# Coronavirus pandemic could wipe out Social Security 4 years earlier than predicted



## Knight (May 30, 2020)

If this model is anywhere near becoming a reality. I wonder what politicians are going to be promising in order to get votes. 


Coronavirus pandemic could wipe out Social Security 4 years earlier than predicted: Wharton Model

Revenue into Social Security has been steadily declining since the start of the coronavirus pandemic in three primary ways, according to the Wharton Model. 

“First, the loss of jobs, especially concentrated among low-wage workers, reduces payroll tax revenues,” its analysis explains. “The size of this effect increases with the length of the recession. Second, lower interest rates reduce the interest income received by the Trust Fund. Third, a prolonged period of low inflation reduces earnings for all workers and, therefore, reduces tax revenue received by the Trust Fund.”

Blunting the impact of the depressed revenue is the reduction of costs to the fund, which have been steadily ballooning throughout the years.

“First, the coronavirus increases mortality rates (skewed towards those of retirement age), which reduces total benefits paid out of the Trust Fund,” the model explained.

Low inflation has also reduced the ‘Cost of Living Adjustment’ (COLA) adjustments made to benefit payments. And lastly, initial benefits claimed at retirement have also been reduced due to a lower earnings history of beneficiaries and a reduction in the Average Wage Index (AWI) that is applied to initial benefits. 

Social Security benefits are indexed to the AWI, which is the average wage of each worker each year.

“The smaller AWI reduces benefits even for near retirees who maintain their employment during the pandemic,” the analysis stated. 


https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/...y-4-years-sooner-wharton-model-191101417.html

Seems logical to me if the pandemic would cause reduction in benefits and the deficit climbs with taxes supporting paying for both. Politicians will have to be creative in spinning what seems inevitable to me.


----------



## Robert59 (May 30, 2020)

When will Social Security end?


----------



## Judycat (May 30, 2020)

So 2030 instead of 2034?


----------



## Liberty (May 30, 2020)

This might help:

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/s...hange-in-trust-fund-depletion-date-2020-05-06


----------



## Judycat (May 30, 2020)

I knew someone who was so upset by these kinds of  reports he took a shotgun and killed himself.  Please don't worry.


----------



## Knight (May 30, 2020)

Liberty said:


> This might help:
> 
> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/s...hange-in-trust-fund-depletion-date-2020-05-06


Note that in my last sentence   reduction of benefits was what I posted.

In your post the wording from the article included this.

Any package, however, that restores balance only for the next 75 years will show a deficit in the following year, as the projection period picks up a year with a large negative balance. Realistically, eliminating the 75-year shortfall should probably be viewed as the first step toward long-run solvency.

What does exhaustion of the trust fund mean? The exhaustion of the trust fund does not mean that Social Security is “bankrupt.” Payroll tax revenues keep rolling in and can cover about 75% of currently legislated benefits over the remainder of the projection period. Relying on only current tax revenues, however, means that the replacement rate — benefits relative to preretirement earnings — for the typical age-65 worker would drop by more than 25%.

Increasing taxes to pay for the deficit & extend the current to the original 2036 date & beyond seem to me to be the solution, but politicians want to keep their place so it will be interesting.

Would also like to point out the use of the word could in the opinion not to word will. If I were in my 50's I'd be looking at ways to supplement my retirement income instead of depending on Soc. Sec. as the sole source.


----------



## C'est Moi (May 30, 2020)

Knight said:


> If I were in my 50's I'd be looking at ways to supplement my retirement income instead of depending on Soc. Sec. as the sole source.



If you were "in your 50's??"   Every single working person of any age should not plan on SS to be their sole source of income unless abject poverty is their goal. SS was never meant to be a sole source so I saved and invested as much as I could for retirement my entire working life.

Also, your thread title says "WIPE OUT SS", which leaves one to assume you meant that it will no longer exist.


----------



## Knight (May 30, 2020)

C'est Moi said:


> If you were "in your 50's??"   Every single working person of any age should not plan on SS to be their sole source of income unless abject poverty is their goal. SS was never meant to be a sole source so I saved and invested as much as I could for retirement my entire working life.
> 
> Also, your thread title says "WIPE OUT SS", which leaves one to assume you meant that it will no longer exist.


My reason for 50's was the timeline is short so taking some action now would be advisable. IMO younger as in 40's and younger would see what happened and be more in tune with planning.

As for "WIPE OUT SS", the word could as opposed to "WILL"  makes all the difference.  Opinion the world COULD end tomorrow.  Opinion stated as fact the world WILL end tomorrow.


----------



## Don M. (May 30, 2020)

With more and more retirees every year, most of whom Vote, the politicians would be looking for a new job if they allowed SS to fail.  However, like most issues, Washington probably won't do much until this becomes a problem.  The sooner they begin to react, the less "invasive" the solution would be.  Raising the "caps" would be the most logical solution, at this point, and I fully expect some "means testing" to begin that would lower the benefits for those who have other retirement funding.  

