mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 10, 2011 22:22:19 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 1:07:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2011 22:28:38 GMT -5
"The commission, co-chaired by Bowles, President Clinton’s former chief of staff, and former Senate Republican Whip Alan Simpson, recommended slowing the future growth of Social Security retirement benefits, particularly for higher earners, increasing taxes on higher earners, and raising the eligibility age for collecting benefits, except for workers with physically demanding jobs."
Well giddyup... what is so hard (other than the political ramification from some baby boomer crybabies) about doing this?
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 11, 2011 8:23:10 GMT -5
Despite what you are entitled to receive, no married couple can receive over $3,600 per month combined. I was shocked to find this out. Yes, you are entitled, but no, we cannot give you what you earned. There are already catch 22's in SS.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 1:07:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2011 8:25:32 GMT -5
Despite what you are entitled to receive, no married couple can receive over $3,600 per month combined. I was shocked to find this out. Yes, you are entitled, but no, we cannot give you what you earned. There are already catch 22's in SS. Crybaby baby boomer #1. ;D
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 11, 2011 8:34:29 GMT -5
Screw you Arch! Get a better job so you can support me in the manner to which I have become accustomed. They are not going to cut present recipients, because we always vote. Now get back to work. Oh, yes, reproduce, reproduce, reproduce. The way around this catch is to divorce and live together.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 1:07:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2011 8:39:10 GMT -5
Screw you Arch! Get a better job so you can support me in the manner to which I have become accustomed. They are not going to cut present recipients, because we always vote. Now get back to work. Oh, yes, reproduce, reproduce, reproduce. The way around this catch is to divorce and live together. If you are at the level where you hit the married max, but could get slightly more in aggregate by being divorced, it means you were earning a very nice salary for a very long time. Is it really worth divorcing your wife over a few extra bucks?
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 11, 2011 8:42:54 GMT -5
Arch, to deprive you pups, yes! After 32 years, the piece of paper doesn't matter. Man up and support us like we did for the generation before us. I think the pups are the real cry babies! Eliminating the max on deductions would more than solve any perceived problem.
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Mar 11, 2011 8:43:55 GMT -5
Thanks mmhm, it is a very good article, and just one more piece of the finicial earthquake puzzle facing the country.
Bluerobin, can you provide a link to the source of your $3600 oer month per couple limit? I'm not disputing it, I'd just like to read more about it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 1:07:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2011 8:45:56 GMT -5
Arch, to deprive you pups, yes! After 32 years, the piece of paper doesn't matter. Man up and support us like we did for the generation before us. I think the pups are the real cry babies! Eliminating the max on deductions would more than solve any perceived problem. But the piece of paper does matter. Even more so as you become old and cranky. Inheritance, estate, medical and many other extremely important issues are tied to that piece of paper.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 1:07:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2011 8:47:14 GMT -5
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 11, 2011 8:56:19 GMT -5
Henry, check Arch's link. The $3,600 was in some of the literature I got this week, after signing up last week. Yes, I am taking it early, just to get on the rolls. Most of our funds are joint and would stay that way if we divorced, so inheritance isn't that big a deal.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Mar 11, 2011 8:58:33 GMT -5
You're welcome, Henry. I found the article very informative. I knew some of it, but learned a couple of things, as well.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 1:07:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2011 9:03:14 GMT -5
Henry, check Arch's link. The $3,600 was in some of the literature I got this week, after signing up last week. Yes, I am taking it early, just to get on the rolls. Most of our funds are joint and would stay that way if we divorced, so inheritance isn't that big a deal. I wouldn't be so sure of that.. A jointly owned fund between two non spouses is not treated the same as a jointly owned fund between two spouses. The later is better for tax purposes.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Mar 11, 2011 9:30:25 GMT -5
"The commission, co-chaired by Bowles, President Clinton’s former chief of staff, and former Senate Republican Whip Alan Simpson, recommended slowing the future growth of Social Security retirement benefits, particularly for higher earners, increasing taxes on higher earners, and raising the eligibility age for collecting benefits, except for workers with physically demanding jobs." Well giddyup... what is so hard (other than the political ramification from some baby boomer crybabies) about doing this? So pay more, get less in benefits for a shorter amount of time, but don't even mention privatizing a portion of it because the stock market is just too risky to put funds into since they aren't guaranteed? By the way, I'm not even close to being a Boomer.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 11, 2011 9:33:33 GMT -5
Arch, we have played so many games with our finances, I would have to consult with the lawyer and accountant. Bottom line is we will still have each other's POA, etc. Another minus is an individual can have income of $25 K, while married couples only get $32 K before SS becomes taxable. Whew! More tax avoidance to come!
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 11, 2011 9:37:27 GMT -5
Well giddyup... what is so hard (other than the political ramification from some baby boomer crybabies) about doing this?You callin' me a cry baby? I take umbrage to that insult....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 1:07:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2011 9:38:59 GMT -5
"The commission, co-chaired by Bowles, President Clinton’s former chief of staff, and former Senate Republican Whip Alan Simpson, recommended slowing the future growth of Social Security retirement benefits, particularly for higher earners, increasing taxes on higher earners, and raising the eligibility age for collecting benefits, except for workers with physically demanding jobs." Well giddyup... what is so hard (other than the political ramification from some baby boomer crybabies) about doing this? So pay more, get less in benefits for a shorter amount of time, but don't even mention privatizing a portion of it because the stock market is just too risky to put funds into since they aren't guaranteed? By the way, I'm not even close to being a Boomer. I am nor sure about privatization. Personally, I would love to control the money I am now sending to social security, but as an overall strategy I am not sure that is the best thing to do. maybe if they split social security into a couple of pieces, ie. the retirement piece, the disability piece, etc... Then I could see a better argument for privatizing the retirement portion of social security.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 1:07:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2011 9:39:41 GMT -5
Arch, we have played so many games with our finances, I would have to consult with the lawyer and accountant. Bottom line is we will still have each other's POA, etc. Another minus is an individual can have income of $25 K, while married couples only get $32 K before SS becomes taxable. Whew! More tax avoidance to come! Good to hear that you have professional guidance.. I hope I am in your shoes in 40 years.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 11, 2011 9:39:58 GMT -5
So pay more, get less in benefits for a shorter amount of time, but don't even mention privatizing a portion of it because the stock market is just too risky to put funds into since they aren't guaranteed? By the way, I'm not even close to being a Boomer.
