Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 15
Excellent summary of what you need to know about "retirement investing". Probably a good review for many Baby Boomers, too.

If you can, How Millennials Can Get Rich Slowly
https://www.etf.com/docs/IfYouCan.pdf

</snip>


intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If you can, How Millennials Can Get Rich Slowly

Thanks intercst. I sent that link to both my Millennial kids. I'm hoping they read it ;-)

'38Packard
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
what no mention of Gamestop or Crypto?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Frankly, my millennial sons have found a much better, sure-fire method to retire as multi- millionaires. One of them already owns a home in San Francisco and the other owns a home in LA. Meanwhile, I saved over 15% a year and couldn’t afford a mobile home park in either city.

Their secret?

They both married intelligent and beautiful women whose parents are very, very rich.

Lazy bums.

AW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yeah, that is probably the best retirement plan. It is also the least reliable (i.e. it can be difficult to meet rich women, and then have them fall in love with you). But if you can do it, that's the best retirement option you could get.

I'd be really impressed if one of your kids was living on a Migaloo M5. It's something to strive for. But good job getting the SF home!

:-)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 11
Yeah, that is probably the best retirement plan.

I think its the second best retirement plan.

The best retirement plan is to pick rich parents. When done successfully, it's far more reliable.

--Peter
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I am a follower of Dr. Bernstein. And I'm wondering what he has been saying lately. I'm sure his general thinking hasn't changed, but I'd like to her some specifics for the current era. Any links to some recent Bernstein?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Any links to some recent Bernstein?

</snip>


Don't you have Google where you live?

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
They both married intelligent and beautiful women whose parents are very, very rich.

You can marry an intelligent, successful woman. The parents do not need to be rich.

PSU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
You can marry an intelligent, successful woman. The parents do not need to be rich.

I know.

I did.

:)



AW
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Any links to some recent Bernstein?

Haven’t seen much lately, but back in May he did an interview with Barrons:

https://www.barrons.com/amp/articles/hes-bearish-he-sees-lot...

Pete
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
The best retirement plan is to pick rich parents. When done successfully, it's far more reliable.

IIRC the documentary on this, starring Marty McFly, showed how difficult it was to get your dorky parents together, much less have a child.

Mike
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Haven’t seen much lately, but back in May he did an interview with Barrons:

</snip>


That interview in Barron's is fantastic -- especially these two quotes.

https://www.barrons.com/amp/articles/hes-bearish-he-sees-lot...

The very first advice I give people is for God’s sake, unless you and your spouse are in bad health, you should do everything you can to delay taking Social Security until 70 [when benefits reach their maximum]. The biggest risk you have as a retiree is that you’re going to live too long.

With bond yields so low should retirees be buying income annuities?

Yes. I like single premium immediate annuities, nothing fancier than that. But don’t even think about getting one until you’ve deferred Social Security to age 70.

</snip>

If you’re somebody in my age range [Bernstein is 72], you’ve had the benefit of four decades of spectacular returns.

Younger investors don’t have those assets built up, and they’re looking at lower expected returns going forward. The millennials are going to come for baby boomers with pitch forks. Quote me on that.

</snip>


intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
That interview in Barron's is fantastic -- especially these two quotes.

https://www.barrons.com/amp/articles/hes-bearish-he-sees-lot......

The very first advice I give people is for God’s sake, unless you and your spouse are in bad health, you should do everything you can to delay taking Social Security until 70 [when benefits reach their maximum]. The biggest risk you have as a retiree is that you’re going to live too long.


</snip>

So many advising to delay taking Social Security (SS) until age 70.

Let’s suppose a person decided to take SS at age 62.

Let’s assume that the person invested the SS income, and was able to realize a gain of, say, 5% per year. And did so for the 8 years before reaching age 70.

If that person who retired at age 62 had instead delayed taking SS until age 70, how many years would it take for that late-blooming person to catch up to the earlier version of himself/herself that had decided to begin taking SS at age 62? Remembering, of course, that the earlier-retired version continues to receive SS payments while the later-retired version is frantically trying catch up in the race before inevitably losing in another race with something called death. I keep wondering whether it’s a fool’s errand.

What would be the crossover age when taking SS benefits at age 70 exceeds taking SS benefits at age 62 (with the proceeds invested until age 70)? Keeping in mind that actuarial tables reflect the increased probability of dying with every passing year.

Answers may vary a bit, of course, depending upon when and in what amounts taxes are paid on SS payments received.

vez
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Let’s suppose a person decided to take SS at age 62.

Let’s assume that the person invested the SS income, and was able to realize a gain of, say, 5% per year. And did so for the 8 years before reaching age 70.


Sure. Lets also look at the possible case of investing the SS funds in the market and losing a good chunk of it, then still getting the reduced amount after those losses. Let's remember that SS is supposed to be insurance, a catch basin to try to keep retirees out of poverty: The Social Security Act and related laws establish a number of programs that have the following basic purposes: To provide for the material needs of individuals and families; To protect aged and disabled persons against the expenses of illnesses that may otherwise use up their savings;... https://www.ssa.gov/section218training/basic_course_3.htm#:~...

By waiting until 70 you max out your insurance.

IP
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
By waiting until 70 you max out your insurance.

