# Who is able and going to put the SS increase into savings



## Blessed (Jan 5, 2023)

I have been going back and reviewing my costs to see if I can put this increase into savings.  I know we have all seen increases in gas, electricity, housing and food, just the basics.  I have found I can roll the increase into savings by keeping things tight.  Is that a possibility for you and your budget?


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 5, 2023)

Meh , it is merely only switching pockets …sure I can save the increase but then we end up just spending more of our other money to cover increases and unexpected expenses anyway .

it isn’t savings until years end when you see if anything is left and if there is it simply goes towards next years spending.

at the end of the day it really isn’t much to think about


----------



## Blessed (Jan 5, 2023)

For me, it is not switching pockets, I have been cutting back already, keeping cost down in every way.  After review of my budget, staying under what I already received in the past I have been able to stay ahead of my costs.  I am happy to be able to put something back into my accounts.  I don't have to but I am not going to say that I don't worry about how much worse things could get.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 5, 2023)

You won’t know until years end what is going to be left…one unexpected bill  or major housing expense can wipe it all away ..so it isn’t savings until the end when you know if anything is even left.

savings is  your income Less expenses and you can’t know that until after the fact ,not before.

pretty much we just throw it in the account and see where the account stands at the end of this year …when we refill for 2024  maybe we need to add a bit less because of the increase or maybe  it’s gone , no one knows in advance


----------



## Alligatorob (Jan 5, 2023)

I think mine is probably going into Amazon...


----------



## 1955 (Jan 5, 2023)

I'm retired, I thought the idea was to spend down your savings preferably to $0 when you finally pass?


----------



## Alligatorob (Jan 5, 2023)

1955 said:


> I thought the idea was to spend down your savings preferably to $0 when you finally pass?


My objective...


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 5, 2023)

1955 said:


> I'm retired, I thought the idea was to spend down your savings preferably to $0 when you finally pass?


Except it is impossible since we have no idea how our outcome will go .

We have had 122 rolling 30 year retirements since 1871 .

the proverbial 4% safe withdrawal rate has left you with zero left at the end of 30 years  5% of the time and more then you started with 90% of the time  With a 60/40 portfolio .

5% of the time one ended with 6x what they started with .

67% of the time one ended with 2x what they started with

50% of the time one ended with 3x what they started with


so you can be anywhere between broke and  6x what you started with as your outcome. ..

same exact portfolio, has an incredible range of outcomes just based on sequences of gains ,and losses , markets , rates and inflation .

just the order those parameters come in  , can see a difference of 15 years in how long the money will last between the best and worst outcome even if averages are the same


----------



## 1955 (Jan 5, 2023)

mathjak107 said:


> so you can be anywhere between broke and  6x what you started with as your outcome. ..


That's to much math for my head right now.  But going by this part of your statement it sounds like I should be spending more


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 5, 2023)

Depends on where you stand now compared to the day you started retirement .
as well as your allocation.
 As well as the draw rate you are taking


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 5, 2023)

Famed writer and researcher Michael kitces , recommends a system of raises taken along the way to avoid dying with to much unspent .

at a 4% inflation adjusted draw he recommends looking at your balance 3 years in ..if you are ahead of where you started by 50% then take an extra 10% on top of normal inflation adjusting .

repeat every 3 years .

on the other hand there are other methods of withdrawal .

I use bob clyatts 95/5 .

each January we set a side 4% of that years balance …if it is a down year then we take the higher of 4% or  just 5% less then what we took last year .

it’s simple to do , reflects real time and needs no extra inflation adjusting or raises


----------



## Chet (Jan 5, 2023)

Savings are for future use....what future? We are running out of future. Spend like there is no tomorrow cuz there may not be.


----------



## Gary O' (Jan 5, 2023)

Who is able and going to put the SS increase into savings​


Blessed said:


> Is that a possibility for you and your budget?



Yup

We don't even look at it

We live quite comfortably without overspending


----------



## dobielvr (Jan 5, 2023)

Yes, I'm planning on saving my increase $$.
We'll see how that goes....


----------



## David777 (Jan 5, 2023)

Well if one lives in lowest cost regions without debts, saving a bit just from SS is of course possible.  But generally, the notion of seniors putting Social Security monthly benefits into savings is misplaced because even the highest benefit levels are rather trivial compared to average possible income during one's working years one more readily can save during.  Thus one ought be saving well before retiring in order to accumulate enough savings that over one's retired remaining life will supplement SS benefits.  That noted, the many unwise that never bothered to save during working years because they bought into the dominant attitude of always being in debt, have missed the boat.  Not too late to start if one still has enough working years.


----------



## Blessed (Jan 5, 2023)

Chet said:


> Savings are for future use....what future? We are running out of future. Spend like there is no tomorrow cuz there may not be.



I am saving for tomorrow, I have a good life only because of saving.  I often worry what would happen if I ran out of money.  I don't want to think about having to sell the house, not have the ability to to feed myself and the dogs. I don't want to have to depend on my son to help me.  It is just not my future, it is the son, his family and pets.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 5, 2023)

Chet said:


> Savings are for future use....what future? We are running out of future. Spend like there is no tomorrow cuz there may not be.


Let us know how that works out for you


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Jan 6, 2023)

I had been saving most of my SS until almost a year ago when I helped my son and granddaughter with unexpected expenses. My son is paying me back based upon the payment plan I created. For my granddaughter, it was toward college expenses so I consider it a gift. I had promised to pay for her meal plans each semester, but I wound up paying more than that because she did not get a full scholarship as expected like she during her first year. Since it looks like I'm still not going to be getting my floors done and kitchen remodeled, I'll go back to saving my SS starting in February.


----------



## Blessed (Jan 6, 2023)

OneEyedDiva said:


> I had been saving most of my SS until almost a year ago when I helped my son and granddaughter with unexpected expenses. My son is paying me back based upon the payment plan I created. For my granddaughter, it was toward college expenses so I consider it a gift. I had promised to pay for her meal plans each semester, but I wound up paying more than that because she did not get a full scholarship as expected like she during her first year. Since it looks like I'm still not going to be getting my floors done and kitchen remodeled, I'll go back to saving my SS starting in February.



The best gift we can give is education!! I am more than willing to wait on other things just like you.  I was grateful I was able to send my son to college and he would not have to take out student loans.  Now that he is out there "adulting" he knows he is in a better position than friends that are paying for their college loans. They may not realize the gift at first but they will later!


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Jan 6, 2023)

Blessed said:


> The best gift we can give is education!! I am more than willing to wait on other things just like you.  I was grateful I was able to send my son to college and he would not have to take out student loans.  Now that he is out there "adulting" he knows he is in a better position than friends that are paying for their college loans. They may not realize the gift at first but they will later!


That;s wonderful Blessed. I'm sure your son appreciates you. My granddaughter is very appreciative, which makes me happy and proud. Some young people feel a sense of "entitlement". I started 529s for her and my son's youngest. There's still $$ in her account because the advice was actually to wait until the senior year to use it. My youngest grandson graduates this year. I had opened gift trust accounts for his three older children decades ago. I tried to do a little something for each of my grandchildren.


----------



## Liberty (Jan 6, 2023)

Thought this year we would be down in the market because it was so bad but we were up nicely and happily so now just hope it acts the same this year...lol.  Think we'll celebrate this morning with a donut run!


----------



## Vida May (Jan 6, 2023)

Blessed said:


> I have been going back and reviewing my costs to see if I can put this increase into savings.  I know we have all seen increases in gas, electricity, housing and food, just the basics.  I have found I can roll the increase into savings by keeping things tight.  Is that a possibility for you and your budget?


 I have Social Security and Supplemental Social Income.  If I have more than $2000, my payment is cut until I am below $2000.  I get punished for being frugal and $2000 hardly covers the cost of moving or some car repairs.  To me, the system we have penalizes low-income people and it is not very intelligent because it keeps me in a constant state of insecurity.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 6, 2023)

Vida May said:


> I have Social Security and Supplemental Social Income.  If I have more than $2000, my payment is cut until I am below $2000.  I get punished for being frugal and $2000 hardly covers the cost of moving or some car repairs.  To me, the system we have penalizes low-income people and it is not very intelligent because it keeps me in a constant state of insecurity.


Just the reverse ..per dollar paid in the lowest earners get 6x the benefit paid out as the highest earners .
But in your case ssi is a welfare program ….it gets added to those who have not paid in enough to get full social security benefits …you are not penalized , in fact you are getting more then you qualified for from social security alone.. they just adjust it down because for what you actually paid in you are getting more then you should .

do you pay for your own Medicare ? Or do you get assistance or Medicaid ?


----------



## oldmontana (Jan 6, 2023)

Blessed said:


> I have been going back and reviewing my costs to see if I can put this increase into savings.  I know we have all seen increases in gas, electricity, housing and food, just the basics.  I have found I can roll the increase into savings by keeping things tight.  Is that a possibility for you and your budget?


Any time you can increase your savings it's a good thing.  It's also good that you are "keeping things tight" which I take is that you are controlling your spending.


----------



## Vida May (Jan 6, 2023)

mathjak107 said:


> Just the reverse ..per dollar paid in the lowest earners get 6x the benefit paid out as the highest earners .
> But in your case ssi is a welfare program ….it gets added to those who have not paid in enough to get full social security benefits …you are not penalized , in fact you are getting more then you qualified for from social security alone.. they just adjust it down because for what you actually paid in you are getting more then you should .
> 
> do you pay for your own Medicare ? Or do you get assistance or Medicaid ?


 Well thank you.  Now I really feel like shit.  I have volunteered for most of my life because it has always been very important to be the best citizen I can be.  I also did everything a traditional woman is supposed to do.  That is what my father wanted of me when he said the only education I should have was home economics.  That is also what my husband wanted of me and the lesson of Dick and Jane readers and 1950 TV shows.  I still hold those traditional values and I still volunteer.  Just because I have not been paid what I worth, it does not mean I am worthless.


----------



## mathjak107 (Saturday at 1:03 AM)

Vida May said:


> Well thank you.  Now I really feel like shit.  I have volunteered for most of my life because it has always been very important to be the best citizen I can be.  I also did everything a traditional woman is supposed to do.  That is what my father wanted of me when he said the only education I should have was home economics.  That is also what my husband wanted of me and the lesson of Dick and Jane readers and 1950 TV shows.  I still hold those traditional values and I still volunteer.  Just because I have not been paid what I worth, it does not mean I am worthless.


…. You are not penalized .  You are already being supplemented more than you paid in to receive …it has nothing to do with feeling like shit or not ..you made a comment about being penalized but you are not penalized at all….you are actually being paid more then you paid in  to receive …it’s just a fact


----------



## katlupe (Saturday at 4:21 AM)

Since I moved here going on five years ago I have been paying down debt accumulated with my husband but mostly him using it for building a solar system. This month I was able to pay off a loan that feels like I had forever. I was able to pay it off because of the extra in my check and because my rent went down. So even though I am not able to save since I have such a low income, I am using the extra to pay off more debt. The next two months I will pay off two more and will have three left. This is a "no spend" month for me and maybe next month too (only groceries, pet food and what is necessary)


----------



## JustDave (Saturday at 4:37 AM)

The wealthy may save the increase, but those who live off SS won't save.  I haven't checked my increase yet, but I don't expect the increase to make any difference when weighing the amount of increase against inflation.  I have a hard time believing it may be greater than inflation.  That's not the way Social Security works or was even designed to work.


----------



## mathjak107 (Saturday at 5:02 AM)

No one’s cost of living will match the cpi-w or cpi-u .

the cpi is only a price change index on loads  of goods and services in the 1500 mini economies that make us up .

it is not related to your personal cost of living nor should it be .

how many times you personally buy something , what you buy and the quality is going to be different from me .

highe quality goods may see more price increases but last longer .

personally I won’t buy things that went up to high at that moment ..if I can’t get the ice cream I want on sale I will buy something else totally .

the cpi does not do that .

plus many goods and services in the cpi effecting the inflation level are not things you may even use .
so never think somehow colas are going to match what you spend personally.

someone was just complaining they bought eggs in Manhattan for 5 bucks …I just bought them at Walmart in Long Island for half that .

we lost 50 million chickens to that aviana flu that has effected egg pricing .

as new supply comes on of new chickens eggs will fall


----------



## caroln (Saturday at 6:53 AM)

My SS increase will probably go into the grocery store in the form of T-bone steak or roast beef.  I'm so sick of hamburger and chicken and even that has gone sky high.