With fewer companies offering "defined pensions", It falls on the shoulders of everyone to realize that they, too, will one day retire, and they better start saving early in their careers....401K, etc.


----------



## Aunt Bea (May 30, 2020)

I was always told that SS was only intended to replace approx. 40% of an average person's pre-retirement income and the rest was to come from pension savings and investments, the old three-legged stool of retirement.

IMO they should remove the annual cap on contributions for two reasons.  The first and most obvious reason is that it would mean wealthier people would contribute more to the fund.  The second less obvious reason is that it would benefit people who have a few high earning years and a few low earning years to accumulate a larger SS benefit if they were paying in more during those high earning years.

SS may change or be replaced by a new program but the fact is that the average American is hooked on the government subsidy of retirement in some form.   We will never return to the days of independence and personal responsibility that existed before The New Deal.


----------



## mathjak107 (May 31, 2020)

social security will be fully funded in the 11th hour .... you see how fast trillions can be found , when needed ...

they can fully fund social security today simply by raising the employer side 1.25% and the employee side 1.25% and removing the wage cap ... done!


----------



## treeguy64 (May 31, 2020)

When I was in my working prime, SS was never a part of my conscious financial planning. When a friend told me I could start getting SS at 62, I was pleasantly surprised, and figured that was the way I'd go. It was a little, monthly bonus. Cool!

Don't bother explaining about how deferring SS can lead to bigger checks. I know that. I also know that government actuarials  know that its in their best interests to con folks into putting off taking SS, because the odds of their dying, before they get a penny, increases as they age. 

To plan on living off of only SS is, for most, to consign yourself to a life of near-poverty.


----------



## mathjak107 (May 31, 2020)

treeguy64 said:


> When I was in my working prime, SS was never a part of my conscious financial planning. When a friend told me I could start getting SS at 62, I was pleasantly surprised, and figured that was the way I'd go. It was a little, monthly bonus. Cool!
> 
> Don't bother explaining about how deferring SS can lead to bigger checks. I know that. I also know that government actuarials  know that its in their best interests to con folks into putting off taking SS, because the odds of their dying, before they get a penny, increases as they age.
> 
> To plan on living off of only SS is, for most, to consign yourself to a life of near-poverty.


actually , today it is the reverse , especially for married couples ...

odds of one in a couple living until 85  and collecting those 70% bigger checks if they started at 70 is a whopping 73%   ....so they would pay out more today if everyone delayed since more of us are living to older ages ... we are not going out much in maximum age anymore but more of us are seeing 80,s and 90's ....with a couple you have two horses in the race and either can outlive the other ... so to many delaying is not a good thing .

dying early and collecting less is even better  for them .


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Jun 1, 2020)

Yes, I read this the other day. When I first joined this forum I posted about the projected SS cuts and nobody wanted to listen. People said something like "oh they won't let that happen".  I would rather they be right but the forecasts are getting more dire.


----------



## Knight (Jun 1, 2020)

OneEyedDiva said:


> Yes, I read this the other day. When I first joined this forum I posted about the projected SS cuts and nobody wanted to listen. People said something like "oh they won't let that happen".  I would rather they be right but the forecasts are getting more dire.


For me 12 or 14 years from now I doubt if the best guessing by those that follow what Soc. Sec. might do relative to reduction in benefits won't matter.  It just seems to me that so much tax revenue not going into the fund will have a negative impact Reduction being the key word.  So much impacting the federal budget now I think once the smoke clears the talk will turn to where to get the money to fund the deficit, soc. sec.  & social help programs.


----------



## fmdog44 (Jun 2, 2020)

Taking SS at 62 is in most cases foolish.


----------



## Knight (Jun 2, 2020)

fmdog44 said:


> Taking SS at 62 is in most cases foolish.


What are some cases that wouldn't be foolish


----------



## CatGuy (Jun 2, 2020)

Every circumstance is different. Calling someone "foolish" because they choose to take their benefits at the earliest chance is a fool's game in itself. Do what you think is right for you, and let others do the same.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jun 2, 2020)

Social Security is one of those catch-22 situations where the more you need it the longer you should probably wait to start drawing it.

I agree with @CatGuy we each need to do the math and make our own decision.


----------



## oldmontana (Jun 2, 2020)

fmdog44 said:


> Taking SS at 62 is in most cases foolish.


But in some cases its necessary to keep paying for ones needs.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jun 3, 2020)

Aunt Bea said:


> Social Security is one of those catch-22 situations where the more you need it the longer you should probably wait to start drawing it.
> 
> I agree with @CatGuy we each need to do the math and make our own decision.


it is catch 22 though ... those who retire at 62 and need the bigger payment usually don't have the option to delay and spend down what they do have.  the irony is  most who retire pre fra  don't really have the option  or they have to live such a reduced lifestyle while waiting that it makes no sense to delay


----------



## mathjak107 (Jun 3, 2020)

Knight said:


> What are some cases that wouldn't be foolish



when is taking ss early not foolish ?   likely more often than delaying for many .

when you want to retire and don't have the assets to safely lay out fronting yourself the ss you are not collecting .

when large spousal benefits are involved delaying can cost you a whole lot more up front .... my wife couldn't get an extra 4500 a year in ss until i filed .


also when you are spending down invested assets or assets that could be invested if you had ss coming in .

it can take 22 years to just see the same real return delaying ss  when  spending down a balanced portfolio to live on for 8 years while delaying .

you have to live on something , so that is either assets invested or money that could be invested .

in fact statistically the balanced portfolio stands a better chance of seeing a 6% real return then you do living until 95 . which is what it takes to see a 6% real return from ss delaying vs spending down your own assets up front .