May be true for a single person, but I believe marriage will change the equation.

I haven't run the numbers, but for a couple of approximately the same ages, I've read that the typical optimal strategy is for the lower-earning spouse to take Social Security at 62 and the higher-earning spouse to wait until 70. This assumes they don't change the rules again. I'll run the numbers in a couple years when I'm approaching age 62.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
...lower-earning spouse to take Social Security at 62 and the higher-earning spouse to wait until 70...

Step 2 is then for the lower-earning spouse to suspend own benefits, and switch to receiving 1/2 of spouse's when spouse starts collecting.
This is called "file and suspend," and the rules did change. You can now collect either on your own earnings record, or your spouse's, but not one then the other.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
...lower-earning spouse to take Social Security at 62 and the higher-earning spouse to wait until 70...

Step 2 is then for the lower-earning spouse to suspend own benefits, and switch to receiving 1/2 of spouse's when spouse starts collecting.
This is called "file and suspend," and the rules did change. You can now collect either on your own earnings record, or your spouse's, but not one then the other.


That much I was aware of. In our case, my benefit is about 1/2 of my spouses anyway, so it matters little.

But (if I understand correctly) if the higher earning spouse dies, then the lower earning spouse receives the spouses benefit as the survivor benefit.

An example to illustrate and confirm my understanding, for a same age couple.

If I received $1000/month benefit starting at age 62.
Wife received $3000/month benefit starting at age 70.

From age 70 on, we each collect our benefit for a total of $4000/month.

Case A:
If wife passes away at 72...
then I would receive $3000 a month until my death as survivor benefit

Case B:
If I pass away at 72...
then she would continue to receive $3000/month.

Correct?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
Let’s assume that the person invested the SS income, and was able to realize a gain of, say, 5% per year. And did so for the 8 years before reaching age 70.

If that person who retired at age 62 had instead delayed taking SS until age 70, how many years would it take for that late-blooming person to catch up to the earlier version of himself/herself that had decided to begin taking SS at age 62?


5.0%? Age 90.8.

6.0%? Never. Not just "they'd have to live longer than anyone has ever lived". Never, as in never ever...the age 62 account grows larger than the 70 account forever.

5.5%? Age 93.6

Here is the URL of this spreadsheet: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gebanzrbr3g33qf/My%20SS%20breakeve...
Plug in your own numbers for return and COLA to see the crossover age.

Another one:
http://web.bryant.edu/~rmuksian/textbook/Breakeven62vsNormal...

The question really becomes, how likely do you think is is for you to get XX% return above inflation?

The secondary question is, How useful is it to you to have more money after 90.8 than it is to have more money between 62 and 90?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
The secondary question is, How useful is it to you to have more money after 90.8 than it is to have more money between 62 and 90?

But in order to have more money up until age 90.8, you can't spend the money that you are getting from SS beginning at age 62 - you have to actually invest it. And increasing your standard of living by pulling money from other investments is effectively not investing the SS money.

So the real question is: How likely are you to actually invest all of the SS money, without increasing your standard of living? And the corollary to that question is: If you're just going to invest the SS money and not spend it until you're at least 90.8, what's the point of taking it at 62?

AJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"And the corollary to that question is: If you're just going to invest the SS money and not spend it until you're at least 90.8, what's the point of taking it at 62?"

My plan at present is to start taking SS at FRA, 66 and 4 months, investing it one of two etfs in my taxable account, which is set up to sweep my monthly dividend and interest income into our checking account. That way we increase our net worth and our available spending money on a monthly basis. Like a COLA.

I also plan to start sweeping dividend and interest income out of my IRA next year into my taxable account, thereby increasing my dividend income and interest income in that account while shrinking my sheltered account (or slowing the rate of growth of my sheltered account) prior to taking RMDs. Another COLA.

When the time comes I plan to take my RMDs, sweep them into my taxable account, thereby increasing the dividend and interest income in that account, also serving as a COLA.

The main goal is to enjoy hiking, biking, kayaking, birding and taking Ispouse to outdoor wineries with a minimum of worry and fuss about money.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 13
But in order to have more money up until age 90.8, you can't spend the money that you are getting from SS beginning at age 62 - you have to actually invest it.

You didn't look at the spreadsheet, did you? I think it is all explained there, although maybe not comprehensively -- it's been several years since I last touched it.

The idea is to compare like to like. So, yes, you have to invest that money instead of spending it.

Let's compare the 2 cases.

Case A is defer to 70, then get the (increased) SS. Call this amount $SS70. By definition, your living expenses between 62 and 70 come from somewhere. That somewhere drops out of the picture at 70.

Case B is take the (reduced) SS at 62 and invest it. Call this amount $SS62. Your living expenses between 62 and 70 come from the same somewhere that it came from in Case A. Likewise, it drops out of the picture at 70.

SS62 is less that SS70.

Now, in Case B, you have a chunk of money that is from investing the $SS62 from 62 to 70.

At 70, the magic well that you tapped to live on from 62 to 70 drops out.
You then want to collect the $SS70 amount every month.

For Case A, the entire $SS70 comes from the SSA.

For Case B, you get $SS62 from the SSA, and the shortfall ($SS70 - $SS62) is taken from the investment account.

In each case, you get $SS70 per month.

