Zone1 Social Security

[beagle9]

The caps on what an individual can make after 62 if were to activate his or her social security should be dropped, and the adjustment should be to the check amount down to a lower number if are draw early.

The adjustment would facilitate an incentive for worker's to keep working at 62 even though they needed (for whatever financial reasoning), to draw on their social security at the age of 62.

This would actually work up to age 65 wherefore the maximum benefit could be kicked in for anyone who waited until 65 to draw. After 65 no caps would still be the rule on anyone wanting to remain actively working and paying into the system, otherwise like so many would if the caps on income were removed.

In summary - Caps are ridiculous, and they need to be removed.

In Trumps first term he noticed a flaw in the highering of taxes instead of cutting taxes. His act of lowering taxes actually incentivised through the cuts the raising of revenues to the federal government by incentivising investments and more spending due to a more government friendly enviroment to operate in.

Sometimes the opposite of that which one thinks ends up being the best solutions to a problem.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The caps on what an individual can make after 62 if were to activate his or her social security should be dropped, and the adjustment should be to the check amount down to a lower number if are draw early.

The adjustment would facilitate an incentive for worker's to keep working at 62 even though they needed (for whatever financial reasoning), to draw on their social security at the age of 62.

This would actually work up to age 65 wherefore the maximum benefit could be kicked in for anyone who waited until 65 to draw. After 65 no caps would still be the rule on anyone wanting to remain actively working and paying into the system, otherwise like so many would if the caps on income were removed.

In summary - Caps are ridiculous, and they need to be removed.

In Trumps first term he noticed a flaw in the highering of taxes instead of cutting taxes. His act of lowering taxes actually incentivised through the cuts the raising of revenues to the federal government by incentivising investments and more spending due to a more government friendly enviroment to operate in.

Sometimes the opposite of that which one thinks ends up being the best solutions to a problem.

I disagree.

Under the logic you propose (No Caps and lower benefits are removed and the full SS amount restored at 65***) - there would be no reason that EVERYONE wouldn't take SS at 62 and a return to full benefits at 65.

If I'm working making $200,000 a year and can receive an additional $2000 a month for 5 years (my FRA) why not. It's 2000 * 12 * 5 = $120,000 in free money that will not reduce full benefits at FRA.

Now run numbers. It's estimated that 4.1 Million Americans reached FRA in 2024. What would have been the additional (and yes you propose additional money) cost to the system to fund them drawing SS at age 62, with no income limit and full benefits restored at FRA?

How much would taxes have to increase to generate the revenue required for such a payout?

The age where people were qualifying at age 65 has passed, we are moving into the realm where 67 is the normal new FRA.

WW
.
.
I assume you mean FRA - Full Retirement Age - and not the number "65")

 

[beagle9]

I disagree.

Under the logic you propose (No Caps and lower benefits are removed and the full SS amount restored at 65***) - there would be no reason that EVERYONE wouldn't take SS at 62 and a return to full benefits at 65.

If I'm working making $200,000 a year and can receive an additional $2000 a month for 5 years (my FRA) why not. It's 2000 * 12 * 5 = $120,000 in free money that will not reduce full benefits at FRA.

Now run numbers. It's estimated that 4.1 Million Americans reached FRA in 2024. What would have been the additional (and yes you propose additional money) cost to the system to fund them drawing SS at age 62, with no income limit and full benefits restored at FRA?

How much would taxes have to increase to generate the revenue required for such a payout?

The age where people were qualifying at age 65 has passed, we are moving into the realm where 67 is the normal new FRA.

WW
.
.
I assume you mean FRA - Full Retirement Age - and not the number "65")

The first place that you go wrong is thinking that SS is free money. It is not. It is earned money based upon a system that insured the taxpayer to receive a percentage of his or her money back starting at 62 onward. It just depends on when the recipient decides to start that determines the amount to be drawn on by the taxpayer.

If you have paid into the system for 40+year's then you are entitled to a check starting at 62 and beyond depending on when you decide to take it.

The government has no business caring or knowing what money you have in assets savings or anything else that you have managed to aquire by your choices made in life. You earned a percentage of your money paid into social security back, and that is yours to receive at the age you decide to draw upon once eligibility is met.

If you decide to keep working and paying in regardless of you receiving your Social security then that should also be your choice. No caps on income should be foisted upon you if you decide to continue working after you decide to draw your earned social security check.

The social security that you pay in while working onward can be used to help other's on their way to having a social security system intact once they get there. No one would have a problem with this, and it could help with securing the program for the changing in the population numbers as they are coming up the pipeline.

 

[he just circle K]

Just eliminate it.

 

[beagle9]

I disagree.

