Anonymous
08/22/2016 15:38
Subject: What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:SS, in its current form, is projected to run dry by 2034. (And while some people are talking about increasing benefits, it's obvious we need to cut.) From what I understand, a couple of minor "tweaks" can save the program. What would you be willing to sacrifice? I would vote for three changes:
1) Gradually increase the full retirement age to 68. ?There should be no change for people within 10 years of retirement, but for others, we could add a month every year until we get to 68. When SS was introduced, people barely lived 5 years past retirement age (on average), and now we have people claiming for 20 to 30 years.
2) Increase the cap on the amount people pay the SS tax.
3) Lower the benefits for people in the uppermost brackets - in retirement - by about 25%. My parents have a retirement income of about $150k - no pensions, just responsible lifelong savings and investments - and they tell me they wouldn't miss a SS cut of a few hundred dollars a month.
Opinions?
None
Every indication is that productivity increases should be sufficient for the Baby Boomers to retire AND allow the rest of us enjoy even higher standards of living. In fact, it’s the only news that’s important.
It is much ado about nothing.
Retirement security person here. Many eager researchers have looked for this relationship, but they haven't found it.
Really, because the research is out there, despite what "many people are saying".
Guess The Social Security Administration and Bureau of Economic Analysis don't count as 'eager" researchers.
That's a chart on benefits as a percent of GDP during 1957 to 2004. It's silent about what happens to us from 2016 through 2034 or later. It's also agnostic about productivity's role, by which I mean those rises and dips in the line could be due to anything from wage growth to productivity growth to changes in GDP (the denominator) itself for any number of reasons affecting GDP. If there was some narrative accompanying that graph that talked about productivity that might be interesting. But the SS Trustees take productivity growth into their projections for the future based on "intermediate" (basically, most likely, although that's been debated) and it doesn't solve the problem.
Signed, retirement person
Anonymous
08/22/2016 13:33
Subject: What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:SS, in its current form, is projected to run dry by 2034. (And while some people are talking about increasing benefits, it's obvious we need to cut.) From what I understand, a couple of minor "tweaks" can save the program. What would you be willing to sacrifice? I would vote for three changes:
1) Gradually increase the full retirement age to 68. ?There should be no change for people within 10 years of retirement, but for others, we could add a month every year until we get to 68. When SS was introduced, people barely lived 5 years past retirement age (on average), and now we have people claiming for 20 to 30 years.
2) Increase the cap on the amount people pay the SS tax.
3) Lower the benefits for people in the uppermost brackets - in retirement - by about 25%. My parents have a retirement income of about $150k - no pensions, just responsible lifelong savings and investments - and they tell me they wouldn't miss a SS cut of a few hundred dollars a month.
Opinions?
None
Every indication is that productivity increases should be sufficient for the Baby Boomers to retire AND allow the rest of us enjoy even higher standards of living. In fact, it’s the only news that’s important.
It is much ado about nothing.
Retirement security person here. Many eager researchers have looked for this relationship, but they haven't found it.
Really, because the research is out there, despite what "many people are saying".
Guess The Social Security Administration and Bureau of Economic Analysis don't count as 'eager" researchers.
Anonymous
08/22/2016 13:30
Subject: What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Please don't confuse people with actual facts.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:8:15 here. My mom has a Jitterbug and this does seem like a problem.
You're also talking about the progressive benefit formula. Do you have a source for your numbers on contributions vs. benefits, because they don't seem right.
Social security website was the source. Actual numbers from friends and relatives. Because of the max earnings people feel free to discuss it-not a subject like actual earnings. Retired teachers /cops etc in major cities [high cola areas] should really be complaining via unions to elected officials about medicare premium surcharges beginning at 85k retirement. Now that is just grossly unfair.
Retirement security person here. For really low income people, the annual benefit is about 90% of their wages when they were working. For middle income people, the rate is about 35-40%. For the highest earners at the cap, their annual benefit is about about 25% of their salary before they retired. I haven't seen your figures for low earners as a ratio to high earners for contributions. If you have a link I'd be happy to take a look.
It's true that living standards vary by area.
Numbers are actuals from real people so no links. Medicare premiums are on it's website. What would I do? Remove all medicare freebies at the state level for Part A. Change Part B base so there are no income based surcharges and have all pay prescription.
