So, no worries at all about SS right?

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mikes425

Recycles dryer sheets
Joined
Mar 16, 2019
Messages
271
Location
Erie
Assuming - based on past experience here - that no one in this forum believes SS/Medicare will be touched, and that benefits will not be reduced or cut, in any way, for anyone eligible for SS, I have a question and would welcome any thoughts.

I'm going to reach FRA next month. I'm a freelance self-employed media producer and have sufficient assets of about 3M - this month anyway. My FA has suggested I wait til 70 to start SS. I'm considering doing it next month.

Recent SSA projections indicate I'm eligible for about 2428 a month at FRA, versus 3076/month at age 70. SSA statement estimated figures. What would you do?

I'll just add that lest anyone think otherwise, SS should be entirely off-limits from any arbitrary budget cutting mania. It's a unique and historically separate entity which like Medicare, I've invested in, paid into and earned over an entire working career, like many of you.

I wouldn't be able to fathom anyone in a retirement forum having a contrary viewpoint on that issue, at least insofar as those who are currently on, or eligible to begin receiving benefits.
 
Last edited:
Only you can decide when to to SS. So many considerations. How is your health/what is your life expectancy? Do you want to do Roth conversions prior to collecting SS? Do you want to maximize wife's benefit if you pass first? How much of the 3M assets is actually investments that are earmarked for retirement income. For example, is it 3M in investments not counting your home or 3M of net worth of which 2M is your home and 1M in investments, big difference in consideration of when to take SS.

In my case I decided to wait until 70 for the following reasons, I expect to to live well beyond the breakeven age, I wanted to do Roth conversions prior to collecting SS, I wanted to maximize the wife's SS if I pass first, I had plenty of investments to more than cover my living expenses between my retirement age of 61 and the age 70. That decision was right for me.

Your situation, thus your decision, may be completely different than mine. Good luck with your decision.
 
I think my break even age is 83 and I am almost 82. I took SS at my FRA. No regrets, plus we needed the money back then. Two of my friends died in the last year, one at 84, one at 82. My wife passed at 77. It's a crap shoot when to take it. But a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, as the saying goes.
 
I don't know whether SS benefits will be cut or not. I strongly suspect that if they are, you won't avoid the pain by claiming early. But that's just an uninformed opinion. And if they are cut, I strongly suspect it won't be for everyone. Anyone's guess as to who might be the favored groups.

As far as "it's mine, because I paid for it". If that was true, why is the funding upside down ? Not stating anything contrary to your opinion, just observing fact. The math says that someone(s) didn't fully pay for their benefits. And maybe some other one(s) additionally more than paid for their benefits. That's part of why it's such a discussed topic. Wealth transfer schemes generate differing opinions depending on whether your ox is getting gored or not.

I reach FRA in May. I'm deferring until I hit 70 or something changes with my health or finances. I don't think there is any play in trying to outguess and out maneuver whatever necessary "fix" is going to be applied to SS. If I was pushed to guess, I would say I'll receive my full nominal benefit, but it's going to taxed or means tested more than it is today. Just a guess for people of our age.
 
Last edited:
I seriously doubt there will be any cuts to SS or Medicare, 3rd rail of politics.

I seriously believe a ton of dead people or even people that never existed are getting benefits...fraux...and they will be cut from the rolls.

I agree with fhe suggestion to add expected or likely longevity to your calculations. Best wishes.
 
Last edited:
mikes425 said:
Assuming - based on past experience here - that no one in this forum believes SS/Medicare will be touched, and that benefits will not be reduced or cut, in any way, for anyone eligible for SS, ...
Click to expand...
True, but that was back in Olden Times when logical thinking could be used to predict with reasonable accuracy what the executive branch and the lawmakers would do. That is no longer the case.
 
After the WEP/GPO thing, I have zero worries about SS. That only affected something like 3 million people and they still got it passed. Imagine doing something that hurt the other 67 million voters, like cutting SS. Not going to happen.

They will just eliminate the cap on wages, raise the full retirement age by 1 year for people born after 1990 or something and call it a day.
 