----------



## mathjak107 (Jun 3, 2020)

when does it pay to delay ?

1. It’s cheap longevity insurance.

2. Don’t need the money now.

3. Good health and family history of longevity.

4. Increase survivor benefit for lower benefit spouse.

5. Take advantage of spousal claiming strategies if still available.

6. Spend or convert to Roth tax deferred savings before RMD’s start.

7. Convert to Roth to leave heirs tax free income.

8. Allow more money to convert to Roth within marginal tax rate.

9. Avoid increase in ACA premiums.

10. Catastrophic market loss insurance.

11. Working part time and making above the limit




the other factor is those who NEED  the bigger ss check likely don't have the assets to lay out to delay and retire at 62 ...

so delaying is more about the perks that go with having the assets and the choice of delaying rather than delaying because you dont have the assets .

this is why only 2% of ss receivers file at 70, they cant afford to retire and not take it .


----------



## treeguy64 (Jun 3, 2020)

Knight said:


> What are some cases that wouldn't be foolish


1. In cases where somebody really needs the extra money, ASAP, and has no other recourse.
2. Where somebody is extremely well-off, and figures,  "What the Hell, the Feds are hoping I defer this little, extra income for as long as possible, and die before I ever see a penny of it."

In putting pencil to paper, it took me less than five minutes to see that the sooner I took my SS payment, the better. I found that, for me, it made zero sense to wait any amount of time in order to increase my payments. As I posted earlier, I never counted on SS in my retirement planning, never even considered getting it. It's my little, extra, monthly bonus.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jun 3, 2020)

this is a subject that is beaten to death on every retirement forum ..yet the bottom line is  if you retire at 62 , you need enough assets to live on without spending down dangerously low in order to delay ... most who argue this stuff fail to realize very few who retire early have the option to delay because they cant afford to delay.

those who do have the assets tend to be spending down money that is invested or can be invested and  then that becomes an  impediment to delaying .. i mean you can see all you need is a mere 4% real  return over the long term to  meet the 4% real return you see from ss at age 85 . a balanced portfolio can easily do that ...



.only 2% of filers delay to 70 so that tells you something about delaying not being the best choice or even a  choice  for most . the problem is those who argue for it don't include all these other factors , like  the effect of investing or not being able to afford to delay safely ..

the truth is delaying is best when there is a strategic reason to delay like the examples i listed above, but for most who have that choice it is nooooooo slam dunk delaying ....

one caveat: no one should ever buy an annuity ever , without delaying ss first ... you can not buy a commercially available annuity that gives you as much as delaying ss , is inflation adjusted , and passes to a spouse  for anywhere near the amount of checks you would give up


----------



## Knight (Jun 3, 2020)

treeguy64 said:


> 2. Where somebody is extremely well-off, and figures,  "What the Hell, the Feds are hoping I defer this little, extra income for as long as possible, and die before I ever see a penny of it."



Thanks for the reply. I was curious what fmdog had to say because of his post #16. Absolutely NOT bragging but we use our soc. sec. for fun & charitable donations.


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Jun 4, 2020)

fmdog44 said:


> Taking SS at 62 is in most cases foolish.


How would you know about "most cases"? Some people must take it early to be able to survive (survival is not foolish). Some don't really need it but take it and invest it. Investing their SS well may yield the same or even more $$ compared to waiting to take it. Others are in poor health and may die before being able to take it, as my sister did.  She worked at IBM and was planning to wait until full retirement age which for her would have been 65.  She died at age 63. Then there's the break even age to consider. As others have mentioned..when to take SS is an individual choice based upon each person's set of circumstances. Even some in the financial planning field, where over the years waiting until full retirement age was touted, are acknowledging that more now.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jun 6, 2020)

OneEyedDiva said:


> How would you know about "most cases"? Some people must take it early to be able to survive (survival is not foolish). Some don't really need it but take it and invest it. Investing their SS well may yield the same or even more $$ compared to waiting to take it. Others are in poor health and may die before being able to take it, as my sister did.  She worked at IBM and was planning to wait until full retirement age which for her would have been 65.  She died at age 63. Then there's the break even age to consider. As others have mentioned..when to take SS is an individual choice based upon each person's set of circumstances. Even some in the financial planning field, where over the years waiting until full retirement age was touted, are acknowledging that more now.


as always , when someone gives a simple answer to a very complex question it is usually going to be the wrong answer ...

most things have pros and cons and generally the person giving the answer is not well versed in both sides of things so the answer seems simple


----------



## Ellen Marie (Jun 6, 2020)

Robert59 said:


> When will Social Security end?


