What can you tell us about people on long term disability working? Specifically, how safe do you think they are from losing benefits? Seems to me that advertising to those on disability, many who could still work some but don't out of fear of losing their benis, could add some cheap labor while paying at least a portion back of what they're collecting while increasing their standard of living. Win-win?
Privatizing Social Security
- Thread starter Revolution 9
- Start date
What can you tell us about people on long term disability working? Specifically, how safe do you think they are from losing benefits? Seems to me that advertising to those on disability, many who could still work some but don't out of fear of losing their benis, could add some cheap labor while paying at least a portion back of what they're collecting while increasing their standard of living. Win-win?
Well are we talking Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability (DIB, there is no short term social security disability or SSI)? You can earn up to 1,000 a month gross while on DIB before you runa real risk of losing your benenfits. Now once you earn over 720 gross a month while on DIB you open yourself up to a work review. They can determine during that review that you are able to return to work. So you best bet on working on DIB and RIB (pre FRA) is to take a part time job making 5-600 a month and call it a day. Keep in mind RIB and DIB count EARNED income, not income. That is going to work and getting paid. Privat pensions that did not wihthold SSA taxes and Workmans Comp also have a negative affect. A rather heavy one.
If you mean SSI then that is a whole new bag of worms. Of course there are exclusions and what not.
Edit: As for their work increasing their benefits while on benefits. WHile it is possible it is not terribly common. They take a wide view of what you have paid in. Most often younger people on DIB who do not have a big work history and elderly people make large amounts after FRA are more likely to increase their monthly amount thru work.
You do realize the difference accumulates, right?
TL;DNR
The money has to come from somewhere & someone is going to have to fall for a lie to get that money. So yeah, no, you are wrong. I'm all for protecting the truly needy so if you want to exclude this change progressively from below average wage earners then be my guest. I would prefer something like a five year bump though, where the lag is suddenly caught up. Saves money & builds in accountability while not pressing poor people too much.
I also like the idea of cutting payouts for those making about average income, or, in other words, more capable of saving for retirement & most likely to have skills that will be in demand well into their sixties, thus lowering their need for government assistance. For the record, this is a vote against my own pocketbook.
What exactly do you mean by "cutting payouts"? Are we talking someone on RIB? That may be the case depending on what you mean.
Say you have a guy that filed for retirement (RIB) and is age 63. He goes back to work and starts making 55,000 a year. Well after some quick math (see below) he will get hit for 20,180.00. Let us say that his payment is 1,500 a month. Well that man is no longer going to receive a check at all as long as he is earning money at that level. That comes out to 14 checks that need to be withheld in a 12 check period. Is that what you mean?
math:
Monthly RIB payment (MBA) = 1,500.00
Earnings: 55,000
Eranings limit: 14,640
55,000 - 14,640 = 40,360 / 2 (calander year of FRA you divide by 3 not 2)= 20,180.00
20,180 / 1,500 = 13.453
That means they try to withold 14 checks a year (they do not withold partial checks). Since there are only 12 checks (once a month) a year he gets nothing.
^^I don't know if the Bud Lights with limeade started early tonight or what...
What I'd like is making the "safety net" a safety net, which in large part means giving less to those who don't need it. My theory is those who earn more, on average, are working under higher demand/more stable job codes. They won't need the food bank contributions in large part & can work to support themselves, so they (future I) should be the ones who are targeted for the most severe cuts.
In short--let the stupid/unprepared/unmotivated get the cheese & let the rest of us earn our own.
What I'd like is making the "safety net" a safety net, which in large part means giving less to those who don't need it. My theory is those who earn more, on average, are working under higher demand/more stable job codes. They won't need the food bank contributions in large part & can work to support themselves, so they (future I) should be the ones who are targeted for the most severe cuts.
In short--let the stupid/unprepared/unmotivated get the cheese & let the rest of us earn our own.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
The Great Depression, with millions standing in the soup lines. . . dumped by employers stymied by no sales. . . with for the first time more people living off "jobs" than "farms" in this country. . . . "industrialized" nation standing on an "industrialized" economy. . . is what brought us to "social security" notions. In part it was the result of our having no more land to steal from the natives, no place for those in want to go to find a parcel of land to clear, with game to hunt, to just make do.
Some religions/churches try to help the poor, and people like that are something of a "safety net".
Where we first went wrong as a society is in trying to establish this religion as our State Religion.
The second place we went wrong is when we made our State Religion a Ponzi Scheme where the next generation has got to pay for the earlier one.
The third place we went wrong is when we set it up so the government could just "use" our money, for free.