None of us have crystal balls. With your NW and a low enough WR, you sure can take it at FRA if you're more comfortable claiming now. Of course you can wait. It's truly anyone's guess.
 
it would be political suicide to cut ss benefits. I agree with fermion that adjustments will be made to decrease the future payouts.
 
mikes425 said:
Assuming - based on past experience here - that no one in this forum believes SS/Medicare will be touched, and that benefits will not be reduced or cut, in any way, for anyone eligible for SS, I have a question and would welcome any thoughts.

...

I'll just add that lest anyone think otherwise, SS should be entirely off-limits from any arbitrary budget cutting mania. It's a unique and historically separate entity which like Medicare, I've invested in, paid into and earned over an entire working career, like many of you.

I wouldn't be able to fathom anyone in a retirement forum having a contrary viewpoint on that issue, at least insofar as those who are currently on, or eligible to begin receiving benefits.
Click to expand...

Wow. I don't even know where to start...

Suffice it to say that, out of an abundance of caution, as has been the case since the 1980s, we still don't include Social Security payments in our planning. (Born in '60 and '61). No one has a right to "vested" benefits under that program (Fleming v. Nestor, SCOTUS, 1960), and it is erroneous to claim that one has invested in it. At some point soon (sooner after the recent WEP/GPO modifications), changes will have to be made to the program--tax the young even more, or adjust benefits (or, perhaps, do nothing and allow cuts to proceed as provided for under current law).

To address your claiming question, we plan to claim whatever we might eventually be eligible for at our respective ages 70, and give whatever we might get to our grandchildren.
 
I'm hoping budget deficits do decline so there will be more funds to keep SS going without cuts, at least for anyone already over, say, age 50.
 
I suggested to Grok that we eliminate the cap on SS wages (progressive, hurts younger generation some but at least mostly wealthier) and also require every employer, state and local contribute to SS. These two measures close 81% of the funding gap for the next 75+ years.
 
2017ish said:
Wow. I don't even know where to start...

Suffice it to say that, out of an abundance of caution, as has been the case since the 1980s, we still don't include Social Security payments in our planning. (Born in '60 and '61). No one has a right to "vested" benefits under that program (Fleming v. Nestor, SCOTUS, 1960), and it is erroneous to claim that one has invested in it. At some point soon (sooner after the recent WEP/GPO modifications), changes will have to be made to the program--tax the young even more, or adjust benefits (or, perhaps, do nothing and allow cuts to proceed as provided for under current law).

To address your claiming question, we plan to claim whatever we might eventually be eligible for at our respective ages 70, and give whatever we might get to our grandchildren.
Click to expand...
With respect....your assertion that "no one has a vested right to Social Security benefits" fails to hold up under scrutiny, especially for those of us who’ve paid FICA taxes over a lifetime. These aren’t arbitrary levies; they’re mandatory contributions explicitly designated for the Social Security system—a program marketed as our safety net for retirement, disability, or survivorship. The government has fostered a clear expectation: we pay in, we get benefits out. To dismiss that as conferring no rights defies the implicit social contract millions have relied upon in good faith.
Legally, you might lean on Flemming v. Nestor (1960), where the Supreme Court ruled benefits aren’t a contractual entitlement but subject to congressional whim. That’s a technicality. Morally and practically, a lifetime of contributions—tied directly to benefit calculations—creates a legitimate claim. Compare it to an insurance model: if I pay premiums for decades, I expect a payout. Social Security’s design mirrors this; denying a vested stake after such investment strains reason. Americans don’t just hope for these benefits—they structure their lives around them. Undermining that after years of mandated payments isn’t flexibility; it’s a breach of trust.
Worse, those funds were set aside for this purpose—FICA dollars funneled into a trust explicitly for Social Security. Yet politicians have raided it, diverting billions to unrelated ends, leaving the system’s solvency in question. That violation isn’t the burden of recipients to reconcile. We paid into a dedicated pool, not a general slush fund. To argue we have no rights to what remains—after such misuse—compounds the wrong. Congress may need to adjust for fiscal reality, but erasing the link between contributions and benefits nullifies the system’s founding logic.
If a lifetime of designated payments doesn’t vest me with some entitlement, what does? Your position requires more than legal hairsplitting to justify why those contributions don’t matter. The evidence—practical, moral, and historical—says they do.