----------



## mathjak107 (Saturday at 9:25 AM)

money Is like water , it just seems to seek its own level ….


----------



## Knight (Saturday at 9:50 AM)

We look at Soc. Sec. as fun money so the increase will not be saved it will be spent helping the local economy.


----------



## feywon (Saturday at 10:04 AM)

My SS increase will go to several things. i'm fortunate in that my daughter lives with me and shares expenses.  So i will use some to finish paying off some old bills.  But i am determined to to put a small amount of it into savings each month from the start, then as those old bills get paid off--put more.  My intent is for the savings to help cover my half of big sporadic costs we have: The USPS box (no home delivery of mail in our little town) twice a year, Property taxes twice a year.  Draining Septic Tank every other year. (Every year once we replace washing machine.)


----------



## StarSong (Saturday at 10:11 AM)

Vida May said:


> Well thank you.  Now I really feel like shit.  I have volunteered for most of my life because it has always been very important to be the best citizen I can be.  I also did everything a traditional woman is supposed to do.  That is what my father wanted of me when he said the only education I should have was home economics.  That is also what my husband wanted of me and the lesson of Dick and Jane readers and 1950 TV shows.  I still hold those traditional values and I still volunteer.  Just because I have not been paid what I worth, it does not mean I am worthless.


I don't think @mathjak107 was suggesting you are worthless, he was merely pointing out that SS benefits paid in vs paid out tilt heavily toward lower earners/lower contributors.  

As it should be. It's right to distribute more generously to those whose needs are greater. 

1950s values promoting women not working outside the home stopped being practical in the 1970s when pensions began disappearing. Ours was the last generation of women to be persistently encouraged as stay-at-homers. 

Fortunately for me, my parents insisted sons and daughters alike develop our own careers. Not just jobs - careers. And we all did. My sisters and I were advised to never be 100% reliant on a man's income. Too much pressure on the man, and if the marriage blew up, the woman was (as we said in the 60s) screwed, blued and tattooed.


----------



## Kaila (Saturday at 10:48 AM)

Blessed said:


> I have been going back and reviewing my costs to see if I can put this increase into savings.  I know we have all seen increases in gas, electricity, housing and food, just the basics.  I have found I can roll the increase into savings by keeping things tight.  Is that a possibility for you and your budget?


Definitely very good to do, if and when possible.
Myself, no, it is needed for other costs.


----------



## Lethe200 (Saturday at 11:50 AM)

OneEyedDiva said:


> That;s wonderful Blessed. I'm sure your son appreciates you. My granddaughter is very appreciative, which makes me happy and proud. Some young people feel a sense of "entitlement". I started 529s for her and my son's youngest. There's still $$ in her account because the advice was actually to wait until the senior year to use it. My youngest grandson graduates this year. I had opened gift trust accounts for his three older children decades ago. I tried to do a little something for each of my grandchildren.


Diva,
I just posted a thread on the new Secure Act 2.0. You may want to look through it, as it discusses a new option for the unused balances in 529s.


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Saturday at 5:53 PM)

Lethe200 said:


> Diva,
> I just posted a thread on the new Secure Act 2.0. You may want to look through it, as it discusses a new option for the unused balances in 529s.


Just replied before I saw this. Thank you.


----------



## Vida May (Saturday at 7:29 PM)

StarSong said:


> I don't think @mathjak107 was suggesting you are worthless, he was merely pointing out that SS benefits paid in vs paid out tilt heavily toward lower earners/lower contributors.
> 
> As it should be. It's right to distribute more generously to those whose needs are greater.
> 
> ...



Well, it is nice to see the end of male privilege.  However, as teachers and nurses are no longer willing to work for low wages, our economy is spinning out of control.  I do not think the change in values will be as good as people think.  

I will take my score points for saving on a very low income and go to a forum where it is possible to have a more philosophical discussion of human worth and justice.


----------



## Harry Le Hermit (Saturday at 7:40 PM)

Our S.S. goes into the same pot, with everything else. As S.S. more than covers current expenses, the balance falls into the saved category.


----------



## Blessed (Saturday at 7:42 PM)

Vida May said:


> Well, it is nice to see the end of male privilege.  However, as teachers and nurses are no longer willing to work for low wages, our economy is spinning out of control.  I do not think the change in values will be as good as people think.
> 
> I will take my score points for saving on a very low income and go to a forum where it is possible to have a more philosophical discussion of human worth and justice.



Don't do that, we don't want to lose you.  We have all reached an age where we know our own worth.  Don't let anyone's comment for whatever reason make you feel you don't belong, that you don't have anything to share.  That is just simply not the case.  We all have things to learn, the right to have friends and social outlets. We are all different but as I have said before when it comes down to it we are all alike!! Humans!


----------



## perChance (Saturday at 7:57 PM)

Vida May said:


> Well, it is nice to see the end of male privilege.


Men were also trapped in their traditional roles - and probably didn't think of it as privilege.  My father had to work two jobs to pay the bills - not because he was privileged but because that is what society expected.


----------



## Blessed (Saturday at 9:10 PM)

perChance said:


> Men were also trapped in their traditional roles - and probably didn't think of it as privilege.  My father had to work two jobs to pay the bills - not because he was privileged but because that is what society expected.



I would also say back in the day society expected women to run the house.  Keep the home fires burning, clean house, laundry done, meals on the table,  raise the kids and all that entails.  In my case, my Mom was also in charge of a huge vegetable garden in the spring and summer. She did not plant it but did the everyday work to have a good harvest.  There was the canning, freezing and processing of all that food that tooks us through the winter so we never felt without anything. She worked as hard even harder than my step dad.


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Saturday at 11:33 PM)

StarSong said:


> I don't think @mathjak107 was suggesting you are worthless, he was merely pointing out that SS benefits paid in vs paid out tilt heavily toward lower earners/lower contributors.
> 
> As it should be. It's right to distribute more generously to those whose needs are greater.
> 
> ...


_"My sisters and I were advised to never be 100% reliant on a man's income. Too much pressure on the man, and if the marriage blew up, the woman was (as we said in the 60s) screwed, blued and tattooed."_
That's always the way I've been. My mother and grandmother both taught me to be independent. I'm glad I didn't have to rely on my (second) husband's income because being self employed since his early 20s, when the economy tanked, so did his business so he didn't have much to spare. Add to that his propensity to fund his many children and grandchildren when they asked and loan money to anyone who stopped by his store and asked (sometimes only $5 at a time)...he was always tapped out because it added up. I've been "preaching" for the longest that women should have their own, establish their own credit histories and keep separate accounts.


----------



## Teacher Terry (Saturday at 11:37 PM)

_No I won’t be saving the increase. This has been an interesting year with inflation and I cut or substituted many discretionary expenses in order not to use my savings for everyday expenses.  I want to save my savings for travel and emergencies. _


----------



## Blessed (Saturday at 11:50 PM)

Teacher Terry said:


> _No I won’t be saving the increase. This has been an interesting year with inflation and I cut or substituted many discretionary expenses in order not to use my savings for everyday expenses.  I want to save my savings for travel and emergencies. _



Without a doubt we have had challenges this year. I am lucky to be in my own home, have a car paid off.  I know I have not felt the increase in the cost of gasoline, because I don't go anywhere of any distance. I have just seen an increase in the cost of gas to heat but am under a contract for electricity use, that has been a lucky thing.  Time will come in July that I have to renew, I am already researching. Even in the horrible heat of Texas I have done well with my current provider.  

Travel, I have not done.  I want to put back for emergencies, house hold repairs and replacements and vet bills.  I have done this all along and it has served me well. At this point, I have crunched the numbers and look I will be able to put the increase into the emergency fund for now.  Might not go into CDs but will make sure I have it something happens.  I expect more medical expenses this year due to some health issues so the extra emergency fund is the best bet.  I will work around that for the time being.


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Saturday at 11:52 PM)

Liberty said:


> Thought this year we would be down in the market because it was so bad but we were up nicely and happily so now just hope it acts the same this year...lol.  Think we'll celebrate this morning with a donut run!


When I think about the markets I think of the song that had the words "up and down the ladder".  There's no telling what the market will be doing any given day. Friday was a nice surprise, my investments were up almost $5,000 from the day before. I won't be surprised, nor will I panic (sell) when the market dips again. Glad you were also "up nicely" Liberty.


----------



## Blessed (Sunday at 12:15 AM)

OneEyedDiva said:


> _"My sisters and I were advised to never be 100% reliant on a man's income. Too much pressure on the man, and if the marriage blew up, the woman was (as we said in the 60s) screwed, blued and tattooed."_
> That's always the way I've been. My mother and grandmother both taught me to be independent. I'm glad I didn't have to rely on my (second) husband's income because being self employed since his early 20s, when the economy tanked, so did his business so he didn't have much to spare. Add to that his propensity to fund his many children and grandchildren when they asked and loan money to anyone who stopped by his store and asked (sometimes only $5 at a time)...he was always tapped out because it added up. I've been "preaching" for the longest that women should have their own, establish their own credit histories and keep separate accounts.


Yes, my Mom taught me when I turned 1 and got my first job.  She had me saving and after I had, I think 500 I got my first CD.  Couple of years later she had me taking a loan against that and pay it off to start building a credit history. 

I puchased many things during the time I was married but only in my name.  That kept building my credit history apart from my husband.  He was all for it, low and behold he passed young but I could still do anything I needed to do.  I am not a big fan of buying on credit but it is nice to know I can if I need to.


----------



## mathjak107 (Sunday at 3:07 AM)

Vida May said:


> Well, it is nice to see the end of male privilege.  However, as teachers and nurses are no longer willing to work for low wages, our economy is spinning out of control.  I do not think the change in values will be as good as people think.
> 
> I will take my score points for saving on a very low income and go to a forum where it is possible to have a more philosophical discussion of human worth and justice.


Sorry if facts bother you.

besides it had nothing to do with score points for saving on a low income and everything to do with saying  you were penalized  for being on ssi and social security when you are
Already being over compensated for what was paid in to the system compared to higher earners


----------



## Blessed (Sunday at 3:25 AM)

mathjak107 said:


> Sorry if facts bother you.
> 
> besides it had nothing to do with score points for saving on a low income and everything to do with saying  you were penalized  for being on ssi and social security when you are
> Already being over compensated for what was paid in to the system compared to higher earners



Not to minimize, but that is not really an apology.  Just because she did not work outside the home does not mean she did not work.  She worked hard being a Mom, wife, keeper of the home. I should be getting double from SS.  I worked full time in and out of the home.  It was 2 full time jobs, believe it or not. My husband came home to dinner on he table.  I did the baths, the homework, the cleaning, the shopping, the cooking, even the yard work.  So no, I don't think she worked, she worked plenty hard.  I don't know how things were in your household but many of us women took the double down, full time job and full time wife and mother.


----------



## mathjak107 (Sunday at 3:32 AM)

Blessed said:


> Not to minimize, but that is not really an apology.  Just because she did not work outside the home does not mean she did not work.  She worked hard being a Mom, wife, keeper of the home. I should be getting double from SS.  I worked full time in and out of the home.  It was 2 full time jobs, believe it or not. My husband came home to dinner on he table.  I did the baths, the homework, the cleaning, the shopping, the cooking, even the yard work.  So no, I don't think she worked, she worked plenty hard.  I don't know how things were in your household but many of us women took the double down, full time job and full time wife and mother.


