# The History of Your Social Security Payments



## SeaBreeze (Apr 11, 2019)

The history of how and why Social Security started and what changes have occurred over the years.  Full article here.



> The Social Security program  was created in 1935 and began paying out monthly benefits to retired  workers five years later. But there have been several important  adjustments to the program, including changes in the retirement age and  increases in benefits to keep up with inflation. Here's how Social Security has changed over nearly 85 years.
> 
> *What Is the Social Security Act?*
> 
> ...


----------



## Tom Young (Jun 14, 2019)

The title stirred me to look at the maximum Social Security payments that I could receive if I retired at age 62.... today.   I was surprised to see that given my salary history and the age 62 retirement, the amount I am receiving  is exactly right on at $18,000/yr.  

I never thought about it before, as I didn't think I had paid in the max, but I guess it worked out well.  Jeanie didn't work the required number of quarters (in a paying job)... but four kids kept her pretty busy, and the jobs she held in the meantime, certainly helped. 

Long and short of it is that at 83, we've been retired for 30 years and the total that we collect is $27,000/yr.  It certainly helps

In todays dollars, that would be 30 X $27000, or $810,000.  

Something to be thankful for, and to consider in your retirement planning.  

Or maybe my calculations are wrong.


----------



## retiredtraveler (Jun 15, 2019)

One of the 'changes' that has occurred is that too many people count on SS as their only retirement income. Of course, there are various reasons for this.


----------



## Trade (Jun 15, 2019)

> *When Did Social Security Benefits Become Taxable?*
> 
> Part  of Social Security benefits became taxable for people who earn  above a  certain amount beginning in 1984. If the sum of your adjusted  gross  income, nontaxable interest and half of your Social Security  benefit  exceeds $25,000 for individuals and $32,000 for couples, up to  50  percent of your Social Security benefit is subject to income tax.
> 
> If  these sources of income top $34,000 for individuals and $44,000 for   couples, 85 percent of your Social Security payments may be taxable.   "The thresholds that are set up are not indexed to inflation, so more   people will have some portion of their Social Security income be subject   to taxation," Palmer says.



There is a lot about the above that really sticks in my craw. Seniors should be up in arms about this. If the AARP would take up this issue I'd be glad to join them, but so far all I hear from them is crickets. 

To begin with the thresholds. $25K for single and $32K for a couple. This amounts to a straight up marriage penalty. The threshold for couples should be twice what it is for a single person. If one person can exempt 25K, it stands to reason that two people should be able to exempt 50K. 

The next thing, and this is a big one, is the fact that these threshold have not been indexed for inflation. 25K in 1984 is equivalent to $62 K in 2019 dollars. So IMO, the thresholds should be 62K for a single person and $124K for a couple. Make no mistake our politicians know exactly what they are doing with this. For every uptick in inflation the rate of taxation on our Social Security increases. Thus this amounts to a built in stealth cut to our benefits year in and year out as long as there is inflation. 

Last, is this idea that up to 85% of our benefits may be subject to income tax. What ever happened to "No double taxation"? Every dime of social security taxes that are taken out of your paycheck while you are working has already been subject to income tax. So why do we have to pay taxes on it again when we get it back? Now I will say, there is justification for taxing up to 50% of your social security as we do not pay any taxes on the amount our employers have to send in as a match. But 85%? No.


----------



## KingsX (Jun 15, 2019)

*


The income thresholds at which SS is taxed as income were never indexed for inflation... not under Reagan's law  [1984] at 50% of SS  nor under Clinton's law  [1993] when it was raised to 85% of SS.

However,  there are now two bills... one in the Senate and one in the House... that would at least address this issue and increase those thresholds.

But these bills will likely never get out of committee.   So,  if you support these,  contact your senators and congressmen.