We can agree to disagree in any event and that's fine.
 
I'm only guessing but I think SS will be "saved" at the last moment by which ever party is in power at that time. Those of us collecting just might have to "participate" in SS's salvation (maybe lower COL payments, higher taxation, etc). BUT as long as the USA is the USA, I think SS will be there. YMMV
 
mikes425 said:
Worse, those funds were set aside for this purpose—FICA dollars funneled into a trust explicitly for Social Security. Yet politicians have raided it, diverting billions to unrelated ends, leaving the system’s solvency in question. That violation isn’t the burden of recipients to reconcile. We paid into a dedicated pool, not a general slush fund. To argue we have no rights to what remains—after such misuse—compounds the wrong. Congress may need to adjust for fiscal reality, but erasing the link between contributions and benefits nullifies the system’s founding logic.
If a lifetime of designated payments doesn’t vest me with some entitlement, what does? Your position requires more than legal hairsplitting to justify why those contributions don’t matter. The evidence—practical, moral, and historical—says they do.
Click to expand...
I, as are many folks in a FIRE forum, do hope that you are correct that SS will be protected. I do get a bit confuse with your argument above (bolded)... so, because politicians have already raided funding designated for SS, they will not do that again (because that would be immoral?)
 
mikes425 said:
With respect....your assertion that "no one has a vested right to Social Security benefits" fails to hold up under scrutiny, especially for those of us who’ve paid FICA taxes over a lifetime. These aren’t arbitrary levies; they’re mandatory contributions explicitly designated for the Social Security system—a program marketed as our safety net for retirement, disability, or survivorship. The government has fostered a clear expectation: we pay in, we get benefits out. To dismiss that as conferring no rights defies the implicit social contract millions have relied upon in good faith.
Legally, you might lean on Flemming v. Nestor (1960), where the Supreme Court ruled benefits aren’t a contractual entitlement but subject to congressional whim. That’s a technicality. Morally and practically, a lifetime of contributions—tied directly to benefit calculations—creates a legitimate claim. Compare it to an insurance model: if I pay premiums for decades, I expect a payout. Social Security’s design mirrors this; denying a vested stake after such investment strains reason. Americans don’t just hope for these benefits—they structure their lives around them. Undermining that after years of mandated payments isn’t flexibility; it’s a breach of trust.
Worse, those funds were set aside for this purpose—FICA dollars funneled into a trust explicitly for Social Security. Yet politicians have raided it, diverting billions to unrelated ends, leaving the system’s solvency in question. That violation isn’t the burden of recipients to reconcile. We paid into a dedicated pool, not a general slush fund. To argue we have no rights to what remains—after such misuse—compounds the wrong. Congress may need to adjust for fiscal reality, but erasing the link between contributions and benefits nullifies the system’s founding logic.
If a lifetime of designated payments doesn’t vest me with some entitlement, what does? Your position requires more than legal hairsplitting to justify why those contributions don’t matter. The evidence—practical, moral, and historical—says they do.

We can agree to disagree in any event and that's fine.
Click to expand...
Since I turn 70 later this year, I'm staying the course.

Virtually everything you wrote in the popular misconception category.

While I agree that there is a common expectation to benefits after paying in for so many years, the reality is that there is no legal right to benefits. It is not an insurance model, it is a pay as you go model. While Elon Musk characterizing SS as a Ponzi scheme was provocative, there is an element of truth to it. There is no linkage between contributions and benefits other than the calculation of the amount of benefits. There is no earmarking of collections for individual or cohort benefit payments like other funded retirement benefit systems... again, it is a pay as you go system.

Also, there has been no raiding of the SS trust. Excess funds have been invested in a special series of US Treasuries as provided for by statute. No other alternative was provided. The Treasuries are a ~$2.8t part of the $36t national debt.

Should it be the way you wish it was... yes. Is it the way you wish it was, unfortunately not. Ironically, if it was a funded system rather than a pay as you go system then the financial weaknesses of the system would have been addressed long ago.
 
Last edited:
rk911 said:
...I seriously believe a ton of dead people or even people that never existed are getting benefits...fraux...and they will be cut from the rolls. ..
Click to expand...
I have yet to see ANY convincing evidence or even indication of widespread fraud, just conspiracy theory nuts doing their thing.

