Posted on 11/20/2008 10:38:12 AM PST by Conservababe
Retirees receiving Social Security seem to believe that they will die before collecting all their lifetime contributions to the system, leaving a balance. But is this the truth? I know there are many variables so I was hoping someone could point me to stats.
Re: “Don’t forget: unlike money you save in your 401-K, money in ‘your SS account’ doesn’t become an asset for your estate. Instead, the government is able to remove you as a liability when you die and keep any excess contributions.”
*****************
Yes, they remove you as a liability when you die, and they don’t waste any time!
My elderly mother died on the 29th of October a few years ago. She had already received the October payment, via automatic bank deposit.
When I notified SS of her death, they demanded the entire month be repaid to them. It would’ve been nice to have kept most of that money to help defray cost of ambulance/ER fees but noooooooooo — they got the whole month’s payment back.
RE: “Don’t forget that if you pass away before you’re old enough to start drawing SS, you get exactly $0 of the thousands that were taken from you when you worked”
***************
This is why my CPA has advised clients to begin taking SS payments at 62 whether they need the funds or not. Many people just want to “get something back.” I don’t necessarily agree with this practice, but a full 60 percent of early retirees take SS payments the minute they are eligible.
Given the fact that we ALL pay SS no matter what our income level and those with higher income pay more, it sounds like Obummer's wealth distribution plan to me and from your comment you are clearly supporting that idea.
I haven't done or posted anything that you could associate with Barney, so your comment on that point is moot.
You have to factor in your personal health, your tax situation, and whether or not you are still working (on the books).
Collecting at 62 definitely pushes you toward the “underground economy” if you want to keep working at something. That’s my plan.
Also there’s a little known provision that you can “reset” SS by paying back everything you’ve received to date and racheting up your benefit.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080907/news_mz1b7encore.html
"We've established the most enormous gubermint entity ever conceived... and more people are worse off than ever. We've solved nothing! We've fixed nothing!"It is really quite demoralizing.
RE: “Also there’s a little known provision that you can “reset” SS by paying back everything you’ve received to date and racheting up your benefit.”
************
Oh yes, I know all about that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Can’t remember who told me about it, but it was not the CPA.
Draftees into the military later that year (Roosevelt signed draft bill in September, 1940) were paid $21/month.
I’ve always heard that FDR insisted that benefits be universal lest the super-rich lobby for the program’s termination.
At this point, I don’t know if that’s what would happen or not. I noticed that a lot of those wealthy suburbs voted for Obama.
Makes sense. I saw a TV special on Social Security a few years ago that noted that current recipients receive everything they and their employer put in, on average, within seven years of retirement.
Interesting that many online retirement calculators offer you the option of excluding any potential $ from Social Security. I am assuming that I will receive absolutely nothing. If I do get any benefits I will be glad to spend them to stimulate the economy.
As was yours comparing me with BO’s wife
Good luck with that- I don’t see the government giving ANYTHING back. That includes our freedoms, which are in more danger than ever, now.
No. I have no problem with giving SS to those who truly need help- REALLY need help. It is unfortunate that our culture has encouraged a generation of children only too happy to dump their parents on the taxpayer. I, for one, don’t want to see Granny eating dog food (although, have you checked the price of THAT lately?).
My problem is this: Retirees with separate incomes from unions, 401Ks, other retirement savings, etc, paid off homes or some other way to boost their personal incomes, leaving SS as a means to pay their greens fees- THEY don’t need it. And there are far more of THOSE than “grannys-in-the-walk-up”. Seniors are the most invested and, arguably, the wealthiest population group. Most of them don’t NEED SS, yet all will tell you how entitled they are TO it.
No one is entitled to welfare of ANY type, no one is entitled to the product of another’s labor. Period.
Which, of course, is the basic argument against taxes of any type.
I don't think so...you are promoting wealth redistribution, something that the Obamas support. It's liberal class warfare, plain and simple. I call 'em as I see 'em and if you really feel that way about means testing for SS, you are on the wrong website and should expect responses such as mine.
It’s not your money. It’s a tax. There is no account in your name or a lockbox. Geez.
Excuse me...SS retirement benefits ARE NOT welfare. I have worked all my life (actually since I was 7) and paid in (since I was 15, I lied about my age to get the job as I was homeless), I should be able reap the rewards of MY OWN labor.
no one is entitled to the product of another’s labor. Period.
Make up your mind...you are contradicting yourself. Means testing is exactly that, providing others that didn't bother to work or plan ahead with the fruits of MY labor because you think I don't deserve it because I worked hard and saved for retirement. You can't call yourself a conservative if you truly believe what you do.
You must make very good money.
We need to "give with a warm hand" -- plan it such, so your beneficiaries get most of those assets before Big Fist Government takes it all.
Social Security IS wealth redistribution (or more accurately, income redistribution) already.
Money is seized from someone who earned it via FICA tax, and is then given directly to someone who else who didn’t earn it via a Social Security check.
How is that not income redistribution? Of course it is. It’s redistributed from working people to retired and disabled people.
I don’t favor means testing, but it’s dishonest to pretend that SS in it’s current form is ANYTHING other than a straight income redistribution scheme.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.