Zone1 Social Security

[sparky]

I guess this just isn't Waltons mountain anymore........

~S~

 

[beagle9]

I guess this just isn't Waltons mountain anymore........

View attachment 1178446

~S~

Maybe not where you live...

I loved that show.. Goodnight Sparky -

 

[MarathonMike]

65 is too late to be retiring.

Everyone is different. I know lots of people who love their job and never want to retire. I was quite happy to fully retire but my wife will probably always at least do part time work.

 

[Eman623]

This doesn't address the op pertaining to a cap put on any income being made beyond a certain number and/or revenue generated after beginning to draw what belongs to you anyway, where as the check is threatened because a person wants to draw their retirement check in hopes maybe to help them survive by way of it being used as a supplemental to their income. This they do as they keep on working full time making the retirement check just an added income that will boost the earnings of the individual therefore keeping them out of poverty depending on the job skills they possess.

Ss was not set up to be a income supplement while you continue to work. Thus the name "retirement" benefit.

 

[Winco]

Why not set the government age for acceptance at 62 for anyone that wants to continue working beyond that age, but decides to draw their social security at age 62 under penalty, but even so still wants to keep working and paying into the SS system by having no limits or penalties on added income after reaching the age of 62 while drawing ones earned social security ?

Some are eligible at 65 to retire and make added income with no penalties, and some are scheduled at 66 and 67 to retire with no penalties on added income also, but why are penalties added to anyone working after drawing their social security under penalty after 62 ?

I ask why are penalties for additionally added incomes being levied against one's social security, otherwise once the age of 62 has passed and the person decides for whatever reason that they needed the added retirement money to help them with their income as they continue to work and pay into the SS system while staying above the poverty line ?

Why are social security recipients being punished twice if decide to draw early at 62 under the first penalty of early withdrawal, and then punished again by having an earnings cap placed on additional earnings if the person decides to continue working and paying into the social security system ? In fact it's actually a third punishment because you are already drawing and will never see the benefit of the SS payment that you still have to pay on income if continue to work after electing to draw at whatever age one decides to draw at ???

Is the game rigged in hopes to deter people from drawing early when the added earned SS income could help them make ends meet by getting money that they've already earned ??? Why make people poor if they decide to draw their social security in life at anytime after 62 ? What's with the penalties, and is their a consensus in government to continue the penalties regardless of party ?

So doesn't it fly in the face of the American people upon senior citizens having to witness government fighting for free Healthcare for illegals, and fighting for free government subsidies for illegals, sanctuary cities, free cell phones and internet services, and the kicker was government sending millions over seas for some of the most ridiculous scams that were being busted by dodge, and yet American senior citizen's are being placed at the bottom of it all ???

In 1935, the average life expectancy at birth in the United States was about
61.7 years, though this varied by gender and race.
Specifically, a white woman could expect to live to about
65 years, while a white man could expect to live to 61 years.

In those 90 years since 1935, Life expectancy has gone up.




Eliminate the SS Cap which is currently $173,000+ and have people making more continue to contribute to SS, with NO additional benefit.

 

[AZrailwhale]

65 is too late to be retiring.

With modern life expectancies it’s far too early. When SS was established the average life expectancy was 58 years for men and 62 for women. Very few people survived to collect SS.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Are we addressing the OP concerning the program and the way the penalties are being implemented, and this regardless of the "penalties" already incurred if take the retirement income option from 62 up through the age of 67 ?

Why the cap on income at any level of retirement, otherwise if a person wants to continue working after they choose to receive their retirement check anywhere from 62 up to the age of 67 ? Why the cap on income just because a person decides that they want to start their earned retirement check at 62 ??

You are penalized if take the check at 62, but then if want to just use the money as supplement income because you want to continue working and of course paying in to SS onward, then why the cap on earnings that threatens the retirement income check amount ???? Please explain this to me ... Thanks

My old co-worker and her Husband retired at fifty five. We had both a fixed benefit pension AND a matching funds 401k. They had maxed out their contributions to the matching funds and added more for thirty seven years. Thanks to the .com boom, they had more than two million dollars in each of their 401ks plus the fixed benefit pension. SS was inconsequential to their retirement plans.

 

[Eman623]

Eliminate the SS Cap which is currently $173,000+ and have people making more continue to contribute to SS, with NO additional benefit.

Screw that. If I'm going to contribute extra money, then I expect extra benefits.

 

[Winco]

Screw that. If I'm going to contribute extra money, then I expect extra benefits.

So you're saying you make more than $173K annually.














Nice, now pay your share.

 

[Eman623]

So you're saying you make more than $173K annually.

Nice, now pay your share.

I already do.










Now pay me my share. If I contribute more to SS I deserve a bigger benefit.

 

[beagle9]

Everyone is different. I know lots of people who love their job and never want to retire. I was quite happy to fully retire but my wife will probably always at least do part time work.