You can do sample amt paid v benefits. Use 40 quarters only annual max income for 10 years and then use a lower number for 10 years. Try 120k v 10k.
Retirement security person here. Somebody who pays on over just 10 years would get a low benefit no matter their income. SS benefits are calculated over 35 years, so it would be better to use 35 years. 10 years is the minimum you can pay in and get any benefit.
Yes but those parameters are easier for data entry on this exercise based on the calculators I can find. We are interested in pay in, income, benefits. 3 things and any calc I have found [except actuals] just shows income and payout. DOB 1/1/1954 with 10 years of earnings ending 2014.
10,000/year 62=181>pay in exceeded in 3.5 years
max per year at 62=1046>pay in exceeded in 6.5 years.
Retirement person here. Here's a way to get quick results for benefit levels without sacrificing accuracy. Take those replacement rates I posted earlier (25%, 40% and 90%) and apply them to whatever income you're considering. Income is the average income of this person over 35 years. For a low income like $25,000, use 90%. For a medium income like $50,000 use 50%. For a high income at the cap use 25%. For something in between one of these income levels, use a rate that's in between. The result of income*rate will be the benefit level for this person. Then divide by 12 to get the monthly benefit and subtract off the monthly Medicare premiums you gave above. If I've misunderstood what you're trying to do, let me know.
Back again. I forgot: pay-in equals the average income you used above * 6.2 or 12.4 depending on your goal * 35 years.
Obviously these are very rough calcs, and applying the SS benefit formula would give you a more precise answer. It doesn't sound like you need that, though. So if you go with what's above, you get rough, but you don't have the issue of 25 years of zero income in the benefit calculator you're using, which really would lower benefit results.
Anonymous
08/22/2016 13:26
Subject: What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Please don't confuse people with actual facts.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:8:15 here. My mom has a Jitterbug and this does seem like a problem.
You're also talking about the progressive benefit formula. Do you have a source for your numbers on contributions vs. benefits, because they don't seem right.
Social security website was the source. Actual numbers from friends and relatives. Because of the max earnings people feel free to discuss it-not a subject like actual earnings. Retired teachers /cops etc in major cities [high cola areas] should really be complaining via unions to elected officials about medicare premium surcharges beginning at 85k retirement. Now that is just grossly unfair.
Retirement security person here. For really low income people, the annual benefit is about 90% of their wages when they were working. For middle income people, the rate is about 35-40%. For the highest earners at the cap, their annual benefit is about about 25% of their salary before they retired. I haven't seen your figures for low earners as a ratio to high earners for contributions. If you have a link I'd be happy to take a look.
It's true that living standards vary by area.
Numbers are actuals from real people so no links. Medicare premiums are on it's website. What would I do? Remove all medicare freebies at the state level for Part A. Change Part B base so there are no income based surcharges and have all pay prescription.
You can do sample amt paid v benefits. Use 40 quarters only annual max income for 10 years and then use a lower number for 10 years. Try 120k v 10k.
Retirement security person here. Somebody who pays on over just 10 years would get a low benefit no matter their income. SS benefits are calculated over 35 years, so it would be better to use 35 years. 10 years is the minimum you can pay in and get any benefit.
Yes but those parameters are easier for data entry on this exercise based on the calculators I can find. We are interested in pay in, income, benefits. 3 things and any calc I have found [except actuals] just shows income and payout. DOB 1/1/1954 with 10 years of earnings ending 2014.
10,000/year 62=181>pay in exceeded in 3.5 years
max per year at 62=1046>pay in exceeded in 6.5 years.
Retirement person here. Here's a way to get quick results for benefit levels without sacrificing accuracy. Take those replacement rates I posted earlier (25%, 40% and 90%) and apply them to whatever income you're considering. Income is the average income of this person over 35 years. For a low income like $25,000, use 90%. For a medium income like $50,000 use 50%. For a high income at the cap use 25%. For something in between one of these income levels, use a rate that's in between. The result of income*rate will be the benefit level for this person. Then divide by 12 to get the monthly benefit and subtract off the monthly Medicare premiums you gave above. If I've misunderstood what you're trying to do, let me know.
Anonymous
08/22/2016 12:46
Subject: What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Please don't confuse people with actual facts.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:8:15 here. My mom has a Jitterbug and this does seem like a problem.
