Official Social Security Poll

[LuxLiving]

jc, I'd start by investing every dime you currently earn (after SS is deducted) into your state's munis!

Weighing The Tax Benefits Of Municipal Securities

[tripods68]

Originally Posted by jc3900

This is exactly why SS is a scam. 5 people in the beginning support the first person who collects it. Then you need 25 people to cover those 5. Then you need 125 people to cover those 25. If I was running an annuity/insurance product like this I would be rich, only at the expense of the system crashing and average young person like myself losing out.

Anyway, this is another problem with SS. It FORCES people to join. What if I don't want to join and it is a really sucky return and a sucky program for helping the less fortunate. I can't do anything. SS works only by lifting up a very small minority at the expense of screwing everyone else. (hey that kind of sounds like socialism) Oh wait.... THAT IS SOCIALISM.

I totally agree with you. SS does forces people to join. However, they are jobs out there (i believe over 2 million+ aren't covered by Social Security). For example, California teachers with credentials and employed in any K12 public system, or Community Colleges don't pay into SS. They have their own pension system (CalSTRS) Teacher's Retirement, and define contribution account 403(b) to rely on for their retirements. Also, all Correctional Officers that works for California Department of Corrections do not pay into SS. They belong to Public Retirement System (CalPERS) which is the largest public pension in the US.
You will also find many local governmental agencies or city governments throughout California that pays employees 100% share to portions of their SS contributions. Unfortunately for me, my BU and classification ain't strong enough to eliminate SS contribution. But at least I have both CalPERS, ROTH, 457, and little Social Security if not BK when I reach that "critical mass".

Bottom line: Not all jobs forces everyone to participate into Social Security. You just have to look elsewhere and be willing to relocate. California isn't a bad place to look for jobs either.

[jc3900]

No matter what high paying job I take, I will still be FORCED to take it.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by jc3900

No matter what high paying job I take, I will still be FORCED to take it.

What does this mean? Why would you be forced to take a particular job?

[noppenbd]

JC, you can become a minister. Then you can opt out of SS and you can help poor people at the same time.

[tripods68]

Originally Posted by jc3900

No matter what high paying job I take, I will still be FORCED to take it.

You don't seem to understand you have a choice in LIFE or what jobs to take. You either do something about it, or just another whiner. Which one are you?

[jc3900]

What I mean is that it is more beneficial to go into a high paying job that I enjoy and pay the SS than go to one that doesn't pay as much and is not as enjoyable.

[cooliemae]

Originally Posted by jIM_Ohio

Congress does not pay into SS either, maybe JC could become a politician?

If congress paid into SS, I assume it would have been reformed by now.

Congress has been paying into SS since 1984!

ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

[jIM_Ohio]

Originally Posted by cooliemae

Congress has been paying into SS since 1984!

ssa.gov/history/hfaq.html

Thank you for posting. I stand corrected. if you read down the FAQ, here is an interesting issue.

In 2003 the max benefit is $1400 and change (per month)
On my statements it is showing me a max benefit of $2000+. Curious if others would be willing to post what their SS benefit is on their SS Statments? I am 35, so that $2000+ benefit would not kick in for me until year 2043 (age 70??).


2003

e e 1,404.30 1,404.30

[noppenbd]

Mine shows benefit of

$1494 a month at age 62,
$2125 a month at 67 (full retirement age), and
$2635 at age 70.

The chart you are quoting is showing max benefit for retiring at 62, so it appears I may be at max (since $1494 in 2008 dollars is probably equivalent to $1404 in 2003 dollars).

[noppenbd]

Another interesting item from the SS statement. Apparently you only need to work 10 years to receive benefits. You can receive up to 4 credits per year, 1 for each of the first $1000 in wages. At 40 credits you receive retirement benefits. Survivors and disability benefits require fewer credits (it doesn't say how many).

[jIM_Ohio]

Originally Posted by noppenbd

Mine shows benefit of

$1494 a month at age 62,
$2125 a month at 67 (full retirement age), and
$2635 at age 70.

The chart you are quoting is showing max benefit for retiring at 62, so it appears I may be at max (since $1494 in 2008 dollars is probably equivalent to $1404 in 2003 dollars).

are you retired now? can I ask what year (or decade) you will hit age 62?

62 seems like a low retirement age for SS benefits (I thought age was 67 or 68 now).

[sweeps]

You can start getting benefits at 62, but the benefit is permanently reduced if you choose to do that. "Normal" retirement age is 67 for people born after 1959.

[jIM_Ohio]

Isn't there a provision to collect early benefits, pay them back, then get full benefits?

[noppenbd]

Originally Posted by jIM_Ohio

are you retired now? can I ask what year (or decade) you will hit age 62?

62 seems like a low retirement age for SS benefits (I thought age was 67 or 68 now).

I wish. I am 32, so I will be 62 in 2038. Age 62 is the earliest you can receive retirement benefits (my dad applied for them last year).

[sweeps]

Originally Posted by jIM_Ohio

Isn't there a provision to collect early benefits, pay them back, then get full benefits?

True.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by jIM_Ohio

Isn't there a provision to collect early benefits, pay them back, then get full benefits?

Very interesting. Never knew that.

What I don't understand is why they have gradually increased the age for full benefits but they've left the minimum age the same at 62. I'm sure it would help the solvency of the system if they started creeping up the minimum age also. I bet they could save millions if they made it 62 and 2 months or 4 months. Minor changes could save a bundle.

[jIM_Ohio]

Originally Posted by disneysteve

Very interesting. Never knew that.

What I don't understand is why they have gradually increased the age for full benefits but they've left the minimum age the same at 62. I'm sure it would help the solvency of the system if they started creeping up the minimum age also. I bet they could save millions if they made it 62 and 2 months or 4 months. Minor changes could save a bundle.

Yes- because a sound strategy would be to collect benefits from 62 to 68 (full benefit age), invest the SS checks, then pay SS back 6-8 years later and keep the interest.

The issue with this is that it's possible you are taxed each year on the SS checks, so this works better for people with low expense (low 72t) footprints.

[noppenbd]

It is possible to file for a credit of taxation of benefits which you return. See this discussion:

Repaying Soc.sec. Benefits - AssetBuilder Inc. - Registered Investment Advisor

Also see IRS publication 915.

Publication 915 (2007), Social Security and Equivalent Railroad Retirement Benefits

[feh]

I answered no, because I believe in helping others have a decent life in their old age. At the very least, try to prevent others from living in poverty when they are done working.

I'm 42 and will not need SS in my retirement.