Social Security will not "end".  During the last twelve months, Social Security hit the tipping point, were more money is going out than coming in.   What this means.... well... Firstly, Social Security is the number one holder of our national debt.  That being said in conjunction with the tipping point, somewhere along the way the US government has to start repaying their debt to SSA.... well.... that isn't going to happen.  So, one of three things will happen.   1)  The rate for deduction for FICA will increase.   2)  COLA will stop.   3)  The amount of Social Security monies will be redistributed among those eligible.   The number in particular that is a goal.... 20% over ten years.   In other words, if nothing changes, in ten years, our social security checks will be reduced by 20% over today.


----------



## Ladybj (Jun 6, 2020)

As long as their is employment.... Social Security is not going anywhere.  There has been talk of SS disappearing since 19XX.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jun 7, 2020)

Ellen Marie said:


> Social Security will not "end".  During the last twelve months, Social Security hit the tipping point, were more money is going out than coming in.   What this means.... well... Firstly, Social Security is the number one holder of our national debt.  That being said in conjunction with the tipping point, somewhere along the way the US government has to start repaying their debt to SSA.... well.... that isn't going to happen.  So, one of three things will happen.   1)  The rate for deduction for FICA will increase.   2)  COLA will stop.   3)  The amount of Social Security monies will be redistributed among those eligible.   The number in particular that is a goal.... 20% over ten years.   In other words, if nothing changes, in ten years, our social security checks will be reduced by 20% over today.


the debt to ss is always being paid off as those treasuries come due just like any other bond. ss holds 13.3 trillion in special treasuries ..these treasuries actually do pay a higher rate than the treasuries the rest of the world buys


----------



## Knight (Jun 7, 2020)

Two distinctly different issues.

Reduction of benefits
Continuing to pay out benefits,  without reduction

The time frame for something to change is in the not to distant future. What exactly will happen is yet to be known. Less going in more coming out is real. People will do what they are able to & hope for the best.


----------



## MarciKS (Jun 7, 2020)

treeguy64 said:


> When I was in my working prime, SS was never a part of my conscious financial planning. When a friend told me I could start getting SS at 62, I was pleasantly surprised, and figured that was the way I'd go. It was a little, monthly bonus. Cool!
> 
> Don't bother explaining about how deferring SS can lead to bigger checks. I know that. I also know that government actuarials  know that its in their best interests to con folks into putting off taking SS, because the odds of their dying, before they get a penny, increases as they age.
> 
> To plan on living off of only SS is, for most, to consign yourself to a life of near-poverty.


if you take early ss can you still work part time to supplement?


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Jun 7, 2020)

MarciKS said:


> if you take early ss can you still work part time to supplement?


Yes. Here is the explanation of how working might affect your benefits from the SS website.
https://faq.ssa.gov/en-us/Topic/article/KA-01921


----------



## MarciKS (Jun 7, 2020)

thanks diva


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Jun 7, 2020)

MarciKS said:


> thanks diva


You're welcome, of course.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jun 7, 2020)

MarciKS said:


> if you take early ss can you still work part time to supplement?


Maybe ...it depends on age and on income ...after fra you can earn any amount ....pre fra  there are different rules....you are capped at  18,240 and then you give back one dollar for every 2 ...the 18240 the first year is prorated to start when you start collecting ...so if you filed in july you can earn 9120 up until the end of the year .

year two you get to earn up to 18240 before giving back .

the year you will be fra you get a break , you can earn 3 dollars over the limit and give back one ...once your birthday hits no more limit .

anything that you give back is recalculated at fra and  gives you a higher check ...so if you gave back a years worth of money then you are calculated not as retiring at 62 but at 63


----------



## MarciKS (Jun 7, 2020)

might be something to look into.


----------



## fmdog44 (Jul 6, 2020)

Knight said:


> What are some cases that wouldn't be foolish


Being terminally ill for one!


----------



## Knight (Jul 6, 2020)

Your original post



fmdog44 said:


> Taking SS at 62 is in most cases foolish.





fmdog44 said:


> Being terminally ill for one!


You at least recognize your generalization is not correct


----------



## mathjak107 (Jul 7, 2020)

Knight said:


> Your original post
> 
> 
> 
> ...


any time a simple answer is given to a complex question it will likely be the wrong answer .

there are so many different reasons for taking it early as well as delaying.  when one is well versed in  understanding all the issues involved  they should be able to argue just as effectively for taking it early as for delaying .

one sided views happen from lack of understanding both sides of things .


----------



## Giantsfan1954 (Jul 7, 2020)

How about getting some of the funds back that were"borrowed" from the trust fund by our astute politicians?
There's more waste in some government programs than you could shake a stick at,when it appears to be getting depleted pull the funds from somewhere else,it's done all the time.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jul 7, 2020)

Giantsfan1954 said:


> How about getting some of the funds back that were"borrowed" from the trust fund by our astute politicians?
> There's more waste in some government programs than you could shake a stick at,when it appears to be getting depleted pull the funds from somewhere else,it's done all the time.