You're also talking about the progressive benefit formula. Do you have a source for your numbers on contributions vs. benefits, because they don't seem right.
Social security website was the source. Actual numbers from friends and relatives. Because of the max earnings people feel free to discuss it-not a subject like actual earnings. Retired teachers /cops etc in major cities [high cola areas] should really be complaining via unions to elected officials about medicare premium surcharges beginning at 85k retirement. Now that is just grossly unfair.
Retirement security person here. For really low income people, the annual benefit is about 90% of their wages when they were working. For middle income people, the rate is about 35-40%. For the highest earners at the cap, their annual benefit is about about 25% of their salary before they retired. I haven't seen your figures for low earners as a ratio to high earners for contributions. If you have a link I'd be happy to take a look.
It's true that living standards vary by area.
Numbers are actuals from real people so no links. Medicare premiums are on it's website. What would I do? Remove all medicare freebies at the state level for Part A. Change Part B base so there are no income based surcharges and have all pay prescription.
You can do sample amt paid v benefits. Use 40 quarters only annual max income for 10 years and then use a lower number for 10 years. Try 120k v 10k.
Retirement security person here. Somebody who pays on over just 10 years would get a low benefit no matter their income. SS benefits are calculated over 35 years, so it would be better to use 35 years. 10 years is the minimum you can pay in and get any benefit.
Yes but those parameters are easier for data entry on this exercise based on the calculators I can find. We are interested in pay in, income, benefits. 3 things and any calc I have found [except actuals] just shows income and payout. DOB 1/1/1954 with 10 years of earnings ending 2014.
10,000/year 62=181>pay in exceeded in 3.5 years
max per year at 62=1046>pay in exceeded in 6.5 years.
Anonymous
08/22/2016 11:49
Subject: What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Please don't confuse people with actual facts.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:8:15 here. My mom has a Jitterbug and this does seem like a problem.
You're also talking about the progressive benefit formula. Do you have a source for your numbers on contributions vs. benefits, because they don't seem right.
Social security website was the source. Actual numbers from friends and relatives. Because of the max earnings people feel free to discuss it-not a subject like actual earnings. Retired teachers /cops etc in major cities [high cola areas] should really be complaining via unions to elected officials about medicare premium surcharges beginning at 85k retirement. Now that is just grossly unfair.
Retirement security person here. For really low income people, the annual benefit is about 90% of their wages when they were working. For middle income people, the rate is about 35-40%. For the highest earners at the cap, their annual benefit is about about 25% of their salary before they retired. I haven't seen your figures for low earners as a ratio to high earners for contributions. If you have a link I'd be happy to take a look.
It's true that living standards vary by area.
Numbers are actuals from real people so no links. Medicare premiums are on it's website. What would I do? Remove all medicare freebies at the state level for Part A. Change Part B base so there are no income based surcharges and have all pay prescription.
You can do sample amt paid v benefits. Use 40 quarters only annual max income for 10 years and then use a lower number for 10 years. Try 120k v 10k.
Retirement security person here. Somebody who pays on over just 10 years would get a low benefit no matter their income. SS benefits are calculated over 35 years, so it would be better to use 35 years. 10 years is the minimum you can pay in and get any benefit.
Anonymous
08/22/2016 11:38
Subject: What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?
Anonymous wrote:Please don't confuse people with actual facts.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:8:15 here. My mom has a Jitterbug and this does seem like a problem.
You're also talking about the progressive benefit formula. Do you have a source for your numbers on contributions vs. benefits, because they don't seem right.
Social security website was the source. Actual numbers from friends and relatives. Because of the max earnings people feel free to discuss it-not a subject like actual earnings. Retired teachers /cops etc in major cities [high cola areas] should really be complaining via unions to elected officials about medicare premium surcharges beginning at 85k retirement. Now that is just grossly unfair.
Retirement security person here. For really low income people, the annual benefit is about 90% of their wages when they were working. For middle income people, the rate is about 35-40%. For the highest earners at the cap, their annual benefit is about about 25% of their salary before they retired. I haven't seen your figures for low earners as a ratio to high earners for contributions. If you have a link I'd be happy to take a look.
It's true that living standards vary by area.
