Zone1 Social Security

[Eman623]

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

I understand what you are arguing and have tried to explain several times why this is not how SS is intended to work.

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 SS is not intended to be an income supplement. We penalize SS benefits drawn while working to disincentivize this.

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.

If the person is not working, then there is no income penalty. But if they think they might continue working at some point, then they should consider using unemployment benefits and SNAP instead of SS retirement benefits.

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 ?

Once the person reaches normal retirement age, they can work and collect SS without an income penalty. They might have to pay taxes on the SS income, but this is rare and only kicks in if the person earns more than a certain amount. Because, as I have tried to explain, SS is for retirement, after the person has made the decision to stop working

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.

I respectfully disagree. A person's retirement plan should includes SS, a 401k or IRA, and other regular investments. The regular investments are not subject to age or income limits and can be used at any time. This is how it's supposed to work.

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

This is factually not correct.

The wage cap on Social Security wages applies to both the employee an employer portions. Both contribution stop when the cap is reached. For 2025 the cap is $176,100.

This can be confusing because the MediCare Tax does not have a cap, that may have been what was being considered. See page 27 in the link below.

WW
.
.
.
.

http://irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p15.pdf

 

[22lcidw]

I understand what you are arguing and have tried to explain several times why this is not how SS is intended to work.


Because SS is not intended to be an income supplement. We penalize SS benefits drawn while working to disincentivize this.


If the person is not working, then there is no income penalty. But if they think they might continue working at some point, then they should consider using unemployment benefits and SNAP instead of SS retirement benefits.


Once the person reaches normal retirement age, they can work and collect SS without an income penalty. They might have to pay taxes on the SS income, but this is rare and only kicks in if the person earns more than a certain amount. Because, as I have tried to explain, SS is for retirement, after the person has made the decision to stop working


I respectfully disagree. A person's retirement plan should includes SS, a 401k or IRA, and other regular investments. The regular investments are not subject to age or income limits and can be used at any time. This is how it's supposed to work.

The massive expansion of credit helped to keep people living week to week. In fact, there are huge payments on interest due to that which makes the banks and other loaning institutions super rich. The market for people to cash employment checks and charged for it is a disgrace.

 

[sartre play]

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

BUT ONLY IF YOU MAKE OVER 400 THOUSAND A YEAR, DO YOU?

 

[Winco]

That's how it is now.

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

Absolutely, I said it and meant every word.

For every $1,000 over $173K, at 6.2%, that would cost that high earner and additional $62.

If you went out for a very nice $1,000 Dinner, you would certainly tip more than $62.

Yea, I know it apples to oranges, but it about perspective.


So, do you make more than $173 per year, if NOT, then YOU aren't affected at ALL.

 

[beagle9]

I understand what you are arguing and have tried to explain several times why this is not how SS is intended to work.


Because SS is not intended to be an income supplement. We penalize SS benefits drawn while working to disincentivize this.


If the person is not working, then there is no income penalty. But if they think they might continue working at some point, then they should consider using unemployment benefits and SNAP instead of SS retirement benefits.


Once the person reaches normal retirement age, they can work and collect SS without an income penalty. They might have to pay taxes on the SS income, but this is rare and only kicks in if the person earns more than a certain amount. Because, as I have tried to explain, SS is for retirement, after the person has made the decision to stop working


I respectfully disagree. A person's retirement plan should includes SS, a 401k or IRA, and other regular investments. The regular investments are not subject to age or income limits and can be used at any time. This is how it's supposed to work.

All I can say is STOP stealing Americans money for a rigged system that in the end tries to criminally IMHO screw the retiree out of his percentage back of that money.

 

[Eman623]

Absolutely, I said it and meant every word.

For every $1,000 over $173K, at 6.2%, that would cost that high earner and additional $62.

If you went out for a very nice $1,000 Dinner, you would certainly tip more than $62.

Yea, I know it apples to oranges, but it about perspective.


So, do you make more than $173 per year, if NOT, then YOU aren't affected at ALL.

I would certainly tip more than 6.2% at a restaurant, but I'd have to come up with EXTRA tip money because under your proposal, the government already taxed that $62 from me and gave it to someone else.

And yes, I do earn more than the SS income cap. Mostly because I receive income from more than one job. Each job is by itself below the cap, but my aggregate income is over. Fortunately, I get a refund for the SS overpayment when I file my taxes. Something you would eagerly take away from me.