This is a myth .

No one can take money out of the ss trust fund ....it can only go for ss retirement , ss survivor and ssdi ...any excess can only buy treasuries which have always been repaid with interest ....these are a special version of treasuries that pay a higher rate of interest than the rest of the world buys from us

this is a myth that goes back to Johnson when he wanted to make the budget look better ...he put the excess funds on the balance sheet ,but the money never went in to the general tax funds..our laws forbid it


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 7, 2020)

One less aircraft carrier. About 8 billion.  That should help.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 7, 2020)

fmdog44 said:


> Taking SS at 62 is in most cases foolish.


No it's not foolish in my opinion.  I retired late at 67. I'm now 87.
Trust me.  You can accumulate money, but you can't accumulate time. I'm rare in my circle of friends. The one's I played golf with and the ones I went fishing with are up in heaven scheduling foursomes.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jul 7, 2020)

Camper6 said:


> No it's not foolish in my opinion.  I retired late at 67. I'm now 87.
> Trust me.  You can accumulate money, but you can't accumulate time. I'm rare in my circle of friends. The one's I played golf with and the ones I went fishing with are up in heaven scheduling foursomes.


Taking ss has nothing to do with when you retire ....


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 7, 2020)

mathjak107 said:


> Taking ss has nothing to do with when you retire ....


What? The   revenue means nothing to your retirement plans.


----------



## MarciKS (Jul 7, 2020)

Liberty said:


> This might help:
> 
> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/s...hange-in-trust-fund-depletion-date-2020-05-06


I'd be 2 yrs into retirement provided I make it that far. Guess I'd better plan on finding something I can do till I croak.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jul 8, 2020)

Camper6 said:


> What? The   revenue means nothing to your retirement plans.


not what i said ...ss certainly is part of the budget , but  the age you retire vs the date you choose to file have nothing to do with each other . people who delay taking ss and retire at 62  just lay out the ss money up front and get it back later .

i retired at 61 but filed at 65 .

many of those who don't have the resources to lay out while delaying ss dont have the choice to delay so they file at 62 .

in my opinion no one should delay taking ss if they can not enjoy the full budget day 1 of retirement and are first going to wait 8 years to spend a dollar more .

if you can't afford to take your full budget by fronting yourself the ss money  day 1,  then you really can not afford to delay taking ss if you retire earlier unless the ss is not going to be an active part of your budget, which personally i could never see not including it in our yearly expenditures if we have it to spend .


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 8, 2020)

Well you really didn't explain yourself properly when you first posted.

This is what you posted.

"Taking ss has nothing to do with when you retire ....         "

It's different in Canada compared to the U.S.  You can retire earlier than 65 . The difference is the amount of money you will receive on the Canada Pension which you contribute to.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jul 8, 2020)

Camper6 said:


> Well you really didn't explain yourself properly when you first posted.
> 
> This is what you posted.
> 
> ...


it is still correct ...

retiring and stopping work and when you decide to file are still two separate issues...  so you don't need to  keep working until you collect and therefore has zero to do with home much time you spend in retirement ..

you can collect as early as 62 here and survivor benefits can start at 60 . what age you decide to collect at is up to you  but what age you retire is a separate issue .



Camper6 said:


> No it's not foolish in my opinion.  I retired late at 67. I'm now 87.
> Trust me.  You can accumulate money, but you can't accumulate time. I'm rare in my circle of friends. The one's I played golf with and the ones I went fishing with are up in heaven scheduling foursomes.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 8, 2020)

mathjak107 said:


> it is still correct ...
> 
> retiring and stopping work and when you decide to file are still two separate issues...  so you don't need to  keep working until you collect and therefore has zero to do with home much time you spend in retirement ..
> 
> you can collect as early as 62 here and survivor benefits can start at 60 . what age you decide to collect at is up to you  but what age you retire is a separate issue .


I don't like to argue about this, however, there's no guarantee how long you will live.  So planning to wait is not always the best option regardless on how you want to handle your ss.  A bird in hand.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jul 8, 2020)

Camper6 said:


> I don't like to argue about this, however, there's no guarantee how long you will live.  So planning to wait is not always the best option regardless on how you want to handle your ss.  A bird in hand.


there are loads of factors and the least important for most of us is what if i die ... games over when you die .. the bigger question is what if i or my spouse live ....

why delay ?