The question is: How long does this investment account last before it is depleted? That's the crossover point. The higher the earnings are, the longer the account will last. At a high enough return, that account will NEVER be depleted.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I also plan to start sweeping dividend and interest income out of my IRA next year into my taxable account, thereby increasing my dividend income and interest income in that account while shrinking my sheltered account (or slowing the rate of growth of my sheltered account) prior to taking RMDs.

What I don't understand is why the money you take out of the IRA isn't being converted into a ROTH instead. You pay the same taxes when it comes out of the IRA, but in the ROTH the money that it generates is also tax free.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
For Case A, the entire $SS70 comes from the SSA.

For Case B, you get $SS62 from the SSA, and the shortfall ($SS70 - $SS62) is taken from the investment account.

In each case, you get $SS70 per month.

The question is: How long does this investment account last before it is depleted? That's the crossover point. The higher the earnings are, the longer the account will last. At a high enough return, that account will NEVER be depleted. - rayvt


-----------------

Thanks Ray, that is clearest and most succinct explanation of this tradeoff that I have seen.

I waited to 70 so that ship has sailed for me, but just to add to the conversation, I will point out that in my case, had I started taking SS at 62, that extra income would have diminished my capacity to do Roth Conversion during those eight years.

Note my Roth conversion max was a self imposed limit based on the top of the bracket I was targeting, not any sort of IRS limit. Most here know that but stating just for clarity.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
5.0%? Age 90.8.

6.0%? Never. Not just "they'd have to live longer than anyone has ever lived". Never, as in never ever...the age 62 account grows larger than the 70 account forever.

5.5%? Age 93.6

Here is the URL of this spreadsheet: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gebanzrbr3g33qf/My%20SS%20breakeve......
Plug in your own numbers for return and COLA to see the crossover age.

Another one:
http://web.bryant.edu/~rmuksian/textbook/Breakeven62vsNormal......

The question really becomes, how likely do you think is is for you to get XX% return above inflation?

The secondary question is, How useful is it to you to have more money after 90.8 than it is to have more money between 62 and 90?


Ray, thanks for running the numbers.

I think that your calculations show that the arguments for waiting to start taking Social Security are basically "straw men".

What I have seen from various related websites, including that of the AARP, is that the recommendation
to wait until age 70 is often based on the assumption that one will continue working and contributing
to Social Security beyond age 62--although not necessarily until age 70 and/or in the
same job as before.

https://www.aarp.org/retirement/planning-for-retirement/info...

Did I read that link's advice clearly? Consider being an Uber or Lyft driver, or dog walking.? How about making deliveries on a motor scooter, or bagging groceries, or other
simple tasks that a spry 62-year-old could handle easily until perhaps age 70?

Welcome to retirement paradise.

vez
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Forgive me Ray, but I think your spreadsheet over complicates the question.

And aj, it doesn't matter whether you "spend" the money or not, as long as your withdrawal amounts from your financial assets don't change based on when you take social security.

I use the bathtub analogy to explain this for my wife. Forgive me for it's simplicity. There's an amount of water already in the tub (your financial assets), a faucet that adds water (social security, pensions), and an open drain (withdrawals). The only part of this analogy that doesn't work is the water in the tub "grows" (or shrinks) with investment returns. So think of social security as getting added to your pool of assets; don't think of it as a source for spending.

To calculate cross over points you need:
1) your benefit at 62
2) your benefit at 70
3) a real rate of return on your overall financial assets

I used a Motley Fool article on ss benefits that uses a Full Retirement Age benefit at $1500 per month at age 67 (results will differ slightly if your FRA is different). The benefit is reduced to $1050 at age 62, and increased to $1860 at age 70.

The cross over point for a 0% real rate of return is about age 79.
For a 2% real rate of return, age 82.
For 4%, age 86.
For 6%, age 93.

The decision on when to take social security is based on two things 1) when you die; and 2) your overall portfolio real rate of return. Unfortunately neither of things are knowable a priori.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Of course, one has to have 'faith' that the politicians will magically come up with trillions of dollars in 2033, when the SS Trust Fund surplus hits zero.

Right now, more benefits are being paid than money collected from folks paying SS tax in their paychecks.

In 2033, the 'trust fund' is depleted. Right now, those IOUs are being redeemed and the gov't is having to borrow hundreds of billions of real cash to pay benefits.

Projections are that by 2033, the fund hits 'zero'. Benefits would have to be cut 22% so that 'income' from folks paying SS tax matches outgo - folks collecting SS.

Medicare is worse off and politicians are set (from the Dem side) to reduce eligibility age to 60 which will sink it even faster.

We live in interesting times.

Of course, options on the table might include 'means testing' so you get less and less benefits as your 'income' or 'pension income' or 'size of your IRA' is used to figure out how little SS you get that month.

For me, I might not be around much after 2033 as well as many 'early' baby boomers, but the majority will still be kicking around in their 70s and 80s by then...some in their 60s.

Other options include increasing the age of 'full retirement' - which is slowly creeping up but might happen even faster as the money runs out.

Good article by Scott Burns today in the Sunday paper here on the trust fund problem.

https://scottburns.com/social-security-is-paying-out-more-th...


t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
The decision on when to take social security is based on two things 1) when you die; and 2) your overall portfolio real rate of return. Unfortunately neither of things are knowable a priori.

