Displaying 1 - 10 of 226 Forum Posts1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Aug 13, 2017 04:29 AM
    Last: 11d
    11k
    Maronita1 Wrote: I personally think we should get REAL cost of living increases based on the cost of living IN THE STATE WE RESIDE and not one cost of living for the whole country. The cost of living in Massachusetts is VERY different from the cost of living in Missouri for example!

    Interesting point. To my mind, that would mean an entire overhaul of the way Social Security works though. Because it's a national program, they take the national average.

    So if the payout is based off of where you live for COL increases, the amount of SS they take out of your check while you pay on it your whole working life would have to be different depending on the location you live in at the time. And that could get messy. What if people lived in the cheapest COL area to avoid paying higher SS taxes, and then when they retire move to a higher COL area and get more than the actually put in? Or something like that.

    I think that would be the fundamental problem with a national program adjusting for every individual's specific COL increase. That would be much more possible if SS benefits were run by the states only. And then I'm sure it would be much harder for people to freely move to wherever they wanted. Might be wrong on that, just seems it would make it much more complicated.

  • Oct 13, 2017 03:20 PM
    Last: 13d
    554
    Wait, I'm confused.. didn't you say he ended subsidies? Or did you mean that he ended some levels of subsidies, but now that costs rise, they qualify for different brackets or something?
  • Nov 01, 2017 04:45 PM
    Last: 13d
    770

    This is a new one on me. I spend a good bit of time keeping up with SS benefit news and info, and it can get pretty complicated quick. Just came across a CNBC article detailing the very real possibility of having to deal with what they dub the 'tax torpedo' for social security retirees.

    Basically, it has to do with how much the government CAN tax your SS benefits once you retire, depending on 2 factors: what age you retire and how much other income you are drawing.

    Surprise, surprise, if you retire at max retirement age, age 70, and if you are not making more than $25-32K a year in additional income, you will get hit the least. I think. Again, it's a bit confusing.. if you understand this, please chime in and clarify.

    But my understanding is that if you retirement early, or even at FRA (full retirement age) your benefits can fall under higher tax %s quickly. And it gets worse when you have other steady streams of earned income coming in.

    This honestly makes me annoyed and somewhat angry and dismayed to read. You pay into this mandatory retirement account all your working life. And on the backend, if you need the money early, and/or if you have managed to set up other solid income streams, they punish you for it. Is that about the take of it in your opinion? Or does this 'tax torpedo' make sense economically speaking?

  • Oct 13, 2017 03:20 PM
    Last: 13d
    554
    I think this is a calculated move, to get people on the fence much more likely to be against Obamacare (ACA). Even if they know he is making ACA worse, once it passes, ACA will in effect be much worse and far less affordable for the middle class. So repeal and replace could be much more likely as a result.
  • Oct 06, 2017 03:06 PM
    Last: 14d
    841

    Definitely interesting. Is there any good suggestions as to what to replace an SS# with? That article cites 'using public key encryption' as a possible replacement. Sounds like more of the same to me. That would still be a password of sorts, just like our current 9 digit passcode.

    Maybe it will be much harder to steal. Probably so. In that case would be good from an identity theft standpoint. But from a 'libertarian, I don't want the government to give me a number that identifies me as a person' standpoint, exactly the same.

  • Oct 03, 2017 02:33 PM
    Last: 4d
    778

    Definitely still a work in progress it seems. I am interested though to see how this all shakes out. Some of the plan I am actually very FOR, but curious if it's actually possible. Here's a USA Today exert to consider, on current proposed changes to the tax brackets and standard deductions:

    The seven individual income tax brackets in place now, which range from 10% to 39.6%, would be replaced by 12%, 25% and 35%.

    The proposed bottom rate of 12% is higher than the 10% the White House said it was seeking in a one-page list of goals for tax reform released in April. But people paying 10% now may not owe any tax under the new plan.

    "We flatten out the tax code, lowering the rates at every level so people can keep more of what they earn," said Rep Kevin Brady, R-Texas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. "That means the 15% rate today will be lowered to 12. The 10% rate today will go to zero. The tax elevator goes down at every level."

    The plan would nearly double the standard deduction, the amount that's subtracted from incomes before the tax rate is applied. The deduction would grow from $6,350 to $12,000 for individuals and from $12,700 to $24,000 for married couples.

    Some of that increase, however, would be offset by the elimination of personal exemptions for a taxpayer and spouse. In 2017, those exemptions were worth $4,050, meaning a taxpayer and spouse could reduce their income by $8,100 before calculating how much tax was owed.

    So I am actually for simplifying the tax code in favor of more uniform standard deductions vs several niche ones that not everyone qualifies for, like being married or owning a house, having several dependents, etc. I don't believe that those paying 10% will owe nothing though. That doesn't seem plausible, especially if you make all the other cuts to the higher brackets and business tax %s as well. Would be very nice for low income families though.

    I have hoped and wondered for a long time if a more simplified tax code was even possible, as complicated as we have made it over the decades. While this is still a work in progress, honestly, I'm kind of rooting for it to maintain the spirit of simplicity it currently holds, and to make it through. One of the few Trump moves I am intrigued by.

  • May 18, 2017 04:11 PM
    Last: 2mo
    16k
    Jack Wrote:

    Do you know the Link to sign up for SS benefits?

    secure.ssa.gov/iClaim/rib
  • Aug 27, 2017 02:38 PM
    Last: 2mo
    10k
    JaredS Wrote: My hope is to be able to wait as long as possible to take mine, but I still have many more years of work before I can even consider it. My parents are both recently retired though and they are both waiting until 70 to begin collecting.
    Yeah. That makes sense. If you can hold off until 70 and are still earning, 130% sounds like it's worth waiting for, if it's just a few more years.
  • Aug 27, 2017 02:38 PM
    Last: 2mo
    10k

    I keep reading arguments one way or other on different strategies for retirement ages and taking out Social Security benefits. Curious everyone's thoughts here on this. There are 3 main talking points - early, full retirement age, or late as possible.

    It varies a bit depending on when you were born, but the general ages are:

    Early as possible: 62 years old (75% of benefits, goes up every month/year you wait)
    Full retirement age: 66 years old (100% benefits)
    Late as possible: 70 years old (approx. 132% max if you wait)

    Here's a calculator, if interested as well: Early or Late Retirement?

    Do you think one strategy is better than another no matter what, or does it depend on life situation? To me, it seems to make the most sense to start at exact full retirement age. All things being equal. But if you really need the money sooner, early. And if you were lucky, employed well or have lots of savings from other avenues, to wait until 70.

    Thoughts? Figured this was a good discussion forum, as there are hundreds of articles out there that make the argument for all 3 pretty convincingly.

  • Aug 13, 2017 04:29 AM
    Last: 11d
    11k
    JFoster Wrote:
    J.K.Logic Wrote:

    2.2% increase to Social Security benefits equates to about $30-35 more per month in every single person's pocket that gets benefits. Sure that's not a ton of money still.

    So does that also increase what is coming out of every single person's pocket who isn't receiving benefits by $30 -$35 more?

    Not for everyone. But for those that make over $127,200/yr they will probably end up paying a bit more to fund the program, as the maximum taxable earnings on Social Security payroll taxes will probably slightly increase.

    Also the full retirement age is going up again, by 2 months in 2018.

    So combining those two factors makes it pretty easy to see how SS could afford the increase. Though also to be fair, it's not a 'raise', it's a cost of living adjustment, to keep up with inflation.