I never meant to apologize as stating a fact requires no apology.

not working is a personal choice , raising a family is a personal choice ..all our kids have great careers  and work ,that was their choice .

everyone we knew in my own generation worked while raising a family unless they were wealthy .

my mom was disabled from a massive attack giving birth to my sister .

even she worked from home while taking care of the home taking in typing from companies .

so while no one is saying it is easy raising a family millions do it while working ..

but all that still has nothing to do with what the poster claimed about being penalized .

social security is a user funded insurance program .

it is means tested by how much one gets per dollar paid in by income earned .

the lower the income the greater the payment you get per dollar you paid , plus ssi is welfare .

so it rubs me the wrong way when someone claims they are penalized when clearly they are getting far more then they paid in to collect .

they may not be happy with the amount but it is what it is .

plus when one is that low there are usually other assistance programs they qualify for as well as assistance in paying Medicare or even getting Medicaid .

no one is guaranteed a place of their own either ..many lower incomes need to golden girl it to Make things work

because someone’s own personal situation left them in financial despair does not mean they are being penalized ..rather they are already getting more then others who did pay in.

they just have financial issues themselves  that may be difficult, but again that doesn’t mean they are not already eating more then they killed in the systems that provide what we live on and the criteria they use .


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Sunday at 3:38 AM)

Vida May said:


> I have Social Security and Supplemental Social Income.  If I have more than $2000, my payment is cut until I am below $2000.  I get punished for being frugal and $2000 hardly covers the cost of moving or some car repairs.  To me, the system we have penalizes low-income people and it is not very intelligent because it keeps me in a constant state of insecurity.


This is exactly what happens to me, in a similar way.  I only have regular SS pension benefits, but since i was a housewife for most of my life, I do not get much SS benefits.  
Whatever they add to my SS benefit, the government then takes out of my EBT benefits, so I actually do not ever get any real increases in being able to have money to cover rising costs of everything . 
The government gives with one hand and takes away with the other at the same time. This happens every year, and it makes no sense to me. 
If we need more money to have the cost of living increase, then why take it away from the low income person who actually needs it the most?


----------



## Blessed (Sunday at 4:09 AM)

mathjak107 said:


> I never meant to apologize as stating a fact requires no apology.
> 
> not working is a personal choice , raising a family is a personal choice ..all our kids have great careers  and work ,that was there choice .
> 
> ...



You are the one with started your post "sorry" so I guess I misunderstood.  I thought you were trying to apologize. Maybe the the question should be were you there front and center with doing the baths, the homework, reading before bedtime.  Cooking the dinner, doing the dishes, putting a load of towels in the washing machine so you could dry them in the morning.  Did you unload the dishwasher in the morning, did you get the kid up for school, fix the breakfast, do the dishes, take the kid to school, make the beds, put the trash out, get something out of the freezer and plan for dinner.  My husband did not realize all these things had to happen, it was just a given, it was like a miracle, it had nothing to do with me.  I kid you not, he had no clue. The only thing he saw was how life was supposed to be. 

I then went off to work a full time job, might I say that also provided the health insurance for our family.  I will never understand a man that does not think a mother and homemaker does not need and deserve social security that provides enough for her to have a decent life.  No, I am not in that position.  I had a job, that back in the day had a thing called profit sharing. I was the one that made sure something went into the retirement accounts every month. I was the one handling all the bills. I was also very savy money wise, I could run a home on a dime when needed.  I was the one that made sure something went into savings emergency fund every month.  I was the one that went without so our son had everything he needed including those stupid expensive sneakers to fit in.

I was the one that put money aside so we could attend my husband's family reunions, where we spent thousands of dollars of dollars on a 3 day trip. I was the one that saved all that money so when he got cancer we did not have to worry. I am angry, you bet, after all the hard work, all the planning, all the dreams for retirement, I sit here alone because he would not got to the doctor because he did not want to take time off from work. 

 So, yeah, I am a bit twisted but do not think that a woman that was a full time Mom and homemaker did not earn her due.  I know few men that could handle a job outside the home and also the duties of a homemaker.  I don't know you, if you were/are married, if you had children, if you wife worked or was a homemaker but I give credit where credit is due.


----------



## mathjak107 (Sunday at 4:53 AM)

yes actually i did do my share as both my wife and i worked.

but this discussion has nothing to do with anyone persons situation .

it simply has to do with a claim that  someone said they were penalized because they get both social security and welfare which is what ssi is and they felt it wasnt enough . they may even reduce one because of the welfare .

and the answer is , no your are not penalized at all and are receving more per dollar paid in then higher earners .

nothing else about raising a family is involved here .  the whys of someones situation are not involved here be it family , health or other wise ..

only the facts of what they said are incorrect .

it is as off base as saying i am getting tax payer money but i am being cheated because i should get more tax payer money .

it is a statement that make no sense .

one may feel it takes more to live then they get but that does not mean they are penalized when they are already getting more then just their earning records allow them to ,  compared to others who are part of the same social security system.

so we are not talking anyones situation , its merely the facts about how things work , whether you think its  a good or bad thing how it works is irrelevant as it is what it is . which is a user funded insurance program that pays lower wage earners more per dollar paid in then high wage earners ..

whether the amount suits you has no bearing …. I think I should get more from ss then they pay too .but irrelevant


----------



## Blessed (Sunday at 5:30 AM)

I get where you are coming from but don't agree with what the system is coming from.  I say these people, and sometimes might be men.  If a decision have to be made that someone must be home to take care of the home and children, they should not be penalized based on income outside of the home.  
When there are children that must be cared for with disabilties one parent should be available to take care of that child.  Even if the working parent is able to provide the neccessary income for the child and the home the other parent should not be penalized for being out of the so called working place.  

They should be granted the same in SS in benefit.  IMO, parents that deicde that a parent at home is the best thing for their child/children should not be be subject to a lesser social security than others. True, they have made the choice but if they have never relied on public benefits to raise their family, they should be entitled to to full benefits as any other working family.  IMO  I will say I am not expert in these laws and would never claim to be so.  I just know there are women out there that would have to preferred to work outside the home but were prevented to do so because of their husbands view of the world. 

 It is horrible to say they are some men, even today, that don't want/allow their wifes to work outside the home.  For many years I worked with women who husband's would call the office on payday, they wanted to come pick up the wife's paycheck as soon as she got it.  It made me want to cry every time.That their husband felt the need to keep them so dependent, so under control, that had no rights to decide how the money she earned was spent  It is was/is something  that no person should tolerate, female or male. It is abuse, plain and simple.


----------



## mathjak107 (Sunday at 5:36 AM)

Like I said , in my opinion not working is a personal choice … millions of us worked and or work  and raise families so I don’t buy the old housewife argument .

in fact if we have to change anything to save social security I say start to get rid of spousal benefits and everyone eats what they kill .

it is an antiquated idea and benefits those married , while millions of single parents get nothing extra.

the ss system does not have the luxury of paying those more who didn’t even pay in enough to get what they are getting .

you have one ex husband paying spousal to multiple ex wives ….it is a marriage based system  that is unfair to the unmarried.

it isn’t a welfare system , it is user funded and only those who fund it should participate in it in my opinion. All should be treated as singles as like I said millions are single and raising families.

why should they get less from ss then someone married who is collecting spousal Benefits .


----------



## Blessed (Sunday at 5:45 AM)

mathjak107 said:


> Like I said , in my opinion not working is a personal choice … millions of us work and raise families so I don’t buy the old housewife argument .
> 
> in fact if we have to change anything to save social security I say start to get rid of spousal benefits and everyone eats what they kill .
> 
> ...



Sorry, I will have to revisit this tomorrow, have to go get some sleep.


----------



## mathjak107 (Sunday at 5:46 AM)

Blessed said:


> Sorry, I will have to revisit this tomorrow, have to go get some sleep.


Ha ha, I am up for the day …nighty night


----------



## perChance (Sunday at 6:21 AM)

Blessed said:


> I would also say back in the day society expected women to run the house.  Keep the home fires burning, clean house, laundry done, meals on the table,  raise the kids and all that entails.  In my case, my Mom was also in charge of a huge vegetable garden in the spring and summer. She did not plant it but did the everyday work to have a good harvest.  There was the canning, freezing and processing of all that food that tooks us through the winter so we never felt without anything. She worked as hard even harder than my step dad.


I agree that women worked as hard as men.  My post was addressing the idea that men were privileged -  both men and women had 'expected' roles.


----------



## Liberty (Sunday at 6:22 AM)

mathjak107 said:


> money Is like water , it just seems to seek its own level ….


Or Karma...lol.


----------



## Vida May (Sunday at 8:45 AM)

I want to thank mathjak107 for publically announcing his opinion that I depend on welfare *that I have not earned.*  Wow, that pissed me off and I finally have come back fighting.  I don't want to hijack this thread I just want people who agree with mathjak that women do not deserve respect, dignity, and security from the civilization we live in, and therefore it is okay to trap them in complete insecurity if they must depend on SSI to supplement their Social Security.

This quote is from the philosophy forum where I have taken my fight for the dignity and honor women deserve.

"Teachers and nurses and secretaries did women's work for low wages because they were motivated by a notion of being good women who give all they have to their families and communities.  If they got pay, their pay was more like a tip as what we give a waitress than a wage based on their merit and their need to support their families.    They were so disrespected and taken for granted.  Today women are no longer tolerating that painful reality as I have until today.  This is a serious economic, social, and political problem.  We all see that this is going to destroy our nations unless we can turn things around and we are at each other's throats politically pushing and shoving in power struggles that have nothing to do with reasoning, human dignity, respect, or being a democracy."


----------



## mathjak107 (Sunday at 8:48 AM)

You keep twisting the discussion to fit your  poor me agenda .

I only pointed out that between ssi and social security you are not being penalized at all …

but feel free to argue away but it has no bearing to what I comme need on.

you not feeling you are being given enough has nothing to do with your payments being penalized.

I love how you Worked in the  I don’t respect women part .

the only thing missing with what you attributed to me saying is you didn’t start it with once upon a time


----------



## StarSong (Sunday at 9:02 AM)

Wow - some very interesting discussions going on here while I was offline.

To begin with, I understand and agree with @mathjak107's main points.  SS is basically a user funded pension plan structured to pay out to those who participate.  SS eligibility is not a value judgment on the merit of various people's contributions to their families, the world at large, nor is it an estimation of how hard people worked.

An issue being glossed over here is that SS is funded not only by employee contributions, but also by employer contributions. Every dollar an employee puts into SSDI is matched by their employer, and that portion is NOT deducted from employee paychecks. It's part of a business' cost of having employees.

Stay at home parents are free to participate in SS. Just as people are legally mandated to do for nannies, housekeepers and the like, spouses can legally employ their spouses for stay at home work.

Those spouses can be remunerated for their work by those who benefit from it, i.e. their family. However, that family must behave as an employer, including paying payroll taxes. SS alone is 6.2% to the employer and another 6.2% to the employee, so 12.4% tax right off the top on the first $147K paid out per year.

Teachers, nurses, childcare workers, and other *jobs traditionally filled by women offered lower salaries not because women voluntarily donated part of the their time as a philanthropic gesture but because the system (which is to say the men in charge) valued women's at lower rates of pay and could get away with paying them less.* Happy to say, that situation has been improving over the years, though there are still many yards to go before we get to the finish line.

I've known women in these fields my entire life. Not a single one was happy to be paid less than male counterparts in jobs that required similar hours, education or dedication. They joined unions, went on strike, sued, and otherwise disrupted the system to get what they'd earned.


----------



## mathjak107 (Sunday at 9:06 AM)

Stop letting facts get in the way of a good storyline


----------



## perChance (Sunday at 9:55 AM)

When I was in high school, a lot of girls wanted to go into teaching.   They knew it didn't pay as well as other careers, but they wanted summers and school holidays off.  They weren't victims - they weighed the pros and cons and made their choices.


----------



## sch404 (Sunday at 10:14 AM)

I just turned 81. I use this simple rule for finances. Avoid debt. Invest like you are going to live forever. Live like you are going to die tomorrow.


----------



## Don M. (Sunday at 10:37 AM)

Enjoy SS while you can.  If something isn't done to fund it properly for the future....and soon....it will become just another "welfare" program for those in the lower income brackets.  We strongly urge our kids and grandkids to save/invest now so they have a good retirement "cushion" when they retire.


----------



## Knight (Sunday at 10:37 AM)

perChance said:


> I agree that women worked as hard as men.  My post was addressing the idea that men were privileged -  both men and women had 'expected' roles.


How were men  privileged?  Are men still  privileged?  I don't want this to go to wage disparity just want to understand your thought that men were  privileged.  

Certainly can't compare the 50's to decades later when so many changes took place in the economy. 