This is exactly right. The finances of the decision come down to risk. For retirement planning, many suggest looking at the worst case scenario, not the average scenario. This path leads to the 4% safe withdrawal rate. The key being safe. Following this path leads to enormous wealth for most people since most people don't experience the worst case scenario. But for those who do, a 4% withdrawal keeps them safe.

Taking social security at 70 is like using a safe withdrawal strategy. It gives you more money in the worst case scenarios, when you really need it, but less money when you don't.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Rayvt posted...
Let’s assume that the person invested the SS income, and was able to realize a gain of, say, 5% per year. And did so for the 8 years before reaching age 70.

If that person who retired at age 62 had instead delayed taking SS until age 70, how many years would it take for that late-blooming person to catch up to the earlier version of himself/herself that had decided to begin taking SS at age 62?

5.0%? Age 90.8.

6.0%? Never. Not just "they'd have to live longer than anyone has ever lived". Never, as in never ever...the age 62 account grows larger than the 70 account forever.

5.5%? Age 93.6

Here is the URL of this spreadsheet: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gebanzrbr3g33qf/My%20SS%20breakeve......
Plug in your own numbers for return and COLA to see the crossover age.


Great spreadsheet Rayvt!
I'm not too worried about my overall portfolio if we have 5 or 6% returns, I'd have more of an concern if the market declined 2% or 4% for ten years or so. Of course I hope that's a low probability occurrence.

I added a column for -2% and -4% to the "Quick BE" tab of your spreadsheet for those numbers. For -2%, I get a break even of 78.9 and for -4%, I get 77.7.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
A follow up.

I said "the decision" on when to take . . . .

I should have send investment decision. As in if you are making a decision to maximize expected investment dollars.

But there is another decision one could make, and that is based on insurance. One may choose to give up maximizing expectations and instead insure against either or both 1) lower than expected returns (you want to insure against the market doing poorly, and/or you yourself making poor investment decisions; 2) a longer than expected lifespan. Insurance has a cost. Some people decide to self-insure on some insurance because it maximizes expectations. For example, if you expect real returns to be 4%, the cross-over is age 86. But if want to guard against the risk of lower returns, your cross-over age is younger, and thus you will be more inclined to wait until age 70 to claim ss. But you will not be maximizing expectations.

I would argue that if your assets are high enough that you don't need social security to live on, you should make a decision to maximize expectations.

But if you need social security to meet your spending goals, then you should consider the "insurance."
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
I would argue that if your assets are high enough that you don't need social security to live on, you should make a decision to maximize expectations.

But if you need social security to meet your spending goals, then you should consider the "insurance."


I have an additional consideration. My wife is 10 years younger than me, and has a much lower expected SS income. So I plan to defer taking SS until age 70, so that she gets the benefit of a much higher payment.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
So I plan to defer taking SS until age 70, so that she gets the benefit of a much higher payment.

That's an interesting point. I may have to see the intricacies of the rules. Can I delay to 70, while my wife takes it at 65, and then whenever I die she can take over the higher payment (I'm pretty sure she only gets one payment, and mine will be higher)? I'll have to dig around in the rules...

She's only 1 year younger than me, but I'm not aware of any male family member that made it much past 70. The women live forever, but the men not so much...

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I'm not too worried about my overall portfolio if we have 5 or 6% returns, I'd have more of an concern if the market declined 2% or 4% for ten years or so. Of course I hope that's a low probability occurrence.

And, y'know, none of these projections and scenarios account for the possibility of what might happen when the SSA "trust fund" [*} runs out in 2033 (or earlier).

If SSA benefits are cut by 24%, do you think it will happen across the board? Grandma who has only SS income and millionaires who are collecting a 32% bonus because they deferred to 70----Congress is going to let both of them get cut by 24%? You can write the headlines now. "Greedy millionaires want grannie to starve on catfood."

More likely, the folks who got 32% extra by deferring will get cut back to 100% of their FRA, THEN will get the across-the-board 24% cut.


--------------------------
[*] The SSA trust fund is just a fiction. It's one part of the government lending money to another part of the government and pretending that it is a hard asset. It's like you lending $10 to your (non-working) wife and saying that the note she gave you is an asset.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Rayvt asks,

If SSA benefits are cut by 24%, do you think it will happen across the board?

</snip>


If SS benefits are cut by 24%, you'll see every sitting member of Congress voted out of office in the next election.

There's a reason they call Social Security the "Third rail of politics".

When Did Social Security Become the Third Rail of American Politics?
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/10522

</snip>


I'm pretty sure that even the most ivermectin-poisoned "free-dumb lover" would vote his Congressman out of office if SS or Medicare were cut.

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
So I plan to defer taking SS until age 70, so that she gets the benefit of a much higher payment.

If you predecease your wife, the amount she receives will be based on what you would have received at your full retirement age (currently 66 +2 months), not the amount you receive by deferring until age 70.


AW

https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/questions-an...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
And, y'know, none of these projections and scenarios account for the possibility of what might happen when the SSA "trust fund" [*} runs out in 2033 (or earlier).