Numbers are actuals from real people so no links. Medicare premiums are on it's website. What would I do? Remove all medicare freebies at the state level for Part A. Change Part B base so there are no income based surcharges and have all pay prescription.
You can do sample amt paid v benefits. Use 40 quarters only annual max income for 10 years and then use a lower number for 10 years. Try 120k v 10k.
Anonymous
08/22/2016 10:56
Subject: What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?
Anonymous wrote:I posted about the contribution and benefits. Medicare:
https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-a-costs/part-a-costs.html
Part A-hospital- $411 per month if you have not paid into it. Part B premiums MAGI above $85,000 up to $107,000[married 214k]>standard premium121.80+48.70+12.70prescription=183.20. Amt extra annually is 994/person.
Through states people NOT eligible for SS and those eligible can receive income based help for paying Part A and Part B.
Retirement security person here. Sorry, but Medicare is not my thing and I don't know much about the numbers! Those numbers do seem high to me. On the other hand, it's expensive to insure older people, and Medicare is in worse financial shape than SS.
Here's something I do know about. The SS "benefit cap" you mention is actually calculated as the benefit you would receive if you earned more than the contribution cap each year. So even if I was Bill Gates, I wouldn't contribute more than somebody else who earned more than the cap, and I wouldn't get higher benefits.
Anonymous
08/22/2016 10:51
Subject: What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?
Anonymous wrote:Please don't confuse people with actual facts.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:8:15 here. My mom has a Jitterbug and this does seem like a problem.
You're also talking about the progressive benefit formula. Do you have a source for your numbers on contributions vs. benefits, because they don't seem right.
Social security website was the source. Actual numbers from friends and relatives. Because of the max earnings people feel free to discuss it-not a subject like actual earnings. Retired teachers /cops etc in major cities [high cola areas] should really be complaining via unions to elected officials about medicare premium surcharges beginning at 85k retirement. Now that is just grossly unfair.
Retirement security person here. For really low income people, the annual benefit is about 90% of their wages when they were working. For middle income people, the rate is about 35-40%. For the highest earners at the cap, their annual benefit is about about 25% of their salary before they retired. I haven't seen your figures for low earners as a ratio to high earners for contributions. If you have a link I'd be happy to take a look.
It's true that living standards vary by area.
Please, we just got people to stop with the ad hominems every time someone corrects them. No need to stir the pot and get the insults flying again!
Anonymous
08/22/2016 10:42
Subject: What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?
Please don't confuse people with actual facts.Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:8:15 here. My mom has a Jitterbug and this does seem like a problem.
You're also talking about the progressive benefit formula. Do you have a source for your numbers on contributions vs. benefits, because they don't seem right.
Social security website was the source. Actual numbers from friends and relatives. Because of the max earnings people feel free to discuss it-not a subject like actual earnings. Retired teachers /cops etc in major cities [high cola areas] should really be complaining via unions to elected officials about medicare premium surcharges beginning at 85k retirement. Now that is just grossly unfair.
Retirement security person here. For really low income people, the annual benefit is about 90% of their wages when they were working. For middle income people, the rate is about 35-40%. For the highest earners at the cap, their annual benefit is about about 25% of their salary before they retired. I haven't seen your figures for low earners as a ratio to high earners for contributions. If you have a link I'd be happy to take a look.
It's true that living standards vary by area.
Anonymous
08/22/2016 10:42
Subject: What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?
I posted about the contribution and benefits. Medicare:
https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-a-costs/part-a-costs.html
Part A-hospital- $411 per month if you have not paid into it. Part B premiums MAGI above $85,000 up to $107,000[married 214k]>standard premium121.80+48.70+12.70prescription=183.20. Amt extra annually is 994/person.
Through states people NOT eligible for SS and those eligible can receive income based help for paying Part A and Part B.
https://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/part-a-costs/part-a-costs.html
Part A-hospital- $411 per month if you have not paid into it. Part B premiums MAGI above $85,000 up to $107,000[married 214k]>standard premium121.80+48.70+12.70prescription=183.20. Amt extra annually is 994/person.
Through states people NOT eligible for SS and those eligible can receive income based help for paying Part A and Part B.
Anonymous
08/22/2016 10:36
Subject: What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?
Why exactly is it "unfair."Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:8:15 here. My mom has a Jitterbug and this does seem like a problem.
