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

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.
it is still correct ...

retiring and stopping work and when you decide to file are still two separate issues... so you don't need to keep working until you collect and therefore has zero to do with home much time you spend in retirement ..

you can collect as early as 62 here and survivor benefits can start at 60 . what age you decide to collect at is up to you but what age you retire is a separate issue .

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.
 

Last edited:
it is still correct ...

retiring and stopping work and when you decide to file are still two separate issues... so you don't need to keep working until you collect and therefore has zero to do with home much time you spend in retirement ..

you can collect as early as 62 here and survivor benefits can start at 60 . what age you decide to collect at is up to you but what age you retire is a separate issue .
I don't like to argue about this, however, there's no guarantee how long you will live. So planning to wait is not always the best option regardless on how you want to handle your ss. A bird in hand.
 
I don't like to argue about this, however, there's no guarantee how long you will live. So planning to wait is not always the best option regardless on how you want to handle your ss. A bird in hand.
there are loads of factors and the least important for most of us is what if i die ... games over when you die .. the bigger question is what if i or my spouse live ....

why delay ?



1. It’s cheap longevity insurance. it is far better than buying any commercial annuity product
2. Don’t need the money now.
3. Good health and family history of longevity.
4. Increase survivor benefit for lower benefit spouse.
5. Take advantage of spousal claiming strategies if still available.
6. Spend or convert to Roth tax deferred savings before RMD’s start.
7. Convert to Roth to leave heirs tax free income.
8. Allow more money to convert to Roth within marginal tax rate.
9. Avoid increase in ACA premiums.
10. Catastrophic market loss insurance.
11. Working part time and making more than the limit .

why file early ?

a point i should mention is there is nothing inherent in delaying that automatically gives you more money to spend or a bigger balance for heirs compared to filing early .you see this myth all the time posted , how waiting gives them more money . but that is not always true . the only time it is true is if you work and delay .

not spending down invested assets when taking ss early or investing money you get that could be invested if you take ss early can add a lot of money back in to the equation . by the same token , to match a balanced portfolio under average market outcomes ,delaying requires you or a spouse to live to 90 to equal that amount .

so it really boils down to betting on at least seeing average market outcomes if you take ss early or betting on you or a spouse living to age 90 if delaying ss since that is what it takes to get to the tipping point .

if you or a spouse live to 95 then delaying ss wins . if you and your spouse live less than 90 , then taking ss early and investing wins . the odds really favor investing and taking ss early but that does not mean it is guaranteed .

both can provide higher income along the way . if markets are at least average outcomes then raises can be taken when you invest and take ss early all along the way possibly even beating the higher ss check by age 70 .

so don't get to wrapped up in thinking one is better than the other because they are both dependent on certain expectations . the real deal is do you want to bet more on markets or more on longevity for the "same " potential income and balance?
 

Last edited:
MathJack if I took early SS at 62 & would only get say $800 a mo as opposed to waiting to my full age of 67 to get $1100 & medicare, how is that better? I'm not sure you're allowed to earn anything on the side to supplement or at least not very much. Wouldn't do me a lot of good. Plus I have to have some form of ins. I can afford.
 
Bottom line it comes down to individual circumstances. We planned for Soc. Sec. not being available when we got to the age where we could collect. When we did it was available so what we get is for fun, not needed for typical living expenses.

That as a reason doesn't work for everyone there are just to many reasons for either taking or not taking the benefit early or later.
 
MathJack if I took early SS at 62 & would only get say $800 a mo as opposed to waiting to my full age of 67 to get $1100 & medicare, how is that better? I'm not sure you're allowed to earn anything on the side to supplement or at least not very much. Wouldn't do me a lot of good. Plus I have to have some form of ins. I can afford.
Thanks for explaining that better than I did.
 