As for the ongoing discussion about women working at home for no wage that has nothing to do with earning a wage & paying into the Soc. Sec. system.  My example of that is by choice my wife worked at home doing all the work & it was a lot of work until our sons were old enough to be left at home for a short period of time after school. She applied for & got a full time job in production. Wage & benefits were good. Both men & women earned the same pay for the job. 

Both choices were just that choices. We have a common pot where our money is deposited. My wife has credit cards in her name with a score of 810. Rather than wonder about financial needs in retirement & senior years we took an active role in our future.


----------



## HoneyNut (Sunday at 10:45 AM)

My SS increase is more than eaten up by inflation and also pending increases in the HOA fees.  

@Vida May - sadly it has grown on me over the years that sometimes it best to be dishonest.  I hate being dishonest but statistically men are extremely dishonest and the world has been shaped by them.  What I would suggest is that when you can afford it, buy gift cards for yourself that don't expire and/or put cash under the mattress, so that you can build up a bigger emergency fund without being penalized.  A $2000 limit is ridiculous and shame on legislatures that make laws like that, they obviously have not lived in economic insecurity.

They should adjust the laws, maybe they should make it similar to an HSA with rules about how the emergency fund can be used (like for car repairs and home repairs), and then allow it to be a more realistic amount.

I had a coworker frustrated by this too.  She had a disabled daughter who had a low paying job and an old car, and the limit on savings was just so small that my coworker worried about her daughter's future all the time.


----------



## mathjak107 (Sunday at 10:49 AM)

So there we have it ,the thread has progressed into advice for committing welfare fraud And getting even more taxpayer dollars then one is entitled to legally.

got it  !


----------



## HoneyNut (Sunday at 10:58 AM)

mathjak107 said:


> advice for committing fraud


LOL that is right, sorry if it offends you.  By personality traits I am highly conscientious so it has taken many many years for me to be crushed down to the point of accepting the reality.  I look back and laugh at myself once when I was questioned by the FBI for a security clearance and they asked me a hypothetical 'what would you do if' type question and my response was a flabbergasted 'but that would be illegal!'.  Breaking laws was outside my concept of the universe.

But years of observing men at work, who fake results, lie, pretend, claim experience they don't have etc, and use all that dishonesty to get hired and promoted unjustly, and experiencing rules that only punish people who follow them while others are not suffering the effects -- like stupid Nebraska laws before online sites were applying state taxes, Nebraskans were required to remit state taxes themselves for their online purchases, and I remember grumbling about it at work and a [male of course] coworker said 'but nobody bothers to do that!'.   Grrrr.

Here's a quote I found, I am not at all surprised, I've known so many men who want to be paid cash to avoid declaring income:
Roughly 30 percent of men are fine with lying to the IRS compared with 18 percent of women, and 25 percent of men were willing to lie for lower auto insurance rates compared with 16 percent of women.​​Twice as many men (16 percent vs. 8 percent) are fine with lying about their income on a credit card or loan application.​​“Some of the differences were much larger than we thought,” Richardson said.​


----------



## Geezer Garage (Sunday at 11:11 AM)

Going to spend mine on wine, women, and song. The rest I'll waste.


----------



## Sawfish (Sunday at 11:18 AM)

mathjak107 said:


> Depends on where you stand now compared to the day you started retirement .
> as well as your allocation.
> As well as the draw rate you are taking


I think that if you have a calculated monthly draw rate at the start of retirement, attacking that rate vigorously and consistently for as long as possible, as best you can, provides a margin of safety. Try as best you can to stay below the calculated draw each month, if you can.

So far, for the first 6 years of our combined retirement we have been able to do only RMD/12. Most retirement accounts are Roths, meaning that the RMD is ~6K per year.

We had initially calculated, or Schwab did, a $2500 per mo draw rate to allow my wife a 105 year covered lifespan. We found that due to other income sources we did not need to do this, and the draw rate for 2023 will be $450 per mo.

And no, I don't plan to spend my last cent as I take my last breath. That's what I used to say before we had a kid. I was almost 50 then, so it wasn't all that hard. I'd already done a lot of stuff.


----------



## Sawfish (Sunday at 11:20 AM)

Blessed said:


> I am saving for tomorrow, I have a good life only because of saving.  I often worry what would happen if I ran out of money.  I don't want to think about having to sell the house, not have the ability to to feed myself and the dogs. I don't want to have to depend on my son to help me. * It is just not my future, it is the son, his family and pets.*


EGGZ-ACTLY!!!


----------



## mathjak107 (Sunday at 11:23 AM)

HoneyNut said:


> LOL that is right, sorry if it offends you.  By personality traits I am highly conscientious so it has taken many many years for me to be crushed down to the point of accepting the reality.  I look back and laugh at myself once when I was questioned by the FBI for a security clearance and they asked me a hypothetical 'what would you do if' type question and my response was a flabbergasted 'but that would be illegal!'.  Breaking laws was outside my concept of the universe.
> 
> But years of observing men at work, who fake results, lie, pretend, claim experience they don't have etc, and use all that dishonesty to get hired and promoted unjustly, and experiencing rules that only punish people who follow them while others are not suffering the effects -- like stupid Nebraska laws before online sites were applying state taxes, Nebraskans were required to remit state taxes themselves for their online purchases, and I remember grumbling about it at work and a [male of course] coworker said 'but nobody bothers to do that!'.   Grrrr.
> 
> ...


Yes advocating fraud does offend me


----------



## Sawfish (Sunday at 11:30 AM)

mathjak107 said:


> Yes advocating fraud does offend me


Boy oh boy. This thread, and talk of money and taxation, reminds me of two very, very comical, but appropriate responses to each situation that I saw in two separate Japanese movies.

The first was from A Taxing Woman, a romantic comedy where a female tax agent, the Japanese equivalent of the IRS, is trying to catch a newly rich guy whom she suspects of cheating. And only in Japan would the hero or heroine be an IRS agent.

At one point he tells her, in exasperation:

"You don't know what it's like, what it took, to come from poverty to having several millions.

"It's like you're a man dying of thirst, and you are standing before a water tap with a drinking glass, but the water can only come out of the glass very slowly. So you put the glass under the tap and as you watch it slowly fill, you desperately want to pull the glass back and drink all the water that you've got in the glass. It would not be enough, and so you'd have to refill several times. There are several standing behind you and you'd have to go the end of the line and start again.

"But with great effort you watch the water slowly climb in the glass. You are tempted to pull it out and drink when it's half full, three quarters full, but you don't give up.

"You wait until the water has filled the glass and is flowing over. Then you lick the outside of the glass as it overflows.

"You never take the glass away."

That one was about how to save, and after I heard it, I actually adopted it. I still do it.

The other example was from a samurai movie, and it was from the point of view of a bunch of very poor villagers. The samurai were coming to collect taxes for the noble, and it was up to the samurai to judge how much to take and how much to leave.

So at one point a villager runs into the hut and says:

"The samurai are only about 10 minutes away!"

And a village elder says:

"Hide the rice, and act dumb!"

Boy, two great, great pieces of advice, huh?  ;^)


----------



## BC Flash (Sunday at 11:31 AM)

The best financial advice (from a "joke sight") is to make sure your last cheque (check for Americans)  bounces!!









the


----------



## StarSong (Sunday at 11:43 AM)

perChance said:


> Men were also trapped in their traditional roles - and probably didn't think of it as privilege.  My father had to work two jobs to pay the bills - not because he was privileged but because that is what society expected.





Knight said:


> How were men  privileged?  Are men still  privileged?  I don't want this to go to wage disparity just want to understand your thought that men were  privileged.
> 
> Certainly can't compare the 50's to decades later when so many changes took place in the economy.
> 
> ...


The women's movement freed women AND men from the burdens of sole responsibility for various chores and roles.  Before the 1970s, rare indeed was the man who changed a baby's diaper.  50 years later, every young father I know takes a very active part in child raising, diaper changing, baby bathing and general childcare included.  They don't think twice about it.  

I know several couples where the wives have salaries twice or higher than their husbands', and have far more demanding careers. All parties are cool with that.   

It's a different world out there - a better one on this front, at least.


----------



## Sawfish (Sunday at 11:53 AM)

StarSong said:


> The women's movement freed women AND men from the burdens of sole responsibility for various chores and roles.  Before the 1970s, rare indeed was the man who changed a baby's diaper.  50 years later, every young father I know takes a very active part in child raising, diaper changing, baby bathing and general childcare included.  They don't think twice about it.
> 
> I know several couples where the wives have salaries twice or higher than their husbands', and have far more demanding careers. All parties are cool with that.
> 
> It's a different world out there - a better one on this front, at least.


In honesty, I don't know why we're comparing and apparently scoring each separate partner in a marriage. It is a collective pot for all in the family.

Maybe the only true voluntary socialism.


----------



## Knight (Sunday at 12:05 PM)

StarSong said:


> The women's movement freed women AND men from the burdens of sole responsibility for various chores and roles.  Before the 1970s, rare indeed was the man who changed a baby's diaper.


I  digress from the original to pat myself on the back.

Must have been ahead of my time.  1st. born son was 1965.  I got pretty good at not sticking my fingers with those oversized diaper pins use for cloth diapers.  AND guess who emptied the diaper pail & washed those diapers.


----------



## Sawfish (Sunday at 12:14 PM)

Knight said:


> I  digress from the original to pat myself on the back.
> 
> Must have been ahead of my time.  1st. born son was 1965.  I got pretty good at not sticking my fingers with those oversized diaper pins use for cloth diapers.  AND guess who emptied the diaper pail & washed those diapers.


Way, way later I changed my daughter's diapers. Late 90s.

A messy job, but she seemed to like getting cleaned up and having baby powder put on, and that was sufficient reward.


----------



## leastlongprime (Sunday at 12:46 PM)

Blessed said:


> I have been going back and reviewing my costs to see if I can put this increase into savings.  I know we have all seen increases in gas, electricity, housing and food, just the basics.  I have found I can roll the increase into savings by keeping things tight.  Is that a possibility for you and your budget?


Good for you. 
Your achievement is commendable. 

Unfortunately-fortunately,  2023,  we will have a temporary IRMAA increase. 
We also have a very significant increase in LTCi insurance premium of 85% beginning in March. 
These were expected and we have done forward planning and budgeting.


----------



## StarSong (Sunday at 1:29 PM)

Sawfish said:


> In honesty, I don't know why we're comparing and apparently scoring each separate partner in a marriage. It is a collective pot for all in the family.
> 
> Maybe the only true voluntary socialism.


I'm not scoring anyone.  I'm replying to a couple of other posters' questions/remarks about male privilege in a marriage.  I personally think men and women were equally constrained by traditional gender roles.  

Not all on SF are married. Many are divorced, widowed or never married.


----------



## leastlongprime (Sunday at 1:29 PM)

Sawfish said:


> Way, way later I changed my daughter's diapers. Late 90s.
> 
> A messy job, but she seemed to like getting cleaned up and having baby powder put on, and that was sufficient reward.


The women in the household, wife and grandmothers, enjoyed the job too much for me to get involved. 
We use cloth diapers, and soon learned how son relieved himself, what foods had worked best for him,  learned about TP as a diaper liner, and a pull up pants to hold the diaper in place instead of pins. Prior or after the pants, we used masking tape. It was a long time ago, IIRC.


----------



## Teacher Terry (Sunday at 1:55 PM)

_As a former social worker I find it ridiculous that people are penalized if they manage to save some of their small income.  It’s always been this way. Actually buying gift cards to shield some of the money is smart and unfortunately ethical and legal aren’t always the same. 

 Wealthy people shield their money all the time legally. I remember when Warren Buffets secretary paid more in taxes than he did.  I know someone that was able to shield his money legally when his wife got dementia and he had Medicaid pay for it. He hired a lawyer and was able to leave a substantial inheritance behind for his kids. It was legal but definitely unethical. 

Some women stay home until the kids enter school because they don’t earn enough to pay for daycare. Once my kids went to school I started college which we paid for by being frugal and college was much cheaper in the 80’s. 

