Thread: SSI Benefits

Tweet

Many members here are the retirement age.I thought this article could help out some of them.

Strategies to Max Out Social Security Benefits - Yahoo! Finance

Numbers don't lie But SSI is based on the amount you paid into it. For some its high others not .

It tells you to be smart and if necessary get help in making decisions that you have to live with for the rest of your life. Not easy finding a job when you are 60 to 70.

I read the article and also the comments from other readers (even the replies to their comments). I found their comments and replies to be more informative than the original writer. Statistics don't always shed a true light on the real situation, JMO.

Mike

I am a retired airline pilot--we could not fly beyond age 60, so it is a screwed up retirement---most pilots took ss at age 62, projected life span is 69, and you have to live past 85 to net any more $ total compared to taking the reduced amount at 62--

As I approached 62 I ran my own numbers and if I delayed until "full retirement" at age 67 it would then take ten years to break even, given the differential monthly benefit compared to the five years not taken at the lower amount, and that did not include any annual increases. For me I would have been 77 before I was actually getting anything "extra" - in essence by delaying I would be betting SS that I was going to live well past 77, and they would be banking on the fact that I probably would not. Sure, there are some special cases that one can run for couples, survivor benefits, etc, etc, but if people don't die in the order of the analysis then the analysis is moot. All I know is what made sense to me.

Thats why I took mine at 62. where I worked we used to pay off FICA by April or May.

I am 7 months away from being able to make as much money as I want outside of SSI.And the same from medicaid/medicare.About the same time I hope to be done with all the projects for my business and back out on the road.

Originally Posted by jerry clayton

I am a retired airline pilot--we could not fly beyond age 60, so it is a screwed up retirement---most pilots took ss at age 62, projected life span is 69, and you have to live past 85 to net any more $ total compared to taking the reduced amount at 62--

Jerry-I am just curious.Could pilots then fly cargo??.

The difficulty in all this is that you have to make decisions on what you know (profound eh?). But, is what we know valid, best guess, or most probable? I made the same choice as it seems most posting here did, start taking it at 62 in the hopes to get it while it lasts. I find that most people are under the misconception that SSI is a "secure lock box" thing, and because you get an annual "statement" that shows what you've contributed and what the expected annuity is, it appears to be an account. It's anything but. It has none of the features of a real retirement account you'd set up for yourself that is regulated for "honesty" and accountability. People bristle at calling SSI a ponzi scheme, but it looks more like that than a legitimate retirement fund/account. Approximately 10,000 boomers per day are now hitting retirement age, and will so for the next 20 or so years. Various involved government agencies that are in any way involved have projected a variety of dates certain when the pay ins won't meet the pay outs as curently prescribed, but on average the fund goes upside down in about 8-10 years. The so called "tax cut" approved through the balance of this year that was passed last week will have to shorten that window since the tax is what funds SSI in part. So this miraculous "compromise", or "getting things done" as some call it, actually makes the SSI program even more unable to meet it's future demands/promises. And they really are only promises........and promises can be broken.

We have one thread where we can rant against politicians, so that's not the point here. More is to remain in concert with the point of the article Gary linked....................prognostication and planning. For my fellow fogies plan on getting less unless you're completely without any assets in your life. My best guess is we're going to have to do some form of what's called "means testing" to keep the system appearing to have some viability. In other words, the SSI dept. will test your financial condition to see if you "really need" help from the government. At first it will be offered as only going after those filthy rich people, you know, anyone who has/or had and income over XXXX dollars. In reality that's not very many people. So then it will expand to those who have actual investment accounts in excess of YYYY dollars. This is when it will start getting more interesting, because it will start to get into those folks who thought ahead, were prudent, didn't overspend in their life, and (horrors) actually saved some money over the decades of their life just like grandma and grandpa urged them to. Unfair? Get over it!. But again, in the big scheme of things that's still a comparatively small number of people. So, doing what the politicians most often do, move the goal posts again. Start to include all assets, for instance, the value of your home, cars, rental property, and anything else that shows on a legitimate financial statement to calculate "net worth". Now you get into the fat part of the population base. In other words (slight over statement for effect), if you own ANYTHING you'll be subject to means testing. Now, depending on where you fall in the range, that doesn[t mean you'll get aced out completely on a "benefit payment", it will likey be a sliding scale, but what amounts to is if your were any kind of responsible with your income over your lifetime you'll be "penalized" to some degree or other.

Don't start crying...."But I paid in all those years, I want my money back!". Sorry, you didn't really pay into a savings/investment account.......................you paid a tax, a tax that was redistributed almost immediately after you paid it. Just like any other tax that went to highway projects, military protection, fancy jets for politicians, welfare payments, and any other gorvernment program. And since it looks like we're redefining how many people will be working in our economy, the inflow to the system will be at a much slower rate than previously. Sorry to be so grim, but articles like the one linked are incomplete if they only base their recommendations on the system remaining as it is today. That's completely unrealistic, it's economically unsustainable, not matter how many or which politicians deny it. Remember, it's an election year, and too many of your fellow citizens have demonstrated that for whatever reason(s) they choose not to look beyond the last page of their calendars.

Bob there is still a fear factor of ticking off too many people and then they wiping the slate clean of all those decision makers who don't re-fund SSI.

I am sure there are more of the mindset, that says work as long as you can, stash cash, 401 and the likes. There is 1000 a month difference if someone holds out until 67. I believe that at that age you are forced to take the money. So if you plan right given todays calculation @ 67 ssi is about 3500 a month, compared to 2300 @ 62. Folks will say for 5 years the bump it to small to be a benefit, more is always more. Back that up with income from some planed investments and you could easily see 5k a month . This works providing you own your home and all the toys ie cars, hotrods.

I grew with lots of my friends that were going to retire at 55, the big dream of the 80s. They are now retired and board to death, they will not admit it but the conversations bring out the clues that tell the truth. Only can speak for myself but I like to work it keeps me thinking and gives me another reason to get up each day. Allows me to drive my hotrod and not care about gas mileage and have the $$ to fix or upgrade. People that think that they need to bail because they aren't going to get what they put in........... Well they are exactly right and nobody does so they need to stick around and get all they can.

What I remember when I was younger was people retiring made room for those people who where just starting out and that funded SSI and new job openings.

As long as a person works they are an active contributor to that funding, age has absolutely nothing to do with that. The days of working for a company for 30 years and getting a pension are long gone. If that is what you mean by retiring so another can get started.

Originally Posted by angrystroker

As long as a person works they are an active contributor to that funding, age has absolutely nothing to do with that. The days of working for a company for 30 years and getting a pension are long gone. If that is what you mean by retiring so another can get started.

No Sir.I worked for 57 yrs as a contributor to this country.And I am planning to work P/T for many more.I do "try" to avoid the politics of this topic.I might be viewed as a simpleton.But for a country like ours to spend billions,heck trillions,on wars,then turn around to say we can't afford to take care of our own??. That is nonsense.And I am not one to fruitlessly vent.All I am stating is politicians had better not tick off the gray hairs.I am convinced we are equipped on how to get even.And would..............