If SSA benefits are cut by 24%, do you think it will happen across the board? Grandma who has only SS income and millionaires who are collecting a 32% bonus because they deferred to 70----Congress is going to let both of them get cut by 24%? You can write the headlines now. "Greedy millionaires want grannie to starve on catfood."

More likely, the folks who got 32% extra by deferring will get cut back to 100% of their FRA, THEN will get the across-the-board 24% cut.



None of those things will happen. If Congress tried to cut benefits for current or soon-to-be retirees there would be riots. What will happen is there will be some combination of tax increases and benefit cuts for future retirees, probably people 50 and under.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
intercst:"I'm pretty sure that even the most ivermectin-poisoned "free-dumb lover" would vote his Congressman out of office if SS or Medicare were cut"......

true...but let's look a bit further.

We have 28.5 trillion dollars in debt. Almost a million dollars per tax payer!

https://www.truthinaccounting.org/about/our_national_debt?gc...

Now....interest rates are a few percent. Short term rates well under 1%. 10 yer treasury about 2.2%.

If interest rates go up.....like current inflation of probably 4-5%, then what? (yeah, tele remembers 13% on 30 year treasury bonds - wish I had stocked up on a bunch of them). That wasn't a fun time, though. Home mortgage rates in the late 70s were 8.75% or so when I bought my first house on my hilltop.

If interest rates go to 5%, on 30 trillion in debt, maybe 50 trillion by the time 2033 comes around, that could be 2.5 trillion a year in debt payments. And that doesn't include SS.

If SS is in the red by half a trillion a year starting in 2033, and escalating even more......

that's a lotta trillions before we even pay for defense, for Congress, for the rest of the government (those million federal workers and contractors), Food stamps, child credits, and the thousand other government programs, not including Medicare/Medicaid and ObamaCare subsidies.

It didn't take a whole lot in the 1970s to spike interest rates to double digits, did it?

Worse, the current Congress thinks nothing of borrowing 2-3 trillion a year. In 12 years, it could be more than 50 trillion in debt and interest on that money, assuming ANYONE is willing to lend us money. We too could be like Venezuela with a million percent inflation a year.

Some 1970s history

"The easy-money policies of the American central bank—designed to generate full employment by the early 1970s—also resulted in high inflation.4? The central bank (once under different leadership) would later reverse its policies, raising interest rates to some 20%—a number once considered usurious.? For interest-sensitive industries, such as housing and cars, rising interest rates cause a calamity. With interest rates skyrocketing, many people are priced out of new cars and homes."

"However, it is clear that monetary policies, which financed massive budget deficits and were supported by political leaders, were the cause. "

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/1970s-gre...



hmmmm....easymonetary policy? Keeping interest rates at 0.1%, of course.....ahem..... throwing gazillions of dollars at 'full employment' programs. Oh, the 'infrastructure' and 'climate catastrophe!'.... Easy money? Yep. Massive continual high annual deficits and borrowing, supported by political leaders? Yep. Spendaholic congress? Yep. 2.5 trillion dollar deficit or more this year? Yep! 5 years of spending supported by 10 years of taxes with a debt bomb in 5 years in the 'infrastructure bill' with all the new give away programs? Yep. Then in 5 years, the programs can't be stopped so even more trillions to be borrowed.

Let's see....2033....trust fund zero. Annual deficits 5 trillion.....total debt 60-70 trillion maybe? What do you think interest rates are going to have to be? The total GDP of the US is only 21.4 trillion. You think any country can have debt of 300% of GDP?



t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"None of those things will happen. If Congress tried to cut benefits for current or soon-to-be retirees there would be riots. What will happen is there will be some combination of tax increases and benefit cuts for future retirees, probably people 50 and under. "

Well.....you are assuming there is no great 'inflation' which might be the only solution. 10% inflation, and SS adjusted 'late' each year and probably not to true inflation but some cooked up formula that only gives 6% raise.

There won't be enough working to pay enough to support all the baby boomers at the end of the cycle and folks living longer as health care gets even better - prolonging life.

"As these trends have continued, today there are just 2.9 workers per retiree—and this amount is expected to drop to two workers per retiree by 2030."

That is not a good trend. By 2033, when the fund goes belly up....there will be 2 workers per retiree.

If you figure the average social security payment per retiree is " $1,430.73"

Then, each worker would have to pay, on average, an additional $715 per month to keep the payments coming.

I think a lot of those workers would RIOT too......



t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
That answered my question:

The rules are different for survivor benefits. A widow or widower whose spouse waited until 70 to file for Social Security is entitled to the full amount the deceased was getting — including the delayed retirement credits — so long as the surviving spouse has reached full retirement age.

As long as I make it to 70, then claim benefits, she will be guaranteed the full benefit when I die. She has the option to take either my benefit or hers when that happens.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If you predecease your wife, the amount she receives will be based on what you would have received at your full retirement age (currently 66 +2 months), not the amount you receive by deferring until age 70.

No, definitely not. This is one of key reasons to delay Social Security for married couples. The higher payments will be received based on the joint life expectancy of a couple. Spousal benefits are limited to 50% of the FRA of higher earning spouse.

https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/questions-an...

A surviving spouse can collect 100 percent of the late spouse’s benefit if the survivor has reached full retirement age, but the amount will be lower if the deceased spouse claimed benefits before he or she reached full retirement age.