The most recent rumblings of very old people on the roles was quickly debunked. To begin with payments automatically cease at 115 and second there are many fewer very old beneficiaries actually receiving benefits... most of the really old people on the master record were not receiving benefit payments.
 
Last edited:
pb4uski said:
I have yet to see ANY convincing evidence or even indication of widespread fraud, just conspiracy theory nuts doing their thing.

The most recent rumblings of very old people on the roles was quickly debunked. To begin with payments automatically cease at 115 and second there are many fewer very old beneficiaries actually receiving benefits... most of the really old people on the master record were not receiving benefit payments.
Click to expand...
I have no idea if there is widespread fraud or not. One thing is certain. We'll never know if we don't look. I think most people just "accept" that gummint programs that have budgets as large as Medicare, Medicaid, SS and Pentagon have a fair amount of fraud. It's the nature of the beast and no one really looks. I think an assumption of fraud makes more sense than an assumption that there is no (significant) fraud because (wait for it) we haven't looked yet.
 
Koolau said:
I have no idea if there is widespread fraud or not. One thing is certain. We'll never know if we don't look. I think most people just "accept" that gummint programs that have budgets as large as Medicare, Medicaid, SS and Pentagon have a fair amount of fraud. It's the nature of the beast and no one really looks. I think an assumption of fraud makes more sense than an assumption that there is no (significant) fraud because (wait for it) we haven't looked yet.
Click to expand...
I kindly suggest you ask CHATGPT Who looks for fraud waste and abuse in the government. There are people and procedures already in place. Then ask it about social security. Again there are people and procedures in place to check for fraud.
I watch videos from Dr. Ed Wier and he explains a lot about SS. He ran the third largest SS office. He says the current rules they have to follow are why the master list has a lot of really old people (that are not receiving benefits) on it. They can't remove them without the rules being updated to allow them to. Guess who would need to update the rules they are required to follow. They know about the issue but have not done anything.
 
I would be very surprised if Social Security amounts for current and even future retirees are significantly cut. SS is called the third rail for good reasons. I do think poorly planned and executed employee cuts could cause temporary problems receiving those benefits due to failures in electronic records keeping and payment systems. Even short-term payment disruptions could be devastating to many seniors relying solely on SS.

Federal employee positions are being divided up into "essential" and "non-essential" with a very dull knife. Agencies are using AI to evaluate shutdown lists and identify position descriptions that appear to involve work "required by law". Unfortunately, employees designated "essential" and required to report to work during a shutdown are largely those needed to protect life and property during a relatively brief lapse of funds, not to ensure that all agency services continue without impact over the long term. And looking at position descriptions to identify work "required by law," doesn't get you anywhere either. I am planning for a period when social security payments and Federal pension payments get disrupted due to problems with electronic records and payment systems. If that occurs, I hope it happens sooner rather than later so the problems can be rectified before critical skills are lost and the fixes are drawn out.
 
Koolau said:
I have no idea if there is widespread fraud or not. One thing is certain. We'll never know if we don't look. I think most people just "accept" that gummint programs that have budgets as large as Medicare, Medicaid, SS and Pentagon have a fair amount of fraud. It's the nature of the beast and no one really looks. I think an assumption of fraud makes more sense than an assumption that there is no (significant) fraud because (wait for it) we haven't looked yet.
Click to expand...
The claim by the current political noisemakers that people who were 150 years old were getting Social Security checks is beyond ridiculous. They don't have bank accounts or addresses to which the checks can be sent. A lot of the government functions are to root out fraud, waste and abuse. those were the first ones cut. Lots of people look all the time. Or were looking. Those were the first ones fired. Now, fraud, waste, and abuse can go on unobserved.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

BooBoo
Spousal Benefits SS Understanding
RetiredHappy
R
M
  • Locked
What isn’t “different this time” ?
2 3
Gumby
Gumby
latexman
SS Estimates after Retirement
audreyh1
audreyh1
2
SS Estimate - same $ at FRA and 6 mos after FRA?
2
oldtimer
O
F
Modeling Social Security 2033 Insolvency
11 12 13
Out-to-Lunch
Out-to-Lunch

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom