Mid 50's or younger... are you counting on Social Security?

[RenoJay]

Late 40’s. Social security is not counted at all in my planning or projections.

 

[sassnco]

I am 52, and plan to retire in 3-5 years. Since DH and I will plan to live on investment income/savings until we both receive pensions and can withdraw money from 401K/457 at age 60, we have always run our calculations without including SS. We expect some SS income when we file at FRA or at age 70 (preferred), but it will likely be more of longevity insurance. This will definitely be helpful for my DH, who has a number of relatives who have lived to be >100 years old (up to 113!). Even with probable up to 25% decrease in benefits or with earnings tests, we are likely to get out more than we have "invested" in Social Security.

 

[RxMan]

Is there some magical tea leaves I could read that would actually tell me what percentage of my expected SS benefits I’ll actually receive? If so I may actually become a tea drinker.

 

[Dtail]

Well not all of us don't include SS in our planning. IMO, that is way too conservative and we would have never retired.
My DGF is already receiving SSDI, so that comes into play too of course.

 

[bigfan188]

I am 56 and have been living just fine off my taxable investments for the last 11 years. I consider SS to be one of my 3 "reinforcements," with unfettered access to my tIRA and my frozen company pension the other 2, available at various times starting at age 59.5.


If somehow SS isn't there or gets reduced by the time I am old enough to be at FRA (age 67), I will still have the other 2 reinforcements ready to supplement my already good financial situation.

Why bond funds? you have to worry about everyone else selling . buy individual bonds and just worry about your self

 

[GenXguy]

First off, Social Security was NEVER meant to be the only resource in retirement.

I've read people posting that countless times over the years. Maybe not "only" resource, but it's still a significant portion of many retirees income and makes up 90%+ of the retirement income for many as well, especially for unmarried retirees:

From ssa.gov fact sheet:

ο Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 50% of married couples and 70% of unmarried persons receive 50% or more of their income from Social Security.

ο Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries, 21% of married couples and about 45% of unmarried persons rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income.

 

[Tiger8693]

First off, Social Security was NEVER meant to be the only resource in retirement.

I think it is up to everyone to set up their finances so anything from Social Security is fun money.

100% agree with the 1st sentence, totally disagree with the 2nd sentence here. While not ONLY resource, at $58k per year FRA income (considering no reduction is made), that would be a good supplement to retirement and since this has been something within our "3 legged stool" plan touted for 35-40 years of my life, I think I should be able to count on it.

 

[BeachOrCity]

First off, Social Security was NEVER meant to be the only resource in retirement.

I think it is up to everyone to set up their finances so anything from Social Security is fun money.

Wow! So because that's how you plan it "everyone" has to make it "fun money"?

Many people rely on social security. Just because they rely on it doesn't mean it is their "only resource". But for some people it ends up being that way.

Sorry to flame you, but your post comes off as extremely judgmental towards those who are not so fortunate as to consider their social security check "fun money".

Its amazing how non empathetic some people can be towards others, or maybe you just typed without thinking about what you were saying.

 

[Dtail]

100% agree with the 1st sentence, totally disagree with the 2nd sentence here. While not ONLY resource, at $58k per year FRA income (considering no reduction is made), that would be a good supplement to retirement and since this has been something within our "3 legged stool" plan touted for 35-40 years of my life, I think I should be able to count on it.

Big +1
Sometimes it is the same folks who state don't worry about SORR, but have their Pensions cover all their expenses.

 

[Perryinva]

I’m 62, so not part of the “will it be there” discussion, but just want to add that SS estimated predicted amounts at FRA when you are in your 40,s and early 50’s are likely WAY off. The amount of COLA adjustments and rises/changes to max income taxed are never accounted for in the predictions, much less an increased rate. My predicted FRA IS now steady, but at 62 and over 35 years max premiums paid in, it should be. But my age 45 estimates were over $1800/m lower and even age 55 was around $1000/m lower, even taking inflation in to account! My plan was based on those numbers, so I am in better shape than planned, but not as much as it could have been because it turned out my pension formula had a reduction as part of the calibration based in the company’s calculation of my PIA based on my salary. It was still net positive gains, but my pension prediction at 45 was over $7k/yr higher than it turned out to be.

 

[Tiger8693]

I’m 62, so not part of the “will it be there” discussion, but just want to add that SS estimated predicted amounts at FRA when you are in your 40,s and early 50’s are likely WAY off. The amount of COLA adjustments and rises/changes to max income taxed are never accounted for in the predictions, much less an increased rate. My predicted FRA IS now steady, but at 62 and over 35 years max premiums paid in, it should be. But my age 45 estimates were over $1800/m lower and even age 55 was around $1000/m lower, even taking inflation in to account! My plan was based on those numbers, so I am in better shape than planned, but not as much as it could have been because it turned out my pension formula had a reduction as part of the calibration based in the company’s calculation of my PIA based on my salary. It was still net positive gains, but my pension prediction at 45 was over $7k/yr higher than it turned out to be.

That will be awesome if the same for us! Although we are closer 56&57, maybe their will be a little pick up from the current $58k estimate...

 

[jkern]

I retired 11 years ago at 51 and I planned on SS being there. Today, at 62, I have started SS and all is as expected. Yes, I would plan on SS being there.

 

[mountainsoft]

this has been something within our "3 legged stool" plan

We certainly could not live on Social Security by itself. Not even close.

We started saving too late to build up a portfolio large enough to entirely support us in retirement.

We also wouldn't be able to retire with just my wife's pension.