Full retirement age for survivor benefits differs from that for retirement and spousal benefits
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
If you predecease your wife

Plus, it will suck that I'm dead.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Taking social security at 70 is like using a safe withdrawal strategy. It gives you more money in the worst case scenarios, when you really need it, but less money when you don't.

Or you could take the Veruca Salt approach:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pqsy7V0wphI
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 20
That is not a good trend. By 2033, when the fund goes belly up....there will be 2 workers per retiree.

If you figure the average social security payment per retiree is " $1,430.73"

Then, each worker would have to pay, on average, an additional $715 per month to keep the payments coming.

I think a lot of those workers would RIOT too......


Assuming your figures are correct...uh, no. If the average average social security payment per retiree is $1,430.73, the the total payment, not additional, per worker would be $715 ($715 x 2 workers = $1,430). But half of that is paid by the employer, so the total payment from the worker would be $358.

6.2 percent of a guesstimated average annual wage of $50,000 is $258/month. And indeed $358 is more than $258. But there are a number of solutions. An obvious one is to raise the SS tax cap. That would pretty much fix the problem all by itself. Another one is to raise the SS tax in general. That would also pretty much fix the problem. Another one is to cut future benefits for those under 50 (or pick your age). Another solution is some combination of all those. If you spread it around you can fix it without ruffling many feathers. That's why I reject the hysteria that we are locked into a trajectory and can't reach the controls.

This is a completely fixable problem. It has come up in the past and been fixed several times. The only reason it can't be fixed again is if American citizens are too lazy to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work of fixing it. In the meantime, I get really, really tired of the Chicken Little cries that Americans citizens are such lazy, pathetic humans that nothing can or will be done about this.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
My son is single. Your rich daughters in law have sisters?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
That is not a good trend. By 2033, when the fund goes belly up....there will be 2 workers per retiree.

Hmmmm. Now where could we find workers? Nobody wants to live in the United States anymore?

Andy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
By 2033, when the fund goes belly up....there will be 2 workers per retiree.

We need workers. Do you think it would be possible to convince some people from Mexico or Central America or Afghanistan or somewhere else to come here and do some work?

culcha
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Do you think it would be possible to convince some people from Mexico or Central America or Afghanistan or somewhere else to come here and do some work?

I hear they are clamoring to come here. The only "gotcha" is that a lot of that work is automating. So they would need to have expertise in fields that aren't going to be automated anytime soon.

Fix the immigration system. Solve the "Dreamer" issue. These all should be relatively straight-forward, unless you are a RWNJ who has no idea what is going on (e.g. a denizen of Faux Noise, Spewsmax, etc).

1poorguy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"Do you think it would be possible to convince some people from Mexico or Central America or Afghanistan or somewhere else to come here and do some work?"

90% of the refugees wind up on public assistance for at least 10 years. Their net contribution to the economy is NEGATIVE. They go on food stamps, housing assistance, welfare, child credits, Medicaid for their 8 kids, plus, of course, overload schools with foreign speaking kids requiring high price union labor rates 'dual language teachers', diversity councilors, administrators, etc.

Not only that, but you'd need 50 million of them to make a dent.

There will be almost all the baby boomers collecting SS in 2033.

"The concepts of solvency, sustainability, and budget impact are common in discussions of Social Security, but are not well understood. Currently, the Social Security Board of Trustees projects program cost to rise by 2035 so that taxes will be enough to pay for only 75 percent of scheduled benefits. This increase in cost results from population aging, not because we are living longer, but because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman."

"With the average worker benefit currently at about $1,000 per month, 3.3 workers would need to contribute about $300 each per month to provide a $1,000 benefit. But after the population age distribution has shifted to have just two workers per beneficiary, each worker would need to contribute $500 to provide the same $1,000 benefit.

Thus, in order to meet increased Social Security costs, substantial change will be needed. The intermediate projections of the 2009 Trustees Report indicate that if we wait to take action until the combined OASDI trust fund becomes exhausted in 2037, benefit reductions of around 25 percent or payroll tax increases of around one-third (a 4 percent increase in addition to the current 12.4 percent rate) will be required. Past legislative changes for Social Security suggest that the next reform is likely to include a combination of benefit reductions and payroll tax increases."

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n3/v70n3p111.html

My prediction is means testing. You got a fat IRA or stock account, or sitting on a million in real estate.....your SS benefit will get chopped back.

Workers will pay more, employers will pay more, too.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 27
90% of the refugees wind up on public assistance for at least 10 years.

Source?

Because I found this:

Overall, immigrants are less likely to consume welfare benefits and, when they do, they generally consume a lower dollar value of benefits than native-?born Americans. Immigrants who meet the eligibility thresholds of age for the entitlement programs or poverty for the means-?tested welfare programs generally have lower use rates and consume a lower dollar value relative to native-?born Americans.3 The per capita cost of providing welfare to immigrants is substantially less than the per capita cost of providing welfare to native-?born Americans.

https://www.cato.org/immigration-research-policy-brief/immig...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
you'd need 50 million of them to make a dent.

