CRuz and Obama just screwed millions of us out of Social Security (Vanity)

FR, CNBC, Rollcall ^ | May 3, 2016 | AuntB Vanity

[AuntB]

TED CRUZ just screwed YOU out of your Social Security income...at least he did for me! I was getting widow benefits...but no more! Obama was happy to sign it!

[snip]Politicians describe Social Security as "the third rail," meaning that enacting any benefit cuts will kill them politically. But this is precisely what they voted to do under the Bipartisan Budget Bill of 2015. Spouses as well as divorced spouses (who were married for 10 or more years) who reached 62 by Jan. 2 can still collect just their spousal or divorced spousal benefit between 66 and 70 and then take their own retirement benefit at 70. (there are many other cuts as well!)

TED CRUZ VOTED FOR THIS Cruz (R-TX), Yea

Rand Paul voted against it. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), also voted Nay

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/02/social-security-why-congress-is-messing-with-your-benefits-commentary.html

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?&congress=114&session=1&vote=00193

[jwalsh07]

The thread was on SS, something you have nothing to offer on. Life is not all about Trump and Cruz. My life will continue on very nicely when Cruz loses Indiana tonight. On the other hand I fear for your health should Mr. Trump lose to the witch.

[Jedidah]

She can’t. He’s wrong.

[jwalsh07]

A surviving widow can begin benefits at 60 with a reduction in benefits compared to 62. Limited government is a foreign policy here at FR these days. Even tiny steps are met with loud roars if opposition.

[Jedidah]

No. Just the higher of the two, and not until she is older, unless she is caring for a minor child, and only until that child is not longer a minor.

[dragnet2]

And I have no idea a wife, working or not, who’s husband dropped dead before 62 could collect the full pop SS confiscated by government.

She can’t. He’s wrong.

Oh, ya mean the poster wasn't being forthright and up front regarding the question? That's probably why their responses included name calling and anger...lol

[Jedidah]

I thought it was 62. I was 64 when it happened. It is hard for women over 50 who’ve never worked to support themselves, but it’s not the government’s job to do it.

Limited government isn’t the only thing that’s a foreign policy here at FR these days. So is common sense and basic conservatism.

Very disheartening.

[jwalsh07]

Widow or widower, full retirement age or older — 100 percent of the deceased worker’s benefit amount;
Widow or widower, age 60 — full retirement age — 71½ to 99 percent of the deceased worker’s basic amount;
Disabled widow or widower aged 50 through 59 — 71½ percent;
Widow or widower, any age, caring for a child under age 16 — 75 percent.
A child under age 18 (19 if still in elementary or secondary school) or disabled — 75 percent.
Dependent parent(s) of the deceased worker, age 62 or older:
One surviving parent — 82½ percent.
Two surviving parents — 75 percent to each parent.

[Jedidah]

Chill.

The confusion isn’t about whether survivor’s benefits exist, but about who can collect them and at what age. It’s an honest conversation, and I don’t think anyone means harm.

Minor children and widows over a certain age can collect, but, as I understand it, that’s all.

And that’s fine. It’s not a role of the government to support us all.

Folks are complaining that the government “confiscated” money paid into SS and that workers or their survivors never get it all back. That’s true.

But the logical solution, to require savings through payroll deduction but to let the worker manage that forced saving in private accounts, gets howls of outrage.

We are a deeply contentious society right now, and that is not good for anyone.

[Jedidah]

So full benefit at full retirement age, reduced if younger or disabled, and parents are included.

Thanks.

[jwalsh07]

Welcome.

[Jedidah]

Trump or not, you really shouldn’t post vanity nonsense.

[jkeith3213]

“Everybody wants to cut government, until it affects them personally.”

Isn’t that the truth.

[Mr Rogers]

It closed a loophole in SS, but does NOT affect your right to collect on SS. I’d have voted yes.

[dragnet2]

Folks are complaining that the government “confiscated” money paid into SS and that workers or their survivors never get it all back. That’s true.

That's what I understood. Thanks. Btw, the solutions for this D.C. loser leadership and bad policies are many, and have been voiced a million times. Unfortunately most of which go ignored. Like the borders, epic choking debt, regulation, government control, country looting trade laws et al.

[plain talk]

Deferring SS to 70 is not a trick and is a good idea if you really believe you will live into your 80s (not that unusual these days). Of course estimating one’s longevity is a crap shoot. I plan to start collecting mine somewhere between 64 and 66.

[Gene Eric]

It is indeed a scam.

Welcome to FR!

[freepertoo]

Thank you!

[knarf]

I was using a phrase everyone understood

We HAVE been told there would be pain in getting ourselves back to financial health and this (I assume) is one way

I LIVE on SS ... less than a thou a month

If I didn't own my home outright, I'd'a ex-patted to the Philippines years ago

I pray (really ... I DO) for older folks that have a mortgage

MY spirit is SO free because I have no mortgage ... just 2.25 acres and a wife and dog in the country

I confess ... that financial/social position does influence my thought processes and language

Sorry if I offended you.

[DugwayDuke]

plain talk wrote: “Deferring SS to 70 is not a trick and is a good idea if you really believe you will live into your 80s (not that unusual these days). Of course estimating one’s longevity is a crap shoot. I plan to start collecting mine somewhere between 64 and 66.”

Actually, you will lose if you don’t live to at least 84. The other problem is how does one provide income until one takes their SS at age 70. Do you continue to work? Some advisers suggest raiding your 401k. Is that the best course if you think SS is going away? Wouldn’t you want to preserve your 401k?

The most difficult retirement and financial decisions are much simpler if you know how long will you live? If you knew that, then optimal strategies are fairly obvious.

[plain talk]

You raise good points. I did an analysis before I retired of all this stuff.

One will have to pay 401k taxes eventually anyway and who says tax rates will go down? I think they will go up to fund liberal programs, interest on the debt (as interest rates increase) and keep SS going. Until I draw SS I pull out money from tax accounts and some from IRA/401K as needed to keep overall tax rate low. I don’t plan to work again. I also don’t want to be forced to withdraw too much IRA/401K money in any one year.

Withdrawing SS early means you lock in a low payment forever (as you know) so I modeled trying to find an optimum time factoring in SS discounting & taxes. Mid-60s seems about right for me. When one decides to take SS depends on what one believes about their longevity, future of SS, future tax rates, etc. That’s why there is no one magic answer.