I have posted numerous times here and on the old forums, that the full retirement age can easily be increased by, let's say three to six months for folks like me, and do it on an upward scale by age ranges, just as an example. Delaying the collection by three to six months could save billions.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 1:07:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2011 9:40:05 GMT -5
Well giddyup... what is so hard (other than the political ramification from some baby boomer crybabies) about doing this?You callin' me a cry baby? I take umbrage to that insult.... If the jersey shore bathing suit fits....
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 11, 2011 9:41:37 GMT -5
If the jersey shore bathing suit fits....You are just jealous because I have a Love Nest, and a hot Russian GF.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 11, 2011 9:43:05 GMT -5
Despite what you are entitled to receive, no married couple can receive over $3,600 per month combined. I was shocked to find this out. Yes, you are entitled, but no, we cannot give you what you earned. There are already catch 22's in SS.
Isn't that gender discrimination?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 1:07:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2011 9:44:34 GMT -5
Despite what you are entitled to receive, no married couple can receive over $3,600 per month combined. I was shocked to find this out. Yes, you are entitled, but no, we cannot give you what you earned. There are already catch 22's in SS.Isn't that gender discrimination? It is marriage discrimination. The government wants us all to be single swingers.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 11, 2011 9:45:24 GMT -5
SF, the complete fix is to take the cap off the earnings limit subject to SS tax. Arch, you better be taking steps now to minimize taxes. Now for your age is when it counts the most! When I settled my mom's estate, the tax was about double for non children, but if an account is jointly held, it was only paid on half. With the POA's, I can almost guarantee the accounts will be almost empty when one spouse dies.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 11, 2011 9:46:10 GMT -5
but don't even mention privatizing a portion of it because the stock market is just too risky to put funds into since they aren't guaranteed?
The financials markets are comprised of more than equities. There is no greater risk and uncertainty, then having politically motivated politicians fooling around with your retirement benefits just to appease some special interest groups and militant activists. The social security system is already broke and has not cash reserves. It faces 10s of trillion in liabilities it has no money to cover as it stands right now.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 26, 2024 1:07:44 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2011 9:47:28 GMT -5
SF, the complete fix is to take the cap off the earnings limit subject to SS tax. Arch, you better be taking steps now to minimize taxes. Now for your age is when it counts the most! When I settled my mom's estate, the tax was about double for non children, but if an account is jointly held, it was only paid on half. With the POA's, I can almost guarantee the accounts will be almost empty when one spouse dies. My parents are working on their estate setup now. They recently inherited my grandmother's estate and they were not ready for it. Hopefully they are making wise choices.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 11, 2011 9:47:52 GMT -5
SF, the complete fix is to take the cap off the earnings limit subject to SS tax.
The cap is raised periodically as it is. Raising the cap will also raise the amount of benefits that would be paid.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Mar 11, 2011 9:48:03 GMT -5
So pay more, get less in benefits for a shorter amount of time, but don't even mention privatizing a portion of it because the stock market is just too risky to put funds into since they aren't guaranteed? By the way, I'm not even close to being a Boomer. I am nor sure about privatization. Personally, I would love to control the money I am now sending to social security, but as an overall strategy I am not sure that is the best thing to do. maybe if they split social security into a couple of pieces, ie. the retirement piece, the disability piece, etc... Then I could see a better argument for privatizing the retirement portion of social security. That would be the general idea. Personally I'd like to see something like a 50/50 split where you get the privatized part at say age 60, and the government portion kicks in at age 70. No need for early benefits since that is what is eligible at age 60 through the privatized portion. Also, if anything is left in that portion, it can get passed on to you family. I am open to the idea of passing it to them by placing it in there privatized SS accounts in order to avoid probate and help people hopefully build up these accounts over the course of a few generations.
|
|
|
Post by Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ on Mar 11, 2011 9:50:20 GMT -5
That would be the general idea. Personally I'd like to see something like a 50/50 split where you get the privatized part at say age 60, and the government portion kicks in at age 70.
If you think about this idea, the govt has already done this. This year, every wage earner's SS tax was reduced by 2%. I also point out that I thought this was not a good idea due to the problems SS is facing.
|
|
Politically_Incorrect12
Senior Member
With a little faith, we can move a mountain; with a little help, we can change the world.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:42:13 GMT -5
Posts: 3,763
|
Post by Politically_Incorrect12 on Mar 11, 2011 9:55:28 GMT -5
That would be the general idea. Personally I'd like to see something like a 50/50 split where you get the privatized part at say age 60, and the government portion kicks in at age 70.If you think about this idea, the govt has already done this. This year, every wage earner's SS tax was reduced by 2%. I also point out that I thought this was not a good idea due to the problems SS is facing. Is that 2% going into a privatized account? My guess is that at some income level, you would max out your benefits. I meant my remarks as more sarcastic toward all the people who complain about the markets being too unreliable while the government could and is considering different ideas that would change the rules. We could start by offering the same funds as those available through the TSP accounts offered to government employees.
|
|