Fine. Start now and let in 3 million a year.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 18
90% of the refugees wind up on public assistance for at least 10 years. Their net contribution to the economy is NEGATIVE. They go on food stamps, housing assistance, welfare, child credits, Medicaid for their 8 kids, plus, of course, overload schools with foreign speaking kids requiring high price union labor rates 'dual language teachers', diversity councilors, administrators, etc.

Got any data from credible sources to back up those opinions?

AJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 27
Got any data from credible sources to back up those opinions?

Has a tele post ever had credible sources?

PSU
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Got any data from credible sources to back up those opinions?

It's tele, so "no", he doesn't. His sources appear to be Tucker Carlson rants, and similar. Nothing fact-based.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
His sources appear to be Tucker Carlson rants, and similar.

Unlike the paragon of journalistic truth and objectivity.... Don Lemon.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
"USA: Muslim “refugees” – 91.4% on food stamps, 68.3% on Cash Welfare. "

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/usa-muslim-refugees-91-4...


"Among the findings of this analysis:

On average, each Middle Eastern refugee resettled in the United States costs an estimated $64,370 in the first five years, or $257,481 per household."

https://cis.org/Report/High-Cost-Resettling-Middle-Eastern-R...


t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
USA: Muslim “refugees” – 91.4% on food stamps, 68.3% on Cash Welfare. "

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/usa-muslim-refugees-91-4......


"Among the findings of this analysis:

On average, each Middle Eastern refugee resettled in the United States costs an estimated $64,370 in the first five years, or $257,481 per household."

https://cis.org/Report/High-Cost-Resettling-Middle-Eastern-R......


The first article cited has no value. The website's own disclaimer states:

"DON’T BELIEVE A WORD YOU READ ON THIS WEBSITE!

The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factuality or implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events."

Also noted is that none of the links within the article are still reachable.

The second article was written by a reputable organization and contains verifiable citations for the underlying data. However, it was written in 2015 and addresses what may very well be a different universe of refugees. It's arguable (in other words, I don't know the answer) that the Afghan refugees that are covered by the SIV program today are more educated than the Syrian refugees of 2015 since the Afghans were working with American and Allied forces. This implies that at least one member of the family is fluent in English.

Ira
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
that the Afghan refugees that are covered by the SIV program today are more educated than the Syrian refugees of 2015 since the Afghans were working with American and Allied forces. - Ira

-----------------

However, worth noting is that only abut 10% of the 100K+ Afghan refugees evacuated so far were SIV holders. It appears that the Biden admin was just loading the planes with whatever Afghans it could find that made it through the Taliban gauntlet onto the airport property. The vast, vast majority of SIV holders are still trying to figure a way out.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 26
I asked for credible sources. A blog that seeks donations and claims it is dedicated to providing alternative news on their "Contact Us" page https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/contact-us/ is obviously biased and not credible. Once again, you have failed to deliver anything to support your obviously biased opinions, other than an echo chamber that you probably contribute to.

AJ
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The question really becomes, how likely do you think is is for you to get XX% return above inflation?

Or, when deciding to take Social Security at age 62 or FRA or later, one can ask "Do I want to maximize the amount that's left when I die if I get a great investment return, or do I want some insurance against running out of money if I get a modest or poor return?"

Even if you get a good *average* return, if the bad years are right after retirement, the money you had to take out at the lows isn't around to enjoy the high return years, so your actual portfolio can suffer.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
"I asked for credible sources. A blog that seeks donations and claims it is dedicated to providing alternative news on their "Contact Us" page..."

...is a credible news source for tele. That's the point. Made up facts are his reality.

Tele gives us insight into millions of Americans that have crossed the crazy line in the political realm, some of whom post are capable of posting very rational posts on other topics.

I call it Foxworld. Or Trumpworld. Completely alternate universe with their own facts.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I call it Foxworld. Or Trumpworld. Completely alternate universe with their own facts. - iampops

---------------------

Many would say that CNNworld is a fantasy land. Bidenworld where there is no border crisis and the Afghan evacuation was well done is also a little detached from reality.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 26
"Many would say that CNNworld is a fantasy land. Bidenworld where there is no border crisis and the Afghan evacuation was well done is also a little detached from reality."

That's the thing. Biden does not say 'there is no border crisis' and 'the evacuation was well done'. Those are overgeneralizations that were fed to you in your alternate universe. I don't want to hurt your feelings, but in the political realm you have crossed the crazy line. I just accept that, and put you in the 'crazy' column on political posts. Even rayvt, who is one of my favorite posters on retirement issues.

On political posts, you are too crazy for rational discussion. So I mostly just ignore it all and read the other stuff.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
Almost all news sources in this country have gone further and further to one side or the other of the political spectrum. It is well nigh impossible to convince an adult to change their political views,and in virtually all cases leads to irrational posting.

This is why most boards should avoid political discussions. Complete waste of bandwidth.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
On political posts, you are too crazy for rational discussion. So I mostly just ignore it all and read the other stuff. - iampops

-----------------

Right back atcha. There are other points of view you know...

And BTW, I was not the one who injected Trumpworld and Foxworld politics into this thread.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Many would say that CNNworld is a fantasy land. Bidenworld where there is no border crisis and the Afghan evacuation was well done is also a little detached from reality.