 I wanted a career and also knew it wasn’t smart to not join the workforce. Marriages end by either death or divorce and you certainly don’t want to be trapped in a marriage because of finances.  _


----------



## mathjak107 (Sunday at 4:15 PM)

Teacher Terry said:


> _As a former social worker I find it ridiculous that people are penalized if they manage to save some of their small income.  It’s always been this way. Actually buying gift cards to shield some of the money is smart and unfortunately ethical and legal aren’t always the same.
> 
> Wealthy people shield their money all the time legally. I remember when Warren Buffets secretary paid more in taxes than he did.  I know someone that was able to shield his money legally when his wife got dementia and he had Medicaid pay for it. He hired a lawyer and was able to leave a substantial inheritance behind for his kids. It was legal but definitely unethical.
> 
> ...


My ex wife was home with the kids until they were in school and went enough hours to let her work .

then she resumed her own working career …

she will be getting a decent ss check when she files for her own benefit at 70 in a few months and retires


----------



## perChance (Sunday at 4:56 PM)

Knight said:


> How were men  privileged?  Are men still  privileged?  I don't want this to go to wage disparity just want to understand your thought that men were  privileged.
> 
> Certainly can't compare the 50's to decades later when so many changes took place in the economy.
> 
> ...


I don't think men were/are privileged.  An earlier poster mentioned that and I disagreed with her.


----------



## mathjak107 (Monday at 3:21 AM)

Teacher Terry said:


> _As a former social worker I find it ridiculous that people are penalized if they manage to save some of their small income.  It’s always been this way. Actually buying gift cards to shield some of the money is smart and unfortunately ethical and legal aren’t always the same.
> 
> Wealthy people shield their money all the time legally. I remember when Warren Buffets secretary paid more in taxes than he did.  I know someone that was able to shield his money legally when his wife got dementia and he had Medicaid pay for it. He hired a lawyer and was able to leave a substantial inheritance behind for his kids. It was legal but definitely unethical.
> 
> ...


In my opinion committing welfare fraud is never okay ….

because someone is low income does not give them the right to steal..

one of the reasons our social security system is in such bad shape. Is the ten fold increase in Ssdi since the 1970s despite boomers coming off Ssdi and going on ss retirement.

the 2015 bipartisan act had to take money out of ss retirement and put it in Ssdi or after 2018 Ssdi was bust .

it is plagued with fraud and  we have workers , doctors and lawyers charged regularly with running fraud schemes on it .

Just one  man and a corrupt doctor and judge  put through a half billion dollars in Ssdi claims that were put through fraudulently …

so fraud is costing us all …ssi is welfare and consumes our money we pay in taxes .

Ssdi is for those who have enough social security credits , if you dont then you get welfare which is ssi and comes out of our taxes . 

my son was a welfare investigator in nyc …the fraud is insane that goes on so I would never advocate someone commits fraud to get a bigger share then they are entitled to


----------



## StarSong (Monday at 7:32 AM)

Teacher Terry said:


> I remember when Warren Buffets secretary paid more in taxes than he did.


This is a common mischaracterization of what Buffett said.  His remarks were that he paid a lower tax RATE than his secretary.  He paid far more in actual taxes because his income largely came from investments.    

Tax rates are set by the wealthy folks who run this country, i.e. the folks in Washington, and they see fit to tax capital gains at a lower rate than ordinary income AKA sweat-of-the-brow earnings.


----------



## mathjak107 (Monday at 7:37 AM)

StarSong said:


> This is a common mischaracterization of what Buffett said.  His remarks were that he paid a lower tax RATE than his secretary.  He paid far more in actual taxes because his income largely came from investments.
> 
> Tax rates are set by the wealthy folks who run this country, i.e. the folks in Washington, and they see fit to tax capital gains at a lower rate than ordinary income AKA sweat-of-the-brow earnings.


Keep in mind though at the higher incomes the capital gain rates end up being higher then most think ..

a few years ago I sold an asset and had a large capital gain .

the gain was taxed at long term rates which were raised to 20% for that level , plus at that level there is a 3.80% investment tax so it was 23.80%  , plus the higher income from that sale tripped the amt tax penalty on all other income .

it actually worked out to 30% tax FROM DOLLAR ONE  , including ny state and nyc taxes .

a flat 30% with no farther exemptions or deductions is quite a bit.  that isn’t the same as a 30% marginal rate , that is a 30% flat rate with no laddering of taxes like a marginal rate.

marginal rate is how we normally get taxed ..up to x amount it is one tax rate then from x to y another and from y to z another …so it is much less normally then  the marginal rate .

but not in this case once you hit amt level


----------



## StarSong (Monday at 8:05 AM)

mathjak107 said:


> My ex wife was home with the kids until they were in school and went enough hours to let her work .
> 
> then she resumed her own working career …
> 
> she will be getting a decent ss check when she files for her own benefit at 70 in a few months and retires


I stayed at home with the kids for 11 years then resumed working part-time (some for our own business, some for an employer), and transitioned to full-time after a couple of years. 

Excepting one who was born into great wealth, all of my age-group women friends and relatives followed pretty much the same pattern, though some went back to work earlier in the game.  TBH, I would have also gone back sooner, but with three children in two years (a planned single plus a surprise pregnancy that produced a set of twins), the daycare costs would have been crippling. 

Would I have like to continue staying home?  Maybe.  (Probably not.) But it was time to help shoulder family's financial burden that my husband had been solely carrying for over a decade.  Mind you, he was a good sport about it and never complained, but knowing he was the only one keeping the wolf from the door was plenty stressful for him.


----------



## mathjak107 (Monday at 8:09 AM)

Over 63% of households have both parents working.
that number has been rising as more and more companies allow working from home .

which is one of the things Ssdi needs to look at as many on Ssdi can find at least some work from home easier today …


----------



## spectratg (Monday at 8:14 AM)

1955 said:


> I'm retired, I thought the idea was to spend down your savings preferably to $0 when you finally pass?


Not me, I hope.  I plan on leaving as much money to my daughters as I can.


----------



## Nemo2 (Monday at 8:20 AM)

StarSong said:


> Tax rates are set by the wealthy folks who run this country, i.e. the folks in Washington, andsweat-of-the-brow earnings.


There has to be an incentive to buy into companies/corporations/businesses in order to keep the machine running, and for the investor, doing so is not without risk.  If fixed income investments were taxed at the same rate, then why take a chance?


----------



## mathjak107 (Monday at 8:25 AM)

Just a by product of how a safe withdrawal rate works you can end up with more then you started more often then not using  40/60 to 60/40 with a 4% inflation adjusted draw .

that ended 90% of the time with more then you started 

67% of the time with 2x what you started 

50% of the time with 3x what you started

5% of the time you ended broke and 5% of the time ended with 6x what you started with .

so taking raises can be important or you risk leaving to much left over and not enjoyed


----------



## mathjak107 (Monday at 8:26 AM)

Nemo2 said:


> There has to be an incentive to buy into companies/corporations/businesses in order to keep the machine running, and for the investor, doing so is not without risk.  If fixed income investments were taxed at the same rate, then why take a chance?


Because fixed income can never produce the gains other assets can

you would have to really cherry pick to find longer periods of time Equities didn’t blow fixed income away


----------



## JustBonee (Monday at 8:26 AM)

My SS increase  is equal to the  same amount   that my  rent  payment is increasing  next month.
Funny how that happens ...


----------



## 1955 (Monday at 8:27 AM)

spectratg said:


> Not me, I hope.  I plan on leaving as much money to my daughters as I can.


Yeah I would too but I'm a empty nester. Obviously I'll still have many assets when I go so my thinking is to have a auction firm dispose of everything & donate it to a charity - maybe the local doggie rescue outfit.


----------



## Nemo2 (Monday at 8:27 AM)

mathjak107 said:


> Because fixed income can never produce the gains other assets can
> 
> you would have to really cherry pick to find longer periods of time Equities didn’t blow fixed income away


Or, in some instances, the losses.


----------



## mathjak107 (Monday at 8:28 AM)

Nemo2 said:


> Or, in some instances, the losses.


a 50/50 portfolio has never lost money in any 10 or 20 year period , ever.

even at 65 we have long term money which we will need to eat with in another 2 to 3 decades ..that is still long term money.

equities are long term assets and need to be treated as such.

even those who retired in 2000 or 2008 are still ahead of the game


----------



## Nemo2 (Monday at 8:33 AM)

mathjak107 said:


> a 50/50 portfolio has never lost money in any 10 or 20 year period , ever.


Enron anybody?  Nortel?  Kodak?  Lehman Bros?  Blockbuster?   "Next contestant please."


----------



## mathjak107 (Monday at 8:34 AM)

Nemo2 said:


> Enron anybody?  Nortel?  Kodak?  Lehman Bros?  Blockbuster?   "Next contestant please."


Spin again .

we are talking investing in diversified funds , NOT SPECULATING IN INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES  betting on the whims of one companies outcome.

you need to learn the differences between speculating vs investing …betting the ranch on a few stocks is speculating not investing.

when you try to beat the market at its own gaming by betting on just a few stocks you are speculating …when you buy an s&p 500 fund or total market fund or any diversified fund you are not speculating or trying to beat the market at its own game .

all those stocks you mentioned were held by diversified funds but they weren’t a blip on the radar


----------



## StarSong (Monday at 8:35 AM)

Nemo2 said:


> There has to be an incentive to buy into companies/corporations/businesses in order to keep the machine running, and for the investor, doing so is not without risk.  *If fixed income investments were taxed at the same rate, then why take a chance?*


Why take a chance?  Because fixed income investments don't offer the same possibility of high rates of returns as capital gains type investments.

Oops - I posted this before seeing @mathjak107's almost identical reply.


----------



## Nemo2 (Monday at 8:38 AM)

mathjak107 said:


> we are talking investing in diversified funds , NOT SPECULATING IN INDIVIDUAL COMPANIES  betting on the whims of one companies outcome.


Put all the aforementioned companies in a 'diversified fund' and you have......


----------



## mathjak107 (Monday at 8:40 AM)

Nemo2 said:


> Put all the aforementioned companies in a 'diversified fund' and you have......


They were and weren’t a blip on the radar long term ….a total market fund held everyone , so did an s&p fund .so did many of the thousands of funds out there 

but thanks for playing


----------



## Nemo2 (Monday at 8:42 AM)

StarSong said:


> Why take a chance?  Because fixed income investments don't offer the same possibility of high rates of returns as capital gains.


The key word being 'possibility'.  And, if capital gains are taxed at the same rate as fixed income, then said possibility narrows somewhat and a number of potential investors might opt for security.


----------



## Nemo2 (Monday at 8:57 AM)

mathjak107 said:


> They were and weren’t a blip on the radar long term ….a total market fund held everyone , so did an s&p fund .so did many of the thousands of funds out there


The point is not if the risk materializes or not, the point is that the risk exists.


----------



## StarSong (Monday at 9:06 AM)

Nemo2 said:


> The point is not if the risk materializes or not, the point is that the risk exists.


Life is fraught with risk.  Working for a paycheck is also risky.  Businesses lay workers off, reduce their hours, or close their doors entirely, often without a moment's notice or severance check.  

Higher tax rates for earnings than investments keep paycheck-to-paycheck people broke while those with disposable income for investments continue to get richer.


----------



## mathjak107 (Monday at 9:08 AM)

Nemo2 said:


> The point is not if the risk materializes or not, the point is that the risk exists.


here is the real risk ..if we include all those stocks you listed and  put 10k in  a total market fund in 2008 you would have 34,459 today vs cash instruments   of 11,000 dollars .   a gain of just 1k

if we go back to 2000 and include the lost decade for stocks  you would have 41,388 today  vs 14,226  in cash instruments .

subtracting out inflation and taxes which is the bigger risk of running out of money before you run out of time ?

since i am not sure of your math ability i will tell you .

at a  4% draw over the last 122 30 year cycles we have had , fixed income failed 64% of them and went broke before 30 years ... that is the actual results .  it is considered totally unsafe at that failure rate


----------



## mathjak107 (Monday at 9:15 AM)

in practice , trying to take a 4% inflation draw from just fixed income has only a 47% success rate of lasting 30 years .

under 90% is unsafe

FIRECalc looked at the 122 possible 30 year periods in the available data, starting with a portfolio of $1,000,000 and spending your specified amounts each year thereafter.