Under the logic you propose (No Caps and lower benefits are removed and the full SS amount restored at 65***) - there would be no reason that EVERYONE wouldn't take SS at 62 and a return to full benefits at 65.

If I'm working making $200,000 a year and can receive an additional $2000 a month for 5 years (my FRA) why not. It's 2000 * 12 * 5 = $120,000 in free money that will not reduce full benefits at FRA.

Now run numbers. It's estimated that 4.1 Million Americans reached FRA in 2024. What would have been the additional (and yes you propose additional money) cost to the system to fund them drawing SS at age 62, with no income limit and full benefits restored at FRA?

How much would taxes have to increase to generate the revenue required for such a payout?

The age where people were qualifying at age 65 has passed, we are moving into the realm where 67 is the normal new FRA.

WW
.
.
I assume you mean FRA - Full Retirement Age - and not the number "65")

You are misinterpreting my post, otherwise as I'm seeing in your comprehension or lack there of pertaining to the meaning of my words spoken... Will clarify or try to help when I return.. BRB in a few.

 

[beagle9]

I disagree.

Under the logic you propose (No Caps and lower benefits are removed and the full SS amount restored at 65***) - there would be no reason that EVERYONE wouldn't take SS at 62 and a return to full benefits at 65.

If I'm working making $200,000 a year and can receive an additional $2000 a month for 5 years (my FRA) why not. It's 2000 * 12 * 5 = $120,000 in free money that will not reduce full benefits at FRA.

Now run numbers. It's estimated that 4.1 Million Americans reached FRA in 2024. What would have been the additional (and yes you propose additional money) cost to the system to fund them drawing SS at age 62, with no income limit and full benefits restored at FRA?

How much would taxes have to increase to generate the revenue required for such a payout?

The age where people were qualifying at age 65 has passed, we are moving into the realm where 67 is the normal new FRA.

WW
.
.
I assume you mean FRA - Full Retirement Age - and not the number "65")

I wrote in effect that the caps put on income made after one decides to draw early (if one decides to draw at 62 or later), should be dropped. No reason for caps to be placed on added income by any SS recipient who draws at anytime after age 62.

If need be the adjustment could be to the check amount downward if one decides to draw early at 62. Instead of the check being $800.00 dollar's per month, it can be adjusted downward to $600.00 dollars per month if draw early and want to remain working.

Example: If decide to draw early, then the check could be adjusted downward to a lower number, otherwise if were to draw early in order to eliminate the cap on added income of a person that wants to keep working and paying into the program..... The caps need to be removed in so that the recipient can be incentivised to remain in the workforce at no penalty, even though one started to draw a reduced check amount at 62 or beyond with no caps added.

The incentive not to draw at 62 is the low number of the social security check under penalty of drawing it early. This has nothing to do with a person wanting to remain in the workforce.

The adjustment in the check that penalizes early withdraw at 62 would facilitate an incentive for worker's to keep working at 62 even though they needed (for whatever financial reasoning), to draw on their social security at the age of 62.

Example - Say I want to start drawing at 62, and let's say that at 62 instead of my check being $800.00 it will be $600.00 dollars under penalty of drawing early.

Now let's look at the above with no caps on income involved.

Example: So I remain working even though I decided that I needed my social security check to start at 62.

So I receive my earned SS check of $600.00 dollars under penalty in which was determined in that amount because I drew early.

However, I remain in the workforce with no limits on what I can make in which allows me to contribute to the SS program for other's that are coming in from behind or up the ladder. Why not ?????

So I'm only getting what I deserve and have worked for over those many year's, even though I decided to start collecting at 62, but I still remain in the workforce in which allows me to continue to contribute to the program that no longer is benefiting me because I've locked myself in at 62.

If I would have waited to max beneficial draw at age 67 for example, then of course I would draw the max benefit sure, but I might not be healthy enough to be in the workforce as an active contributor to the program in that way, but NOW you want to tell me that I can make all the extra income I can make without any penalty applied ?????

How ridiculous is this bull chit system the way it is set up ??


You wrote - Under the logic you propose (No Caps and (((lower benefits are removed))) and the full SS amount restored at 65***) ??

Me - Not what I said nor did I imply.

You -there would be no reason that EVERYONE wouldn't take SS at 62 and a return to full benefits at 65.

Me - This is not what I said nor did I imply.

So in summary the system seems to be designed and set up to disincentivise the elderly or seniors from living their older year's with dignity and hope (i.e. those who have to rely on their social security incomes and benefits by no fault of their own).

No, the system would rather have seniors or the elderly living in poverty, and sadly in other ways losing everything they have got before then giving up and dying early. This is in hopes to free up that money for more waste, fraud, and abuse at the hands of those who are dirty in government.