1. It’s cheap longevity insurance.  it is far better than buying any commercial annuity product
2. Don’t need the money now.
3. Good health and family history of longevity.
4. Increase survivor benefit for lower benefit spouse.
5. Take advantage of spousal claiming strategies if still available.
6. Spend or convert to Roth tax deferred savings before RMD’s start.
7. Convert to Roth to leave heirs tax free income.
8. Allow more money to convert to Roth within marginal tax rate.
9. Avoid increase in ACA premiums.
10. Catastrophic market loss insurance.
11. Working part time and making more than the limit .

why file early ?

a  point i should mention is there is nothing inherent in delaying that automatically gives you more money to spend or a bigger balance for heirs compared to filing early .you see this myth all the time posted , how waiting gives them more money . but that is not always true . the only time it is true is if you work and delay .

not spending down invested assets when taking ss early or investing money you get that could be invested if you take ss early can add a lot of money back in to the equation . by the same token , to match a balanced portfolio under average market outcomes ,delaying requires you or a spouse to live to 90 to equal that amount .

so it really boils down to betting on at least seeing average market outcomes if you take ss early or betting on you or a spouse living to age 90 if delaying ss since that is what it takes to get to the tipping point .

if you or a spouse live to 95 then delaying ss wins . if you and your spouse live less than 90 , then taking ss early and investing wins . the odds really favor investing and taking ss early but that does not mean it is guaranteed .

both can provide higher income along the way . if markets are at least average outcomes then raises can be taken when you invest and take ss early all along the way possibly even beating the higher ss check by age 70 .

so don't get to wrapped up in thinking one is better than the other because they are both dependent on certain expectations . the real deal is do you want to bet more on markets or more on longevity for the "same " potential income and balance?


----------



## MarciKS (Jul 8, 2020)

MathJack if I took early SS at 62 & would only get say $800 a mo as opposed to waiting to my full age of 67 to get $1100 & medicare, how is that better? I'm not sure you're allowed to earn anything on the side to supplement or at least not very much. Wouldn't do me a lot of good. Plus I have to have some form of ins. I can afford.


----------



## Knight (Jul 8, 2020)

Bottom line it comes down to individual circumstances.  We planned for Soc. Sec. not being available when we got to the age where we could collect. When we did it was available so what we get is for fun, not needed for typical living expenses. 

That as a reason doesn't work for everyone there are just to many reasons for either taking or not taking the benefit early or later.


----------



## Camper6 (Jul 8, 2020)

MarciKS said:


> MathJack if I took early SS at 62 & would only get say $800 a mo as opposed to waiting to my full age of 67 to get $1100 & medicare, how is that better? I'm not sure you're allowed to earn anything on the side to supplement or at least not very much. Wouldn't do me a lot of good. Plus I have to have some form of ins. I can afford.


Thanks for explaining that better than I did.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jul 8, 2020)

MarciKS said:


> MathJack if I took early SS at 62 & would only get say $800 a mo as opposed to waiting to my full age of 67 to get $1100 & medicare, how is that better? I'm not sure you're allowed to earn anything on the side to supplement or at least not very much. Wouldn't do me a lot of good. Plus I have to have some form of ins. I can afford.


I explained it above ...for those of us who retired early at 62 , if we delay taking ss we Need  to layout the ss we are not getting for years  to live on ....that is money that is either invested assets or money that could be invested if I took ss early .

so delaying would cost me 40k in checks I wasn’t getting a year , So we would need to pull 40k a year out of invested assets to live on .
In a balanced portfolio that would see 5-6% real returns over time .

We also can’t get 4500 a year in a spousal adder to my wife until I filed .

we would not be protected under hold harmless from medicare increases while delaying ...while medicare increases  can’t be more than your cola increase that does not apply while delaying .

to equal early ss and not spending down invested assets you would first see break even with delaying until 70 at age 90.

you can’t just compare ss amounts as early vs later ...if you retire at 62 you need money to live on. And that has to come from either invested assets or assets that could have been invested if you had taken early ss.
all our situations are going to be different ...


----------



## MarciKS (Jul 9, 2020)

mathjak107 said:


> I explained it above ...for those of us who retired early at 62 , if we delay taking ss we Need  to layout the ss we are not getting for years  to live on ....that is money that is either invested assets or money that could be invested if I took ss early .
> 
> so delaying would cost me 40k in checks I wasn’t getting a year , So we would need to pull 40k a year out of invested assets to live on .
> In a balanced portfolio that would see 5-6% real returns over time .
> ...


Ok thank you.


----------



## KimIn Wis (Sep 4, 2020)

C'est Moi said:


> If you were "in your 50's??"   Every single working person of any age should not plan on SS to be their sole source of income unless abject poverty is their goal. SS was never meant to be a sole source so I saved and invested as much as I could for retirement my entire working life.
> 
> Also, your thread title says "WIPE OUT SS", which leaves one to assume you meant that it will no longer exist.


Exactly !!


----------



## Knight (Sep 4, 2020)

C'est Moi said:


> If you were "in your 50's??"   Every single working person of any age should not plan on SS to be their sole source of income unless abject poverty is their goal. SS was never meant to be a sole source so I saved and invested as much as I could for retirement my entire working life.
> 
> Also, your thread title says "WIPE OUT SS", which leaves one to assume you meant that it will no longer exist.


No the title includes the word could as in could wipe out SS. Could meaning a possibility. IMO the greater possibility is a decent reduction in the amount of money  people eligible for SS will get. And much sooner than original projections. 

Increasing debt isn't a problem if  funds are available to pay for what is owed. The deficit is a whole other bear to deal with.  Looking at the projections now it seems realistic to me that in the not to distant future that inability to sustain the level of payout is going to be impacted.