MathJack if I took early SS at 62 & would only get say $800 a mo as opposed to waiting to my full age of 67 to get $1100 & medicare, how is that better? I'm not sure you're allowed to earn anything on the side to supplement or at least not very much. Wouldn't do me a lot of good. Plus I have to have some form of ins. I can afford.
I explained it above ...for those of us who retired early at 62 , if we delay taking ss we Need to layout the ss we are not getting for years to live on ....that is money that is either invested assets or money that could be invested if I took ss early .

so delaying would cost me 40k in checks I wasn’t getting a year , So we would need to pull 40k a year out of invested assets to live on .
In a balanced portfolio that would see 5-6% real returns over time .

We also can’t get 4500 a year in a spousal adder to my wife until I filed .

we would not be protected under hold harmless from medicare increases while delaying ...while medicare increases can’t be more than your cola increase that does not apply while delaying .

to equal early ss and not spending down invested assets you would first see break even with delaying until 70 at age 90.

you can’t just compare ss amounts as early vs later ...if you retire at 62 you need money to live on. And that has to come from either invested assets or assets that could have been invested if you had taken early ss.
all our situations are going to be different ...
 
Last edited:
I explained it above ...for those of us who retired early at 62 , if we delay taking ss we Need to layout the ss we are not getting for years to live on ....that is money that is either invested assets or money that could be invested if I took ss early .

so delaying would cost me 40k in checks I wasn’t getting a year , So we would need to pull 40k a year out of invested assets to live on .
In a balanced portfolio that would see 5-6% real returns over time .

We also can’t get 4500 a year in a spousal adder to my wife until I filed .

we would not be protected under hold harmless from medicare increases while delaying ...while medicare increases can’t be more than your cola increase that does not apply while delaying .

to equal early ss and not spending down invested assets you would first see break even with delaying until 70 at age 90.

you can’t just compare ss amounts as early vs later ...if you retire at 62 you need money to live on. And that has to come from either invested assets or assets that could have been invested if you had taken early ss.
all our situations are going to be different ...
Ok thank you.
 
If you were "in your 50's??" Every single working person of any age should not plan on SS to be their sole source of income unless abject poverty is their goal. SS was never meant to be a sole source so I saved and invested as much as I could for retirement my entire working life.

Also, your thread title says "WIPE OUT SS", which leaves one to assume you meant that it will no longer exist.
Exactly !!
 
If you were "in your 50's??" Every single working person of any age should not plan on SS to be their sole source of income unless abject poverty is their goal. SS was never meant to be a sole source so I saved and invested as much as I could for retirement my entire working life.

Also, your thread title says "WIPE OUT SS", which leaves one to assume you meant that it will no longer exist.
No the title includes the word could as in could wipe out SS. Could meaning a possibility. IMO the greater possibility is a decent reduction in the amount of money people eligible for SS will get. And much sooner than original projections.

Increasing debt isn't a problem if funds are available to pay for what is owed. The deficit is a whole other bear to deal with. Looking at the projections now it seems realistic to me that in the not to distant future that inability to sustain the level of payout is going to be impacted.
 
It is a similar situation in the UK. It might be a good time for a complete shake-up of the whole system. Like many policies, Social Security was started with good intentions, but has been mismanaged. The same is true of the NHS. Many people could not afford to consult a doctor and so free health care was set up. However, the NHS is now expected to provide various services for which it was never intended.
 
No the title includes the word could as in could wipe out SS. Could meaning a possibility. IMO the greater possibility is a decent reduction in the amount of money people eligible for SS will get. And much sooner than original projections.

Increasing debt isn't a problem if funds are available to pay for what is owed. The deficit is a whole other bear to deal with. Looking at the projections now it seems realistic to me that in the not to distant future that inability to sustain the level of payout is going to be impacted.
Knight, I've been warning about the probable reduction in our SS benefits across the board since I first joined this forum. People poo-pooed it; said it will never happen or it won't affect those who are already collecting. Also the government will come up with a last minute plan, etc. But people who know the deal have been talking about this for years now and I read every article I can about it including from the SS administration itself. Of course I believe you are right now that mega millions are now unemployed and not paying into the system. Like I warned 4 years ago...people better get ready.
 