Here is how your portfolio would have fared in each of the 122 cycles. The lowest and highest portfolio balance at the end of your retirement was $-517,560 to $2,349,575, with an average at the end of $191,397. (Note: this is looking at all the possible periods; values are in terms of the dollars as of the beginning of the retirement period for each cycle.)

For our purposes, failure means the portfolio was depleted before the end of the 30 years. FIRECalc found that 64 cycles failed, for a success rate of 47.5%.


here is 50/50

FIRECalc looked at the 122 possible 30 year periods in the available data, starting with a portfolio of $1,000,000 and spending your specified amounts each year thereafter.

Here is how your portfolio would have fared in each of the 122 cycles. The lowest and highest portfolio balance at the end of your retirement was $-223,952 to $4,145,063, with an average at the end of $1,159,395. (Note: this is looking at all the possible periods; values are in terms of the dollars as of the beginning of the retirement period for each cycle.)

For our purposes, failure means the portfolio was depleted before the end of the 30 years. FIRECalc found that 6 cycles failed, for a success rate of 95.1%.


----------



## Nemo2 (Monday at 9:15 AM)

mathjak107 said:


> here is the real risk ..if we include all those stocks you listed and  put 10k in  a total market fund in 2008 you would have 34,459 today vs cash instruments since then of 11,000 dollars .   a gain of just 1k
> 
> if we go back to 2000 and include the lost decade for stocks  you would have 41,388 today  vs 14,226  in cash instruments .
> 
> subtracting out inflation and taxes which is the bigger risk of running out of money before you run out of time ?


I think we're talking past each other here  -  my attempted point is that the _perception_ of a greater risk exists, and that new/non-investors might look at the rates and think "I'm _assured_ of getting 'x' returns in fixed income, whereas with equities I may not, and may even lose, so I'll go with fixed".


----------



## mathjak107 (Monday at 9:21 AM)

Nemo2 said:


> I think we're talking past each other here  -  my attempted point is that the _perception_ of a greater risk exists, and that new/non-investors might look at the rates and think "I'm _assured_ of getting 'x' returns in fixed income, whereas with equities I may not, and may even lose, so I'll go with fixed".


it is a case of believing ones own  bull shit then as nothing is farther from the truth and data and facts prove they are taking on way more risk ...just look at the  success rate to date of just fixed income ..it is horrible


----------



## Nemo2 (Monday at 9:25 AM)

mathjak107 said:


> it is a case of believing ones own  bull shit then as nothing is farther from the truth and data and facts prove they are taking on way more risk ...just look at the  success rate to date of just fixed income ..it is horrible


I would posit that, for non or new investors they don't have any bullshit to believe....yet.


----------



## mathjak107 (Monday at 9:37 AM)

Nemo2 said:


> I would posit that, for non or new investors they don't have any bullshit to believe....yet.


Things never change new or old .

many confused markets with their own poor investor behavior if they lost money …

many acted badly lost money and now want to blame markets . But they can’t because the facts speak for themselves.

so instead they try to hide under a rock really putting their retirement at risk with growth from fixed income  that can’t keep up with inflation ,taxes  and needs .

especially the unexpected emergency spending and unexpected spending


----------



## Sawfish (Monday at 10:03 AM)

mathjak107 said:


> the gain was taxed at long term rates which were raised to 20% for that level , plus at that level there is a 3.80% investment tax so it was 23.80%  , plus the higher income from that sale tripped the amt tax penalty on all other income .


Yes, by god!

This happened to me in tax year 2017.

The AMT was like a little dig at the end...

The investment tax came in in 2014, as a part of the financing for the ACA. 

I am also pleased to report that this May a measure will appear on the ballot for the city of Portland. If passed by the voters---and why wouldn't they? they've passed mandatory pre-school, and two homeless aid levies in the past 4 years, all based on property tax in a city that has 47% renters, who expect that they don't have to pay--the new measure will assess a .75% cap gains tax to pay for public legal representation for renters in landlord tenant disputes.



mathjak107 said:


> it actually worked out to 30% tax FROM DOLLAR ONE  , including ny state and nyc taxes .
> 
> a flat 30% with no farther exemptions or deductions is quite a bit.  that isn’t the same as a 30% marginal rate , that is a 30% flat rate with no laddering of taxes like a marginal rate.
> 
> ...



"Act dumb and hide the rice...".


----------



## Sawfish (Monday at 10:05 AM)

spectratg said:


> Not me, I hope.  I plan on leaving as much money to my daughters as I can.


There you go!!!


----------



## mathjak107 (Monday at 10:06 AM)

Sawfish said:


> Yes, by god!
> 
> This happened to me in tax year 2017.
> 
> ...


Those who parrot others and never fully understand what they comment on , do not realize what high capital gains can do to income .

plus hit those levels while on Medicare and hold on to your hat when you see the Medicare surcharges .

for a couple it can be an Extra 1600 a month on top of the standard payment


----------



## Sawfish (Monday at 10:25 AM)

mathjak107 said:


> Because fixed income can never produce the gains other assets can
> 
> you would have to really cherry pick to find longer periods of time Equities didn’t blow fixed income away


Diverging somewhat, we have "silo'ed" our retirement accounts based on expected sequence of need. 

In our combined Schwab retirement portfolio, currently 80% of which are Roths, we have five separate accounts, one of which is the brokerage account, and the other four occupy an "order of withdrawal" strategy. Simply put, the last one to be tapped is expected (hope, hope) to pass intact to our daughter, and currently is probably 80% stock--growth strategy--while the other three have varying levels of risk, with the higher risk ones  to be tapped farther down the road, and the one (an IRA) being tapped for RMD in fixed income. That one at current withdrawal rate would last 20 more years, which implies that there's too much in fixed income at this point.

Interestingly, one of the four is a discretionary account. It's done well during grow phases; now that it's on my mind I'd better check.

We are living off of rental income of a few small apts, plus my SS, plus the RMD. There are two other retirement accounts, Roths, under Ameriprize and TD Ameritrade set up when each of us was contracting. Hopefully these, as well as the apts, will pass intact to our daughter.

Everyone has their own priorities for life. Passing more than I started with, as much as possible, to heirs is mine.


----------



## mathjak107 (Monday at 10:37 AM)

It doesn’t matter what the growth vehicles are as long as they will outperform inflation and grow enough to meet your goals  ..real estate works fine …nothing we wanted  in retirement.

we held a small commercial real estate business consisting of 9 co-op apartments overlooking Central Park and some lease rights on commercial property.  But nothing we want to deal with in retirement..

we only want liquid assets which can be traded  and sold with a mouse click .so all has been sold 

whatever works ….

many could have actually had less stressful lives sweating all unexpected bills if they didn’t fear investing and hung out only in fixed income .

but not my problem , they have to deal with that


----------



## Sawfish (Monday at 10:41 AM)

mathjak107 said:


> Because fixed income can never produce the gains other assets can
> 
> you would have to really cherry pick to find longer periods of time Equities didn’t blow fixed income away


Hah!

Yes, I accept that. The attraction of fixed income accounts is that they require a smaller leap of faith than equities, so there's that as an emotional hook.

Yes, it most certainly does need to be diversified. The irony is that when young and starting with very little, you're temped to go for home run positions, all in. >20% return--much more, hopefully.

This has only worked for me in RE, and then not always. 

What many people may not realize is that as you acquire a comfortable amount of assets, and you do not need as high a rate of return (6-8% on 1.5M is quite satisfactory, whereas you wanted >20% on 50K), you can then diversify easily, creating a sort of reinforced financial foundation for yourself/family. This is very desirable for the long run.

So I don't know about the the poor, but yes, the rich get richer, unless they screw up big-time or have CATASTROPHIC luck.

Hah! This Christmas eve, after a dinner with a bunch of friends of ages varying between 75 (me) and 40, the conversation came around to "when would a person feel like they had enough"? The 40 year old guy--a very reasonable and insightful sort--asked me if I had 10M wouldn't that be enough? Wouldn't that be enough for anyone, to just step back and enjoy? 

So he asked me if I had 10M right now, what would I do.

It didn't take long to admit to him that I'd try to make it 75-100% greater within the remainder of my life. It should be far easier than getting the first 10M.

It'll never be any different for me, I'm afraid.


----------



## Sawfish (Monday at 10:45 AM)

mathjak107 said:


> [SNIP!]...with in another 2 to 3 decades ..that is still long term money.


Yes! It suggests the need to break it into maybe four year segments (silos) each with a different asset allocation.

I now suspect that few see this.


mathjak107 said:


> equities are long term assets and need to be treated as such.
> 
> even those who retired in 2000 or 2008 are still ahead of the game


Great observations!


----------



## Sawfish (Monday at 10:47 AM)

Nemo2 said:


> Enron anybody?  Nortel?  Kodak?  Lehman Bros?  Blockbuster?   "Next contestant please."


I see your point, but you don't sit still on losers. Enron was almost too fast to escape, but yep, I owned GE for a long time, edging away from it entirely.


----------



## mathjak107 (Monday at 11:08 AM)

When one is living off their portfolio and need say a 4% draw to meet  their lifestyle, that 4% draw is the same on 5 million as it is 500k .

it takes exactly the same returns and sequence to make both work.or both will fail.

in fact if the person living on 200k a year has little discretionary spending in the budget and the person living on 20k does , if cuts need to be made in draw the person with 20kis in better shape.

more money does not mean easier life . It usually means higher living expenses and higher lifestyle in  more expensive places.

What determines your returns needed is the draw you take  not how much you have

more money can just mean more choices in lifestyle but the percentage draw is determined by allocation regardless.

in both cases if cuts need to be made they both may get uprooted and have to move.

more money equals more choice


----------



## Sawfish (Monday at 12:31 PM)

mathjak107 said:


> When one is living off their portfolio and need say a 4% draw to meet  their lifestyle, that 4% draw is the same on 5 million as it is 500k .
> 
> it takes exactly the same returns and sequence to make both work.or both will fail.
> 
> ...


*When one is living off their portfolio and need say a 4% draw to meet  their lifestyle, that 4% draw is the same on 5 million as it is 500k .*

I flip-flop this a bit.

I'm willing to adjust my lifestyle to a degree to preserve capital. Lifestyle is one of the controllables. I'll admit that this is not for everyone.

So with a 500K portfolio I'd not take a 4% draw. 

And this is possible because of other diversified assets that are not in the portfolio.

More money = more choice. It's up to you to make one that makes sense for your overall goals, and if you don't have such goals, it's easy to piss away money--very easy.

"the rich get rich, and..."


----------



## mathjak107 (Monday at 12:34 PM)

Sawfish said:


> *When one is living off their portfolio and need say a 4% draw to meet  their lifestyle, that 4% draw is the same on 5 million as it is 500k .*
> 
> I flip-flop this a bit.
> 
> ...


anyone is free to cut their draw at any income ..even the lowest levels can golden girl it and live even cheaper then they are .

but most of us have that line in the sand below which we rather not down grade to unless forced to .

to live here in queens is way cheaper then Manhattan but it still takes us all of social security , all of pension and a 3.60% draw from our portfolio to live just the way we want.

we enjoy doing things with our 6 grand kids which ain’t cheap , we both have a photography hobby , we like our occasional weekend trips , we enjoy eating out while on the run with our photography and I have studio time costs as a drummer .

so there isn’t much we want to change unless we are forced to .

we didn’t scrimp , save and invest for decades to look at it ..we want to enjoy what we have


----------



## leastlongprime (Monday at 10:27 PM)

Sawfish said:


> Diverging somewhat, we have "silo'ed" our retirement accounts based on expected sequence of need.
> 
> In our combined Schwab retirement portfolio, currently 80% of which are Roths, we have five separate accounts, one of which is the brokerage account, and the other four occupy an "order of withdrawal" strategy. Simply put, the last one to be tapped is expected (hope, hope) to pass intact to our daughter, and currently is probably 80% stock--growth strategy--while the other three have varying levels of risk, with the higher risk ones  to be tapped farther down the road, and the one (an IRA) being tapped for RMD in fixed income. That one at current withdrawal rate would last 20 more years, which implies that there's too much in fixed income at this point.
> 
> ...


We built silos too (multiple & independent streams of Income)


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Monday at 11:11 PM)

spectratg said:


> Not me, I hope.  I plan on leaving as much money to my daughters as I can.


