Displaying 6 Forum Posts 
  • Sep 02, 2016 02:47 PM
    Last: 6yr
    JFoster Wrote:

    Yes, it would have the retiree living off of their own capital and investing their SS benefits until 70, but the benefits yield would be higher after 70. The article really breaks it down. I suggest checking it out to anyone who is interested.

    I could see where this could be a sort of financial tight rope walk. I guess, no risk, no reward.
  • Jul 07, 2016 05:52 PM
    Last: 6yr

    Since the benefits from the use of medical marijuana has become more of a common knowledge, it looks as though there is a shift in the number prescriptions through Medicare, namely, Medicare Part D. The cost of prescription drugs continue to rise, which I'm sure helped this along as well. Drugs such as opioid painkillers and antidepressants, have seen a drop in the number of prescriptions in states where medical marijuana is legal.

    According to this, medical marijuana saved Medicare in the ball park of $165 million in 2013. It is also estimated that if medical marijuana was available to every state, we could see $470 million drop in Part D spending.

  • Jun 02, 2016 12:48 PM
    Last: 6yr
    I've been told about these in the past. I just didn't know how many there were.
  • May 11, 2016 12:40 AM
    Last: 6yr
    J.K.Logic Wrote:

    Question becomes, what can we do about this, in light of this study?

    First and foremost, we should be pushing for clearer definitions and qualification when it comes to SS eligibility. I agree, I think they do this on purpose. When you dig deep into a government program such as SS, it gets pretty dark, fast. Of course, we all hope for transparency when it comes to the government, but we are constantly reminded with issues such as these that most of the governments dealings are far from transparent.
  • May 02, 2016 09:48 PM
    Last: 6yr
    YellowSubmarine Wrote:

    I remember when I first heard about retiring as a kid that you did so when you were 62. Since then it seems that number keeps going up every few years. Is 70 the new 62? Or is social security hurting financially that bad? I know the baby boomer generation cashing in is set to seriously tax the system, making it much harder to stay solvent, as is.

    Actually, we have another thread on here discussing this law change, called File and Suspend. It did just end, but as the other forum suggests, not for everyone.

    Recommend also checking it out. Might help shed a little more light on the issue.

    Is a good conversation to have though - at what age should a person be able to retire with full social security benefits, without having to worry about getting less by cashing in early? I always thought 65 seemed fair. I know life expectancy is technically on the rise on this country though, and that should also change the equation of what the government program can afford to handle over time.

    Very good point. My guess, and I think I could bet money on it, is that the government put this through as a preemtive measure, regarding the baby boomers. They wanted a cut-off, a bottle neck if you will. Growing up, I was told that I would probably never see a social security check when I am old. Alas, it's probably true.

  • Apr 19, 2016 10:23 PM
    Last: 6yr
    I found an informative CNBC article on retirement that I thought was interesting. One cool thing about this article, is that it has a pretty comprehensive graph that shows "where aging hits your work skills the hardest." It brought up another interesting point that those who work in manual trades are more likely to retire early, which is understandable. I just wonder, if that is true, do they have to walk a tighter financial rope than others? If they take their Social Security early, they will then lose out on increased benefits later in life. Where as those in the not so manual trades, such as law, have the capacity to retire much later, giving them more time to stuff back cash and reap the benefits of taking their SS at a later time.