“The math is very powerful.” – for waiting until age 70.
Worried About Social Security Under Trump? What to Know About Claiming Early.
free link:
intercst
2 Likes
From the link:
{ Charles Czajka, founder of financial consultancy Macro Money Concepts. “It would be a cold day in hell before they cut Social Security benefits, so they have to find a fix,” }
We’ve been repeatedly told this for 30+ years.
IMO the Overton Window is shifting.
Intentionally, unintentionally, malignantly or innocently doesn’t matter.
It’s moving. IMO.
I’ve a couple more years til the magic 70.
I confess, I’m nervous.
The whole “you’ll be grandfathered” *they won’t dare cut Senior voters benefit" etc.
I don’t trust the Media and their proclamations.
ralph
7 Likes
“they won’t dare cut Senior voters benefit” etc."
Congress doesn’t have to vote, it’s on autopilot. They can do nothing, and SS payments will be cut. And one thing we can be sure about, this Congress, and probably every one after it till the projected shortfall year, will excel at doing nothing.
I haven’t claimed yet,either. Not at FRA yet, so it would be claiming a year early if I take it now. Although the decision is unique to every person, I actually agree on the merits of waiting till 70. But am very, very distrustful of this regime, and how they will affect the future direction of the Country.
5 Likes
For one lousy year, you may as well wait. I started drawing the moment I turned 62. Get while the getting is good, was my philosophy.
Steve
6 Likes
None of us have a guarantee that we’ll survive to whatever the date is, I bailed at 62, never regretted it, the telecom world was crashing, Lucent in particular was chopping, my 3 levels to District level had bailed, the thought of training the next generation of management to my liking was too much to ask for… That was in '02, so now, many years later, we managed to do a lot of world travel in this years, glad we did as we’re not so spry any more… Just have to survive these next few, get back to where science, reality exists!
7 Likes
The window is indeed moving. And the amount of money involved is so large that corrupt politicians are driven insane with the desire to get their hands on it. So they are pumping the comically false narrative that SS is doomed unless they transfer the money away from you and into their pockets.
However, I think people over the age of about 50 are safe. If the corrupt politicians tried to cut benefits for people of that age or older there would be riots. And it wouldn’t be just those people who are affected, it impacts those people’s children too. It would mean mom would have to move in with the kids or she winds up eating Alpo or some such. Ain’t happening.
People under about the age of 50 however, could very well get a jolly rogering. I have no idea what to do about that.
3 Likes
They don’t have to cut social security benefits to remove more money from your pocket. People seem to forget, but the act of taxing [some] social security benefits was a direct hit to your pocketbook. Right now, if you earn $25,000 - $34,000, half your social security is taxed, and if you earn over $34,000, 85% of your social security is taxed. So right off the bat, the simplest thing they can do is tax ALL your social security, period. This is almost sure to happen pretty soon. But there are all sorts of other tweaks they can so without “daring to cut” social security. And they can have an “excess income” surcharge for people already drawing social security - for example, if you have income over $100,000 and are drawing social security benefits, then on every dollar of income over $100,000, you have to pay a 5% social security surcharge. All the politicians can loudly proclaim “WE DIDN’T CUT SOCIAL SECURITY”, but you still have less money in your pocket.
5 Likes
That’s me. My fixed income puts me over those thresholds.
I do NOT have a choice.
The “mechanism” is unimportant.
Fewer $ to spend will impact the macro economy.
Lower inflation?
More “able bodied” muricans voluntarily getting back into the job market n driving “unemployment” up?
GnH
ralph
1 Like
I doubt it. Inflation, for the most part, isn’t driven by retirees, it is driven mostly by the younger cohort.
Oh it’s easy. A totally automatic answer is to eliminate the maximum income threshold by which Zuckerberg and friends stop paying at 12:10am on January 1st. I know, I know, that’s “more taxes”, but I suggest to make it palatable you begin by making it just a 1% contribution after the first $176,000 (or whatever the verge is by the time it gets passed.)
Adding 6% (12%, if we’re being honest) is a big slug to take all at once, but I think you might scoot 1% (2% IWBH) through by declaring “the emergency”. That would give temporary relief, and after a few years boost it again. While I haven’t done the math, I could believe that would push off the “cliff deadline.”
Another obvious option is to invest a portion of “the trust fund” (I amuse myself) in crypto, then wait a couple months and take the huge profits and put them back into the trust fund. (I’m really laughing now).
Lots of ways, you just have to be bold.
5 Likes
He is a lame duck. So it does not matter to him.
But does he really need to be a lame duck? Cant we have him again?
What is the difference to the economy overall if the money is spent by individuals or by the government?
DB2
The purported goal of cutting SS is to reduce government spending?
Yes?
ralph
4 Likes
Make it so simple even those with no comprehension understand it. Make ALL income–from any/all sources–taxable for Social Security purposes. Let the spinning begin !!!
1 Like
I find that exceedingly unlikely. One party has expressed opposition to that and the other has expressed a desire to not tax SS at all.
4 Likes
If Congress takes no action and Social Security Trust Fund runs out of funds (abt 2028) the reduction in benefits is automatic.
Surely it will be un-politic to let that happen. But the usual method takes years to kick in. Usually increases in taxes or retirement age are effective during a later term of Congress.
The clock is ticking.
I guess. However, Mark wrote that you end up with “less money in your pocket”. Presumably that money went somewhere else. Then you wrote that less spending would impact the economy. I was assuming that wherever that money (that’s not in your pocket) is, it will be spent.
So, two questions:
- Where is that money?
- How will it be spent?
DB2
Yes, if Congress does nothing - but the easiest (and most politically expedient) solution is to simply pay the difference out of the general fund.
I think it far more likely that Congress does than than cutting benefits to high propensity voters.
5 Likes
LOLOL
So, we’re jousting different straw men?
I was limiting my thoughts only to SS recipients (seniors, SS disability, SS to minors etc).
Just cause there’s no/little inflation in the “core” that affects SS recipients doesn’t mean the defense budget won’t go up.
Quap
ralph
3 Likes
Technically correct, but SS benefits can be paid out of general revenues. That would require Congress to act (albeit in a cowardly way, but cowardice is a hallmark of Congress), but there is no doomsday event lurking around the corner if the trust fund runs out.
There is plenty of time to fix this problem. The doomsday narrative is being peddled by career criminals who want your SS benefits in order to fund tax cuts for the job creator class.
5 Likes