<p>“who are “they”?”</p>
<p>I’ll answer that. The govt, the politicians, the people who spend our money like it’s nothing, consolidating their power and rewarding their donors. She is right.</p>
<p>They are the ones who want to take our guns and 401ks away.</p>
<p>Well,</p>
<p>we keep electing them, don’t we?</p>
<p>By the way, I think that “they” ALSO include those who want us to keep our guns and 401Ks.</p>
<p>I’m sure if I have a few more drinks this will all made sense to me.</p>
<p>I agree with lerkin. It’s all of “them”. And yeah, they do keep getting re-elected. Apathy stinks.</p>
<p>Kind of early to be drinking, isn’t it, NJres? Though I see how some of these threads can drive one to drink.</p>
<p>Actually it’s now 2500 per quarter. I believe benefits are calculated by the number of quarters you contributed. I will likely make this quarter but am not sure about future quarters this year. </p>
<p>I did already contribute more than 40 quarters–actually more than 80. Still if they start some means testing or considering assets like fafsa, we won’t qualify.</p>
<p>
According to the SSA’s web site, for 2013 it is $1160/quarter:</p>
<p>[Social</a> Security Press Office: 2013 Social Security Changes](<a href=“http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/factsheets/colafacts2013.htm]Social”>http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/factsheets/colafacts2013.htm)</p>
<p>I don’t think we are close to means or asset testing yet.</p>
<p>If you go here you can create an account and see your earnings history and estimated benefit:</p>
<p><a href=“Social Security Online Message: Program Error | SSA”>Social Security Online Message: Program Error | SSA;
<p>I did that today for DW and her earning history is all messed up (she is self-employed). Now we have to call them.</p>
<p>OK, thanks for letting me know the book keeper was wrong with her $2500. I’ll shoot for earning only $1160/quarter for the rest of this year.</p>
<p>According to the website calculator, with my contributions of over $29K, I would get an monthly payout of $697 if I stop contributing after the middle of this year. According to an annuity calculator, that translates to a value of over $111,000. It would be enough to perhaps rent a very small room in a house around here or pay medicare B and our share of health insurance premiums.</p>
<p>Here is a question: I have always separated my financial assets into non-retirement (funds I can access now) and retirement (funds for that far away time called “retirement”)</p>
<p>Now that my wife and I are both older than 59 1/2, seems like I should be viewing my financial assets as one portfolio. I understand there are tax ramifications of IRA withdrawals (just as there are taxes to pay if I sell non retirement stocks with capital gains), but I think I can look at it all as one pot now. I still will probably draw on the retirement funds last and the non-retirement funds first, but just want to make sure I am not missing anything by treating it as one portfolio, now that there would be no penalties (other than income taxes due) from retirement fund withdrawals. </p>
<p>Actually, I will probably continue to make small Roth conversions every year I am able to do so while incurring little or no tax liability.</p>
<p>Yes, all your financial assets are in a sense one large portfolio. Keep in mind that you will HAVE to start making withdrawals from regular IRA accounts once the account holder turns age 70.5, to the extent that may affect your investment decisions. To the extent you are able to convert from regular IRA to ROTH IRA while it makes financial sense for you, that seems a good strategy.</p>
<p>[Private-sector</a> salary for public employee](<a href=“Private-sector salary for public employee”>Private-sector salary for public employee)</p>
<p>“According to reports by several newspapers, Alameda County, in the San Francisco Bay Area, is paying its County Administrator Susan Muranishi, north of $400,000for life.” … </p>
<p>“It’s not bad, considering that Alameda County is facing budget deficits and residents have a per capita income of $34,937, according to the latest figures from the U.S. Census Bureau.”</p>
<p>At least there’s one person who doesn’t have to worry too much about her fiscal risk.</p>
<p>I thought I read those other public servants in California were found guilty of some charge.</p>