Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (9) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: mendomann Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 19257  
Subject: Bad News For Those Born In 1947 Date: 10/9/2009 3:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
It looks like there's a quirk in the Social Security program's benefit formula.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/08/social-security-1947-cola-o...
Print the post Back To Top
Author: sunrayman Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 15789 of 19257
Subject: Re: Bad News For Those Born In 1947 Date: 10/9/2009 7:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
My Father was in the previous "notch"; he passed away before collecting a full year's worth of Soc Sec retirement!

sunray
a man who Retired before collecting

Print the post Back To Top
Author: SirTas Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool CAPS All Star Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 15791 of 19257
Subject: Re: Bad News For Those Born In 1947 Date: 10/11/2009 12:08 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
In addition, due to details of the Social Security benefit formula, this financial loss can't be avoided by delaying retirement until after COLAs resume in 2012. For a typical newly retired couple with a monthly benefit of $2,235, this penalty will cost them around $1,340 per year, for every year of their retirement. If they survive to a typical age of 83, these couples will lose almost $25,000 in lifetime benefits. While high-income households may shrug off a 5% cut in their Social Security benefits, for low earners every penny counts.

I saw this part, but I'm still not entirely clear why those born in 1947 but retiring after 2012 would still suffer a loss of SS benefits.

The article seems to say that it's due to some undisclosed "details." If DW and I retire in 2015, why will we suffer a penalty that will cost us around $1340 per year, for every year of our retirement?

--SirTas

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Ezlington Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 15792 of 19257
Subject: Re: Bad News For Those Born In 1947 Date: 10/11/2009 9:42 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Sunrayman

 
.oO British Invasion Oo.

.
Notification: Within 10 days


YOU
will be our
.
.
____________________
| |
| Trooper of the Day |
|____________________|
.
.
Current listing is :
.
.
€z is off to Langkawi till the 29th
and will not be posting the Daily reminder.
.
.
October
.
12 BigBunk
13 Shibari ~~~~ LoonDay
14@ WyneFool@ off-board reminder
15 Corse
16 BklynBorn
17 Jiggle Sp•t
18 @ PSUEngineer @ off-board
19 Allisonh2
20 $ anuvaka $ 1 Day before
21 rogershera1 •
22 Hairy Golfer
23 Jiggle Sp•t
24 phluph
25 MizBlue
26 RedBarron
27 anuvaka 1/2 birthday
28 AlsoChorizo
29 Sunrayman
30 GTBG's Fool-aversary
.

.

.
€z


Print the post Back To Top
Author: billjam Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 15793 of 19257
Subject: Re: Bad News For Those Born In 1947 Date: 10/11/2009 9:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I thought the article was a little slanted. All the moaning about the supposed undeserved bonus in the 2009 COLA? How about the 2008 COLA which was significantly understated compared to inflation for the total year? The formula is based on third quarter CPI change only. That's going to mean some years are higher than the 12 month CPI change and some are lower. OTOH, considering where this article appeared and their political bias, why would expect anything else.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BretBaughn One star, 50 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 15794 of 19257
Subject: Re: Bad News For Those Born In 1947 Date: 10/11/2009 4:37 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Wouldn't the starting payout for 62 year olds have been adjusted up by the same 2009 COLA increase? If so, they're not losing out on anything. If not, then what do they use to determine how much to raise the starting payouts for retirees each year if not the COLA?

It looks like the strictly correct thing to do in periods of deflation would be to reduce the payout when the COLA is negative. But I can see where that wouldn't go over well....

Print the post Back To Top
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 15795 of 19257
Subject: Re: Bad News For Those Born In 1947 Date: 10/13/2009 12:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
That would include me. I turn 62 next month and will be taking early benefits. But when I planned my retirement nine years ago, I didn't include SS in my plans at all. So whatever I get is a bonus as far as what we need to live on goes, requiring smaller withdrawls from the portfolio. That will help when it's time to spend money to go out of country to avoid the coming long waits for medical care.

If I get back everything I paid in plus interest, inflation adjusted, that'll be good enough, although it might be too much to hope for.

--fleg

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BretBaughn One star, 50 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 15797 of 19257
Subject: Re: Bad News For Those Born In 1947 Date: 10/13/2009 3:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
That will help when it's time to spend money to go out of country to avoid the coming long waits for medical care.

I'm curious. Which country would you go to that doesn't have some kind of government healthcare?

Print the post Back To Top
Author: fleg9bo Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 15798 of 19257
Subject: Re: Bad News For Those Born In 1947 Date: 10/13/2009 5:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I´m curious. Which country would you go to that doesn´t have government health care.}

Any one where you can also buy private health care. I don't think private health care will be outlawed here at first. But given the shortages that will set in when docs begin retiring en masse and hospitals and clinics can no longer maintain all their equipment due to reduced provider compensation, I believe private care will be prohibited so that people without the means to go private won't have even longer waits. If the government can get away with it. Canada outlawed private care for a long time--you had to wait or leave. That's starting to change now with some private clinics even operating illegally but so much in demand that they aren't being prosecuted.

--fleg

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (9) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement