when you claim your SS benefits, the SS system is designed to be economically neutral for you, meaning you do about the same if you claim at 62, 67 or at age 70.
Then I read the benefits will increase by waiting till age 70, apart from the increase in the survivor SS benefits for the survivor.
Please help me in resolving my understanding .
I am 66 & my present plan is to wait till 70 to claim SS.
In theory, if you start anytime between 62 and 70, your lifetime benefits will be about the same for a single unisex plan participant.
It is longevity insurance. You just do not know the premium cost of the insurance, unlike most insurance.Both my parents claimed at 62. Both are 83 and in good health and they wish they’d waited until 70. Waiting is the best “longevity insurance” annuity out there.
I seem to recall the last time that changes to SS were proposed that they would have only affected people age 55 or younger.