 

[Concerned American]

Once the person reaches normal retirement age, they can work and collect SS without an income penalty.

I don't think the penalty free income phase kicks in until age 70. The penalty for early draw is a half of a percent per month that the recipient draws early--e.g. On a recipients 62 birthday, a person with a full retirement age of 65 would lose 6% of their benefit.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I wrote in effect that the caps put on income made after one decides to draw early (if one decides to draw at 62 or later), should be dropped. No reason for caps to be placed on added income by any SS recipient who draws at anytime after age 62.

If need be the adjustment could be to the check amount downward if one decides to draw early at 62. Instead of the check being $800.00 dollar's per month, it can be adjusted downward to $600.00 dollars per month if draw early and want to remain working.

Example: If decide to draw early, then the check could be adjusted downward to a lower number, otherwise if were to draw early in order to eliminate the cap on added income of a person that wants to keep working and paying into the program..... The caps need to be removed in so that the recipient can be incentivised to remain in the workforce at no penalty, even though one started to draw a reduced check amount at 62 or beyond with no caps added.

The incentive not to draw at 62 is the low number of the social security check under penalty of drawing it early. This has nothing to do with a person wanting to remain in the workforce.

The adjustment in the check that penalizes early withdraw at 62 would facilitate an incentive for worker's to keep working at 62 even though they needed (for whatever financial reasoning), to draw on their social security at the age of 62.

Example - Say I want to start drawing at 62, and let's say that at 62 instead of my check being $800.00 it will be $600.00 dollars under penalty of drawing early.

Now let's look at the above with no caps on income involved.

Example: So I remain working even though I decided that I needed my social security check to start at 62.

So I receive my earned SS check of $600.00 dollars under penalty in which was determined in that amount because I drew early.

However, I remain in the workforce with no limits on what I can make in which allows me to contribute to the SS program for other's that are coming in from behind or up the ladder. Why not ?????

So I'm only getting what I deserve and have worked for over those many year's, even though I decided to start collecting at 62, but I still remain in the workforce in which allows me to continue to contribute to the program that no longer is benefiting me because I've locked myself in at 62.

If I would have waited to max beneficial draw at age 67 for example, then of course I would draw the max benefit sure, but I might not be healthy enough to be in the workforce as an active contributor to the program in that way, but NOW you want to tell me that I can make all the extra income I can make without any penalty applied ?????

How ridiculous is this bull chit system the way it is set up ??


You wrote - Under the logic you propose (No Caps and (((lower benefits are removed))) and the full SS amount restored at 65***) ??

Me - Not what I said nor did I imply.

You -there would be no reason that EVERYONE wouldn't take SS at 62 and a return to full benefits at 65.

Me - This is not what I said nor did I imply.

So in summary the system seems to be designed and set up to disincentivise the elderly or seniors from living their older year's with dignity and hope (i.e. those who have to rely on their social security incomes and benefits by no fault of their own).

No, the system would rather have seniors or the elderly living in poverty, and sadly in other ways losing everything they have got before then giving up and dying early. This is in hopes to free up that money for more waste, fraud, and abuse at the hands of those who are dirty in government.

Apologies...

I thought your previous post implied restoring full SS Benefits at FRA when taken early.

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't think the penalty free income phase kicks in until age 70. The penalty for early draw is a half of a percent per month that the recipient draws early--e.g. On a recipients 62 birthday, a person with a full retirement age of 65 would lose 6% of their benefit.

The income cap is lifted once you reach Full Retirement Age for anyone born after January 1st, 1960 that is 67.

If you continue to have wage income after full retrirement age, and you aren't drawing SS, you earn Delayed Retrirement Credits until you reach age 70. These will increase your benefit over what it would have been at FRA, but it caps out at 70.

WW
.
.
.

Loading…

www.ssa.gov

 

[beagle9]

I wrote in effect that the caps put on income made after one decides to draw early (if one decides to draw at 62 or later), should be dropped. No reason for caps to be placed on added income by any SS recipient who draws at anytime after age 62.

If need be the adjustment could be to the check amount downward if one decides to draw early at 62. Instead of the check being $800.00 dollar's per month, it can be adjusted downward to $600.00 dollars per month if draw early and want to remain working.

Example: If decide to draw early, then the check could be adjusted downward to a lower number, otherwise if were to draw early in order to eliminate the cap on added income of a person that wants to keep working and paying into the program..... The caps need to be removed in so that the recipient can be incentivised to remain in the workforce at no penalty, even though one started to draw a reduced check amount at 62 or beyond with no caps added.