This is true, but what about the program itself ? Does it need fixing when it comes to certain parts of it ? The cap on annual income seems unfair to me... It's basically punishing people for taking their check early, even though they are already being punished in lost monthly or annual income for taking the check early.

One would think that the thing already being set up to punish a person for drawing early, well that there would be no cap on making added income in order to supplement the loss of monthly income for the reason of drawing early.

Like you said, "some people are different when it comes to the types of job's that they have", and they almost have to get out at earlier dates than other's because they are basically worn out physically. So finally they can retire from a super hard physical job or career that they have worked in life or maybe they've worked two careers in life by reaching the age of 62. That's great for them if they are just worn out in life because of logging for 40+year's or truck driving for 40+year's or welding for 40+year's or roofing for 40+year's and so on and so forth.

So they apply to draw even though the career field didn't pay them that great over the year's but they stayed at it to the best of their skill levels until they had to get out, so then they draw a low SS check at 62 if decide that's about as far as they could go in their field of expertise, but then they get slapped with two punishments right off the bat. Why the second punishment ?

Why the cap on his or her ability to stay in the game if wanted to get into another part time job (way easier) where SS is being paid into again in that job as well, but he or she is only allowed to make no more than 23,000 a year in income at the part time job or it will penalize the SS check by taking money from it ????

It makes no sense to the poor Americans that are caught up in such a nefarious thing, and especially after seeing what the Democrats were doing with billions of dollars of taxpayers money over thr year's, and then telling poor Americans that the system is broke.

Hell has a special place for government officials that go along with schemes to punish seniors that had given it their all in job's that most Americans wouldn't or couldn't do.

 

[Cassandro]

Ss was not set up to be a income supplement while you continue to work. Thus the name "retirement" benefit.

Exactly. Early benefits were established for people who could no longer work until full retirement age.

 

[beagle9]

Exactly. Early benefits were established for people who could no longer work until full retirement age.

Wrong... That's called disability.

 

[Cassandro]

Eliminate the SS Cap which is currently $173,000+ and have people making more continue to contribute to SS, with NO additional benefit.

FYI there is no cap on the employer's share (1/2) of SS taxes. As for SS benefits, higher income recipients already get a much lower return on their contributions. That is why they would not voluntarily contribute more to SS even if they could.

On the other hand, SS has already become a publicly subsidized assistance program for low income earners. Even those who have never contributed to SS can get over $1,000 per month under the SSI program. As a result, the current SS cap provides an undeserved tax break on earnings that exceed that amount.

It seems to me that a reasonable compromise would be to eliminate the SS cap on earnings, but still compensate the additional contributions at a reduced benefit rate of return.

 

[beagle9]

Ss was not set up to be a income supplement while you continue to work. Thus the name "retirement" benefit.

Ss is an earned benefit, and you are correct that it's not a supplement that is offered by the government for the purpose of supplementing any incomes granted by government in such a way....Seniors who make below the poverty line if still employed should be able to freely draw their earned benefit from 62 up to 67 under penalty of reduced pay outs all depending, otherwise if they need it to help them as they continue to work on if need be then that's their business. This has nothing to do with government hand outs or anything like that. After any activation of their earned benefit along the line, the cap on extra income should be eliminated.

The government has no right to put a cap on income earned after their earned benefit is activated from 62 to 67 year's of age. The only penalty that should be is when someone tries to draw early, and that is it.

If someone wants to draw at 62 and gets penalized for it, then that's their prerogative. The check received monthly even though low might be used to help them stay above the poverty line if they have a crappy job at age 62, and since they have already earned their Ss benefit for working for 40+year's in the system whose to say that they aren't entitled to it when they need it ?

So you are correct that it's not a supplement that is given by the government, but rather it can be used by the retiree as a supplement for an income that is low after the age of 62, otherwise if the retiree needs to go ahead and draw even under penalty (their earned retirement income at 62), in which is needed if the person is going through harder times in life at that age.

Most will elect to draw their retirement incomes once they reach full retirement age for max benefits, but capping income on those who elected for many reasons their retirement check at 62 is an evil act IMHO.

Instead of doing away with Taxes on Ss, the cap should have been done away with instead. This would have encouraged people to stay working and paying into Ss and into the income tax system if keep on working. Why punish recipients if they decide to remain full time while taking their earned income retirement benefit at any age ??? The penalty that lowers the check amount along the lines should have been sufficient.

 

[beagle9]

FYI there is no cap on the employer's share (1/2) of SS taxes. As for SS benefits, higher income recipients already get a much lower return on their contributions. That is why they would not voluntarily contribute more to SS even if they could.

On the other hand, SS has already become a publicly subsidized assistance program for low income earners. Even those who have never contributed to SS can get over $1,000 per month under the SSI program. As a result, the current SS cap provides an undeserved tax break on earnings that exceed that amount.