 

[Eman623]

All I can say is STOP stealing Americans money for a rigged system that in the end tries to criminally IMHO screw the retiree out of his percentage back of that money.

Retirees are not screwed. Only those who choose to take retirement benefits while continuing to work.

And this is not a rigged or criminal system. This is how it was set up to work.

 

[beagle9]

Retirees are not screwed. Only those who choose to take retirement benefits while continuing to work.

And this is not a rigged or criminal system. This is how it was set up to work.

Yes it is, and if a person decides to take his or her retirement due to hardships along the way, but then gets a job that can bring the person back up to above the poverty line, then why does the government punish the person by saying he or she must remain below the poverty line or have their check reduced ???? It's pure bull chit and you know it. The check is already reduced because of drawing at 62,63, 64, 65 or 66 for whatever important reason a person might have for doing so, but then they attach even more reductions to it as a punishment if the person tries to work a job again in order to help themselves stay above the poverty line, and all with the SS check included ????

You try and word it like a person is working and doing well at age 62, but then says to themselves hmmmm I need to go ahead and apply for my SS check as and added bonus to my income also.

I'm not saying that and you know it.

I'm putting it as a person isn't doing well in his or her current job situation, but if he or she applies for their earned income SS check as a way to stay out of poverty until things get better, then who the hell are you to deny that person their right, and worse punish the person if they get a job that secures their situation even more so while not just that but they'll be paying into the system again at no further gains for themselves because the check is locked in at whatever amount and/or age they decided to draw it after 62 ??

No extra income caps on SS should be the cry of the people is what mho is.

 

[Eman623]

Yes it is, and if a person decides to take his or her retirement due to hardships along the way, but then gets a job that can bring the person back up to above the poverty line, then why does the government punish the person by saying he or she must remain below the poverty line or have their check reduced ???? It's pure bull chit and you know it. The check is already reduced because of drawing at 62,63, 64, 65 or 66 for whatever important reason a person might have for doing so, but then they attach even more reductions to it as a punishment if the person tries to work a job again in order to help themselves stay above the poverty line, and all with the SS check included ????

You try and word it like a person is working and doing well at age 62, but then says to themselves hmmmm I need to go ahead and apply for my SS check as and added bonus to my income also.

I'm not saying that and you know it.

I'm putting it as a person isn't doing well in his or her current job situation, but if he or she applies for their earned income SS check as a way to stay out of poverty until things get better, then who the hell are you to deny that person their right, and worse punish the person if they get a job that secures their situation even more so while not just that but they'll be paying into the system again at no further gains for themselves because the check is locked in at whatever amount and/or age they decided to draw it after 62 ??

No extra income caps on SS should be the cry of the people is what mho is.

Twice in this post you've told me what I know (or more exactly what you demand me to know). And then asked me who the hell I am to deny what you see as a right but isn't really.

I have no interest in getting into a pissing match with you or defending myself while you angrily make this about me.

If you want to start a Zone 1 debate, you should really honor that.

Have a great evening.

 

[beagle9]

Twice in this post you've told me what I know (or more exactly what you demand me to know). And then asked me who the hell I am to deny what you see as a right but isn't really.

I have no interest in getting into a pissing match with you or defending myself while you angrily make this about me.

If you want to start a Zone 1 debate, you should really honor that.

Have a great evening.

Yeah, have a great evening..

 

[Dorian Mode]

All I can say is STOP stealing Americans money for a rigged system that in the end tries to criminally IMHO screw the retiree out of his percentage back of that money.

The SS Ponzi scheme cannot go on indefinitely. They were telling us this back in the 80's and I never thought I would collect a dime of what I paid in and lived my life knowing I would have to take care of my retirement by myself. The younger generation is now paying into a retirement system that can't survive. Sooner or later the government is going to have to stop lying to the people about SS. It only works in an expanding and growing population and economy. We are facing the opposite in the near future and immigration can't solve the problem. SS was a great idea in the late 1930's, but not for 2030. We have to start addressing the problem seriously. It will be difficult in the current political environment, but if the democraps can be sidelined, there is hope that this can finally be confronted in a serious manner.

