I think you missed what I was talking about.
If you take the 80% benefit at 62 and just invest it @ 10% return, by the time you are 67, you've got 432% of 1yr benefit invested. At 4% rule, you can now draw 17.28% per year (in addition to the 80% benefit). If you wait until 70, you've got 696% of 1yr benefit invested and can draw 27.84% + 80%. (corrected the numbers because I was reading the wrong line)
In addition to that, you have approx 7x your 1 year SS benefit in principal if anything big comes up.
STM317 said:
If you take payments at age 62, your payment will be 70% of what it would be in "full retirement age" of 67. If you were to delay payment until 70, you'd receive 124% of what you'd get at 67. No idea why they can't put that on a single table. Gotta make it difficult.
ah. That makes more sense.
Enyar
SuperDork
3/21/18 1:04 p.m.
volvoclearinghouse said:
AngryCorvair said:
In reply to ProDarwin :
You lock in your monthly benefit at the time you start receiving it. So if you take the reduced benefit at 62, it does not bump up when you hit 67 or 70 or whatever. It only increases by the annual cost-of-living-adjustment, if there is one.
That's my understanding as well.
Also note, it's based on the last 35 years of earnings.
I'm not entirely clear how it works with regard to spouses, death, etc.
Highest* 35 years of earnings. Also note that the increased lifetime earnings offer less ROI the more you make. As long as you have the credits, if you only worked 10 years your entire life you will still collect SS.
In reply to Enyar :
Correct and corrected. I found a table somewhere that allowed calculation of SS benefits. Basically, in 2017, if you make more than 127,000 per year, you don't get any extra SS benefit for that. That figure is less for preceding years but there's a correction factor.
I also found that even a spouse who never worked a day will collect 50% of the working spouse's SS benefits when the working spouse retires. And even when the working spouse dies, the surviving spouse still gets 2/3 of the total benefit until their death.
volvoclearinghouse said:
In reply to Enyar :
Correct and corrected. I found a table somewhere that allowed calculation of SS benefits. Basically, in 2017, if you make more than 127,000 per year, you don't get any extra SS benefit for that. That figure is less for preceding years but there's a correction factor.
I also found that even a spouse who never worked a day will collect 50% of the working spouse's SS benefits when the working spouse retires. And even when the working spouse dies, the surviving spouse still gets 2/3 of the total benefit until their death.
They also stop taxing you for SS once you pass that cap. Removing the cap on taxing but keeping it on payouts would entirely fix (or nearly so) the entire SS funding issue.
The spousal benefit is an interesting one. It greatly benefits me, but I'm not sure to what degree I agree with it.
tuna55 said:
In reply to BoxheadCougarTim :
I am not sure where everyone else gets all of this "shoveling" money, but mine gets spent on relatively basic things other than the barest of bare emergency funds.
Sorry man, I left off a smiley there. You're stashing away some money, and that's a big achievement these days.
In reply to volvoclearinghouse :
Pretty accurate assessment but spousal and widow/widower benefits are a little tricky to compute because you have to consider what they would be entitled to on their own earnings record. BUT a wife who never worked would draw approximately 50% on husbands record subject to reduction for early benefits before age 67. A widow draws 100% at age 67 of deceased spouse benefits with a reduction if deceased spouse started drawing early. Also, widows and widower can become eligible for reduced benefits at age 60 as opposed to 62. A widow can draw at any age if she has a child under 16 of worker in her care.
Another benefit is Disabled widows...can draw between ages of 50 and 60. Disabled adult children are covered if onset of disability was before age 21. Soc Sec has grown a a program that offers much protection for workers and their dependents. There is even benefit in extremely narrow situations to pay dependant PARENTS of a deceased worker. Very rare though.
And, yes Seth that includes you thanks to SCOTUS & ERA.
In reply to mazdeuce - Seth :
The spousal benefit I understand. It protects (primarily) women who might otherwise have no money to live on, and no real savings. I know such a woman, in fact. She was fired- at 65- though she would have kept working, since she had very little savings. Divorced, supports her deadbeat son AND an ailing mother, and has to live in a house with other non-relatives to be able to afford rent. Social Security is what keeps her off the street. She actually bought a small, used, pop-up camper, "just in case".
But, yes..at some point taxes are going to have to go up in some manner, or benefits are going to have to be cut somehow, to keep the whole scheme afloat. The questions are, who's going to have the political will to do it...and who's gonna sacrifice?
I agree that the spousal benefit is needed, but not nearly as much as it's used. If we're going to means test any benefits (which we should) then put that at the top of the list.