It seems to me that a reasonable compromise would be to eliminate the SS cap on earnings, but still compensate the additional contributions at a reduced benefit rate of return.

People that have never paid in DONOT get over a thousand dollar's a month.. That is false.

 

[beagle9]

I already do.










Now pay me my share. If I contribute more to SS I deserve a bigger benefit.

You do get more, as your calculations are based on your past earnings.

 

[Eman623]

Ss is an earned benefit, and you are correct that it's not a supplement that is offered by the government for the purpose of supplementing any incomes granted by government in such a way....Seniors who make below the poverty line if still employed should be able to freely draw their earned benefit from 62 up to 67 under penalty of reduced pay outs all depending, otherwise if they need it to help them as they continue to work on if need be then that's their business. This has nothing to do with government hand outs or anything like that. After any activation of their earned benefit along the line, the cap on extra income should be eliminated.

The government has no right to put a cap on income earned after their earned benefit is activated from 62 to 67 year's of age. The only penalty that should be is when someone tries to draw early, and that is it.

If someone wants to draw at 62 and gets penalized for it, then that's their prerogative. The check received monthly even though low might be used to help them stay above the poverty line if they have a crappy job at age 62, and since they have already earned their Ss benefit for working for 40+year's in the system whose to say that they aren't entitled to it when they need it ?

So you are correct that it's not a supplement that is given by the government, but rather it can be used by the retiree as a supplement for an income that is low after the age of 62, otherwise if the retiree needs to go ahead and draw even under penalty (their earned retirement income at 62), in which is needed if the person is going through harder times in life at that age.

Most will elect to draw their retirement incomes once they reach full retirement age for max benefits, but capping income on those who elected for many reasons their retirement check at 62 is an evil act IMHO.

Instead of doing away with Taxes on Ss, the cap should have been done away with instead. This would have encouraged people to stay working and paying into Ss and into the income tax system if keep on working. Why punish recipients if they decide to remain full time while taking their earned income retirement benefit at any age ??? The penalty that lowers the check amount along the lines should have been sufficient.

I fear you are too focused on the short term to get more money now, and not considering what the long term consequences will be.

If someone is not making it now when they're 62 and still working, and need SS retirement benefits to cover their expense shortfall, what are they going to do when they finally do retire and income stops and SS benefits are some picyune token amount because they started taking it so early.

That person will be not just poor in their twilight years, but super poor. Homeless poor. Never able to stop working poor.

If they are planning to draw SSI (Supplemental Security Income) or Disability to cover the shortfall of reduced SS benefits, then I think that person is just gaming the system.

 

[Eman623]

You do get more, as your calculations are based on your past earnings.

That's how it is now.

But Winco advocates capping my benefits while having no cap on my contributions.

 

[beagle9]

I fear you are too focused on the short term to get more money now, and not considering what the long term consequences will be.

If someone is not making it now when they're 62 and still working, and need SS retirement benefits to cover their expense shortfall, what are they going to do when they finally do retire and income stops and SS benefits are some picyune token amount because they started taking it so early.

That person will be not just poor in their twilight years, but super poor. Homeless poor. Never able to stop working poor.

If they are planning to draw SSI (Supplemental Security Income) or Disability to cover the shortfall of reduced SS benefits, then I think that person is just gaming the system.

I'm not sure if you understand what is being said or you are responding in a way that makes no sense.

Regardless of when a person decides to draw once their age meets the requirement to draw, then they have the right to draw at any age they choose along the graph after meeting the age requirement to draw.

Now if they draw early then the amount is penalized a certain amount, and that is figured into the long term plan in which adjust for that possibility.

However way the recipient decides to use their earned income is up to them.

Now putting a cap on the recipients income amount allowed to be made on top of his or her amount being drawn is as wrong a thing as can be. Why ?

Because let's say that the person had a reason to have to draw early at 62 because they were going through some hard times due to losing a job and income, so the only thing the person could do was apply for his or her earned retirement benefits at age 62, and do so at the reduced amount because of the early draw, but no matter the money will help to shore up the sand bags to stop the flooding.

Next the person is offered a job where he or she is needed desperately again for their skill set and availability, but then the person thinks "well I can come and work but I can't work but this many hours or make but this amount of money because of my social security income. You are freaking kidding me right ? So the person has an opportunity to get back in the workforce full time, pay SSI tax as well as federal and state income taxes, but because he or she is drawing their earned retirement benefit of say $800.00 dollar's a month, then the government is going to tell that recipient that he or she can't make the money at the full time rate without suffering added penalties because they are drawing their earned social security retirement check of say $800.00 dollar's a month because they elected to do so under certain circumstances at say 62, 63 or 64 maybe ?

Make it make sense please...

I would love to know how much money in taxes the government has lost because of something so dambed stupid.

There should be no cap on any monies made after a person elects to draw at any age provided that the early draw penalty is always the keeper of the program in concerns to early draw.