# HUGE SS increase



## Don M. (Jan 12, 2018)

I checked the bank account balances a few minutes ago, and the Social Security payment for January has arrived.  We got a Massive boost of almost $18 a month....I think I'll start shopping for a new Cadillac.


----------



## Pappy (Jan 12, 2018)

Yep Don. I got $8 and the wife $1. Thank the Medicare increase for that.


----------



## Knight (Jan 12, 2018)

Think positive, at least there is an increase, actually sounds good  when compared to the talk of a 23% decrease in the future.


----------



## Victor (Jan 12, 2018)

What percent increase is this?


----------



## jujube (Jan 12, 2018)

I got a massive boost of $6 a month......which was immediately gobbled up, along with an arm and a leg, by the increases in everything else.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 12, 2018)

we got 40 bucks in an increase . but unlike my wife who was not increased the last 2 years on medicare because she was collecting and could not be raised , i just started in october so i am at a higher  premium rate .

all i know is compared to when i had private insurance and working  and got raises of hundreds of dollars in premiums  , and no raise at work , this medicare and social security stuff is the best .  the thought that you can never be raised more than your increase in ss is fabulous .


----------



## Kadee (Jan 12, 2018)

We get a increase in our aged pension each March and September ,last September we got $2.60 each not even enough to get a script of our BP pills


----------



## rkunsaw (Jan 12, 2018)

I got $17 and my  wife got zero.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 12, 2018)

anyone expecting a cpi index to match their personal cost of living and financial needs made a big error in judgement . the ss system was never meant to support anyone , it was insurance as a safety net . the retirement system we have here is the YOYO plan .  you're on your own .

unfortunately the ability to retire is not a right , it is a privilege for those who can afford not to work . counting on just ss for many people will lead to a very stressful life as you sweat every bill and increase in expenses . .


----------



## dpwspringer (Jan 13, 2018)

$8.70 boost for me.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jan 13, 2018)

My SS increase is still better than the zero increase on my fixed benefit pension of $150.68/month.

Imagine what it was like to retire before 1935 when people didn't have SS or 1965 when Medicare was enacted.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 13, 2018)

i say thank you , for medicare every day since i have it . my old insurance was 6k just for me with a 4500 deductible and THEY WERE GOING UP 20% IN 2018 . the thought that my health insurance can never go up more than i get as a raise from ss is astounding


----------



## rkunsaw (Jan 13, 2018)

Imagine what it was like to retire before 1935 when people didn't have SS or 1965 when Medicare was enacted


Probably not so bad. Back then people knew they had to provide for themselves and most companies had pension plans. Social security was meant to supplement those plans, not to replace them. Far too many people today depend an social security as their only source of income when they retire since few companies offer pension plans anymore.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 13, 2018)

actually it turned out pretty bad and that is why social security was enacted .

i don't think anyone plans on just living on social security any more than any of us plan on a life of impoverishment .

but more than likely it can end up that way from a lifetime of poor choices and bad decisions  all along the way .

for to many , a goal without a plan for making things happen is only a wish  and it stays a wish .. like a cork in water they drift to wherever life pulls them , usually  from one low end job to the next . they never break out of it , or take control and bingo all they get is a  ss check and a low one at that . but then they complain the ss can't support them or the raises don't match their personal costs of living .

 those who wan to succeed will generally  find a way -the rest will find an excuse . are there exceptions ? sure like anything in life   there will always be some exceptions ,but those exceptions are far fewer than those thinking they had no control or choice in their ending up with ss as the sole means of support .


----------



## retiredtraveler (Jan 13, 2018)

mathjak107 said:


> i say thank you , for medicare every day since i have it . my old insurance was 6k just for me with a 4500 deductible and THEY WERE GOING UP 20% IN 2018 . the thought that my health insurance can never go up more than i get as a raise from ss is astounding


----------



## KingsX (Jan 13, 2018)

Knight said:


> Think positive, at least there is an increase, actually sounds good  when compared to the talk of a 23% decrease in the future.




I've missed that discussion... do you have a link ?


----------



## KingsX (Jan 13, 2018)

Victor said:


> What percent increase is this?





The 2018 SS COLA was 2%... but many people had  an increased Medicare B premium taken out of that 2%.


----------



## C'est Moi (Jan 13, 2018)

mathjak107 said:


> ...
> those who wan to succeed will generally  find a way -the rest will find an excuse .