However, combine the three legs of that stool and we should do just fine. It wouldn't be easy, but I think we could survive OK even if there was a decrease in any of those three income sources.

 

[Sniggle]

I am planning for it, but not yet sure when I will take it. Just turned 56 and it is one of the needed legs in my retirement stool....401k(+some Roth and HSA), SSN, pensions( small army + moderate Corp).

Wife is younger and has only minimal ssn credits, so will eventually take it to maximize her take when I no longer care.

That said, SSN is only about 20% of planned retirement income, with pensions being another 25% and 401K being the balance.

 

[Mountain skier]

SS is our $$$. It is not an entitlement as some politicians say. It would be political suicide to reduce $$. If congress does not fix potential short fall just watch how fast they will be voted out of office ...- replaced by politicians committed to fixing the short-fall problem so that We The People have our promised benefits- since we paid this $ into the system.

 

[aaronc879]

SS is our $$$. It is not an entitlement as some politicians say. It would be political suicide to reduce $$. If congress does not fix potential short fall just watch how fast they will be voted out of office ...- replaced by politicians committed to fixing the short-fall problem so that We The People have our promised benefits- since we paid this $ into the system.

I know something needs to be done to help pay for SS but I really don't want them to increase FICA. I am self employed and make ~$15K/yr. I am not FI and have no reasonable way to make more money. It's bad enough now paying over 2 grand for self employment tax on such a small income I really don't want that to go up even more. That's too much for a low income worker like me.

 

[scrabbler1]

Why bond funds? you have to worry about everyone else selling . buy individual bonds and just worry about your self

I don't worry about everyone else selling. I have never sold any shares of the main bond fund which provides me with most of my investment income. The bond fund invests in a specific, targeted slice of the bond market, so I am paying the fund manager and his staff to do the research on figuring out which bonds to buy in order to get the return I seek.

 

[NotYourAverageJones]

Agree[MOD EDIT]. Have put 100's of thousands into it.
And do expect something back in return.

100s of thousands is a lot to personally contribute to SS! Figure you must have been self employed for the vast majority of your working years to contribute that much, especially retiring at 51, 7 years ago!

We have contributed the annual max into SS for the past 18 years, since my DH retired from Military and we are only into them for about $120k, but thats still money we gave to them for safe keeping and our future insurance benefit. What really stinks is when we look at our total Medicare contributions over that same period and it's $30k more than we paid into SS! But when we draw it at 65, we won't get a break on our Medicare premiums or given any additional benefit for all those additional income contributions, like we will when we draw out SS.

Medicare is a bigger issue for us, especially when you consider IRMAA as well. They stuck it to you via additional medicare taxes when you made too much during working years and they will stick it to you again in retirement via IRMAA. Sounds about right!

 

[karen1972]

100s of thousands is a lot to personally contribute to SS! Figure you must have been self employed for the vast majority of your working years to contribute that much, especially retiring at 51, 7 years ago!

I was actually surprised that SS tells you what you and your employer contributed. When I retired at 43, I remember the combined number was over $250k which just seemed like a crazy amount especially given so many of my coworkers likely didn't have that sitting in their 401k.

 

[NotYourAverageJones]

I was actually surprised that SS tells you what you and your employer contributed. When I retired at 43, I remember the combined number was over $250k which just seemed like a crazy amount especially given so many of my coworkers likely didn't have that sitting in their 401k.

Yep. If you take the Social Security wage base starting in 1980 and run it out 40 years thru 2019, if a worker maxed out their social security contributions each year, they would have contributed $189k over that time. And the employer was matching that total, so you'd end up with around $377k that has been earmarked for your retirement account. So yeah, I'd say we should be getting our full entitlement paid, without a reduction. But perhaps that is wishful thinking.

 

[smoghat]

I am 50'ish and do not consider SS at all. If it happens will be bonus spending money. I feel fortunate to be in this position.

Absolutely. And I would not have retired at 48 if I thought I had to count on social security. If I get it, I guess I will just buy more LPs or something.

 

[pj.mask]

100s of thousands is a lot to personally contribute to SS! Figure you must have been self employed for the vast majority of your working years to contribute that much, especially retiring at 51, 7 years ago!

I would count the amount that the employer pays - they only pay it because you are working for them, I’m sure it is taken into consideration when they look at how much they can offer you in salary (along with benefit costs)

Anyone listing how much paid in, is that adjusted to today’s money?

I’m sure if I invested $300+k over 30 years then let it grow for another 10-20 years I would get more back than SS will pay me. So for the lower payment I should be taking less risk premium right? I don’t feel like my promises benefits are low risk at this point.

 

[Gumby]

I would count the amount that the employer pays - they only pay it because you are working for them, I’m sure it is taken into consideration when they look at how much they can offer you in salary (along with benefit costs)

How about a show of hands from all those who believe employers would raise your pay 6.2% if they suddenly didn't have to pay social security? Anyone? Bueller? Yeah, me neither.

 

[USGrant1962]

Your employer's SS contribution is most certainly your contribution. You earned it just like you earned any pension, 401(k) employer contribution, or benefit (medical insurance, life insurance, PTO). Splitting the SS tax between employer and employee is just a politicians' way of hiding the cost from the voters, as are all indirect taxes

 

[PatrickA5]

I'm 61 and SS is in our plan. My guess is that those drawing SS now (and close to it) will receive 100% of what they are entitled. Since our politicians are incapable of doing anything quickly, I doubt that real reform will happen until around 2030. I'd say anybody 50 or above now has nothing to worry about. Younger people will probably have some cuts - probably in the form of a later date for FRA.