High earners/savers: How do you feel about social security?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t seem like it will save any money. You basically get the highest benefit by waiting til 70 to take the benefit. Once people know their benefit is capped they’ll just claim earlier. So, yes, they will get a lower annual benefit but they will start getting paid earlier. So unless social security hasn’t properly adjusted the age 70 payout, it doesn’t seem like this would save much.

An excellent point. High earners, lots of retirement savings, not planning to take SS until 70. If there was a cap we'd take it at 65.

We plan to tax at 62. Might as well maximize how much we get. We can reinvest what we get and if we live to 78+ we will definitely be ahead (possibly earlier). Given all the discussion of proposed changes we figure might as well get what we have put in before they take a portion away from us

Unless they shrink all the pay outs proportionately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t seem like it will save any money. You basically get the highest benefit by waiting til 70 to take the benefit. Once people know their benefit is capped they’ll just claim earlier. So, yes, they will get a lower annual benefit but they will start getting paid earlier. So unless social security hasn’t properly adjusted the age 70 payout, it doesn’t seem like this would save much.

An excellent point. High earners, lots of retirement savings, not planning to take SS until 70. If there was a cap we'd take it at 65.

The government is not that dumb. If there's a cap at 70 there will be a cap at 65.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The high earners/contributors are going to keep getting paid out. They will just keep raising retirement age and keep raising the cap. It’s not politically tenable to tell a huge group of wealthy influential people that you are singling them out to raises taxes on them. Just look what happens if they try to increase the marginal tax rate, which this is just another version of.

+1

It's a 12%+ tax (between them and the employer). At some point, you cannot just tax the Rich (not talking about those worth $200M+) more and more and expect them to accept it without voicing complaints, and without expecting something in return.

What they are getting is a functioning society— one where people would stop cheering when CEO’s get killed in the street and warehouses get burned down. They already get the lion’s share of wealth. You do not need to go to people worth $200 M or even $20 million to cover the top 1% who currently own one-third of all the wealth— leaving crumbs for everyone else.

The top 1% pay about 40% of total income taxes while the bottom 50% (!) pay about 3%.

I don’t think the top 1% is the problem or the solution.

But this is only true of wage earners. It does not take into account how the super wealthy finagle their comp so it’s not taxed as earned income. Rest assured they are still well compensated, they are just not taxed.

That is such a ridiculously tiny percent of the population. It’s near insanity that people focus their energy on that. Even if we took every single cent - all of it - from the super wealthy, we would be in the exact same situation in about five minutes. Our problems are structural.

You don’t math much do you? This is why we have the problems we have. Country full of ignoramous. I’m
not even going to waste my time explaining why their population size doesn’t matter. Dummies gonna dummy.

[Anonymous]

I'm such a cynic that I don't even factor in Social Security. I'll treat it like a windfall if it's still there in 25 years when I'm old enough to take withdrawals. I guess I'll use it to take better vacations, or eventually, for better quality end of life care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t seem like it will save any money. You basically get the highest benefit by waiting til 70 to take the benefit. Once people know their benefit is capped they’ll just claim earlier. So, yes, they will get a lower annual benefit but they will start getting paid earlier. So unless social security hasn’t properly adjusted the age 70 payout, it doesn’t seem like this would save much.

An excellent point. High earners, lots of retirement savings, not planning to take SS until 70. If there was a cap we'd take it at 65.

We plan to tax at 62. Might as well maximize how much we get. We can reinvest what we get and if we live to 78+ we will definitely be ahead (possibly earlier). Given all the discussion of proposed changes we figure might as well get what we have put in before they take a portion away from us

Unless they shrink all the pay outs proportionately.

Either way we don't "need" SS, so we will take at 62 to maximize whatever we can get. Since we have paid in for 35+ years at high levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm such a cynic that I don't even factor in Social Security. I'll treat it like a windfall if it's still there in 25 years when I'm old enough to take withdrawals. I guess I'll use it to take better vacations, or eventually, for better quality end of life care.

That is how we have planned. Now in late 50s, retired, and don't "need" SS. But at this point we assume we will get 75% payouts most likely and will start at 62 to maximize it.

But our retirement planning assumed No SS.

[Anonymous]

As a high earner I dont even think about social security. It doesn’t even come up in conversation with our wealthy advisor. If we’re were of retirement age right now both of us would get the maximum benefit, but we are 48 and have some time to continue working. Social security will be treated as a bonus if we get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t seem like it will save any money. You basically get the highest benefit by waiting til 70 to take the benefit. Once people know their benefit is capped they’ll just claim earlier. So, yes, they will get a lower annual benefit but they will start getting paid earlier. So unless social security hasn’t properly adjusted the age 70 payout, it doesn’t seem like this would save much.