^^ Wow; I love this.  :clap:


----------



## Lethe200 (Jan 13, 2018)

rkunsaw said:


> Probably not so bad. Back then people knew they had to provide for themselves and most companies had pension plans. Social security was meant to supplement those plans, not to replace them. Far too many people today depend an social security as their only source of income when they retire since few companies offer pension plans anymore.



?? I don't disagree that SS was a supplement - it was intended to be one of three "legs" of retirement financial security. However.....

Curious to know why you are saying "most companies had pension plans". Although the US government had always paid military pensions, and American Express formed the first company pension plan in the 1860's, I don't find any numerical stats that indicate a high number of workers were covered by pensions. 

From the Social Welfare Library: "...It was estimated that* in 1930 only 3 1/2 million persons were covered*,and by 1932 about 140,000 persons were receiving such industrial pensions, with* less than 15% of all wage and salaried employees being covered.* Keep in mind that the industrial pensions were often poorly funded —most were discretionary, implying a moral rather than a legal obligation on the part of the employer."

In 1930 the U.S. had a population of 122M according to the census. Employed/employable adults are generally 45-65% of the population total, so 3.5M potential pensioners is a very low percentage.

In 1950 the % of workers covered by pension plans was 25%. By 1970, due to the growth in unions, that went to 50%. This means that sizable #s of workers were still not covered by pension plans.


----------



## retiredtraveler (Jan 13, 2018)

_".......In 1950 the % of workers covered by  pension plans was 25%. By 1970, due to the growth in unions, that went  to 50%. This means that sizable #s of workers were still not covered by  pension plans...".

_Just to add ---- only a third of retirees now have some kind of pension. And that percentage will continue to drop.....


----------



## GeorgiaXplant (Jan 14, 2018)

Meh. By the time the increased Medicare is deducted from my check, I'll walk away with a whopping $12/month. My fixed pension will never increase or decrease. After all these years of collecting it, inflation has probably made it worth a whole lot less than it was when it started. 

I'm one of the lucky ones; there's still plenty left over to save or spend as I choose.


----------



## Knight (Jan 14, 2018)

KingsX said:


> I've missed that discussion... do you have a link ?



This seems simple and straight forward. Online about 3 hours ago. 


Business
Here's When Social Security Will Be Bankrupt

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/01/14/heres-when-social-security-will-be-bankrupt.aspx

Long article these are excerpts


Jan 14, 2018 at 8:51AM 
In November, nearly 62 million people received a benefits check from the Social Security Administration via the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance Trust (OASDI). About 42.4 million of these recipients were retired workers. As the number of retirees continues to grow, the importance of this monthly stipend that Social Security provides will as well.
According to the Social Security Administration, 62% of all retired workers count on their Social Security check to provide at least half of their monthly income, with 34% of retired beneficiaries leaning on the program for between 90% and 100% of their total income. 

The good news.
Surprise! Social Security can (theoretically) last forever 
How about never? That's right, never! Social Security, as it's currently designed, is incapable of going bankrupt, which means retired workers, survivors, and the disabled will still receive a monthly stipend from the program, assuming they're eligible.
How is this possible? Look no further than the primary source of funding for the program: payroll taxes.


Then the difference.
Remember, survival and sustainability are two different things 
However, just because Social Security can't go bankrupt, it doesn't mean that the current payout schedule is sustainable. If the OASDI does indeed burn through its asset reserves by 2034, and no new revenue is raised by Congress, the Board of Trustees has suggested that a benefits cut of up to 23% may be needed to sustain payouts through 2091. 

So if living to 2091 is doable be prepared to see if the prediction comes true.


----------



## Don M. (Jan 14, 2018)

Knight said:


> This seems simple and straight forward. Online about 3 hours ago. Here's When Social Security Will Be Bankrupt.



I'm not too worried about SS going bankrupt...at least not in any of our lifetimes....there are a number of measures Congress can take to keep that program fairly solvent.  A more likely "financial" issue, in the near future, will be soaring Health Care costs, and Medicare/Medicaid.  If the present trends continue, it may not be more than 5 to 10 years before insurance premiums and co-pays, etc., make health care almost unaffordable to both our government and half the population.  How this issue is addressed will go a long way towards determining how our government and nation handles SS...in the long term.


