You haven't heard of that? It's one of the Democrats's favorite dog whistles; they want people who paid into the Social Security system their entire working lives to have to meet their standards to qualify for the "benefits" that they've funded. If they decide that you don't need Social Security, then you're shit out of luck. The Founding Fathers would be shooting by now.
Whoa!! Can't let that kind of misinformation stand. Means testing is a REPUBLICAN plan to kill social security. First they get means testing, then they'll start calling it welfare. If they ever succeed it really will be in trouble. Democrats know better.
Dean Baker wrote a paper in 2011 about means testing for Social Security and he indicated that the savings would be minimal. Click on the link below and scroll down to page 1 to read the one-page executive summary. It's an excellent short explanation. http://cepr.net/documents/publications/ss-2011-03.pdf The framers of the Constitution would not authorize or condone the Federal governments involvement in both Social Security and Obamacare. However, SCOTUS obviously ruled otherwise.
Agree. SCOTUS has been pulling stuff out of their rear ends lately. Not all of their decisions are based on the rule of law.
62 - provided it's still there. Everyone's situation is unique to themselves, but given mine I don't see much logic in delaying the benefit.
Maybe. But one would sort of expect Dean Baker to conclude that. :smile: I'll admit I didn't scour it, but one flaw jumps out in that he's assuming a means test would be based on continuing income rather than accumulated wealth. Philosophically, I'd prefer that support for those who need it happens charitably. But in the absence of that, I'd rather programs were means tested so that they at least survive for those who can't live without them, even though I personally expect to be on the "wrong" side of such a test (knock on wood). “All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.” — Friedrich Nietzsche
I'll probably retire at 65, then collect at 67. I'm relatively healthy now at 45 but who knows what may happen in the next 20 years. I'll have enough in a 401K to bridge the gap for two years and then slow down the 401K withdrawals once I can collect my full SS amount. Depends on what the spouse SS is up to by then as well, beneficial for her to claim early then when I die she gets mine, claim then suspend, etc. It's good insurance. But I'm not counting on it.
That's a good point: How would wealth be measured? - Would it be measured by pensions, which are disappearing? - Would it be measured by "accumulated wealth"? Measuring accumulated wealth would be tricky and messy and would require the creation of a vast federal database that merges: - all... bank accounts (balances) - 401k, Roth IRA and all other similar investment accounts - state property records (to identify property ownerships) - stock portfolios (how many stocks do you own and what's their rising or falling value?) - state corporate records (to identify corporate ownerships and income from them) - hard assets without paper trails (personally held gold is an obvious example) - any others? I've never heard of means testing for Social Security until today. It sounds Orwellian, but so is Obamacare and Social Security.
Social Security has never been solvent. It's always been structured like a state sponsored ponzi scheme. But the government miraculously finds a way to pay for things that we cannot possibly afford. Only a Congress that desires a swift election defeat will ever truly screw with Social Security. Seniors are a voting block to be reckoned with. For my own purposes, I chose 62. I enjoy my job. I try to stay in good health as best as I can. I also save quite a bit for retirement. Based upon my current projections I could take Social Security at 62 and either drop down to part-time in my present job or just get a part-time job doing something else and spend a bit more time doing other things.
My wife and I chose 62. We have reliably earned at least 7% on our investments (yay, REITS!), so we'd rather have the money sooner.
I'm very happy with my SS investment; to date I have doubled what I paid in (not counting employer contributions). After retiring to be a consultant I now pay around 15% if my income to SS. I chose to collect SS at 62 even though I did not need the money but invested it in an IRA that also returns a good yield. I estimate that the return on my SS is about the same as that on my 401K. SS is a great program however congress needs to fix it so it will remain great. Incidentally SS is means tested in a way because up to 85% of your monthly payment is subject to income tax depending on the amount of your total income (including tax free municipal bonds).
68. My current term ends when I'm 64 but full retirement age for me is 66 so I will probably run for re-election and, if the voters approve, serve a second term. That would also do good things for my State pension.
Here is an oversimplified strategy for when to collect * Age 62 is considered "early retirement." * Full retirement age is about age 65 or 66 or older, depending on a persons birthday. A penalty is assessed for collecting before "full retirement age" i.e. less money per-month. * Waiting until age 70 will max-out monthly payments. The circumstances are different for everyone, so a one-size-fits-all recommendation cannot be issued. Reasons for collecting at age 62 * If a person is in ill health and is not expected to live for very long, then it's obviously better to collect at age 62. * A person needs the money to survive. Reasons for collecting at "full retirement age" * Monthly payments are increased. * Monthly payments increase about 8% for each year delayed. Reasons for collecting at age 70 * Monthly payments are increased to the maximum amount. * Your spouse will collect more upon your death.