You're also talking about the progressive benefit formula. Do you have a source for your numbers on contributions vs. benefits, because they don't seem right.
Social security website was the source. Actual numbers from friends and relatives. Because of the max earnings people feel free to discuss it-not a subject like actual earnings. Retired teachers /cops etc in major cities [high cola areas] should really be complaining via unions to elected officials about medicare premium surcharges beginning at 85k retirement. Now that is just grossly unfair.
Anonymous
08/22/2016 10:12
Subject: What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:8:15 here. My mom has a Jitterbug and this does seem like a problem.
You're also talking about the progressive benefit formula. Do you have a source for your numbers on contributions vs. benefits, because they don't seem right.
Social security website was the source. Actual numbers from friends and relatives. Because of the max earnings people feel free to discuss it-not a subject like actual earnings. Retired teachers /cops etc in major cities [high cola areas] should really be complaining via unions to elected officials about medicare premium surcharges beginning at 85k retirement. Now that is just grossly unfair.
Retirement security person here. For really low income people, the annual benefit is about 90% of their wages when they were working. For middle income people, the rate is about 35-40%. For the highest earners at the cap, their annual benefit is about about 25% of their salary before they retired. I haven't seen your figures for low earners as a ratio to high earners for contributions. If you have a link I'd be happy to take a look.
It's true that living standards vary by area.
Anonymous
08/22/2016 10:09
Subject: What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:When you write things like "those of us who actually allocate capital for a living generally refer to it as investment risk" you can kinda see how people think you're a money manager.
You do also start every.single.post of yours with an attack on someone else's intelligence.
Money manager is one possible explanation, but not the only one. And to accuse me of self-interest is not a reasonable play.
i did not attaxk until PP ranted at me with wild and false accusations. Don't blame me for defending myself.
Please. This was a really interesting convo until you started bashing someone who disagrees with you. I've tried to return us to the subject, by defending someone's grandma no less. Please grow up and let us get back to discussing SS.
You are confused and unduly agitated.
You were defending someone's grandma? LMAO
Ok, I am the pp who asked the woman about how her grandmother received benefits for 50 years. The other person you are referencing is someone else. Which I told you in another post when you asked if I was that person.
Right, it's really very simple. In order to return us to the subject, I defended someone's grandma against your attacks. This seemed to be working until the other PP, the one who starts her every post with an attack on someone's intelligence or sanity, came on to talk about herself again.
This thread is pretty interesting and I want to get it back on track.
Let's try again. How about this. What do you guys think about reducing benefits for high income retirees?
'Grandma' poster here.
I am against it. As it is, after working for 50 years not only is my benefit capped, it's taxed. There is also a much higher premium for Medicare Part B as well as an added premium to a prescription drug plan. And I am actually fine with that. But as to reducing my benefit, if it were not for the cap then I would be in favor of a cap but to take away something I have paid into since my early teens, no.
BTW, it took my 40 years of my adult life to reach a higher income. Most of those were spent lower to middle income. So I know what it's like to not have much and live paycheck to paycheck and have more month at the end of my money.
Anonymous
08/22/2016 10:07
Subject: What Would You Be Willing to Do to Save SS?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:SS, in its current form, is projected to run dry by 2034. (And while some people are talking about increasing benefits, it's obvious we need to cut.) From what I understand, a couple of minor "tweaks" can save the program. What would you be willing to sacrifice? I would vote for three changes:
1) Gradually increase the full retirement age to 68. ?There should be no change for people within 10 years of retirement, but for others, we could add a month every year until we get to 68. When SS was introduced, people barely lived 5 years past retirement age (on average), and now we have people claiming for 20 to 30 years.
2) Increase the cap on the amount people pay the SS tax.
3) Lower the benefits for people in the uppermost brackets - in retirement - by about 25%. My parents have a retirement income of about $150k - no pensions, just responsible lifelong savings and investments - and they tell me they wouldn't miss a SS cut of a few hundred dollars a month.
Opinions?
None
Every indication is that productivity increases should be sufficient for the Baby Boomers to retire AND allow the rest of us enjoy even higher standards of living. In fact, it’s the only news that’s important.
It is much ado about nothing.
Retirement security person here. Many eager researchers have looked for this relationship, but they haven't found it.