----------



## GeorgiaXplant (Jan 14, 2018)

I just read that the average SS benefit is $1404/month. What? I live pretty frugally but would be hard-pressed to live on $1404/month. And it said that starting at age 65 and calculating living 25 years longer, we'll rack up $200,00 in medical expenses!


----------



## Don M. (Jan 14, 2018)

GeorgiaXplant said:


> I just read that the average SS benefit is $1404/month. What? I live pretty frugally but would be hard-pressed to live on $1404/month. And it said that starting at age 65 and calculating living 25 years longer, we'll rack up $200,000 in medical expenses!



Based upon reports I've read, those numbers sound fairly accurate.  Millions of Seniors are living with SS as their primary source of income, with little in the way of savings, and no pension or IRA, etc.  Seniors are probably the largest demographic living at, or below, the poverty levels.  They have to rely on Medicare/Medicaid for their health needs, and cannot afford any Advantage or MediGap plans.  Any money they might have been able to save will probably go to copays and deductibles when they Do have to go to the doctor.  

Quite frankly, the way our "social" programs are set up, an able bodied welfare recipient can live better than many of our Seniors....most of whom have worked hard and contributed to society all their years.


----------



## JimW (Jan 16, 2018)

Aunt Bea said:


> My SS increase is still better than the zero increase on my fixed benefit pension of $150.68/month.
> 
> Imagine what it was like to retire before 1935 when people didn't have SS or 1965 when Medicare was enacted.



The average life expectancy was only 61 years old back in 1935 and the retirement age was still 65. Most people that were not financially independent probably worked til they dropped.


----------



## JimW (Jan 16, 2018)

Don M. said:


> *I'm not too worried about SS going bankrupt*...at least not in any of our lifetimes....there are a number of measures Congress can take to keep that program fairly solvent.  A more likely "financial" issue, in the near future, will be soaring Health Care costs, and Medicare/Medicaid.  If the present trends continue, it may not be more than 5 to 10 years before insurance premiums and co-pays, etc., make health care almost unaffordable to both our government and half the population.  How this issue is addressed will go a long way towards determining how our government and nation handles SS...in the long term.



I'm not worried about SS going bankrupt either. When you have such a large number of the US population that are dependent on programs such as SS or welfare, it would be catastrophic to eliminate these programs and stop paying the people that rely on this money to live. Even if SS does go bankrupt, something else will be done to make sure the people eligible for it will receive it. Just imagine what would happen to the crime and death rates if SS payments or welfare payments were stopped completely or lowered to an amount that could not sustain a minimal quality of life. It's not going to happen.


----------



## Knight (Jan 16, 2018)

JimW said:


> I'm not worried about SS going bankrupt either. When you have such a large number of the US population that are dependent on programs such as SS or welfare, it would be catastrophic to eliminate these programs and stop paying the people that rely on this money to live. Even if SS does go bankrupt, something else will be done to make sure the people eligible for it will receive it. Just imagine what would happen to the crime and death rates if SS payments or welfare payments were stopped completely or lowered to an amount that could not sustain a minimal quality of life. It's not going to happen.


A great positive attitude but with more drawing and less paying combined with the total depletion of the bonds that are in place to carry payments the prediction or expectation of a decrease years from now makes sense doesn't it? 

I do think your input about crime is right on.  An impact like a few years back when gasoline was almost $5.00 a gallon theft was rampant with thieves punching holes in gas tanks to drain and get away fast.  

Then there is the segment that will be tasked to support the higher ratio of those receiving. How long before they begin to resent the role they will play in supporting so many?

At times being a senior now looks pretty good compared to what is inevitable.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 17, 2018)

JimW said:


> The average life expectancy was only 61 years old back in 1935 and the retirement age was still 65. Most people that were not financially independent probably worked til they dropped.


average life expectancy means nothing when looking at things like social security .
life expectancy has many ways of measuring it depending what you want to illustrate .

life expectancy always has to be looked at as compared to a group and as the group gets older and older average life expectancy shifts . so as an example :

 1-in-10 people born in 2014 is expected to die prior to age 60 (i.e., 90% are still alive), but beyond that point, the rate of death begins to increase substantially. However, over 60% of children born in 2014 are still expected to be alive when the cohort reaches their “life expectancy” (i.e., average age at death) of 79. The median (age 83) is equivalent to the 50th percentile, and the mode (89) is roughly around the 30th percentile. By age 100, only 2% of people born in 2014 are expected to still be alive.

so you can see as you get older and the sickly  or those who have an early death in the cards are weeded out the odds of going on older increase . in this case life expectancy runs from 79- 89.

the old days had 65 as expectancy from birth but as an aging group is was much older back then .