Well which is it? Do you want to save the Afghani's that helped us during the war or do you want to leave them behind? You can't have it both ways and don't tell me some of them didn't help us. Nothing is ever perfect. When you hit someone for doing what you want than that is call disingenuous.

Andy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 22
telegraph: "USA: Muslim “refugees” – 91.4% on food stamps, 68.3% on Cash Welfare. "

https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/usa-muslim-refugees-91-4......



Clicking on the link that 'Investment Watch' uses for verification of the data, muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2015/09/14/usa-muslim-refugee..., delivers this message:

muslimstatistics.wordpress.com is no longer available. This site has been archived or suspended for a violation of out Terms of Service. For more information and to contact us please read this support document.



telegraph: On average, each Middle Eastern refugee resettled in the United States costs an estimated $64,370 in the first five years, or $257,481 per household."

https://cis.org/Report/High-Cost-Resettling-Middle-Eastern-R......



The second link, Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), when searched on Media Bias Fact Check has this rating:

Overall, we rate CIS a questionable source based on publishing misleading information (propaganda) regarding immigration, as well as ties either directly or indirectly to the John Tanton Network, who is a known White Nationalist.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center-for-immigration-studie...
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
If they do the taxes in the current $5T spending plan, then fix SS and Medicare with yet even more taxes, won't that change the secret sauce of America? The upper middle class will be clobbered with taxes.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Daryl44 asks,

If they do the taxes in the current $5T spending plan, then fix SS and Medicare with yet even more taxes, won't that change the secret sauce of America? The upper middle class will be clobbered with taxes.

</snip>


That's why you need a wealth tax. There isn't enough "middle-class income" left in the system to keep it afloat.

The dumbest thing you can do in America, tax-wise, is work for wage & salary income.

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
The dumbest thing you can do in America, tax-wise, is work for wage & salary income.

Which is why many of the truly wealthy don't do that. Yes, we need to find a way to tax those really rich folks. And it needs to be a lot more...like 60% for them. (I read an article a few years ago that was an in-depth analysis of this; we can make it work if we have progressive tax structures similar to Europe, though I don't recall all the details now).
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
That's why you need a wealth tax. There isn't enough "middle-class income" left in the system to keep it afloat.

The dumbest thing you can do in America, tax-wise, is work for wage & salary income.

intercst </I)

Or you could just cut/freeze spending.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
"If they do the taxes in the current $5T spending plan, then fix SS and Medicare with yet even more taxes, won't that change the secret sauce of America? The upper middle class will be clobbered with taxes. "

That's the dem plan - income redistribution to the lower income folks. Always has been. Plus union jobs - forced unionization - who then pay union dues to the dem party via union collectors.

t.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
1pg:"Which is why many of the truly wealthy don't do that. Yes, we need to find a way to tax those really rich folks."

Those 'really rich' folks usually die owing a pittance in inheritance taxes due to superb estate planning.

Folks like the Kennedies hold most of their real estate in a family trust based off shore. They' rent' their homes from the trust. It never pays taxes on appreciated real estate.

Those billionaires you complain about usually wind up donating most of their wealth to charity. to Universities and Foundations like the Carnegie Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation,the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, etc

If you confiscated all the 'wealth' of the billionares, you'd run the government for a few years, then what? Of course, there wouldn't be a whole lot of folks to buy the assets soon, so you'd never collect full value. What do you think would happen to the price of Tesla or MSFT if the 'billionaires' had to sell all their shares as the gov't confiscated their wealth?

In states like NY and CA, those billionaires already pay well over 50% of their taxable income to the Feds and States.

BTW, the gov't is proposing to jack up the fed tax on a pack of cigs from 1 to 2 bucks a pack. And the equivalent on 'vape' products. THat will mostly hit the 'lower income folks' who tend to smoke more. The tobacco addicts will have to pay more

t
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Unlike the paragon of journalistic truth and objectivity.... Don Lemon.

Not interested enough to look it up. Who's that? I assume someone on the left who is loony, or at least you think is loony?

I don't pay attention to any of the talking heads. I assume he's a talking head.

I get my new the old fashioned way: from actual journalists. Not some bubble-headed bleach blond who happens to be photogenic.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
In states like NY and CA, those billionaires already pay well over 50% of their taxable income to the Feds and States.

You are trying to equate income with wealth. The wealth of the billionaires doesn't grow because they earn a lot of taxable income (even though they may). It grows because they have the flexibility to invest capital in ways that grow without generating income. Take Bezos, Gates, Buffett, or any other billionaire of your liking. Other than in the early years of their career, their annual income was never a significant part of their wealth.

On the other hand, the typical taxpayer's annual income is usually a significant portion of their wealth, and for many low/middle income families even exceeds their net worth. (Most Americans have very little in savings/retirement funds).

Ira
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Or you could just cut/freeze spending.


Right good idea. So where do you want to freeze or cut. LOL

https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/discretionary_s...

Wow look at that military spending.

Andy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Reply to just above:

I'd freeze EVERYTHING, and I mean EVERYTHING. Maybe even cut the Military Industrial Complex. Losing Afghanistan makes one wonder why we spend so much on the military. Beef up homeland security and quit spending elsewhere.

Anyway, I'd freeze everything for a few years. Including SS and Medicare.
Print the post Back To Top