----------



## Rosemarie (Sep 5, 2020)

It is a similar situation in the UK. It might be a good time for a complete shake-up of the whole system. Like many policies, Social Security was started with good intentions, but has been mismanaged. The same is true of the NHS. Many people could not afford to consult a doctor and so free health care was set up. However, the NHS is now expected to provide various services for which it was never intended.


----------



## Keesha (Sep 5, 2020)

Well they will have to adapt and ‘get with the program.’ That’s what their role is; adapt and adjust to the current situation.


----------



## Keesha (Sep 5, 2020)

Didn’t quote right!
Too early for this


----------



## Camper6 (Sep 5, 2020)

Didn’t quote right!    Got it.


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Sep 5, 2020)

Knight said:


> No the title includes the word could as in could wipe out SS. Could meaning a possibility. IMO the greater possibility is a decent reduction in the amount of money  people eligible for SS will get. And much sooner than original projections.
> 
> Increasing debt isn't a problem if  funds are available to pay for what is owed. The deficit is a whole other bear to deal with.  Looking at the projections now it seems realistic to me that in the not to distant future that inability to sustain the level of payout is going to be impacted.


Knight, I've been warning about the probable reduction in our SS benefits across the board since I first joined this forum. People poo-pooed it; said it will never happen or it won't affect those who are already collecting. Also the government will come up with a last minute plan, etc. But people who know the deal have been talking about this for years now and I read every article I can about it including from the SS administration itself. Of course I believe you are right now that mega millions are now unemployed and not paying into the system. Like I warned 4 years ago...people better get ready.


----------



## Knight (Sep 5, 2020)

OneEyedDiva said:


> Knight, I've been warning about the probable reduction in our SS benefits across the board since I first joined this forum. People poo-pooed it; said it will never happen or it won't affect those who are already collecting. Also the government will come up with a last minute plan, etc. But people who know the deal have been talking about this for years now and I read every article I can about it including from the SS administration itself. Of course I believe you are right now that mega millions are now unemployed and not paying into the system. Like I warned 4 years ago...people better get ready.


Those in denial will always be in denial right up until the time they are bitten in the a$$.

The problem I see now. Opportunities are not where they were and not likely to be as they were. At 79 not knowing how much time left I feel comfortable but my 3 sons in their 50's even though they followed our advice about preparing for their retirement years life might be tough for them.


----------



## Liberty (Sep 6, 2020)

Think when you are younger, you think you'll not need or depend on SS when and "if" you ever retire.  Then the closer to that certain age you get, you have a major mental "overall overhaul" and it suddenly dawns on you that you will 
need those  extra golden bucks to be able enjoy your golden years.  It would  hard to replace that  much money month after month.

See them raising the age to collect eligibility and the top threshold earners max earnings to be paid into the system in order to try to "pump up" the general fund.  Doesn't 20% of the top earners reflect 50% of the monies?


----------



## Ladybj (Sep 8, 2020)

JMO...SS is not going anywhere no time soon.


----------



## Knight (Sep 8, 2020)

Ladybj said:


> JMO...SS is not going anywhere no time soon.


This isn't about S S going anywhere it's about sustaining the level of payout. As in the expectation is for a reduction sooner than later. The age of the people it will affect & when will be a tough decision for politicians to figure out.


----------



## Knight (Sep 9, 2020)

This is NOT political it's an OPINION article about changing how SS is dealt with. I've mentioned before that congress being forced into doing something instead of kicking the can down the road is needed. This might be the catalyst for that.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t...-much-needed-reforms-2020-09-09?siteid=yhoof2


----------



## Ladybj (Sep 9, 2020)

OneEyedDiva said:


> Knight, I've been warning about the probable reduction in our SS benefits across the board since I first joined this forum. People poo-pooed it; said it will never happen or it won't affect those who are already collecting. Also the government will come up with a last minute plan, etc. But people who know the deal have been talking about this for years now and I read every article I can about it including from the SS administration itself. Of course I believe you are right now that mega millions are now unemployed and not paying into the system. Like I warned 4 years ago...people better get ready.


It's beyond some people control why they are not working.... I wonder why hmmmm..  Is it because of C-19?  However, there are millions that are working from home and some have gone back to work.  When life gives me lemons, I make a Lemon Martini.  Good post.


----------



## fmdog44 (Sep 9, 2020)

Maybe the name SS will end but in the future old folks will not be taken from their homes and shot. At least I think they won't.


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Sep 10, 2020)

Ladybj said:


> It's beyond some people control why they are not working.... I wonder why hmmmm..  Is it because of C-19?  However, there are millions that are working from home and some have gone back to work.  When life gives me lemons, I make a Lemon Martini.  Good post.


Thank you Ladybj. My DIL and ex-DIL are both in the school system (former a T.A., latter an administrator). They were both able to work from home. My nephew is a computer specialists who until COVID hit was traveling all over the country to install new systems or correct problems with older ones. He too was able to start working from home by giving instructions remotely. They are all blessed. I read the other day that there are definitely more unemployed than available jobs. It's very sad that so many will not be able to get their hands on those lemons. And for your resourcefulness...I say KUDOS.