 

[initforme]

The SS Ponzi scheme cannot go on indefinitely. They were telling us this back in the 80's and I never thought I would collect a dime of what I paid in and lived my life knowing I would have to take care of my retirement by myself. The younger generation is now paying into a retirement system that can't survive. Sooner or later the government is going to have to stop lying to the people about SS. It only works in an expanding and growing population and economy. We are facing the opposite in the near future and immigration can't solve the problem. SS was a great idea in the late 1930's, but not for 2030. We have to start addressing the problem seriously. It will be difficult in the current political environment, but if the democraps can be sidelined, there is hope that this can finally be confronted in a serious manner.

Our population is expanding. We arent facing the opposite. Where does this fake news come from?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yes it is, and if a person decides to take his or her retirement due to hardships along the way, but then gets a job that can bring the person back up to above the poverty line, then why does the government punish the person by saying he or she must remain below the poverty line or have their check reduced ???? It's pure bull chit and you know it. The check is already reduced because of drawing at 62,63, 64, 65 or 66 for whatever important reason a person might have for doing so, but then they attach even more reductions to it as a punishment if the person tries to work a job again in order to help themselves stay above the poverty line, and all with the SS check included ????

Let's put some numbers to this since the use of the emtionally charged words of "punishment" and "poverty".

Average Social Security Retirement for 2025 is $2000 per month. Social Security benefits are reduced by 5/9ths of 1% for each month prior to FRA (Full Retirement Age) for up to 36 months and 5/12th of 1% for the any months (up to 24) over 36. That means at age 62 someone with an FRA of 67 sees a 30% reduction if they start drawing a benefit at age 62.

The average SS benefit in 2025 was $2000 a month, if that is reduced by 30% at age 62 the benefit is $1400 a month or $16,800 per year.

The federal poverty line for an individual is $15,640 for an individual, and yes SS is an individualized benefit.

The working income limit for Social Security is $23,400 for years prior to FRA and $62,140 for the year in which you reach FRA.

So someone drawing average Social Security, that retires early at age 62, can both work and draw Social Security with no Social Security reduction and have $16,800 + $23,400 = $40,200. Again the federal poverty level is $15,640.

Using an average benefit, in other words, a working reduction doesn't kick in until the indivdiuals combined Social Security + Work reaches 257% of the federal poverty level.

Also, pensions, IRA, 401K, etc. distributions (i.e. other forms of income) do not impact SS benefits, it's only wage income.

You try and word it like a person is working and doing well at age 62, but then says to themselves hmmmm I need to go ahead and apply for my SS check as and added bonus to my income also.

I'm not saying that and you know it.

But that is exactly what often happens.

SS benefits are an individual benefit, independent of the spouses income. While individual situations vary, it is often advised by financial planners that:

• The lower income spouse retires early and starts drawing a benefit prior to FRA.
• The high income spouse delays drawing a benefit to at least FRA or even 70 for an even higher benefit.
• The couple then receives the SS benefit as additional income early.
• If the lower income spouse passes, the higher income spouse ends up with a higher benefit.
• If the higher income spouse passes, the lower income spouse ends up receiving a higher benefit based on survivorship and starts drawing the higher income spouses benefit.

To prevent this, one suggestion, would be to convert the determination being based on an individual's income to AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) for couples that are married filing jointly. That would then bring the spouses income into the equation. But the results might not be what you hope for in the larger scheme of things.

The above is very common advice from financial planners as a means for a couple to maximize benefits over the long term.

I'm putting it as a person isn't doing well in his or her current job situation, but if he or she applies for their earned income SS check as a way to stay out of poverty until things get better, then who the hell are you to deny that person their right, and worse punish the person if they get a job that secures their situation even more so while not just that but they'll be paying into the system again at no further gains for themselves because the check is locked in at whatever amount and/or age they decided to draw it after 62 ??

No extra income caps on SS should be the cry of the people is what mho is.

Currently the Social Security Retirement Trust Fund is due to be exhausted in circa 2034, the result will be an across the board decrease of approximately 25% for Social Security recipients if no action is taken by Congress to "fix" the issue. (What that action "should" be is a discussion for another thread.)

By removing the income limits and the benefit reduction calaculation for combined social security and wages well above the federal poverty level, that means SS benefits will rise for early retirees who work, more money will be taken from the Trust to pay current benefits, and the Trust is depleated earlier, and the reduction caused by not having the Trust and only being able to pay benefits based on collections happens earlier for everyone.

WW

 

[Dorian Mode]

Our population is expanding. We arent facing the opposite. Where does this fake news come from?

