A Semi-Honest SS Proposal

[dgs49]

What about people on the payroll who produce nothing? Like in-house counsel.

[Andrew D]

Please, dgs49, remind us again of your employment history. I've lost track of how many make-work, no-real-contribution jobs you've managed to lose thus far ....

[dgs49]

I was on the borderline of being a productive employee when I drove a cab in 1971 and '72. As best I can recall, that's about it.

And you, Andrew?

[oldr_n_wsr]

There is no job, when done to your best ability that is "beneath" any other job.

It was told to me early on that "If all you ever do is your job, than that is all you will ever do".

[Joe Guy]

Joseph, the statistic you cite is for Black males BORN TODAY. The average for middle-aged Black men today is lower.

No it isn't. It is for black males living today. It doesn't matter what age they are currently.

[MajGenl.Meade]

But, if I want to, I can opt to pay it all back at full retirement and take the larger amount if I feel like it. 4 years and 4 months later I would have information not avail. at 62, how healthy am I at 66yr 4Mos? How much are our savings making in income then? Is it a better deal to put the money back in?

yrs,
rubato

Now that's an interesting piece of info. I was not aware of that. I've just started my 62 year old monthly draw (hands off Joe, you bastard!) but it's certainly true that in 4.33 years I could easily pay it all back and pull the larger amount. But the gamble of course is how long past 66+ am I going to live and I don't think that's going to be an easy determination. Let's say it's $55K I have to give back (hey I spent the first 27 years in the UK). If I was certain as I could possibly be that I'd be around for another four years plus plus, it might be worthwhile.

On the less selfish side, an increase in contributions plus Joe's idea of lowering the rate at 62 and raising the maximum qualifying age to 68 would seem logical

Meade

[rubato]

Raising the "full retirement" age is a cut in benefits and disproportionately punishes those whose jobs make retirement non-optional for physical reasons. Not everyone has the type of job or good fortune in their health to continue working. I don't think a method which shifts the costs to the least able is very attractive.

yrs,
rubato

[Joe Guy]

I recently heard a Social Security representative on local radio who answered caller's questions.

One thing I remember him saying is to give much thought to when you want to begin receiving benefits because you can't change your mind later.

That doesn't seem to support rubato's claim that people could repay prior payments in order to qualify for a higher SS benefit later in life.

Although I don't see how anyone could benefit from that choice even if it were available.

[Joe Guy]

Raising the "full retirement" age is a cut in benefits and disproportionately punishes those whose jobs make retirement non-optional for physical reasons. Not everyone has the type of job or good fortune in their health to continue working. I don't think a method which shifts the costs to the least able is very attractive.

I don't believe SS Disability retirement benefits would be affected by the changes being discussed. The only discussion I've heard is about the age to qualify for 'regular' SS benefits.

Currently, an SS disability retirement is a higher payment than a non-disability SS retirement payment.

[Econoline]

But, if I want to, I can opt to pay it all back at full retirement and take the larger amount if I feel like it. 4 years and 4 months later I would have information not avail. at 62, how healthy am I at 66yr 4Mos? How much are our savings making in income then? Is it a better deal to put the money back in?

yrs,
rubato

Now that's an interesting piece of info. I was not aware of that. I've just started my 62 year old monthly draw (hands off Joe, you bastard!) but it's certainly true that in 4.33 years I could easily pay it all back and pull the larger amount. But the gamble of course is how long past 66+ am I going to live and I don't think that's going to be an easy determination. Let's say it's $55K I have to give back (hey I spent the first 27 years in the UK). If I was certain as I could possibly be that I'd be around for another four years plus plus, it might be worthwhile.

I recently heard a Social Security representative on local radio who answered caller's questions.

One thing I remember him saying is to give much thought to when you want to begin receiving benefits because you can't change your mind later.

That doesn't seem to support rubato's claim that people could repay prior payments in order to qualify for a higher SS benefit later in life.

This came as a surprise to me, too. I'd never heard of that before. I wonder if rubato can refer us to a source that backs this up?

[rubato]

Apparently they changed the rules. Until 2010 you could pay back the whole thing but now its only in the first 12 months of starting benefits. Too bad:



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505146_162- ... ble-fixes/

Until December 2010, you could invoke a "do over" by paying back any benefits you'd received at any time and then move forward as if you had never started your benefits. But the Social Security Administration changed that rule, and now it limits the pay-back option to within 12 months of starting benefits.

A recent blog post on the Social Security Timing website offered four excellent ideas for fixing this situation:

Option 1: Pay it back. If you're still within 12 months of starting benefits, you can pay all the money back and be treated as if you'd never started benefits.

Option 2: Go back to work. If you're under your Full Retirement Age (or FRA, which is age 66 for today's retirees), Social Security's earnings test will automatically reduce your Social Security benefit to the extent your wage earnings exceed $14,640. If your Social Security benefits are reduced, when you eventually stop working, your benefits at that time will be increased to reflect the value of prior benefit reductions.

Option 3: Voluntarily suspend. Once you reach your FRA, you can voluntarily suspend your Social Security income and receive credits for delaying your income when you restart your benefits in the future (but no later than age 70).

Option 4: Maximize benefits for your spouse who hasn't yet begun taking benefits. Your spouse's benefit is based on the age when he or she starts their benefits, not when you started, so you have the opportunity to make the best decision for your spouse. You'll find software at the Social Security Timing website that can help you and your spouse make the best decision for when your spouse should begin taking benefits.

They're probably right to limit it. In one sense it's like changing your wager when the horses are part-way round the course. And it's also like an interest-free loan. And it is an option only those with a lot of cash on hand can take advantage of. Regressive.

http://www.aarp.org/work/social-securit ... overs.html

An interest-free loan

The do-over strategy, in effect, gave Social Security recipients an interest-free loan. For example, people could file at age 62, invest their benefits until they were ready to repay the amount, pocket the earnings, and then start collecting a larger amount based on their older age. (The size of the benefit continues to rise until age 70.)

A 2009 study by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, "Strange but True: Free Loan From Social Security," put the annual cost of the do-over option to the Social Security system at $5.5 billion. Moreover, the strategy was likely to benefit only higher-income seniors, since the benefits received had to be repaid in one — often large — lump sum.

yrs,
rubato