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.
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.
Jack Wrote: secure.ssa.gov/iClaim/rib
Do you know the Link to sign up for SS benefits?
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.
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.
J.K.Logic Wrote: So does that also increase what is coming out of every single person's pocket who isn't receiving benefits by $30 -$35 more?
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.
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.
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. But for those living on a fixed income budget, that's certainly welcome news. Annually, it's about an extra $360-420/year for everyone. Not too bad.
And it's also the best cost-of-living increase the program has seen % wise in the last 6 years. Way better than this year, with a very small 0.3% raise. This one is over 7 times that.
So good news, though this is just a prediction based on projected COL and whatnot. The exact % of increase will be officially announced in October, so stayed tuned.
Yeah, talks of SS disappearing completely do seem to be pretty hyperbolic. Though I have to admit I do not really expect to see full SS benefits when I reach that age, mainly because it's so long away, and.. you never know what the government at large will be or look like at that point. It would be nice I suppose, but I'm certainly not counting on it. I look at SS payments as just a tax for living in the US to be honest, that I have to put up with. If I ever get some back, cool. If not, whatever.
And that's what the detractors of the program throughout my lifetime have lead me to feel about the state of Social Security, apathetic.
In reality though, cynicism aside, like the article points out we will be seeing several common sense reforms to the program over the next few decades well before it ever gets too terribly dyer.
That means that yes, social security will change at some point, and will not be quite as good as it is even today, that's a guarantee. Rates will rise, even if just modestly, that's still a rise. Cost of living calculators and payouts will decrease. Stuff like that.
jerrischick Wrote: Where do you go to apply for social security benefits? I just turned 62 and I want to apply. I thought this was the website to do it but it seems it is just the site to talk about it. Can somebody help me?
Yes, this is a community website to discuss governmental programs, and to get help and info on them. Per your question, there are a few routes you can go to apply.
1. Apply online. Here you can apply for Retirement or Spousal benefits, as well as Medicare and Disability.
2. Apply in person at a local office. That link will give you an office locator, based on your zip code.
3. Call 1-800-772-1213. That's the main Social Security number, and you can apply (or at least start the process of applying) over the phone.
Hope that helps. Feel free and ask anyone here questions.
Is a really good resource. Calculators
are also good, but this gives you exact information based on your personal history of paying into the system. I signed up a few months ago. Even though I'm very far away from retirement age, it was good to know that I can see what I should expect in the future for retirement, assuming (hopefully) the program lasts long enough for that to happen.