From the Census Bureau. Our population growth started slowing and all population growth recently has been attributed to mass immigration. Notice anything strange, especially between 2008 and 2021? notice anything strange between 2001 and now? What could have spurred the population to explode like that?

 

[beagle9]

The SS Ponzi scheme cannot go on indefinitely. They were telling us this back in the 80's and I never thought I would collect a dime of what I paid in and lived my life knowing I would have to take care of my retirement by myself. The younger generation is now paying into a retirement system that can't survive. Sooner or later the government is going to have to stop lying to the people about SS. It only works in an expanding and growing population and economy. We are facing the opposite in the near future and immigration can't solve the problem. SS was a great idea in the late 1930's, but not for 2030. We have to start addressing the problem seriously. It will be difficult in the current political environment, but if the democraps can be sidelined, there is hope that this can finally be confronted in a serious manner.

The formula or calculations should be full proof for it's survival, otherwise it should be calculated in a manor that allows it to ride the roller coaster of life in order to survive by way of the full proof formula that was created, and this regardless of any type of movement in population whether it be a lack there of or in a growth period.

The problem allegedly began when the democraps or maybe others that might be involved in nefarious ways, had begun their campaigns of replacement theories and/or of theft in order to fuel their theories in order to manipulate the system and retain power by way of abusing every system we have had or still have in order to do so. Nothing is safe !!

The numbers don't lie, and the formula should be full proof in it's design if not abused and/or stolen from. We are seeing numbers right now concerning what the Democraps and other's were doing that was killing and abusing every system we have had in hopes to keep power and abuse that power by way of.

M.S-S.G.A is my idea, and it can be done immediately through the removal of governments grimey paws in ways that it has been conducting our affairs recklessly in derelict of it's duties. We need to have new reps placed over these programs that will gaurd them and keep them solvent in hopes to stop other's from stealing from it or abusing said programs.

When anyone saves money or starts a plan of action to save money for that Rainey day fund, then they create the plan around their finances and future outlook. Of course the formula they implement will allow them to save alot of money sometimes, and then not so much at other times, but regardless the goal is to make positive contributions regardless of the amount every time. So the key is to save at a steady pace, and this regardless of the amount of input while navigating the ups and downs that might be encountered along the way. It must be done in a way that in the end the money is going to be there for the withdrawal based on the steadfast way of working the thing throughout the year's.

We've had individual Americans that have been experts at taking nothing and making huge gains out of that nothing, but our government acts as a rebellious teenager with our money, otherwise by sneaking into the system and robbing it where next they tell the parent/senior dad or mom "hey I don't know what happened to the money it's just gone".

Many Americans when decide enough is enough after working for 40+year's in life, and had decide to retire from a grueling hard career where they then draw their check under penalty due to the age that getting out of the career was decided on is there option to take. Even so they still might want to change to an easier profession that allows them to stay busy, and also to help their new employer to be prosperous by working full time with that new employer (whats wrong with this ? nothing), even though already drawing their earned retirement check they are in a new easier more workable job that keeps them busy in life, and although not making the money that they were, it matters not because between the two revenues being received drawing and working still it's a win win for everybody involved. Even though the retiree has decided to draw at 62, if he or she still works a full time but way easier Job on life, then he or she is still a contributor to the SS and income tax system. If caps remain on allowed income after receiving SS, then the incentive for the person to work gets removed, and the person might fall into poverty where they become a bigger burden on they system as they become more and more dependent on the check while their health declines rapidly at this point.

Remove the caps now !!!

My idea to take the income caps away, and to allow the recipient at any level to stay working at full capacity if chooses to do so is a positive thing IMHO, so thereby he or she continues to pay into the SS and income tax system onward therefore being an add to it instead of being a negative drain on it. This would inject those new revenues back into the program for it's solvency if were allowed to do so.

To make the program financially solvent and ensure long-term sustainability, a multifaceted approach is required, focusing on managing the program properly, diversifying revenue, controlling costs or theft, and shoring up (by amending some areas it if need be), to insure that the sound financial planning or calculative formula already built into the program remains solvent.

 

[beagle9]

Let's put some numbers to this since the use of the emtionally charged words of "punishment" and "poverty".

Average Social Security Retirement for 2025 is $2000 per month. Social Security benefits are reduced by 5/9ths of 1% for each month prior to FRA (Full Retirement Age) for up to 36 months and 5/12th of 1% for the any months (up to 24) over 36. That means at age 62 someone with an FRA of 67 sees a 30% reduction if they start drawing a benefit at age 62.