The fourth place we went wrong is to let politicians promise more than they could pay, on the backs of future workers who haven't been born yet, and kids too young to work or vote.
The Supreme Court should be credited for some intellectual honesty for ruling that Social Security contributions, from employers and workers alike, are really just a "tax".
And the Legislature should just repeal the whole system, and budget for the care of the indigent at some rate.
I think the most accurate analysis of the whole situation would come to the conclusion that our social "safety net" programs are designed by the business honchos, and for the business honchos, who simply want a steady stream of customers buying their stuff, no matter who's paying for it. . . . as long as they aren't.
Yes.
Actually, I was giving cred to the board that I was looking forward to the thoughts, here, when I got to it. Nice contribution, babe.
mtnbayou
Member
Republicans should really just change their name to the Hypocrites.
You`ve got the whole Christian Republican hypocrisy thing, then you`ve got the Patriotism thing - they claim to be so patriotic, then they pretty much want to GET RID of the government. I hate to say they`re a bunch of idiots, I think most of them are simply uninformed, with some ignorance thrown in there. Then you have the super rich selfish people who just liked Bush`s tax cuts and nothing more.
You`ve got the whole Christian Republican hypocrisy thing, then you`ve got the Patriotism thing - they claim to be so patriotic, then they pretty much want to GET RID of the government. I hate to say they`re a bunch of idiots, I think most of them are simply uninformed, with some ignorance thrown in there. Then you have the super rich selfish people who just liked Bush`s tax cuts and nothing more.
So patritotism to you means loving the government?
I hate speaking with 'republicans' and 'democrats', both. I only enjoy discussing the country, the government, and our future with those that are independent thinkers and can speak to things specifically, rather than in broad-sweeping generalizations. As soon as I hear anyone say, "well, those damn republicans" .. or "those damn democrats" .. I tune them out because I feel everything from that point on is going to be a waste of time.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
I don't have an answer to this, but I'm inclined to think that we can strengthen the system and ensure its sustainability through tweaks to the system, or measured incremental changes, and that it doesn't require a complete or radical overhaul. I'm inclined also to oppose privatization, given that this is intended as the 'safety net, which is the very last line of defense against poverty in old age. I do not think we should put people, or allow them to put themselves, in a position where bad investments can leave them literally destitute. And when this does happen, the Fed Gov will be under pressure to bail these unfortunate souls out. Can you imagine what would have happend a few years ago at the beginning of the economic crisis if a significant number of soon to be retireds, or retireds, had their SS invested in the stock market?
I understand that over the lont-term, equity (stocks) is a good investment. Hell, I have my entire retirement portfolio is stocks, but I don't plan to cash out for a couple decades yet. The stock market ALWAYS goes up over the LT, but it can fluctuate significantly in the ST.
We tend to have a penchant for wanting the 'magic bullet' formula to solve problems, when in practice, they are often solved (or ameliorated) through incremental reforms over time. THAT is, I think, a much better way to approach to this and most public policy issues than the radical solution.
I understand that over the lont-term, equity (stocks) is a good investment. Hell, I have my entire retirement portfolio is stocks, but I don't plan to cash out for a couple decades yet. The stock market ALWAYS goes up over the LT, but it can fluctuate significantly in the ST.
We tend to have a penchant for wanting the 'magic bullet' formula to solve problems, when in practice, they are often solved (or ameliorated) through incremental reforms over time. THAT is, I think, a much better way to approach to this and most public policy issues than the radical solution.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
I'm inclined to think that this is one of the least accurate analyses of the whole situation.
Gyp Rosetti
Banned
Random thoughts. Any feedback would be much appreciated.
What's the exact equation to determine how much SS someone receives? What I believe I do know is that early retirement begins at age 62, full retirement at 67. One who chooses early retirement at 62 gets about 80% benefits. From there to 67, I imagine it's a sliding scale. One also needs at least 40 credits to collect. You can get a maximum of four credits per year, one per quarter, and need to only make $890 per quarter to get said credit. 6.2% of one's paycheck goes to SS but only on up to $90,000 of taxable income. How much of this am I wrong on? Any of it? Am I forgetting anything important?
What percentage of people retire early, between the ages of 62 and 66? I ask because I see that as a problem, somewhat at least. As our system stands now, if I'm understanding it correctly, someone who retires at 67 and gets paid in full at $1,000 (hypothetical number) a month, will receive $144,000 (ignoring interest/inflation for argument's sake) over their remaining years, up until their death at 79, the average age of death for Americans right now.