An excellent point. High earners, lots of retirement savings, not planning to take SS until 70. If there was a cap we'd take it at 65.

why i. the world would you wait to take it? you are just giving the government more time with your money. You make way way more if you are actually wealthy and don’t need it and invest it yourself. The math is quite basic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Squeezing donut hole families, not high earners. Release the cap and tax ALL income, that would be taxing the high earners

You know people expect money they've paid back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t seem like it will save any money. You basically get the highest benefit by waiting til 70 to take the benefit. Once people know their benefit is capped they’ll just claim earlier. So, yes, they will get a lower annual benefit but they will start getting paid earlier. So unless social security hasn’t properly adjusted the age 70 payout, it doesn’t seem like this would save much.

An excellent point. High earners, lots of retirement savings, not planning to take SS until 70. If there was a cap we'd take it at 65.

why i. the world would you wait to take it? you are just giving the government more time with your money. You make way way more if you are actually wealthy and don’t need it and invest it yourself. The math is quite basic.

DP here. If you don’t need the money any way, have a non working spouse and the second spouse lives a long time, you come out ahead with the higher amount, because the second spouse will receive the higher amount after the first spouse dies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t seem like it will save any money. You basically get the highest benefit by waiting til 70 to take the benefit. Once people know their benefit is capped they’ll just claim earlier. So, yes, they will get a lower annual benefit but they will start getting paid earlier. So unless social security hasn’t properly adjusted the age 70 payout, it doesn’t seem like this would save much.

An excellent point. High earners, lots of retirement savings, not planning to take SS until 70. If there was a cap we'd take it at 65.

why i. the world would you wait to take it? you are just giving the government more time with your money. You make way way more if you are actually wealthy and don’t need it and invest it yourself. The math is quite basic.

DP here. If you don’t need the money any way, have a non working spouse and the second spouse lives a long time, you come out ahead with the higher amount, because the second spouse will receive the higher amount after the first spouse dies.

No, when the first spouse dies, the spouse who worked without pay will only get the Full Retirement Amount of the spouse who worked for pay. FRA is the amount a worker is entitled to at 65 or 67, depending on birth year.

So, even if working for pay spouse waits to 70 to get the highest possible amount, the spouse who worked without pay will get the FRA amount, not the age 70 amount.

[Anonymous]

We’d be better off forcing people to save more of their income every year for retirement and then have it be their own money to use (and rely on). Like they do in Australia for example - I think they tax people around 10% as a forced retirement savings plan (superannuation).

This system we have where people are taxed but they don’t actually call it a tax and yet we can’t actually rely on the money is ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We’d be better off forcing people to save more of their income every year for retirement and then have it be their own money to use (and rely on). Like they do in Australia for example - I think they tax people around 10% as a forced retirement savings plan (superannuation).

This system we have where people are taxed but they don’t actually call it a tax and yet we can’t actually rely on the money is ridiculous.

Agreed. What are the pros and cons to Australia’s approach? Generally speaking, I don’t like a command approach to saving but given our problem, it might be worthwhile to try it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t seem like it will save any money. You basically get the highest benefit by waiting til 70 to take the benefit. Once people know their benefit is capped they’ll just claim earlier. So, yes, they will get a lower annual benefit but they will start getting paid earlier. So unless social security hasn’t properly adjusted the age 70 payout, it doesn’t seem like this would save much.

An excellent point. High earners, lots of retirement savings, not planning to take SS until 70. If there was a cap we'd take it at 65.

We plan to tax at 62. Might as well maximize how much we get. We can reinvest what we get and if we live to 78+ we will definitely be ahead (possibly earlier). Given all the discussion of proposed changes we figure might as well get what we have put in before they take a portion away from us

Unless they shrink all the pay outs proportionately.

Either way, if we don't need it now, we will take it at 62 and invest it. Start taking what we have paid in and get as much back as we can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This doesn’t seem like it will save any money. You basically get the highest benefit by waiting til 70 to take the benefit. Once people know their benefit is capped they’ll just claim earlier. So, yes, they will get a lower annual benefit but they will start getting paid earlier. So unless social security hasn’t properly adjusted the age 70 payout, it doesn’t seem like this would save much.

An excellent point. High earners, lots of retirement savings, not planning to take SS until 70. If there was a cap we'd take it at 65.

why i. the world would you wait to take it? you are just giving the government more time with your money. You make way way more if you are actually wealthy and don’t need it and invest it yourself. The math is quite basic.

This 1000%

Also, take it before the govt cuts it back or moves the eligibility ages. We plan to take at 62 and invest. we don't need it