Coronavirus pandemic could wipe out Social Security 4 years earlier than predicted

2. Where somebody is extremely well-off, and figures, "What the Hell, the Feds are hoping I defer this little, extra income for as long as possible, and die before I ever see a penny of it."

Thanks for the reply. I was curious what fmdog had to say because of his post #16. Absolutely NOT bragging but we use our soc. sec. for fun & charitable donations.
 

Taking SS at 62 is in most cases foolish.
How would you know about "most cases"? Some people must take it early to be able to survive (survival is not foolish). Some don't really need it but take it and invest it. Investing their SS well may yield the same or even more $$ compared to waiting to take it. Others are in poor health and may die before being able to take it, as my sister did. She worked at IBM and was planning to wait until full retirement age which for her would have been 65. She died at age 63. Then there's the break even age to consider. As others have mentioned..when to take SS is an individual choice based upon each person's set of circumstances. Even some in the financial planning field, where over the years waiting until full retirement age was touted, are acknowledging that more now.
 
How would you know about "most cases"? Some people must take it early to be able to survive (survival is not foolish). Some don't really need it but take it and invest it. Investing their SS well may yield the same or even more $$ compared to waiting to take it. Others are in poor health and may die before being able to take it, as my sister did. She worked at IBM and was planning to wait until full retirement age which for her would have been 65. She died at age 63. Then there's the break even age to consider. As others have mentioned..when to take SS is an individual choice based upon each person's set of circumstances. Even some in the financial planning field, where over the years waiting until full retirement age was touted, are acknowledging that more now.
as always , when someone gives a simple answer to a very complex question it is usually going to be the wrong answer ...

most things have pros and cons and generally the person giving the answer is not well versed in both sides of things so the answer seems simple
 

When will Social Security end?
Social Security will not "end". During the last twelve months, Social Security hit the tipping point, were more money is going out than coming in. What this means.... well... Firstly, Social Security is the number one holder of our national debt. That being said in conjunction with the tipping point, somewhere along the way the US government has to start repaying their debt to SSA.... well.... that isn't going to happen. So, one of three things will happen. 1) The rate for deduction for FICA will increase. 2) COLA will stop. 3) The amount of Social Security monies will be redistributed among those eligible. The number in particular that is a goal.... 20% over ten years. In other words, if nothing changes, in ten years, our social security checks will be reduced by 20% over today.
 
Social Security will not "end". During the last twelve months, Social Security hit the tipping point, were more money is going out than coming in. What this means.... well... Firstly, Social Security is the number one holder of our national debt. That being said in conjunction with the tipping point, somewhere along the way the US government has to start repaying their debt to SSA.... well.... that isn't going to happen. So, one of three things will happen. 1) The rate for deduction for FICA will increase. 2) COLA will stop. 3) The amount of Social Security monies will be redistributed among those eligible. The number in particular that is a goal.... 20% over ten years. In other words, if nothing changes, in ten years, our social security checks will be reduced by 20% over today.
the debt to ss is always being paid off as those treasuries come due just like any other bond. ss holds 13.3 trillion in special treasuries ..these treasuries actually do pay a higher rate than the treasuries the rest of the world buys
 
Two distinctly different issues.

Reduction of benefits
Continuing to pay out benefits, without reduction

The time frame for something to change is in the not to distant future. What exactly will happen is yet to be known. Less going in more coming out is real. People will do what they are able to & hope for the best.
 
When I was in my working prime, SS was never a part of my conscious financial planning. When a friend told me I could start getting SS at 62, I was pleasantly surprised, and figured that was the way I'd go. It was a little, monthly bonus. Cool!

Don't bother explaining about how deferring SS can lead to bigger checks. I know that. I also know that government actuarials know that its in their best interests to con folks into putting off taking SS, because the odds of their dying, before they get a penny, increases as they age.

To plan on living off of only SS is, for most, to consign yourself to a life of near-poverty.
if you take early ss can you still work part time to supplement?
 
if you take early ss can you still work part time to supplement?
Maybe ...it depends on age and on income ...after fra you can earn any amount ....pre fra there are different rules....you are capped at 18,240 and then you give back one dollar for every 2 ...the 18240 the first year is prorated to start when you start collecting ...so if you filed in july you can earn 9120 up until the end of the year .

year two you get to earn up to 18240 before giving back .

the year you will be fra you get a break , you can earn 3 dollars over the limit and give back one ...once your birthday hits no more limit .

anything that you give back is recalculated at fra and gives you a higher check ...so if you gave back a years worth of money then you are calculated not as retiring at 62 but at 63
 
Last edited:
Your original post




You at least recognize your generalization is not correct
any time a simple answer is given to a complex question it will likely be the wrong answer .

there are so many different reasons for taking it early as well as delaying. when one is well versed in understanding all the issues involved they should be able to argue just as effectively for taking it early as for delaying .

one sided views happen from lack of understanding both sides of things .
 
Last edited:
How about getting some of the funds back that were"borrowed" from the trust fund by our astute politicians?
There's more waste in some government programs than you could shake a stick at,when it appears to be getting depleted pull the funds from somewhere else,it's done all the time.
 
How about getting some of the funds back that were"borrowed" from the trust fund by our astute politicians?
There's more waste in some government programs than you could shake a stick at,when it appears to be getting depleted pull the funds from somewhere else,it's done all the time.
This is a myth .

No one can take money out of the ss trust fund ....it can only go for ss retirement , ss survivor and ssdi ...any excess can only buy treasuries which have always been repaid with interest ....these are a special version of treasuries that pay a higher rate of interest than the rest of the world buys from us

this is a myth that goes back to Johnson when he wanted to make the budget look better ...he put the excess funds on the balance sheet ,but the money never went in to the general tax funds..our laws forbid it
 
Last edited:
No it's not foolish in my opinion. I retired late at 67. I'm now 87.
Trust me. You can accumulate money, but you can't accumulate time. I'm rare in my circle of friends. The one's I played golf with and the ones I went fishing with are up in heaven scheduling foursomes.
Taking ss has nothing to do with when you retire ....
 
What? The revenue means nothing to your retirement plans.
not what i said ...ss certainly is part of the budget , but the age you retire vs the date you choose to file have nothing to do with each other . people who delay taking ss and retire at 62 just lay out the ss money up front and get it back later .

i retired at 61 but filed at 65 .

many of those who don't have the resources to lay out while delaying ss dont have the choice to delay so they file at 62 .

in my opinion no one should delay taking ss if they can not enjoy the full budget day 1 of retirement and are first going to wait 8 years to spend a dollar more .

if you can't afford to take your full budget by fronting yourself the ss money day 1, then you really can not afford to delay taking ss if you retire earlier unless the ss is not going to be an active part of your budget, which personally i could never see not including it in our yearly expenditures if we have it to spend .
 
Last edited:
Well you really didn't explain yourself properly when you first posted.

This is what you posted.

"Taking ss has nothing to do with when you retire .... "

It's different in Canada compared to the U.S. You can retire earlier than 65 . The difference is the amount of money you will receive on the Canada Pension which you contribute to.
 


Back
Top