The incentive not to draw at 62 is the low number of the social security check under penalty of drawing it early. This has nothing to do with a person wanting to remain in the workforce.

The adjustment in the check that penalizes early withdraw at 62 would facilitate an incentive for worker's to keep working at 62 even though they needed (for whatever financial reasoning), to draw on their social security at the age of 62.

Example - Say I want to start drawing at 62, and let's say that at 62 instead of my check being $800.00 it will be $600.00 dollars under penalty of drawing early.

Now let's look at the above with no caps on income involved.

Example: So I remain working even though I decided that I needed my social security check to start at 62.

So I receive my earned SS check of $600.00 dollars under penalty in which was determined in that amount because I drew early.

However, I remain in the workforce with no limits on what I can make in which allows me to contribute to the SS program for other's that are coming in from behind or up the ladder. Why not ?????

So I'm only getting what I deserve and have worked for over those many year's, even though I decided to start collecting at 62, but I still remain in the workforce in which allows me to continue to contribute to the program that no longer is benefiting me because I've locked myself in at 62.

If I would have waited to max beneficial draw at age 67 for example, then of course I would draw the max benefit sure, but I might not be healthy enough to be in the workforce as an active contributor to the program in that way, but NOW you want to tell me that I can make all the extra income I can make without any penalty applied ?????

How ridiculous is this bull chit system the way it is set up ??


You wrote - Under the logic you propose (No Caps and (((lower benefits are removed))) and the full SS amount restored at 65***) ??

Me - Not what I said nor did I imply.

You -there would be no reason that EVERYONE wouldn't take SS at 62 and a return to full benefits at 65.

Me - This is not what I said nor did I imply.

So in summary the system seems to be designed and set up to disincentivise the elderly or seniors from living their older year's with dignity and hope (i.e. those who have to rely on their social security incomes and benefits by no fault of their own).

No, the system would rather have seniors or the elderly living in poverty, and sadly in other ways losing everything they have got before then giving up and dying early. This is in hopes to free up that money for more waste, fraud, and abuse at the hands of those who are dirty in government.

Uh oh, the wife disagreed with my take on reducing the check (if draw at 62), to any lesser of an amount than it already is under penalty. If were to draw early for whatever reason needed, and given the formula is still sufficient, then no changes in what will be drawn on will be or should be changed/reduced. Only the cap should be removed she said.

She said she agreed with me on the removal of the cap on income allowed to be made by any SS recipient after the activation of their SS is completed anytime from 62 up to full retirement age.

Why ?

Because back when she activated hers, she was then forced to change to part time in order to avoid making to much income in violation of the cap on income she was allowed to make. How stupid is this ???? In a time when this nation is struggling severely in retaining trained talented seasoned employee's in the job market, we have a federally run retirement plan that punishes people if they decide to work on after activating their earned SS plan at any level after turn 62.

Do away with the caps on income after a recipient decides to draw whether it's at 62 or up to 67, and watch how people remain in the workforce paying into SS with their employer's matching their pay in, and SS getting an injection of revenue needed to keep the plan alive and kicking for the young Americans of the future.

 

[beagle9]

The income cap is lifted once you reach Full Retirement Age for anyone born after January 1st, 1960 that is 67.

If you continue to have wage income after full retrirement age, and you aren't drawing SS, you earn Delayed Retrirement Credits until you reach age 70. These will increase your benefit over what it would have been at FRA, but it caps out at 70.

WW
.
.
.

Loading…

www.ssa.gov

End caps and penalties on Americans who want to remain fully engaged in the workforce after drawing on their earned retirement plan anytime from 62 to 67 or beyond.

Caps are ridiculous and are a backaswards outdated idea that was thought up by a not so bright individual way back in the day. Want to MAGA, then work on changing failed idea's and therefore replacing them with updated and/or new ideas.

 

[WorldWatcher]

End caps and penalties on Americans who want to remain fully engaged in the workforce after drawing on their earned retirement plan anytime from 62 to 67 or beyond.

Caps are ridiculous and are a backaswards outdated idea that was thought up by a not so bright individual way back in the day. Want to MAGA, then work on changing failed idea's and therefore replacing them with updated and/or new ideas.

The purpose of eliminating the cap on early retirement at age 62 is intended to increase the benefits check right.

Which is good for the individual, no question.

Now scale that up and look at the impact.

High income workers are going to take the benefit as extra income, why not. Someone earning $100,000 thousand per year is going to see their FRA benefit reduced from say $3000 per month to $2,000 per month (about 30%). That means:

• The combined EE/ER FICA tax for SS will be $12,400
• The benefit amount paid to the EE will be $24,000

The net is that the SS Administration will have in INCREASE is expenditures without a corresponding increase in revenue. The early retiree will cost the system more than the early retiree will replace because they are still working.

