Here's a GREAT piece from Vanguard that lists:
- How your age and birth date affect your benefits (what you get at various ages depending on when you were born)
- If you will lose benefits if you keep working (and how much you'll lose)
- Other factors you should consider (Your current health and family's longevity history, plans for you and/or your spouse to continue working while collecting benefits, your spouse's age and earnings history, and your other income sources.)
- Some other options for receiving benefits (file and suspend, restricted application, or reset)
It's a wonderful resource -- one you may want to bookmark and refer to later and even point older family members and friends to.
Like most readers here (I'm guessing), I was born after 1960, a fact that puts me in the last group. I can start collecting full benefits at age 67 with each year I decide to collect early costing 5% or 6% off of that amount. If I started collecting at 62, I'd only receive 70% of my benefits. Yikes!
I've said several times that I'm not counting on Social Security as part of my retirement planning, but if I receive it, I'll count is as gravy to my already funded retirement savings. Maybe that can be my "take a nice trip every year" money. ;-)
The extra $1,500-$2,000/month is gravy for sure! People should NEVER count on it, even though there's a good chance it'll be there.
How many years away from 62 are you FMF?
Posted by: Financial Samurai | June 19, 2010 at 09:11 AM
The gravy of $1500 - $2000..... where did you get that fact? I know people who are retired, and most certainly don't get that type of amount. You're right, it may be best not to plan on this.
Posted by: Gail | June 19, 2010 at 04:54 PM
That's easy for MasterPo: ZERO.
Don't count on getting dime from Uncle Obama (whoever his hand-picked successor is) when MasterPo retires, even if the system is technically still around.
The day will come soon when if you have over $100k in personal retirement plans (401k, IRA, SEP, SIMPLE etc) you will be deemed "rich" and "not need" SS.
Mark MasterPo's words.
Posted by: MasterPo | June 19, 2010 at 10:01 PM
Might mark them if you expressed them a but more coherently. Honestly, does the silly third person gimmick never get old?
Posted by: guinness416 | June 19, 2010 at 11:06 PM
Master Po,
How is Uncle Obama going to hand pick a successor? He was elected President and the next President will also be elected.
If I was a betting man I would bet with Financial Samurai and not Master Po. I think most likely everyone that has paid into SS will get money out of SS. Will payments be decreased, possibly. Will more of it be taxed, possibly. However, no matter how rich you are, I think everyone will continue to get SS.
Posted by: David M | June 20, 2010 at 11:40 AM
It is very possible, however, that at some point, means testing would be applied to social security benefits, resulting in a reduction in benefits for some.
Posted by: JimL | June 20, 2010 at 05:36 PM
Jiml,
I think the better "polital" route is to continue on the path that we are now on, that is, tax the SS income more. Rather than means test and actually decrease the SS payment.
Just my opionion. BTW, I work for SS but these are just my personal opinions.
Posted by: David M | June 20, 2010 at 09:04 PM
David M - Impossible. There simply isn't enough money in SS to pay everyone for the rest of their lives. Even with tax increases. Just not there. They (whoever is in office at the time) will *have to* come up with ways to trim back the SS rolls. The Supreme Court has already ruled many years ago that you do NOT have a right to SS even if you've paid in all your life!
As to the first part, that's the Chicago way. And never let a good crisis go to waste. :-(
Posted by: MasterPo | June 20, 2010 at 10:24 PM
FS --
I have over a decade and a half before I have to even consider retirement.
Posted by: FMF | June 21, 2010 at 08:04 AM
MasterPo
other than what you think you've heard from the Sunday and Fox news folks, you have no idea what the Chicago way means.
Posted by: BillV | June 21, 2010 at 10:34 PM
BilV - Enlighten us.
MasterPo doesn't think it has much to do with deep-dish pizza.
Posted by: MasterPo | June 22, 2010 at 12:52 AM
MP
You know, I considered doing just that in my above post. I chose then and do so now, not to "enlighten".
1. This is a personal finance blog, not a political one.
2. We won't agree.
3. No purpose would served and no one else on this site would care.(Or frankly even read).
4. It has a lot to do with deep dish pizza..........(Okay I joking about that. We can even agree on that point. ;-)
But I find your stylized manner of posting amusing(I mean that in a good way--no sarcasm inteneded). Talk to you later.
Posted by: BillV | June 22, 2010 at 10:31 AM
I think a couple of things will be put in place to address the upcoming Social Security Shortfalls. The easiest one is to increase the maximum amount of earnings that are subject to Social Security tax. Currently the maximum amount is $106,800. The other change that would probably make the most sense is raising the full retirement age which is currently set at 67.
Reducing COLA's or the actual benefit that someone receives from Social Security probably will not make the cut.
Posted by: Marc Bautis | June 22, 2010 at 05:20 PM