I'm hoping to be able to do the same for my son, with a little for each of his 5 children. But this in no way means I'm depriving myself of anything I want or need.


----------



## Teacher Terry (Monday at 11:21 PM)

mathjak107 said:


> In my opinion committing welfare fraud is never okay ….
> 
> because someone is low income does not give them the right to steal..
> 
> ...


One of my 3 graduate degrees happens to be in Vocational Rehabilitation and I spent 29 years evaluating people with disabilities to help them join or rejoin the workforce.  I don’t feel like typing the complexity and expense involved in putting some of these people to work and while working from home helps it’s not a magic pill.  

For some it’s not possible and for others that require 24 hour attendants because of severe physical disabilities they lose their subsidies to pay for their care if they go to work.

Also it’s extremely difficult for people to obtain SSDI. Many severely disabled people get denied repeatedly and if they keep appealing they eventually will go before a law judge that will decide along with a vocational expert (also a area where I consulted after retiring) if they should be awarded SSDI.

In the 70’s before I entered the field there was quite a bit of fraud. That hasn’t been true for a long time. If anything the opposite is happening.  In my career I only know of one case where the person was extremely good at faking their disability and was caught when someone tipped us off. They were investigated and prosecuted.

By all means focus on some poor people trying to save a few bucks by calling it welfare fraud and ignore all the unethical and fraudulent behavior of some of the people with the most wealth. I know who I will save my rage for.


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Monday at 11:36 PM)

Teacher Terry said:


> One of my 3 graduate degrees happens to be in Vocational Rehabilitation and I spent 29 years evaluating people with disabilities to help them join or rejoin the workforce.  I don’t feel like typing the complexity and expense involved in putting some of these people to work and while working from home helps it’s not a magic pill.
> 
> For some it’s not possible and for others that require 24 hour attendants because of severe physical disabilities they lose their subsidies to pay for their care if they go to work.
> 
> ...


I hear you TT.  Re: your last sentence, like that SOB (we call him #45) who claimed to be a billionaire but *paid no taxes for 10 years! *Something people who haven't had to go through trying to get the assistance they need don't realize is that one lousy dollar can disqualify a person. That happened to an online friend I've known for years. She was having a very hard time trying to live on her measly SS payments. She often said she's lucky that one of her sons was in a position to help her a bit. The other had mental challenges since he was a boy so he couldn't be of help. She finally wound up moving to another state at the invitation of her ex-husband, who she had remained friends with. The move has been good for both of them. She gets to keep a lot more of her check while having company and enjoying the wide open spaces of their property.  But everyone doesn't get that lucky...blessed, if you will.

Some people are working two and three jobs but still can't make ends meet. They too will not qualify for extra help. They too often pay more in taxes than the rich who use their loopholes to the max. Even Warren Buffett found it to be an unfair practice and called for the rich to pay their fair share. I dare anyone to walk a mile in any of these unfortunate people's shoes...then come back and tell us how it feels.


----------



## leastlongprime (Monday at 11:51 PM)

Nemo2 said:


> Enron anybody?  Nortel?  Kodak?  Lehman Bros?  Blockbuster?   "Next contestant please."


$AMC. $APE. 
negative 90-95%. Hope is eternal. 
Discretionary.


----------



## Teacher Terry (Monday at 11:55 PM)

_Diva, I am glad it worked out for your friend. Most people have no clue what’s really happening and believe the news about welfare queens, etc. It makes a good story on the news to get people mad at poor people instead of who they should really despise creating the large income inequality created and maintained by the elites. _


----------



## mathjak107 (Tuesday at 1:24 AM)

Teacher Terry said:


> One of my 3 graduate degrees happens to be in Vocational Rehabilitation and I spent 29 years evaluating people with disabilities to help them join or rejoin the workforce.  I don’t feel like typing the complexity and expense involved in putting some of these people to work and while working from home helps it’s not a magic pill.
> 
> For some it’s not possible and for others that require 24 hour attendants because of severe physical disabilities they lose their subsidies to pay for their care if they go to work.
> 
> ...


Ssdi is not always difficult to get  because there  are workers on the inside who fraudulently make it happen for a fee .

we had  a bust here of 106 workers , doctors and others involved in seeing to it people got fraudulent claims approved  and they said those 106 we’re just the tip of the iceberg .

so yeah I do object to people stealing money they shouldn’t be getting . I don’t care how little or why.

there are enough jobs and ways to work from home now for someone to perk up an income in most places if they are desperate enough to steal money they shouldnt be getting in most cases .

ssi and Ssdi have not kept pace with the times and revised their requirements as many can work from home today if they really wanted to .

and no I don’t want to hear someone’s reasoning for being on disability as it is about the group and not about anyone in particular  or their situation.

like dieting  , the reasons for not working from home will have no shortage of excuses yet like dieting there will be very few real excuses.. those who want to do some work will find  a way , most of the rest will just find  an excuse …let’s face it today , almost anyone can do telesales or find something they can do from home.. they don’t even need arms and we have voice activated phones as an example

just sayin


----------



## Sawfish (Tuesday at 10:27 AM)

leastlongprime said:


> We built silos too (multiple & independent streams of Income)


I think of silos in conjunction with differing parts of a containing portfolio. I don't think this is necessarily correct, nor is it important, but as I read your response I felt that the silos I was referring to were more defined by when they are tapped, and in what order, and hence how they are positioned (strategy), rather than separate sources contributing to a combined income stream.

The separate sources in this case I think of as tranches.

You know, I'll bet we could just flip-flop the terms and they'd be equally appropriate, so long as there's sufficient context differentiate between them.


----------



## Teacher Terry (Tuesday at 11:04 AM)

mathjak107 said:


> Ssdi is not always difficult to get  because there  are workers on the inside who fraudulently make it happen for a fee .
> 
> we had  a bust here of 106 workers , doctors and others involved in seeing to it people got fraudulent claims approved  and they said those 106 we’re just the tip of the iceberg .
> 
> ...


There’s strict rules about working part time if you are on Ssdi and your health insurance is also tied to your disability check. I am not going to bother to explain the complexity of putting some people to work.

Voice activated devices don’t solve all the problems just like they didn’t when dragon dictate was available so people could use the computer but lots of obstacles and problems presented themselves.

You are totally clueless about disabilities and I am done trying to educate you on the matter.  It’s easier to believe that people with disabilities are lazy and don’t want to work when in reality that couldn’t be farther from the truth.


----------



## mathjak107 (Tuesday at 11:27 AM)

Teacher Terry said:


> There’s strict rules about working part time if you are on Ssdi and your health insurance is also tied to your disability check. I am not going to bother to explain the complexity of putting some people to work.
> 
> Voice activated devices don’t solve all the problems just like they didn’t when dragon dictate was available so people could use the computer but lots of obstacles and problems presented themselves.
> 
> You are totally clueless about disabilities and I am done trying to educate you on the matter.  It’s easier to believe that people with disabilities are lazy and don’t want to work when in reality that couldn’t be farther from the truth.


Then we are done with each other and I can stop educating you on on welfare fraud since you are also clueless it is a crime regardless if one thinks they deserve it


----------



## dobielvr (Tuesday at 11:34 AM)

Teacher Terry said:


> There’s strict rules about working part time if you are on Ssdi and your health insurance is also tied to your disability check. I am not going to bother to explain the complexity of putting some people to work.
> 
> Voice activated devices don’t solve all the problems just like they didn’t when dragon dictate was available so people could use the computer but lots of obstacles and problems presented themselves.
> 
> You are totally clueless about disabilities and I am done trying to educate you on the matter.  It’s easier to believe that people with disabilities are lazy and don’t want to work when in reality that couldn’t be farther from the truth.


Thank you!


----------



## mathjak107 (Tuesday at 11:37 AM)

dobielvr said:


> Thank you!


I believe the rules are no different than working while getting ss early . You can earn over 1400 a month  on Ssdi which for someone  going to commit fraud for a few extra bucks with gift cards it is a lot… that is quite a boost from just Ssdi.

on the other hand ssi offers little incentive to work .. they take away 50 cents of benefits for every dollar-over 85 dollars


----------



## dobielvr (Tuesday at 12:01 PM)

mathjak107 said:


> I believe the rules are no different than working while getting ss early . You can earn over 1400 a month  on Ssdi which for someone  going to commit fraud for a few extra bucks with gift cards it is a lot… that is quite a boost from just Ssdi.
> 
> on the other hand ssi offers little incentive to work .. they take away 50 cents of benefits for every dollar-over 85 dollars


Thank you!


----------



## Sawfish (Tuesday at 12:04 PM)

OneEyedDiva said:


> I'm hoping to be able to do the same for my son, with a little for each of his 5 children. But this in no way means I'm depriving myself of anything I want or need.


I can understand this, but for whatever reason I don't want or need much. Not like I thought I did as a young adult.


----------



## Sawfish (Tuesday at 12:07 PM)

Teacher Terry said:


> _Diva, I am glad it worked out for your friend. Most people have no clue what’s really happening and believe the news about welfare queens, etc. It makes a good story on the news to get people mad at poor people instead of who they should really despise creating the large income inequality created and maintained by the elites. _


You know, though, there's no need to make this a them vs us thing.

We've got to get past this finger-pointing thingie. That's for pre-schoolers.


----------



## leastlongprime (Tuesday at 12:14 PM)

Sawfish said:


> I think of silos in conjunction with differing parts of a containing portfolio. I don't think this is necessarily correct, nor is it important, but as I read your response I felt that the silos I was referring to were more defined by when they are tapped, and in what order, and hence how they are positioned (strategy), rather than separate sources contributing to a combined income stream.
> 
> The separate sources in this case I think of as tranches.
> 
> You know, I'll bet we could just flip-flop the terms and they'd be equally appropriate, so long as there's sufficient context differentiate between them.


2007 -2009, we all got caught in the Great Recession. (57/60)
Determined to have a retirement  that is dotted line connection to Markets and US Economy. 

Recommend, tl:dr 
Devised a silo $ farm: retirement that is flexible and could standup well to shocks any of the silos. IF the "Big One" hits, everyone's retirement would affected but some more than others. 
Silos: 
-SS (2); 
-Pension(1); 
-House (1); 
-Farmland(1) non divisible; Later sold to buy 2 rentals. Now 1 rental. 
-IRAs, (many) that were in  "tranches" or individually silo'd into deferred, longevity, variable  GWLB annuities, and later in fixed GWLB Annuities). (7)
-Roths in GLWB annuities( 2) and later closed when their guaranteed 5% step-ups ended. And  used to buy a downside home condo, Eastside Seattle area. Sale of Oregon home only covered a little more than half of Seattle's purchase. 
-non retirement fund in GLWB annuity. 
-managed IRA fund account.
-trading accounts. 

2022, saw only the managed account and trading accounts materially affected by the interest rate resets. But they are silo'd as non-essential. Income from the other Silo'd vehicles are unaffected for Retirement Income. 
2023, the plan is to take the AWD (Allowable Withdrawal Distributions) from the annuities without affecting the Income Annuitization Base.  Previously we were only taking RMD's and not the AWDs.

So most people arrange their retirement based upon their Portfolio value. Where as they should be basing their retirement on How their assets give them Income and for long enough time. RMD is designed   to extinguish your Portfolio and thus your Income. So retirees devised all types of portfolios to minimize RMD and effects of SWR.

NOTE: Tried to replicate O-PERS. GLWB Annuities have changed substantially since 2008-2018. There's a hefty fee in buying this type annuity but the annuity company  has taken on Longevity, Market and Interest rate risk. If we live longer than the cash value of the annuity (~87) we will be paying taxes on  zero $  cash balance. Mom lived to 97. Dad 99. Wife's parents 97, 90. Aunt to 107. Another aunt to 92 with the last 3 years essentially brain dead but breathing and strong heart.


----------



## Sawfish (Tuesday at 1:08 PM)

leastlongprime said:


> 2007 -2009, we all got caught in the Great Recession. (57/60)
> Determined to have a retirement  that is dotted line connection to Markets and US Economy.
> 
> Recommend, tl:dr
> ...


This is very interesting and informative, least! Our is like that, but much less complex.

I'd never considered annuities, and may have missed out and a good diversification strategy.