SR 269

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/269

 SEC. 104.  Increase in threshold amounts and rate for inclusion of Social Security benefits in income.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th...69/text#toc-HB4A2B1F468864BD2A097D9AFE11E546C


HR  860

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/860

SEC. 104.  Increase in threshold amounts and rate for inclusion of Social Security benefits in income.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th...60/text#toc-H8770DD1988CB4A40AEC77188A4A7417A


*


----------



## Trade (Jun 15, 2019)

KingsX said:


> *
> 
> 
> The income thresholds at which SS is taxed as income were never indexed for inflation... not under Reagan's law  [1984] at 50% of SS  nor under Clinton's law  [1993] when it was raised to 85% of SS.
> ...



Contacting them doesn't do any good unless you are one of their big money donors. Otherwise your calls and letters go directly into file 13. There's only way way for the average schmucks to get their attention.


----------



## KingsX (Jun 15, 2019)

*

Recently the House overwhelmingly bipartisanly passed the "SECURE" retirement bill that would delay RMD to age 72 beginning next year [2020.] 

Now that House bill is in the Senate which would also be speedily passing that bill except for a handful of senators [mainly only two]  who are intentionally holding it up and may kill it.  

I've contacted my senators to let them know I support that House bill.  

One of my senators is one of the two holding the House bill hostage !!  

Needless to say,  I will never vote for him again.

*


----------



## mathjak107 (Jun 16, 2019)

What most people don’t know is that our employment tax dollars don’t all buy the same amount of future benefit. Some of our employment tax dollars buy six times as much in benefits as others.

According to the most recent Trustees Report, for instance, the first $767 of “average indexed monthly earnings” (a complex formula that adjusts earnings over time) is credited at a 90 percent rate, assuring the lowest wage workers of a retirement benefit nearly equal to their earned wage.

Wages of more than $767 a month but less than $4,624 a month are credited at a 32 percent rate. This means retirement benefits increase at a much lower rate. The benefit pinching, however, does not end there.

More means less

For wages of more than $4,624 a month up to the wage base maximum ($113,700 for 2013), the crediting rate is only 15 percent. Thus, all the wages earned — and employment taxes paid — over that $55,488-a-year “bend point” gain benefits at only one-sixth the rate of the lowest wage earners.

In effect, the Social Security benefits formula functions as a sharply graduated benefits “tax,” reducing the benefits that accrue to higher wages by 85 percent. The higher your means, the lower your benefit.


----------



## Trade (Jun 16, 2019)

mathjak107 said:


> What most people don’t know is that our employment tax dollars don’t all buy the same amount of future benefit. Some of our employment tax dollars buy six times as much in benefits as others.
> 
> According to the most recent Trustees Report, for instance, the first $767 of “average indexed monthly earnings” (a complex formula that adjusts earnings over time) is credited at a 90 percent rate, assuring the lowest wage workers of a retirement benefit nearly equal to their earned wage.
> 
> ...



I am aware that the formula for determining benefits is progressive thereby providing low wage workers with a higher benefit relative to their average earnings. And I like it just fine that way. It tends to make things more equal in our old age. While the idea that we should instead make social security more like a 401K whereby benefits are dependent of the performance of investments take away the progressiveness and instead favors higher income workers who can afford to save more and may also be more investment savvy. That's why I am very much against any effort to privatize all or any part of social security.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jun 16, 2019)

Trade said:


> I am aware that the formula for determining benefits is progressive thereby providing low wage workers with a higher benefit relative to their average earnings. And I like it just fine that way. It tends to make things more equal in our old age. While the idea that we should instead make social security more like a 401K whereby benefits are dependent of the performance of investments take away the progressiveness and instead favors higher income workers who can afford to save more and may also be more investment savvy. That's why I am very much against any effort to privatize all or any part of social security.


 
 social security cannot own anything but bonds .. the gov't can't own stocks. they are forbidden from buying up public companies . that would be Communism , when the gov't controls business


----------



## Trade (Jun 16, 2019)

KingsX said:


> *
> 
> Recently the House overwhelmingly bipartisanly passed the "SECURE" retirement bill that would delay RMD to age 72 beginning next year [2020.]
> 
> ...



I have no idea what RMD means and I'm already 72. So I conclude that I don't have a dog in that fight.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jun 16, 2019)

Trade said:


> I have no idea what RMD means and I'm already 72. So I conclude that I don't have a dog in that fight.


Do you have any iras ?


----------