----------



## Victor (Jan 18, 2018)

I got no increase this year. I wonder why.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 18, 2018)

you were getting a discounted price the last 2 years on medicare since there were no colas . this year you were finally increased because we got a cola increase . you may actually still be paying a bit less than you should since they could not raise you more than the cola


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Jan 18, 2018)

LOL.  I got a $24 "increase".  My Medicare premium went up by $24 !


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 19, 2018)

it likely went up more , your were just capped at the cola amount under hold harmless. that happened to my wife ,she was supposed to go up more but couldn't since the increase could not be more than the cola


----------



## oldman (Jan 19, 2018)

OTOH, for those that have retirement IRA's, we did very well this past year earning 30% + on our investments, unless your IRA's were invested in bonds or as they say, "safe money." I am 90% vested into index funds and the NASDAQ. No complaints here.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 19, 2018)

same here . i retired 3 years ago , been spending down 6 figures plus while delaying ss . we are higher today by multiple 6 figures than the day i retired .


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Jan 19, 2018)

mathjak107 said:


> it likely went up more , your were just capped at the cola amount under hold harmless. that happened to my wife ,she was supposed to go up more but couldn't since the increase could not be more than the cola


And that's a good thing Mathjak!


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 20, 2018)

yep , but it is a good thing for those collecting ss . it is a bad thing for those delaying  taking ss since medicare is user funded pretty much  , it means those people actually have to pay more than their share  if they delay since they get the full increase .


----------



## CeeCee (Jan 24, 2018)

I just got my January widow's benefit and I got a $19 increase.


----------



## JimW (Jan 25, 2018)

Knight said:


> A great positive attitude but with more drawing and less paying combined with the total depletion of the bonds that are in place to carry payments the prediction or expectation of a decrease years from now makes sense doesn't it?
> 
> I do think your input about crime is right on.  An impact like a few years back when gasoline was almost $5.00 a gallon theft was rampant with thieves punching holes in gas tanks to drain and get away fast.
> 
> ...



As mentioned previously, to take away a minimal standard of living from the millions of people that depend on payments from programs like social security & welfare to live would be catastrophic to the US economy. Crime rates would skyrocket, illness and death rates would skyrocket. Hospitals would be full beyond capacity, millions of people would be homeless and people would literally be dying in the streets. The negative consequences of eliminating these programs or reducing the payouts of these programs to the point where people would be so far below the poverty level that they couldn't maintain a basic lifestyle, (which is pretty much where social security is at right now), would exceed any benefits of reducing or eliminating these programs.

Social Security might have many changes in the future to help maximize benefits, or it may be replaced with a different program altogether, but retirement payouts for the elderly will never disappear or reduce to the point where elderly people could not live a minimal standard of life without resorting to crime for survival, becoming deathly ill or becoming homeless. 



mathjak107 said:


> *average life expectancy means nothing when looking at things like social security .*
> life expectancy has many ways of measuring it depending what you want to illustrate .
> 
> life expectancy always has to be looked at as compared to a group and as the group gets older and older average life expectancy shifts . so as an example :
> ...



Average life expectancy is what the entire Social Security platform is based on, not sure how you can say it means nothing. Average life expectancy dictates the time when people can retire (recently raised from 65 to 66 and soon to be 67), and the amount they will collect while retired. As average life expectancy rises so does the retirement age and the amount of payouts.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 25, 2018)

life expectancy from birth is meaningless when it comes to how long people will collect  . it is only how many are left  at ss age and how long that cohort will live.

average life expectancy  from birth may be  79  but that is the 50% point .a man who makes it to 65 has a 62% chance of seeing 80 , a female a 72% chance , but a couple has an 89% chance of one of them seeing 80 since each can outlive the other . .

so in this case looking at things from birth are way off base . in fact the 50% point (average life expectancy )  from birth is 79  but a couple has a 47% chance of seeing 90 . while percentage wise 47- to 50% is not much difference  the difference in years is amazing .


