Any Meta-Analysis of Soc. Security's Future

[MercyMe]

In my financial plans, I've always accounted for getting 75% of what SS says I will get. Some say that I'm short-changing myself/my spouse. Others say I'm being overly optimistic with 75%. I don't want to get into discussions about this because it's been beat to death on some forums. But I played around with inputting the full amount in my planning software and was a bit surprised by the difference it makes overall.

Of course, there are bazillions of articles online regarding the future of SS, but I'm wondering if any one has found a meta-analysis of respectable organizations who have looked closely at it?

If so, kindly post a link.

 

[oldtimer]

In my financial plans, I've always accounted for getting 75% of what SS says I will get. Some say that I'm short-changing myself/my spouse. Others say I'm being overly optimistic with 75%. I don't want to get into discussions about this because it's been beat to death on some forums. But I played around with inputting the full amount in my planning software and was a bit surprised by the difference it makes overall.

Of course, there are bazillions of articles online regarding the future of SS, but I'm wondering if any one has found a meta-analysis of respectable organizations who have looked closely at it?

If so, kindly post a link.

Don't know where you are in your timeline until claiming SS. What I did back in 1983 when they revamped SS, I decided to consider SS as for my retirement's discretionary spending and control what I could control - my saving/investments - to reach a number that would cover at least my core retirement expenses. In 4 years at 70 I will claim SS and flip that thinking to use SS for the core expenses and retirement savings to top off core expenses (if necessary) and then the rest for discretionary expenses as typically done for financial planning in retirement. I can't control others, including the government, but I can control me.

 

[2017ish]

The common informed" opinion/guestimate appears to be that most everyone who is age 62 or more at the time of any changes will be unaffected.

Most of those folks also seem to think that any legislative cure will be a combination of increased taxes and reduction of benefits via further increases in the FRA.

Fewer "experts" believe that "wealthy" retirees will be subject to further reductions, but there are a few.

Me, at ages 62/61, I'm starting to think that maybe I'm being too conservative in not including any Social in our ongoing retirement planning. Nonetheless..... We'd likely be deemed "wealthy" if any wealth/income restrictions put into place, and Congress is free to do whatever it likes with program terms.

 

[Al18]

No sense worrying about something you can’t control. Come up with a conservative and be surprised if SS get fixed. FYI a similar situation happened in the early 80’s and Alan Greenspan fixed it.

 

[USGrant1962]

Well, there's always the official word at https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2022/index.html

Anything else is pretty much just speculation. Having said that, most likely Congress will do something similar to what they did in 1983. A combination of tweaking a few things, raising SS taxes (and taxes on SS), adjusting ages, etc., to kick the can down the road another 40 years.

IMO, using a 20-25% haircut for planning purposes (which I do) is extremely conservative. Pretending SS doesn't exist is just silly and is anti-ER.