If someone retires early though, at age 62, and thus receives only 80% of full (the number I've seen thrown around for penalty), or $800 a month, up until the age of 79, they've received $163,200, while contributing less into the system as they retired five years early. Sure, they didn't really make more, because they did not have a job from the age of 62-67 but the fact is, if I'm understanding it correctly, more money is sucked from the SS funds despite the fact they contributed less. Big problem imo.
A bigger problem is how little the full retirement age has gone up over the years despite the huge increase in average life expectancy. Life expectancy has skyrocketed over the last 75 years yet the full retirement age for SS has not. Just plain silly imo.
If I'm fixing this issue, I:
*Raise early retirement age from 62 to 67, with a greater penalty for collecting early. Currently, one can retire at 62 and collect about 80% of their benefits. I'd lower that figure to about 75% (at new early retirement age of 67), and have a sliding scale where it goes up (75% at 67, 80%% at 68, 85% at 69, 100% at 70)...this should do a few things...obviously, it will push back paying any SS by five years. Much more will go into the system, less will come out, at least compared to our current model. It will also push the full retirement age back three more years, to 70, a number quite frankly that sounds scary. And at a certain point, people are gonna say **** it, I'm not working any more. It just doesn't make sense. I've worked a few more years than everyone else did in the past when they retired early at 62, and thus have more saved up. I don't need to. I'm outta here at 67. 75% of my bennies is just fine, considering how much more I've saved over the last five years of employment, as compared to my dad.
*Raise full retirement age from 67 to 70. This does two things. It lessens the gap between early retirement and full to three years from the five it currently sits at. It raises the full retirement age three years from 67 to 70. I see this as a great way to get a much greater number of people to retire early. Very few people want to work so close to death, unable to see their grandkids and kids mature, unable to enjoy their own twilight years. In my opinion of course. Another three years of employment, at that age, is a long effing time. The same sentiment as the previous paragraph stands here...that I think more people would retire early...but it would be at least five years later than they are currently at 62.
If they don't, and work toward 70 more than before, then only nine years (based on life expectancy) of SS is paid out, as compared to 12 years before. If they retire early, well, let's see.
In this scenario, at $1,000/month, one who retired at 70 would make $108,000 over the last nine years of their life.
Someone who retired early at 69 (85%) would make $102,000.
Someone who retired early at 68 (80%) would make $105,600.
Someone who retired early at 67 (75%) would make $108,000.
The amount they collect over the course of their remaining years, til 79, is no greater if they retire early or later. Now, quite obviously, if someone's worked 48 years instead of 45, at what is essentially the same salary over the last few years, they probably both don't get $1,000 a month. However, the difference would be nominal. Instead of $1,000, they may collect $1,065 or so.
Let me continue.
*Raise the number of credits from 40 to a much higher, yet attainable, figure of 100. To earn 40 credits, one simply needs to work 10 years--but not even on a full-time basis. They simply earned one credit for each quarter in which they earned $890. That's ludicrous. A stay at home mom could make this no problem on the side. A woman working at McDonalds can also make this working about 30 hours a week. I don't think that's too much to ask.
*I raise the amount we contribute per paycheck to a little greater percentage than 6.2% (7.25%) but keep the cap on employer contribution at the current figure.
*Lower the amount we get upon retirement by about 5%--from $1,000 to $950 in my scenario.
Let the flaming begin. I'm sure I've screwed up something, maybe a lot here, but these are my initial quick thoughts.
What's the exact equation to determine how much SS someone receives? What I believe I do know is that early retirement begins at age 62, full retirement at 67. One who chooses early retirement at 62 gets about 80% benefits. From there to 67, I imagine it's a sliding scale. One also needs at least 40 credits to collect. You can get a maximum of four credits per year, one per quarter, and need to only make $890 per quarter to get said credit. 6.2% of one's paycheck goes to SS but only on up to $90,000 of taxable income. How much of this am I wrong on? Any of it? Am I forgetting anything important?
What percentage of people retire early, between the ages of 62 and 66? I ask because I see that as a problem, somewhat at least. As our system stands now, if I'm understanding it correctly, someone who retires at 67 and gets paid in full at $1,000 (hypothetical number) a month, will receive $144,000 (ignoring interest/inflation for argument's sake) over their remaining years, up until their death at 79, the average age of death for Americans right now.
If someone retires early though, at age 62, and thus receives only 80% of full (the number I've seen thrown around for penalty), or $800 a month, up until the age of 79, they've received $163,200, while contributing less into the system as they retired five years early. Sure, they didn't really make more, because they did not have a job from the age of 62-67 but the fact is, if I'm understanding it correctly, more money is sucked from the SS funds despite the fact they contributed less. Big problem imo.
