Gift link
3 Likes
That’s a very partisan article.
As one example, since SS is funded by employee and employer funds I’m not sure how not taxing SS benefits would defund the system. If anything that would benefit retirees.
So then it benefits retirees (some of whom are high income and need a tax break less than many younger people), and adds more to the debt? Lovely.
1 Like
The partisan article was about SS, not about the national debt.
Like I said, not taxing SS benefits has zero effect on funding for SS.
I thought we wanted to benefit retirees since we are trying to avoid cutting their benefits. This would actually raise them.
For those approaching 70 who have not yet claimed SS.
The article says people are worried (that part is true). But it also says the situation should not cause retirees to claim earlier than intended.
1 Like
I thought the taxes incurred on SS (above a certain amount) went back into the SS system. No? If so, then it is not just funded via employer/employee. And not taxing SS would still affect future funding.
1 Like
It’s not a partisan article. Your claiming it’s partisan does not make it so. People are free to use their critical thinking skills and draw their own conclusions. If you have sources that refute points in the article then do it and we can have a discussion.
10 Likes
Opinion: Congress’s Social Security Gift to Government Unions
The House passes a bipartisan benefit blowout, though the program is already going broke.
The misnamed Social Security Fairness Act underscores that spending is a bipartisan addiction. The bill, which passed 327-75, delivers a Social Security fillip for government workers and retirees at a projected cost of $196 billion over 10 years. Government unions say the bill corrects an injustice that short-changes public workers. That’s incorrect, but stick with us as we explain the complex details.
1 Like
I wonder which of President Biden’s proposals/actions helped to shore up the SS fund? Was an article posted four years ago prior to his taking office speaking about how he was planning to “fix” or “harm” the program? Yes, it’s a partisan article.
“In 1983, the payroll tax was imposed on about 90 percent of the United States’ wage income. But it had shrunk to about 82.5 percent by 2000, which is about where it has remained in recent years.
“Growing wage inequality has put more and more earnings outside the reach of Social Security tax and is the largest factor behind the deterioration in Social Security’s financial outlook since 1983,” said Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who also held various posts at the Social Security Administration.
So what if the cap is raised?
About 6 percent of workers have earnings above the cap now, said William Arnone, chief executive emeritus at the National Academy of Social Insurance. If the cap were raised to cover an estimated $346,500 of income this year, the payroll tax would again cover about 90 percent of the nation’s wage income, according to the chief actuary’s office at the Social Security Administration.
Raising the cap to that level gradually, over the next decade, would eliminate about 24 percentof the program’s projected financing shortfall (assuming top earners get full benefit credits for the additional tax they paid in).“
2 Likes
Please feel free to start a thread on the political forum about the politics of SS. Further posts will be deleted.
7 Likes
Went to the SS website yesterday to just check on the numbers. The website is actually pretty easy to navigate and will give you a variety of information about what you can expect. I like that you can play with the different parameters of when you’ll retire, what your income will be going forward, etc and see how it affects your benefits. It was interesting to look at individual years earnings and see how little I used to make. It is a good way to verify that all of your wages have been captured too.
4 Likes
It is helpful to go on the site - but if you have a mixed working situation - SS and other pension related employment - it’s not so clear cut.
2 Likes
Questions. Sorry if this was covered above – long thread.
If the spouse electing the 50% of higher earning spouse SS benefits starts collecting at 62 and the higher earning spouse has additional income after the 62 year old starts getting the 50% rate that increases the monthly rate the higher earner is eligible for, does the 50% rate increase to reflect that? For example, let’s say both spouses are 62 the same year. Spouse A is eligible for $3K/month at 62 but delays collecting until 70. Spouse B starts collecting $1.5K/month at 62. Subsequently Spouse A’s additional income and delay in collecting makes him/her eligible for $3.6K/month. Does Spouse B’s rate then increase to $1.8K or forever stay at $1.5K?
1 Like
I’m no math major.
Half of 3600 is $1800. But because spouse B collected early, they will have a 30% “penalty”. 70% of 1800 is 1260 which is less than they are collecting so yes $1500 is the max of what they will collect.
That’s my understanding of the law.
Spouse B will not get more when Spouse A files at their full retirement age.
Sorry I don’t think I understand the question because of one spouse returning to work. Spouse A will have to be retired and collecting SS before spouse B can collect on the spouse’s income if they are still married.
You are correct. The lower earning spouse cannot collect on the higher earning spouse’s record until the higher earning spouse is collecting on their own record.
1 Like
Not sure if this is the question by @citivas.
Our situation: I claimed SS at FRA (65). DH will wait until 70. My benefit is slightly larger than 1/2 of his, IF HE STARTED at 65 (FRA). However, his benefit at age 70 will be more than 2x mine. I called SSA, to ask if I will be eligible for 1/2 his benefit when he starts. They said NO, that I am only eligible for 1/2 of what his benefit would have been at his FRA – not half of what his increased benefit will be at age 70.
Were they incorrect?
That’s my understanding.
2 Likes
The spouse is never eligible to receive more than one-half of what the higher earning spouse’s SS is at FRA (and that amount is reduced if the lower earning spouse collects before their own FRA).
Survivor benefits are a different story. If the higher earning spouse waited until 70 to take SS, the surviving spouse will receive the amount that the higher earning spouse was receiving … if the lower earning spouse waits until FRA to collect the surviving spouse’s benefit. If they collect it prior to their own FRA, they will receive a reduced amount of the amount that the higher earning spouse who waited until 70 was receiving. People get confused by this.
8 Likes