And this is why you shouldn't follow online advice

[Ombud]

www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/121715/why-most-people-need-work-past-age-65.asp?partner=YahooSA

Margie Shard, CFP, CEO and wealth advisor at Shark Financial Services, Inc. in Fenton, Miss., says, “Drawing SSI before your full retirement age (FRA) will cause you to incur a penalty which reduces your benefit for the rest of your life.” And Shard tells Investopedia that some workers need to continue working even past the FRA. “Some individuals need to let their SSI grow until age 70 because the FRA amount isn’t enough to sustain them over their expected retirement life is good for the rest of your life. ”

meant SSA but if they're that uneducated about a very simple program, why would you trust them with more complex investment ideas?

Do you know of dumb articles?

[The Virginian]

This is nothing more than Government propaganda. If you take your retirement early versus waiting until you Full Retirement age - Because of the money you collect early it will take about 18 years just to break even on the money you collected early. The government knows full well that most will never live to reach the break even point even though they are collecting at a higher rate. Do the math - and make your own decisions. Don't listen to "CFP's", "CFA's"  " Financial Experts" or other "Money Leeches" - they are there for one reason only - to convince you you need them and they deserve a cut of your money !

[NoNamePerson]

Dec 17, 2015 20:37:54 GMT -5 Ombud said:

www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/121715/why-most-people-need-work-past-age-65.asp?partner=YahooSA

Margie Shard, CFP, CEO and wealth advisor at Shark Financial Services, Inc. in Fenton, Miss., says, “Drawing SSI before your full retirement age (FRA) will cause you to incur a penalty which reduces your benefit for the rest of your life.” And Shard tells Investopedia that some workers need to continue working even past the FRA. “Some individuals need to let their SSI grow until age 70 because the FRA amount isn’t enough to sustain them over their expected retirement life is good for the rest of your life. ”

meant SSA but if they're that uneducated about a very simple program, why would you trust them with more complex investment ideas?

Do you know of dumb articles?

Reminds me of how many articles/people screw up the difference between MEDICARE and MEDICAID. But I can't quote any articles without spending a lot of time going back and not gonna do it.   

And how many will read your quote wrong    

[verrip1]

Dec 17, 2015 20:37:54 GMT -5 Ombud said:

www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/121715/why-most-people-need-work-past-age-65.asp?partner=YahooSA

Margie Shard, CFP, CEO and wealth advisor at Shark Financial Services, Inc. in Fenton, Miss., says, “Drawing SSI before your full retirement age (FRA) will cause you to incur a penalty which reduces your benefit for the rest of your life.” And Shard tells Investopedia that some workers need to continue working even past the FRA. “Some individuals need to let their SSI grow until age 70 because the FRA amount isn’t enough to sustain them over their expected retirement life is good for the rest of your life. ”

meant SSA but if they're that uneducated about a very simple program, why would you trust them with more complex investment ideas?

Do you know of dumb articles?

Your premise goes unsupported.  Lots of people make minor mistakes without being uneducated or untrustworthy.  Taking a simple misspelling to denounce an entire article constitutes a red herring argument. 

But dumb articles do exist.  Go over to Morningstar and read articles by Christina Benz.  There's a lot of fodder there.

[Ombud]

That's just the most glaring error. The Virginian pointed out another

[verrip1]

Glare all you want.  Misspelling does not make the conclusion an error, glaring or otherwise. 

[Ombud]

Thankfully online we can agree to disagree RE relevance of not knowing the difference between 2 of the 3 programs (SSA, SSDI, SSI). You did know they were different programs with different benefit levels & eligibility, right?

[verrip1]

Dec 18, 2015 14:30:03 GMT -5 Ombud said:

Thankfully online we can agree to disagree RE relevance of not knowing the difference between 2 of the 3 programs (SSA, SSDI, SSI). You did know they were different programs with different benefit levels & eligibility, right?

You haven't shown that it is anything more than a spelling error.

It's not a difficult concept to understand. 

[NoNamePerson]

But the person giving advice on the subject apparently doesn't know the difference - you would think they would. It's not a matter of spelling. It's a matter of total misinformation.

It's like a so called expert saying you are eligible for Medicaid when you turn 65 - WRONG but should just chalk it up to a spelling error 

Gonna give advice then get your fact straight - novel idea I know!!

[verrip1]

Nobody has yet shown that Margie Shard doesn't know about Social Security.  Shard is a CFP, and a CEO and wealth advisor for an investment company.  Yet you assume that she's unknowledgeable about Social Security.  Quite a leap of prejudice.

If all you can do is hang your hat on is what could easily be a spelling or other minor error, then you've already made your minds up, and there's no possibility of an open minded discussion here.

Bash away. 