----------



## Ladybj (Sep 19, 2020)

[QUOTE="OneEyedDiva, post: 1475402, member:
Thank you Ladybj. My DIL and ex-DIL are both in the school system (former a T.A., latter an administrator). They were both able to work from home. My nephew is a computer specialists who until COVID hit was traveling all over the country to install new systems or correct problems with older ones. He too was able to start working from home by giving instructions remotely. They are all blessed. I read the other day that there are definitely more unemployed than available jobs. It's very sad that so many will not be able to get their hands on those lemons. And for your resourcefulness...I say KUDOS.
[/QUOTE
I am sure each State is different as far as the job market.  There are plenty of job openings in my area. Some people prefer to continue to receive unemployment benefits since it has been extended in some States.  My heart goes out to those that are not able to find employment.  There are also people that have taken advantage of C-19 - informing their employer they have C19 which they did not.  Happened on my son's job a few times which the employee was fired.


----------



## mathjak107 (Sep 20, 2020)

one good thing about keeping unemployment insurance high enough  is it keeps those who really don't want to work badly from taking whatever jobs are out there  away from those who do .

those who need to work and want to work will get a jump on the jobs while the others who delayed may get locked out later


----------



## garyt1957 (Sep 27, 2020)

Knight said:


> This isn't about S S going anywhere it's about sustaining the level of payout. As in the expectation is for a reduction sooner than later. The age of the people it will affect & when will be a tough decision for politicians to figure out.


  I highly doubt anyone collecting now will take a hit. There are enough ways to kick the can down the road which is what will likely happen. Nobody in Congress and the senate are going to want to face voters as the guy who voted to cut SS for Grandma. Kiss your career goodbye. They will likely raise the cap on SS deductions , maybe increase the age for full SS to 70, possibly even raise the early collection from 62 , all before there will be any cuts to current recipients. Another possibility is means testing for collecting.


----------



## garyt1957 (Sep 27, 2020)

fmdog44 said:


> Taking SS at 62 is in most cases foolish.


Ridiculous statement. So many variables. I hate the "You'll get more money in the long run by waiting". Who cares, if you need the money earlier when you can actually enjoy it. If taking SS at 62 allows you to retire then and enjoy life while your capable I'd much rather do that than work till 65 or even retire at 62 but not be able to enjoy myself. What good does it do you to be 85 or 90 and stuck at home and thinking "Well, I'm making more money in SS then if I had taken it early"? Good chance that extra money is going to the nursing home you're currently in, big deal. I'm not interested in maximizing the amount of money I get from SS, I'm interested in maximizing the enjoyment of life that money can give me, while I'm in the condition to use it.


----------



## StarSong (Sep 27, 2020)

garyt1957 said:


> I highly doubt anyone collecting now will take a hit. There are enough ways to kick the can down the road which is what will likely happen. Nobody in Congress and the senate are going to want to face voters as the guy who voted to cut SS for Grandma. Kiss your career goodbye. They will likely raise the cap on SS deductions , maybe increase the age for full SS to 70, possibly even raise the early collection from 62 , all before there will be any cuts to current recipients. Another possibility is means testing for collecting.


Let's hope you're right.  A year ago I would have agreed with you.  No longer.  It's impossible to ignore the number of (previously unthinkable) changes that are being made with a swoop of the pen on executive orders.    

House & Senate members may not be willing to touch that third rail, but others who are proving themselves invulnerable to consequences delight in dancing on it.


----------



## Liberty (Sep 27, 2020)

Hub mentioned something interesting.  He said "with all the old folks dying from covid, maybe it will make it easier on SS. The old are going, going, gone  and the young are paying into the system for many many years.


----------



## garyt1957 (Sep 27, 2020)

Liberty said:


> Hub mentioned something interesting.  He said "with all the old folks dying from covid, maybe it will make it easier on SS. The old are going, going, gone  and the young are paying into the system for many many years.


Not enough to make a blip, even if all 200,000 who have died were SS recipients.


----------



## Liberty (Sep 28, 2020)

garyt1957 said:


> Not enough to make a blip, even if all 200,000 who have died were SS recipients.


How many need to kick the bucket before it does count?


----------



## StarSong (Sep 28, 2020)

Liberty said:


> How many need to kick the bucket before it does count?


Since approximately 65 million people receive SS benefits, it will take a lot more than 200,000 early deaths to move the needle.  
https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factsheets/basicfact-alt.pdf


----------



## gennie (Sep 28, 2020)

Coronavirus might wipe it out in 4 years but eliminating its funding can do it sooner.  Just sayin'.


----------



## StarSong (Sep 28, 2020)

gennie said:


> Coronavirus might wipe it out in 4 years but eliminating its funding can do it sooner.  Just sayin'.


Exactly.
Depending on the political game afoot, SS can be rescued or sentenced to a swift demise.


----------