A bigger problem is how little the full retirement age has gone up over the years despite the huge increase in average life expectancy. Life expectancy has skyrocketed over the last 75 years yet the full retirement age for SS has not. Just plain silly imo.
If I'm fixing this issue, I:
*Raise early retirement age from 62 to 67, with a greater penalty for collecting early. Currently, one can retire at 62 and collect about 80% of their benefits. I'd lower that figure to about 75% (at new early retirement age of 67), and have a sliding scale where it goes up (75% at 67, 80%% at 68, 85% at 69, 100% at 70)...this should do a few things...obviously, it will push back paying any SS by five years. Much more will go into the system, less will come out, at least compared to our current model. It will also push the full retirement age back three more years, to 70, a number quite frankly that sounds scary. And at a certain point, people are gonna say **** it, I'm not working any more. It just doesn't make sense. I've worked a few more years than everyone else did in the past when they retired early at 62, and thus have more saved up. I don't need to. I'm outta here at 67. 75% of my bennies is just fine, considering how much more I've saved over the last five years of employment, as compared to my dad.
*Raise full retirement age from 67 to 70. This does two things. It lessens the gap between early retirement and full to three years from the five it currently sits at. It raises the full retirement age three years from 67 to 70. I see this as a great way to get a much greater number of people to retire early. Very few people want to work so close to death, unable to see their grandkids and kids mature, unable to enjoy their own twilight years. In my opinion of course. Another three years of employment, at that age, is a long effing time. The same sentiment as the previous paragraph stands here...that I think more people would retire early...but it would be at least five years later than they are currently at 62.
If they don't, and work toward 70 more than before, then only nine years (based on life expectancy) of SS is paid out, as compared to 12 years before. If they retire early, well, let's see.
In this scenario, at $1,000/month, one who retired at 70 would make $108,000 over the last nine years of their life.
Someone who retired early at 69 (85%) would make $102,000.
Someone who retired early at 68 (80%) would make $105,600.
Someone who retired early at 67 (75%) would make $108,000.
The amount they collect over the course of their remaining years, til 79, is no greater if they retire early or later. Now, quite obviously, if someone's worked 48 years instead of 45, at what is essentially the same salary over the last few years, they probably both don't get $1,000 a month. However, the difference would be nominal. Instead of $1,000, they may collect $1,065 or so.
Let me continue.
*Raise the number of credits from 40 to a much higher, yet attainable, figure of 100. To earn 40 credits, one simply needs to work 10 years--but not even on a full-time basis. They simply earned one credit for each quarter in which they earned $890. That's ludicrous. A stay at home mom could make this no problem on the side. A woman working at McDonalds can also make this working about 30 hours a week. I don't think that's too much to ask.
*I raise the amount we contribute per paycheck to a little greater percentage than 6.2% (7.25%) but keep the cap on employer contribution at the current figure.
*Lower the amount we get upon retirement by about 5%--from $1,000 to $950 in my scenario.
Let the flaming begin. I'm sure I've screwed up something, maybe a lot here, but these are my initial quick thoughts.
Being "inclined to think" can be a good thing. Following through on the inclination can be a journey of revising a lot of dearly-beloved ideas.
@Wes--I agree with most of this. The main issue I see is older folks who cannot obtain replacement jobs & find there way onto the disability roles until full retirement kicks in. We would have to formulate some sort of hire the oldies incentives, & that's a can of worms.
According to this, the penalty for retiring early is already scaling in heavier each year. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/quickcalc/earlyretire.html
Also, if you were suggesting that a stay-at-home mother could easily earn the same benefit then you're mistaken on how the program is set up. The housewife would collect more under her husband's earnings anyway, so it's not like taking a part time job here or there would bump up their payout.
According to this, the penalty for retiring early is already scaling in heavier each year. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/quickcalc/earlyretire.html
Also, if you were suggesting that a stay-at-home mother could easily earn the same benefit then you're mistaken on how the program is set up. The housewife would collect more under her husband's earnings anyway, so it's not like taking a part time job here or there would bump up their payout.
You are right overall. You do have some outdated info however.
In 2012 you need to earn 1130.00 groos to earn 1 wuarter of coverage (QC).
Up to 110,100 is taxable by Social Security in 2012.
Those figures go up due to the state of various indexes (not sure which ones to be honest).
You do need 40 QCs to retire but once you have them you have them. As for your "sliding scale" on getting penalyzed for retiring early. It already exists. It goes by month. For every month earlier you retire you take a little harder of a hit. However the reverse is true. Let us say that your full retirement age is 67 but you retire and file for benefits at 68-70. Well you are given "delayed retirement credits (DRCs) that allow you to receive over your 100%.