I'm supposing that the farmland sale to rental was via 1031. Maybe you already said this. What do you make of 1031 and how best to sync up the relinquished prop and the replacement property? There are inherent pitfalls and I'm still not sure how best to manage it. The best results for me have been to sell out of a high area and buy into a low area, and this means geogrpahically different regions, or has at least three times. But this is very tricky unless you already know both areas: relinquished and replacement. Else it starts to be a crap shoot.

I can see that you were likely in OR and moved to WA. We are giving some thought to that for tax purposes, not the least of which is that OR is a joint-tenancy state, and WA is community property. I now think that community property ownership and tax laws are advantageous, and maybe inheritance taxes in WA are a bit nicer, but not really sure.


----------



## leastlongprime (Tuesday at 1:51 PM)

Son was already established in WA. We visited him often on Cascades train. 
The farm was 1031 to a new build close to his place in Seattle. This allowed him to manage rental without too much travel effort. He is unpaid. We had his RE agent look and he looked for us. He came across this Townhouse on Thursday  won bid on Monday, 2018. We were under the wire by a few days. Wife was a wreck. 
We moved to Eastside Lake Washington (Redmond). We got urbanized very quickly. The personal home doesn't have tax issue or tight time limitation. Another story.

Not worrying about inheritance taxes, estate will pay. Properties currently < $2mil. Most of the other assets are IRAs-annuities, and what ever IRA cash value (CV) is left he will inherit. IRA annuities  won't  be much because projection indicates depletion at ~85yrs or less, if Market recovery is slow. We will take AWD from the annuities at 5.0%-6.5% (annuity defined) with the goal to reduce  CV to near depletion. With the CV reduced, I will go back to RMD's and thus reduce marginal tax and pull Income from other silos: savings, rental income, & discretionary accounts, as needed. 

Table W - Computation of Washington estate tax
* Taxable amount	Rate
* Taxable amount $0 to $1,000,000	Rate 10.0%
* Taxable amount $1,000,000 to $2,000,000	Rate 14.0%
* Taxable amount $2,000,000 to $3,000,000	Rate 15.0%
* Taxable amount $3,000,000 to $4,000,000	Rate 16.0%
4 more rows

vs Oregon
https://smartasset.com/estate-planning/oregon-estate-tax


----------



## Sawfish (Tuesday at 2:05 PM)

leastlongprime said:


> Son was already established in WA. We visited him often on Cascades train.
> The farm was 1031 to a new build close to his place in Seattle. This allowed him to manage rental without too much travel effort. He is unpaid. We had his RE agent look and he looked for us. He came across this condo on Thursday  won bid on Monday, 2018. We were under the wire by a few days. Wife was a wreck.
> We moved to Eastside Lake Washington (Redmond). We got urbanized very quickly. Another story.


For whatever reason, there's something about Seattle (west side) that puts me off. Not really sure what it is, but we first identify properties by what amounts to intuition, then test the numbers and other less visible factors. So in 2016 we looked seriously at two old duplexes adjacent to each other in Queen Anne. There was a lot to find positive, the numbers were doable (4.8 cap rate) but not outstanding, but this kind of property has intangible upsides, often.

The fact that I'd have to have it managed tipped us away from it. If this kind of property had been in the west hills of PDX, where I could keep an eye on it, I would probably have done it.

But Redmond/Belleview is another matter! It would be easy to get used to it and like it. It is the Marin County/Penninsula equivalent of Seattle, with Mercer Island kinda like Sauselito or Saratoga. Very nice!!!


----------



## Murrmurr (Tuesday at 2:15 PM)

For everyone who's renting, their rent went up exactly 8.7% (or whatever it is).


----------



## Teacher Terry (Tuesday at 10:59 PM)

mathjak107 said:


> I believe the rules are no different than working while getting ss early . You can earn over 1400 a month  on Ssdi which for someone  going to commit fraud for a few extra bucks with gift cards it is a lot… that is quite a boost from just Ssdi.
> 
> on the other hand ssi offers little incentive to work .. they take away 50 cents of benefits for every dollar-over 85 dollars


There’s a 9 month trial work period where they don’t lose any money and the purpose is to determine if they are actually capable of working in the long term due to their disability.  At the end they can either work full time and give up their Ssdi or retain it without penalty and return to making under the limit.

For anyone on the forum who is in this situation or has a family member who is contact the department or bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation in your area because they are very knowledgeable in this subject. Their job is to help you return to employment at whatever level is feasible taking into consideration all aspects of your disability. All of the VR counselors have master’s degrees in this field.  For most people there’s no charge for services as your taxes pay for the services.


----------



## mathjak107 (Wednesday at 2:09 AM)

Murrmurr said:


> For everyone who's renting, their rent went up exactly 8.7% (or whatever it is)





Teacher Terry said:


> There’s a 9 month trial work period where they don’t lose any money and the purpose is to determine if they are actually capable of working in the long term due to their disability.  At the end they can either work full time and give up their Ssdi or retain it without penalty and return to making under the limit.
> 
> For anyone on the forum who is in this situation or has a family member who is contact the department or bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation in your area because they are very knowledgeable in this subject. Their job is to help you return to employment at whatever level is feasible taking into consideration all aspects of your disability. All of the VR counselors have master’s degrees in this field.  For most people there’s no charge for services as your taxes pay for the services.





Teacher Terry said:


> There’s a 9 month trial work period where they don’t lose any money and the purpose is to determine if they are actually capable of working in the long term due to their disability.  At the end they can either work full time and give up their Ssdi or retain it without penalty and return to making under the limit.
> 
> For anyone on the forum who is in this situation or has a family member who is contact the department or bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation in your area because they are very knowledgeable in this subject. Their job is to help you return to employment at whatever level is feasible taking into consideration all aspects of your disability. All of the VR counselors have master’s degrees in this field.  For most people there’s no charge for services as your taxes pay for the services.


Even better .. with all the work from home jobs it is far easier to work then if one wanted to as opposed to fraud


----------



## StarSong (Wednesday at 7:54 AM)

@Teacher Terry, thank you for reminding us that it's far simpler to say things like, "get a job" or "work from home" than it is for many to actually land work and/or perform those kinds of jobs.  

Some never were - or no longer are - mentally or physically capable of working. 

Some made life choices that seemed wise at the time but ultimately put their finances in peril, including a lifetime of working mostly under the table resulting in low SS benefits, not acquiring an education or trade skills, relying on others to financially support them, and/or having life habits that kept them in financial jeopardy (drugs, alcohol, gambling, overspending (including gifts to others), excessively donating to churches and other pleading charities, etc.) and being fleeced by schemers.   

I've seen all of the above. Whatever route gets people into rough financial shape, the end result isn't pretty.


----------



## mathjak107 (Wednesday at 8:03 AM)

Keyword is SOME and not all are unemployable….some can work from home and bring in extra income .

the problem is this whole work from home thing has  not been adopted yet as criteria for determining whether someone should either be given payments or kept on payments


----------



## Knight (Wednesday at 8:56 AM)

mathjak107 said:


> on the other hand ssi offers little incentive to work .. they take away 50 cents of benefits for every dollar-over 85 dollars


 I don't know if there are levels of disability.   I guess it would depend on the disability whether or not earning a wage would be possible. But if possible & the person had the ability to perform a job, then I think that not applying would fall under fraud.  I come to that conclusion because physically & mentally able can & do work regular jobs AND work part time. They pay taxes on those earnings which in turn pays for those that can but won't work.


----------



## Sawfish (Wednesday at 9:45 AM)

Knight said:


> I don't know if there are levels of disability.   I guess it would depend on the disability whether or not earning a wage would be possible. But if possible & the person had the ability to perform a job, then I think that not applying would fall under fraud.  I come to that conclusion because physically & mentally able can & do work regular jobs AND work part time. They pay taxes on those earnings which in turn pays for those that can but won't work.


*...pays for those that can but won't work.*

And tacitly allowing this situation is the very definition of a permissive society. It *permits* this to routinely take place.


----------



## Teacher Terry (Wednesday at 9:48 AM)

mathjak107 said:


> Keyword is SOME and not all are unemployable….some can work from home and bring in extra income .
> 
> the problem is this whole work from home thing has  not been adopted yet as criteria for determining whether someone should either be given payments or kept on payments


I have been retired for 10 years but vocational rehabilitation hires job placement specialists to help people find jobs and have relationships with employers. When a vocational expert does a vocational assessment they include everything that factors into the decision for SSDI and I would be very surprised if that didn’t include work from home.  However, I have a younger friend still working in the field so will ask her tomorrow.


----------



## Teacher Terry (Wednesday at 9:53 AM)

Sawfish said:


> *...pays for those that can but won't work.*
> 
> And tacitly allowing this situation is the very definition of a permissive society. It *permits* this to routinely take place.


Some people because of their severe disabilities can only work part time. Some of you have no clue how difficult it is to obtain unless you have a terminal diagnosis. I have seen people in my program be denied for over 2 years and lose everything while waiting and some becoming homeless.  

Of course you always have losers that don’t want to work but usually they are weeded out fairly quickly. They give the public the wrong impression. Wait until you know someone that becomes disabled without family to help and then you will be whining why doesn’t the government help.


----------



## Sawfish (Wednesday at 10:09 AM)

Teacher Terry said:


> Some people because of their severe disabilities can only work part time. Some of you have no clue how difficult it is to obtain unless you have a terminal diagnosis. I have seen people in my program be denied for over 2 years and lose everything while waiting and some becoming homeless.
> 
> Of course you always have losers that don’t want to work but usually they are weeded out fairly quickly. They give the public the wrong impression. Wait until you know someone that becomes disabled without family to help and then you will be whining why doesn’t the government help.


To make it clear, I was ONLY referring to the losers.


----------



## Knight (Wednesday at 7:50 PM)

Teacher Terry said:


> Of course you always have losers that don’t want to work but usually they are weeded out fairly quickly.


For some info I read this.

*Top 10 Disability Fraud Statistics and Facts*​
The disability fraud incidence rate in the US is lower than 1%.
Cooperative Disability Investigations Program greatly helps with fraud prevention.
Social Security fraud can lead to five years in prison.
The financial punishment for disability fraud may go up to $250,000.
Doctors participating in disability fraud can face up to 10 years in prison. 
There were 345,000 suspicious disability claims in California at the beginning of 2022. 
EDD flagged 27,000 medical provider accounts as suspicious in early 2022 in California. 
National Slam the Scam Day is celebrated on March 10.
Disability benefits recipients live only five years after getting approved for benefits. 
A whopping 63% of the SSDI applications get denied.
https://websitebuilder.org/blog/22-disability-fraud-statistics-on-social-security-for-2022/

That was only a snippet there is more to read in the article. 

 That less than 1% really doesn't say much when one state [California] had  345,000 suspicious disability claims  & EDD flagged 27,000 medical provider accounts as suspicious.  For purposes of this part of the thread that veered off topic it would be great if a tally of the other 49 states were presented.


----------



## mathjak107 (Yesterday at 2:31 AM)

However , they think fraud is lower , but they can’t measure what they don’t know just like crime reports here in ny are not accurate as many don’t bother to report them .

the mere fact we saw Ssdi rolls soar ten times what they were says something’s up .

don’t forget boomers are going off Ssdi and on to ss retirement for years .

the Ssdi roll should be plunging , and while dropping slightly it is no where near as down as it should be .

Ssdi already went bust and had. To be refunded with money from ss retirement via the. Bipartisan act .

so you can’t measure what you don’t know is happening , you can only measure what you catch


All of the disabled are classified into three categories: Improvement Expected, Improvement Possible and Improvement Not Expected.

Someone with a spinal chord injury is classified as Improvement Not Expected, but even so, their case is automatically reviewed every 5 to 7 years to determine if they should continue receiving benefits.

Where you have Improvement Expected, their case is reviewed every 6 to 18 months. It's 3 years for all others.

About 3.5 Million of the 10.1 Million on Disability have mental disorders. Of those, 1.5 Million have "Mood Disorders" and the rest are autistic, mentally disabled, have congenital brain defects, head injuries, or are schizophrenic.

Social Security doesn't require the 1.5 Million with "Mood Disorders" to be involved in any treatment program, but they should. They should be required to attend weekly treatment sessions, and if they fail to do so, they need to be terminated.


----------

