How can someone only get 1k for social security ?

[Anonymous]

I will get a lot more of SS from my ex's income than I will from my own or if I remarry. That sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My father has two pensions and my mother never worked. She was so upset that her SS was only going to be about 1k I don't know if she applied for it. It was going to be her retirement play money. I really don't know what to make of her sometimes.

If she never worked how is getting 1000 a month?
My wife worked over 30 years and only gets 1000 a month. (Good thing we saved and invested a lot)

Makes no sense.

Non-working spouses can collect 50% of their spouses’s benefit. If you never worked, never married (or weren’t married for 10 or more years), or were not disabled, you cannot collect social security. There’s no minimum payment if you don’t fall into one of those three areas.

There is supplemental social security for about $650/month but it is probably means tested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My parents were high earners who both started taking SS at age 70, this year they’re bringing in a combined $80k just in their SS income. If they live into their 90s like their own parents it’s a great deal.

In no way is SS ever a "great deal." If they had invested all contributions, they would have far more than the $80K in income (plus the capital left over to pass to their kids).

Isn’t it a good deal if you live to be really old? I had an aunt collecting SS into her 100s and it seems like she must have gotten out more than she put in through I never ran all of the numbers.

It also provided with your kids with guaranteed survivor's benefits until they were 18, you with guaranteed disability insurance your whole working life, and will provide your spouse with guaranteed retirement income until they die whether or not they worked.

My husband died at 37 when our kids were very small. The youngest one will graduate high school next year; we'll have collected survivors' benefits for almost 18 years by then, which is longer than he was employed. To say that I am very grateful for these benefits would be an understatement. Even though I work and we had some life insurance, it has helped me raise my family and keep a foothold in the middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My parents were high earners who both started taking SS at age 70, this year they’re bringing in a combined $80k just in their SS income. If they live into their 90s like their own parents it’s a great deal.

In no way is SS ever a "great deal." If they had invested all contributions, they would have far more than the $80K in income (plus the capital left over to pass to their kids).

Isn’t it a good deal if you live to be really old? I had an aunt collecting SS into her 100s and it seems like she must have gotten out more than she put in through I never ran all of the numbers.

It also provided with your kids with guaranteed survivor's benefits until they were 18, you with guaranteed disability insurance your whole working life, and will provide your spouse with guaranteed retirement income until they die whether or not they worked.

My husband died at 37 when our kids were very small. The youngest one will graduate high school next year; we'll have collected survivors' benefits for almost 18 years by then, which is longer than he was employed. To say that I am very grateful for these benefits would be an understatement. Even though I work and we had some life insurance, it has helped me raise my family and keep a foothold in the middle class.

Sorry for your loss. We just applied to survivor's benefits and the amount is surprising high as my spouse made over $100k. This is not something people think about because nobody expect their spouse to die when the kids are still young. We would be financially in very hard place without the survivor's benefits.

[Anonymous]

My mother worked throughout her life but never made more than $30k/year. Her net from SS every month is about $800.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about a Fed’s SS? Presumably, it could be up to 3k-4k. How wildly wrong am I?

You’re not. I’m 49 and make more than $140,000 and will have 30 years in when I retire. I’ll retire in that range. So will DH who makes quite a bit more, but is over the cap.

Most non-military feds get full social security.

I’m a high-ranking fed. I would get $4500 if I waited until I was 70 to start SS benefits. It’s $2800 if I take it right at 62, which is what I plan on doing since everything points to me being means tested out of the higher amount if I wait and Congress get serious about balancing the budget.

All plans would adjust benefit based on your birth year, which is fixed, not the year you start getting benefits. (I work in this area.) There is a chance of an increase in taxes on benefits, but that's a relatively small change. I'd strongly recommend waiting to 70.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about a Fed’s SS? Presumably, it could be up to 3k-4k. How wildly wrong am I?

You’re not. I’m 49 and make more than $140,000 and will have 30 years in when I retire. I’ll retire in that range. So will DH who makes quite a bit more, but is over the cap.

Most non-military feds get full social security.

I’m a high-ranking fed. I would get $4500 if I waited until I was 70 to start SS benefits. It’s $2800 if I take it right at 62, which is what I plan on doing since everything points to me being means tested out of the higher amount if I wait and Congress get serious about balancing the budget.