Knight, I've been warning about the probable reduction in our SS benefits across the board since I first joined this forum. People poo-pooed it; said it will never happen or it won't affect those who are already collecting. Also the government will come up with a last minute plan, etc. But people who know the deal have been talking about this for years now and I read every article I can about it including from the SS administration itself. Of course I believe you are right now that mega millions are now unemployed and not paying into the system. Like I warned 4 years ago...people better get ready.
Those in denial will always be in denial right up until the time they are bitten in the a$$.

The problem I see now. Opportunities are not where they were and not likely to be as they were. At 79 not knowing how much time left I feel comfortable but my 3 sons in their 50's even though they followed our advice about preparing for their retirement years life might be tough for them.
 
Think when you are younger, you think you'll not need or depend on SS when and "if" you ever retire. Then the closer to that certain age you get, you have a major mental "overall overhaul" and it suddenly dawns on you that you will
need those extra golden bucks to be able enjoy your golden years. It would hard to replace that much money month after month.

See them raising the age to collect eligibility and the top threshold earners max earnings to be paid into the system in order to try to "pump up" the general fund. Doesn't 20% of the top earners reflect 50% of the monies?
 
JMO...SS is not going anywhere no time soon.
This isn't about S S going anywhere it's about sustaining the level of payout. As in the expectation is for a reduction sooner than later. The age of the people it will affect & when will be a tough decision for politicians to figure out.
 
Knight, I've been warning about the probable reduction in our SS benefits across the board since I first joined this forum. People poo-pooed it; said it will never happen or it won't affect those who are already collecting. Also the government will come up with a last minute plan, etc. But people who know the deal have been talking about this for years now and I read every article I can about it including from the SS administration itself. Of course I believe you are right now that mega millions are now unemployed and not paying into the system. Like I warned 4 years ago...people better get ready.
It's beyond some people control why they are not working.... I wonder why hmmmm.. Is it because of C-19? However, there are millions that are working from home and some have gone back to work. When life gives me lemons, I make a Lemon Martini. Good post.
 
It's beyond some people control why they are not working.... I wonder why hmmmm.. Is it because of C-19? However, there are millions that are working from home and some have gone back to work. When life gives me lemons, I make a Lemon Martini. Good post.
Thank you Ladybj. My DIL and ex-DIL are both in the school system (former a T.A., latter an administrator). They were both able to work from home. My nephew is a computer specialists who until COVID hit was traveling all over the country to install new systems or correct problems with older ones. He too was able to start working from home by giving instructions remotely. They are all blessed. I read the other day that there are definitely more unemployed than available jobs. It's very sad that so many will not be able to get their hands on those lemons. And for your resourcefulness...I say KUDOS.
 
Last edited:
[QUOTE="OneEyedDiva, post: 1475402, member:
Thank you Ladybj. My DIL and ex-DIL are both in the school system (former a T.A., latter an administrator). They were both able to work from home. My nephew is a computer specialists who until COVID hit was traveling all over the country to install new systems or correct problems with older ones. He too was able to start working from home by giving instructions remotely. They are all blessed. I read the other day that there are definitely more unemployed than available jobs. It's very sad that so many will not be able to get their hands on those lemons. And for your resourcefulness...I say KUDOS.
[/QUOTE
I am sure each State is different as far as the job market. There are plenty of job openings in my area. Some people prefer to continue to receive unemployment benefits since it has been extended in some States. My heart goes out to those that are not able to find employment. There are also people that have taken advantage of C-19 - informing their employer they have C19 which they did not. Happened on my son's job a few times which the employee was fired.
 
one good thing about keeping unemployment insurance high enough is it keeps those who really don't want to work badly from taking whatever jobs are out there away from those who do .

those who need to work and want to work will get a jump on the jobs while the others who delayed may get locked out later
 


Back
Top