[Ombud]

If she's that knowledgeable, why does she apparently not know:

SSA based on work history, delaying benefits = increase in pymts

SSI based on federal poverty level for disabled, no relation to work history, impossible for individual to up benefit

SSDI based on work history for disabled

[NoNamePerson]

Maybe she needs to FIRE her proof reader then?? Or take a deep breath before publishing an article providing inaccurate information? I don't even know who this person is but apparently she puts herself out there as an expert - well I hope no one follows her advice cause they are in for a big surprise.

[verrip1]

[NoNamePerson]

If everyone agreed, there'd be no discussion here since everybody would have the same viewpoint. That is an impossibility.

[kadee79]

Ok, quiet little me is going to chime in here.

I don't care who wrote the article in the OP, they don't know what they are talking about. If that is "just" a spelling error then they better go back to school and learn how to spell!

Those are all different programs and if someone doesn't know the difference in them they have NO business telling ANYONE what would be in that person's best interests!

Glad I had better English teachers when I went to school!

[Ombud]

Dec 18, 2015 15:35:47 GMT -5 verrip1 said:

Shard is a CFP, and a CEO and wealth advisor for an investment company

of her own company with 3 employees. You make it sound like a Schwab, Fidelity, Vanguard, Hartford, Dodge & Cox, TD Ameritrade .... it's good she has 3 employees. Perhaps one of them can enlighten her to the error ( www.shardfinancial.com ). Just bc someone has letters behind their name doesn't mean that they have your best interests at heart

Unless your posts were tongue in cheek

[clarkrl2]

Ombud is clearly correct in pointing out this error. Even though the article mentions "Social Security Income (SSI)" in the previous paragraph that was quoted, the Social Security website uses this abbreviation for Supplemental Security Income. Supplemental Security Income is not paid using Social Security taxes as described in this article www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/EN-05-11000.pdf It was probably unintentional but a professional should not have use an abbreviation that is commonly used by the Social Security Administration to abbreviate something entirely different.

[thyme4change]

Proof reading is a lost art.  I can't think of the last time I read an on-line article that doesn't have at least one glaring error.  Some are spelling (or using the wrong there/their or two/too.)  Some are sentences that have missing or extra words.  I am not out looking for missing commas - but it is pretty obvious when your sentences doesn't make any sense.  Terrible.

[Ombud]

In that online writers are paid per click, this should at least bump up that income

[NoNamePerson]

Dec 19, 2015 11:34:55 GMT -5 thyme4change said:

Proof reading is a lost art.  I can't think of the last time I read an on-line article that doesn't have at least one glaring error.  Some are spelling (or using the wrong there/their or two/too.)  Some are sentences that have missing or extra words.  I am not out looking for missing commas - but it is pretty obvious when your sentences doesn't make any sense.  Terrible.

MSN articles drive me bonkers sometimes. There was one article where the main subject name was misspelled. Somewhere on the bottom there was a place to write (not in the replies) and I wrote them telling them how to spell the word correctly. Even said if they put it misspelled word in google the correct spelling came up. About 30 minutes later I was back on their site and the word had been corrected.  Who knew they would listen 

I saved a newspaper for years just because of an sports article that was written (in the 60's) that said things like - in the 4th 1/4 or after the 1st 1/2. The whole article was full of "fractions" It just struck me as funny since I had never seen this done in a newspaper. Wish I still had it but it got tossed during a move.

ETA: I just had to go back and see where I sent the note to MSN and it was by using the feedback feature.   Was bothering me that I couldn't remember where I did it - you know old age and the memory being the first thing to go - well besides the bod!!

[Ombud]

'Simple' errors can have drastic consequences. I was talking to someone at lunch today who said their tax preparer told them to not claim all their charitable contributions. They pay $3000 to 2 organizations each year but only claim 1 + $100 bc the 'CPA told them they would put up red flags if they claimed both.' They actually get a letter stating their annual contributions -- I know bc I get the same form. Now would you go with what the 'CPA' says or what the IRS guidelines say?

[NoNamePerson]

Dec 19, 2015 19:19:22 GMT -5 Ombud said:

'Simple' errors can have drastic consequences. I was talking to someone at lunch today who said their tax preparer told them to not claim all their charitable contributions. They pay $3000 to 2 organizations each year but only claim 1 + $100 bc the 'CPA told them they would put up red flags if they claimed both.' They actually get a letter stating their annual contributions -- I know bc I get the same form. Now would you go with what the 'CPA' says or what the IRS guidelines say?

Personally I think some "CPA's" tend to cause red flags to be put up. I always found it odd that clients of a certain CPA in our city seemed to be audited a lot. Only reason I knew this is that over the years some of their clients wound up in my bossy ladies practice. She would just shake her head at some of the things they told her the other CPA said/did.

I'm not a CPA or accountant I just worked for one for years and it was just she and I.