SS will not be phased out or means tested if you are a millennial or older. This drum has been banged for 40 years and there’s been no urgency to fix it. Congress will just keep increasing the salary limit and pushing the eligibility years out for Millennials and younger.

g

Waiting until you are 70 to take SS benefits is one of the smartest things you can do.

Agree. Yes, there's a chance that you'll die early, but if you die early you won't need the money! The real risk is outliving your savings, in which case it will be a huge benefit to have waited for the higher monthly payment.

[Anonymous]

Might have had a job that doesn't get Social Security, but might get something like Railroad Retirement instead.

[Anonymous]

$4,555 is max SS.
$49.40 is Min SS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm taking the thousand bucks at 62 with a plan to invest it. I can do a better job than the government's raise of 8% a year or whatever that was, and fear of ss being reduced because they have no funds. Fear doesn't make for great investment/retirement decisions. If and when the Government makes changes to SS eligibility and payments it will impact younger generations, not those near SS age. COLAs are an important feature of SS, by taking it early at 62, you are reducing that impact. So your plan....it to invest the early SS distributions into the stock market and do better than the 8% guarantee plus COLA increases. GL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My parents were high earners who both started taking SS at age 70, this year they’re bringing in a combined $80k just in their SS income. If they live into their 90s like their own parents it’s a great deal.

In no way is SS ever a "great deal." If they had invested all contributions, they would have far more than the $80K in income (plus the capital left over to pass to their kids).

Isn’t it a good deal if you live to be really old? I had an aunt collecting SS into her 100s and it seems like she must have gotten out more than she put in through I never ran all of the numbers.

It also provided with your kids with guaranteed survivor's benefits until they were 18, you with guaranteed disability insurance your whole working life, and will provide your spouse with guaranteed retirement income until they die whether or not they worked.

My husband died at 37 when our kids were very small. The youngest one will graduate high school next year; we'll have collected survivors' benefits for almost 18 years by then, which is longer than he was employed. To say that I am very grateful for these benefits would be an understatement. Even though I work and we had some life insurance, it has helped me raise my family and keep a foothold in the middle class.

Sorry for your loss. We just applied to survivor's benefits and the amount is surprising high as my spouse made over $100k. This is not something people think about because nobody expect their spouse to die when the kids are still young. We would be financially in very hard place without the survivor's benefits.

PP you responded to. I'm very sorry to hear you're a member of the club no one wants to join.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:$4,555 is max SS.
$49.40 is Min SS

What salary for max? Does that mean waiting until 70s?

[Anonymous]

max SS would require earning the cap amount for 35 years and waiting until age 70 to claim. The optimal claiming strategy depends on how long you expect to live, your other resources, and if anyone else is going to get benefits on your record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will get a lot more of SS from my ex's income than I will from my own or if I remarry. That sucks.

My grandmother was totally offended that her spousal SS—I think half of my grandfather’s calculated amount?—was higher than what she would have gotten based on her own employment record, because my grandfather was paid so much more than her. (She had a college degree.) But you have to take what they calculate for you, and that is the higher of your own benefit or your spousal benefit. She wanted her Social Security that she had earned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about a Fed’s SS? Presumably, it could be up to 3k-4k. How wildly wrong am I?

You’re not. I’m 49 and make more than $140,000 and will have 30 years in when I retire. I’ll retire in that range. So will DH who makes quite a bit more, but is over the cap.

Most non-military feds get full social security.

I’m a high-ranking fed. I would get $4500 if I waited until I was 70 to start SS benefits. It’s $2800 if I take it right at 62, which is what I plan on doing since everything points to me being means tested out of the higher amount if I wait and Congress get serious about balancing the budget.

SS will not be phased out or means tested if you are a millennial or older. This drum has been banged for 40 years and there’s been no urgency to fix it. Congress will just keep increasing the salary limit and pushing the eligibility years out for Millennials and younger.

Waiting until you are 70 to take SS benefits is one of the smartest things you can do.

Only if you live past 82. And not much at that.

This. The break even is pretty far into the future. Not sure yet what we will do since for us SS is just a piece of our retirement, not the whole thing.

Only if you’re looking to get into it every penny you paid in. If you view it as longevity insurance (I.e., a substitute for an annuity), makes perfect sense to wait. That’s what I’m doing.