The average SS benefit in 2025 was $2000 a month, if that is reduced by 30% at age 62 the benefit is $1400 a month or $16,800 per year.

The federal poverty line for an individual is $15,640 for an individual, and yes SS is an individualized benefit.

The working income limit for Social Security is $23,400 for years prior to FRA and $62,140 for the year in which you reach FRA.

So someone drawing average Social Security, that retires early at age 62, can both work and draw Social Security with no Social Security reduction and have $16,800 + $23,400 = $40,200. Again the federal poverty level is $15,640.

Using an average benefit, in other words, a working reduction doesn't kick in until the indivdiuals combined Social Security + Work reaches 257% of the federal poverty level.

Also, pensions, IRA, 401K, etc. distributions (i.e. other forms of income) do not impact SS benefits, it's only wage income.



But that is exactly what often happens.

SS benefits are an individual benefit, independent of the spouses income. While individual situations vary, it is often advised by financial planners that:

• The lower income spouse retires early and starts drawing a benefit prior to FRA.
• The high income spouse delays drawing a benefit to at least FRA or even 70 for an even higher benefit.
• The couple then receives the SS benefit as additional income early.
• If the lower income spouse passes, the higher income spouse ends up with a higher benefit.
• If the higher income spouse passes, the lower income spouse ends up receiving a higher benefit based on survivorship and starts drawing the higher income spouses benefit.

To prevent this, one suggestion, would be to convert the determination being based on an individual's income to AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) for couples that are married filing jointly. That would then bring the spouses income into the equation. But the results might not be what you hope for in the larger scheme of things.

The above is very common advice from financial planners as a means for a couple to maximize benefits over the long term.



Currently the Social Security Retirement Trust Fund is due to be exhausted in circa 2034, the result will be an across the board decrease of approximately 25% for Social Security recipients if no action is taken by Congress to "fix" the issue. (What that action "should" be is a discussion for another thread.)

By removing the income limits and the benefit reduction calaculation for combined social security and wages well above the federal poverty level, that means SS benefits will rise for early retirees who work, more money will be taken from the Trust to pay current benefits, and the Trust is depleated earlier, and the reduction caused by not having the Trust and only being able to pay benefits based on collections happens earlier for everyone.

WW

Why so complicated or is it being made to be complicated on purpose ? This in and of itself should be raising red flags to Americans about all the things that have gone on and are going on.

Let's just focus on the positive affects of simply doing away with the caps and nothing more ok. All that formulated stuff pertaining to the poverty rate vs this vs that equals this equals that etc, is not fixing the problem if those calculations have been contaminated due to nefarious activities over time.

Debate !!

 

[wtb]

The reason they raised the retirement age is because people are living longer. For me it's like 67.

I'm 64 now and having too much fun working to retire. I like my job. And I'd pay a penalty if I started collecting SS now.

I'm paying the maximum SS tax amount every year and plan to wait until full retirement age, and maybe even until 70 to get the maximum possible benefits. Or if I don't live that long, then my wife (who is a lot younger than me), will get the maximum survivor benefit for the rest of her life.

That sounds very sensible, especially if you are in pretty good health. Also, very thoughtful of you based on having a younger wife.

My husband felt the same way and did wait until 70. It felt like kind of a long wait but the increase in your benefit is quite substantial by waiting.

 

[wtb]

I've been saying for a really long time now: use 80% of the "trust Fund" to buy US equities

The Fund will be solvent

I don't know about 80% but it sure seems like some percentage would be wise to invest and generate growth.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why so complicated or is it being made to be complicated on purpose ? This in and of itself should be raising red flags to Americans about all the things that have gone on and are going on.

Why is it complicated? I don't know, maybe hundreds of millions of particpants functioning during their working career and retirement years have to contribute and then receive benefits worth TRILLIONS of dollars impacted over decades and decades in all types of situations?

Who thought that might be complicated?

Let's just focus on the positive affects of simply doing away with the caps and nothing more ok. All that formulated stuff pertaining to the poverty rate vs this vs that equals this equals that etc, is not fixing the problem if those calculations have been contaminated due to nefarious activities over time.

No, lets also show the reality of the situation and the impact of the desired change.

Debate !!

That is debate.

WW