----------



## JimW (Jan 25, 2018)

mathjak107 said:


> *life expectancy from birth is meaningless when it comes to how long people will collect  *. it is only how many are left  at ss age and how long that cohort will live.
> 
> average life expectancy  from birth may be  79  but that is the 50% point .a man who makes it to 65 has a 62% chance of seeing 80 , a female a 72% chance , but a couple has an 89% chance of one of them seeing 80 since each can outlive the other . .
> 
> so in this case looking at things from birth are way off base . in fact the 50% point (average life expectancy )  from birth is 79  but a couple has a 47% chance of seeing 90 . while percentage wise 47- to 50% is not much difference  the difference in years is amazing .



The SSA and Congress disagree with you.



> [h=3]The Full Retirement Age Is Increasing[/h]                         Full retirement age (also called "normal  retirement age") had been 65 for many years. However, beginning with  people born in 1938 or later, that age gradually increases until it  reaches 67 for people born after 1959.
> 
> *The 1983 Social Security Amendments included a provision for raising the full retirement age beginning with people born in 1938 or later.* *Congress cited improvements in the health of older people and increases  in average life expectancy as primary reasons for increasing the normal  retirement age.*
> 
> ...


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 25, 2018)

it says nothing about life expectancy from birth ! it has to do with those of RETIREMENT AGE  living longer and as pointed out that is a lot longer than life expectancy at birth.
A COUPLE WHO MAKES IT TO 65 NOW HAS VERY DIFFERENT ODDS THAN FROM BIRTH . AT  65 ONE PERSON IN A COUPLE  CAN NOW HAVE ODDS OF 47%   OF SEEING 90 .  from birth 79 is the 50% point .  . 
kitces said it best :

“life expectancy” can be a somewhat misleading term. Many people hear the term and think of it as a measure of how long they can “expect to live”. In reality, though, life expectancy is a measure of the_average_time a person within some particular population is expected to live. While the average is meaningful in many respects, it may not always provide the best measure for setting expectations about the actual age someone is likely to reach. Because mortality rates aren’t constant across a lifespan and the distribution of ages at death are heavily skewed (i.e., more people die old than young), commonly cited life expectancy measures—particularly life expectancy at birth, which is most often cited in the media—may result in misleading expectations.


----------



## JimW (Jan 25, 2018)

mathjak107 said:


> *it says nothing about life expectancy from birth !*



The definition of "life expectancy" is from birth unless otherwise qualified. I'm not sure why you insist on twisting yourself in knots attempting to make a point be something you want it to be when in fact it is very basic to understand. But please go ahead and get your last word in.



> [h=2]Definition of life expectancy[/h]                                                                                                                                                                              *: *the average life span of an individual
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/life expectancy


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 25, 2018)

if you read what i wrote  life expectancy is measured different ways for different purposes . it is called a survival curve .

from birth life expectancy for a male is 79 . but life expectancy for a male once he gets to 65 is no longer 79, it is 83  .life expectancy is not some static number from birth .  it changes along the curve as more and more of the sick ,the weak and the accident prone die and the pool becomes healthier  people as well as those prone to living longer . now the sample pool is very different than when  all the young are mixed in that die  early when measured from birth .  . .

because ss pertains to the older population how the curve is for people still alive changes drastically  as they age .  ss has to deal with not babies that die or the young  which make things average out at 79  from birth ,  but they have to worry about the older groups .    if they make it to 65 they have 50% chance of seeing 83 and if they make it to 83 they have 42% chance of making it to 85 . females are much higher , couples even higher . so age 79 from birth does not mean much when a couple who makes it to 65 has a 47% chance of one of them seeing 90 .    that is a very far cry from an expectancy of 79 ...

so life expectancy must be looked at along the curve depending at what age you are interested in . ss is interested in the stats of the older population once those who are prone to dying early are out of the picture .


----------



## Knight (Jan 25, 2018)

The math, charts and information gathered from a variety of sources to give anyone a best guess as to how long they will live when & if they are ready to retire and draw their Soc. Sec. benefits is nice. On an individual basis for those able to set aside/invest/save money to be their retirment income. It's more like I hope like hell I get to enjoy a lot of years to spend what I set aside. 


It seems there is a significant amount unable to set aside/invest/save money for their retirement. The reasons for that are something for another thread. I think what hurts the most is going from a reasonable standard of living during the years of employment to enduring the loss of that standard by depending on Soc. Sec. as sole income as the years in retirement pass.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 25, 2018)

yep , i agree . to us , we strived very hard to make sure retirement was not a step backward . we wanted to live even better in retirement than we did working  and raising a family . so far we did that and these markets raining money for so long sure has helped us meet that goal .


----------