When you scale that up to the total population of retirees between age 62 and FRA, that is an additional potential cost of BILLIONS more monthly without at least matching additional revenue.

Now, the Trust is scheduled to be exhausted in 2034 with an expected CUT of 25% when the system as to go total pay/go (where benefits can only be paid by revenues because there is no money left in the Trust). That will accelerate the exhaustion of the Trust meaning the 25% cut to benefits for everyone will come years earlier.

So how you going to feel in a few years when your current SS is cut by 25% so that higher payout to early retirees can be made?

WW

 

[initforme]

What is it they say? "Do what you love and you'll never work a day in your life."

Laughable. If your work is a hobby then yes.

 

[beagle9]

The purpose of eliminating the cap on early retirement at age 62 is intended to increase the benefits check right.

Which is good for the individual, no question.

Now scale that up and look at the impact.

High income workers are going to take the benefit as extra income, why not. Someone earning $100,000 thousand per year is going to see their FRA benefit reduced from say $3000 per month to $2,000 per month (about 30%). That means:

• The combined EE/ER FICA tax for SS will be $12,400
• The benefit amount paid to the EE will be $24,000

The net is that the SS Administration will have in INCREASE is expenditures without a corresponding increase in revenue. The early retiree will cost the system more than the early retiree will replace because they are still working.

When you scale that up to the total population of retirees between age 62 and FRA, that is an additional potential cost of BILLIONS more monthly without at least matching additional revenue.

Now, the Trust is scheduled to be exhausted in 2034 with an expected CUT of 25% when the system as to go total pay/go (where benefits can only be paid by revenues because there is no money left in the Trust). That will accelerate the exhaustion of the Trust meaning the 25% cut to benefits for everyone will come years earlier.

So how you going to feel in a few years when your current SS is cut by 25% so that higher payout to early retirees can be made?

WW

No, not to increase the check itself, but only to increase the total income of the individual that will include the amount of the check in that total income for which is in part still worked for. It's not for higher SS payouts at all.

Simple - It's a ridiculous thing to cap wages on social security recipients that want to continue working in the private sector without a cap being imposed, otherwise this is after one might decide to draw their earned social security check anywhere along the qualifying lines from age 62 to 67 year's of age because it is their choice.

Nothing changes on the qualifications needed to begin to draw a check be it at either 62 (the earliest one can draw), and up to 67 or above.

If draw early at 62, 63, 64, 65 or 66, then the check will be penalized because of that decision made by a qualifying recipient to draw early. The being penalized for early withdrawal is enough. No further penalties should occur, and the cap should be removed.

Ok, so let's say that a recipient begins drawing at any qualifying point along the time line between 62 and 67, otherwise where the qualifying age is met in all scenarios, and next they begin drawing a penalized amount due to early withdrawal if one was to do so between 62 and 66.

Then the person says to themselves, that this little bit of money isn't something that one could actually live on, so he or she decides to re-enter the workforce at full duty while drawing, but maybe one would enter into a job that isn't as taxing on the individual as the one that forced the person to retire early in the first place.

So let's say that Rita has to retire from a certain type of job, and this was all due to health problem's that aren't qualifying her for disability. So she takes on a full time job at 64, but the job doesn't pay her what she was making at her former employment. So Rita says to herself, hey I'll go ahead and draw my Social Security check while working at this job in which I can physically do, and my Social security check will help me to fill in a gap where my pay had been cut significantly due to me no longer being able to work full time in that type of job field any longer.

Now why would the government put a cap on Rita's income after $23,000 dollar's is made, and then do so just because she had to begin drawing her earned Social Security check at 64 as a security blanket that will assist her by filling the gap due to an extreme change in her overall income ????

Now why would the government say to the person that if they decide to return to work, that they can only make around $23,000 dollars against the already penalized check that will be deducted one dollar for every two dollar's made after the $23,000 dollar mark is crossed ??

Make it make sense !!!

It seems to me that Social Security is set up in various ways that attempts to stop people from thinking that they might be entitled to a percentage of their money back that they paid into Social Security for many many year's.

The threatening age moving, and the penalties levied are disincentives that might be hoped for by the government to try and deter a person from drawing or maybe even dying before they can draw that which was taken from them by the government over many year's of the person's working class life.

Drop the caps on incomes made after drawing if one decides to keep working, and watch as the program is shored up due to a recipient paying into the system in which the recipient decides to do by working a full time job even after retiring from a job they could no longer physically do anymore. Win, win, win..