Posted on 03/29/2018 9:31:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The Social Security Administration says that one-third of retirees receive nearly all their income from Social Security. The true figure is only around one-third that amount.
How much do Americans really rely on Social Security to get by in retirement. You can hear different numbers, some of which are truly scary. Writing for Marketwatch, Alicia Munnell of Boston College and the Center for Retirement Research cites a study that she hopes “will put the statistical debate to rest.” Sadly, I don’t see any rest for the weary on this issue. But looking at one additional study which uses the best data available could finally settle the question.
Let’s start at the beginning. The Social Security Administration, at which I in the past worked, has long published figures purporting to show how much retirees depend upon Social Security as part of their total income. According to the latest SSA figures I could find, SSA states that 34% of retirees receive 90% or more of their income from Social Security. These figures are used by outside groups to argue that Social Security’s funding shortfall should be resolved by raising taxes rather than reducing benefits for retirees. But, as we’ll see, the true figure isn’t 34% but closer to one-third that amount.
The problem comes that the data source these figures come from – the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey – is very weak at measuring retirement income other than Social Security. In particular, the CPS undercounts the benefits retirees receive from both traditional pensions and retirement accounts such as IRAs and 401(k)s. If you undercount non-Social Security sources of income, retirees look both poorest and more dependent on Social Security than they really.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
Same experience here. Thanks to a frugal wife we retired with no debt three years ago. Have not had to touch 401K. Yet our health problems are starting to mount and we are discovering our low cost Medicare Advantage insurance is not quite the bargain we thought it was.
I opted for SS at 62, so my payment is somewhat lower. But by going into retirement debt free, I found if possible, if I so choose, to live on SS alone. There’s not much left for frills, but it is possible. As it is, I supplement SS with IRA withdrawals. Barring anything stupendous, money is not something I worry about.
So you’re saying you want to pay women to stay home and raise kids?
How exactly does that work?
Okay, how about this. Refund all of my contributions and companies' contributions in a lump sum and we'll call it even. I won't "leach" of the young. (Yes I know technically you can get a lump sum distribution, but it is far less than what me and my companies have contributed).
Prepare to get flamed, CharlesMartelsGhost.
You are absolutely correct regarding the nature of social security taxes and benefits, but yours is an opinion to which every social security recipient will object. Regardless of political stripe, people like free government cheese and, once they start getting it, they will come to think of it as their right.
Well,I can’t speak for everyone,but it basically takes every penny of our S.S. income(our ONLY income)to pay the bills & we don’t have all we need either. Have a few areas where we simply have to sacrifice to make do with what is left.
If a woman gets and stays married and to stay home and raise kids, she gets a social security benefit equal to 1/2 of her husband’s benefit for the rest of his life. After he croaks, she gets a survivor’s benefit equal to the husband’s benefit. She gets that even if she never worked for pay a day in her life.
How much if the SS Pie is given to young people who claim SS Disability, then get on Medicare two years after their initial Claim is filed?
All I see on daytime TV (not that I watch that much), are SS Disability Lawyers, one who is also a Psychologist (cough-cough), advertising for Clients.
You get diagnosed as Bi-Polar, you’re set for life. Have Anxiety, the same. A Drug Addict, there you go.
I never see any of the Clients who are on the Commercials sitting in Wheelchairs or missing Limbs. They are just stealing from the truly Disabled and the Taxpayers.
If they want to keep SS and Medicare solvent for awhile longer, just start adding a Month to the Eligibility Ages.
The Life Expectancy in this Country was around 65 when SS was implemeted. Now it’s the mid 80’s.
Change it so people can collect at Age 62 and one Month the first Year. The next Year, 62 and two Months. Do that for the next 36 Years and the Eligibility Age for early Filers is 65 and 70 for the so called Full Benefit. Also pushes Medicare to Age 68.
As an aside, my two closest Childhood Friends died at age 61. They didn’t get a dime even though combined they “contributed” over a half Million Bucks into the system during their 40 plus Years of working their Buts off.
I’m nearly 65 and I still work. I get Taxed on the SS I started receiving at age 62 and I am also still paying SS and Medicare Taxes. I took SS at age 62 because I have Leukemia and I wanted to get at least some of that money back before I die.
“She gets that even if she never worked for pay a day in her life.”
As long as they were married for 10 years she gets that even if divorced.
.
Hey chill, I’m not attacking you, I’m SS also, I was just pointing out the crap that some people believe and put up here!
Obviously.
They want to pave the way for means testing. Now, consider:
- If you have any reasonable amount of income, you pay tax on your Social Security above a threshold. So, you are means tested to as high as a marginal rate in the low 40's (37% Federal, roughly 5% in many states). - If you have a decent income, your Medicare premiums vary from the low of $99 to a high of roughly $500 per month--they are means tested.
Still the idea behind SS "means testing" is to suck more out of you if you have a decent salary out of your pre-retirement wages (because it is a savings plan, haha), and then tax you at not 42%, but 100% by denying you the funds that you were forced to give to SS. You would get consfiscation of your SS pension if you were successful in saving outside the system.
Women aren’t forced to do any of those things. They choose to do them.
You could not have lost your 401k in the crash UNLESS you took the money out. It eventually came back
“Yet our health problems are starting to mount and we are discovering our low cost Medicare Advantage insurance is not quite the bargain we thought it was. “
My Medicare package will cost the same as what I pay for health insurance now.....for a family. That shocked me.
Low cost means low coverage IIRC
I hate to break this to you, but SS was never intended to retire on... it was intended to make sure widows and orphans had security.. the life expectancy at the time it passed was lower than the age it kicked in for retirement, few actually collected it for retirement back then...
It was never intended to be what it has become.
That said, you can’t take it away from folks who have spent there entire lives expecting it, and planning around having it.
You can't take it away for one reason, WE gave them our money and THEY are providing minimal returns on it. It's a Ponzi Scheme, but it's their Ponzi scheme and they used our money elsewhere and we are owed our money back with interest.
You can’t just give folks their cash back either... as most will withdraw far far more than they ever put in.... even with interest.. over the course of their lives.
Yes its s ponzi scheme, but it was never intended to ever really pay out other than to those whos husbands or fathers died....
Life expectancy grew, age to claim stayed stagnant, now folks are living 20 or more years taking out far more than they put in.
But you can’t just cash it all out and say We’re done.. unless you want millions of elderly homeless and even more destitute.
I did lose it, and yes I ended up taking out what was left to pay my employees and expenses. In case you didn’t notice most of us had a pretty hard time those years. Don’t tell me I couldn’t lose it.
“I AM on Social Security,as are all of my friends and many neighbors and NONE of us relies on just Social Security-———I could not even pay rent if I did.”
... and I’m about to join you. You’re right. The article is not talking about those that need SS or even rely on SS. They are talking about the percentage of people that have NOTHING but social security to live on.
10% or whatever it is is still way too many in my view. Regardless of one’s income level everyone should save for their retirement.
I already know.
Nowadays it is what it is, not what it was intended to be.
I recall hearing the Term “Social Security Insurance” when I was growing up.
When I was diagnosed with Leukemia at age 52, the Doctor told me I should expect to live 10 to 15 Years with the Treatment Regimens at the time. I told him great, looks like I’m getting ripped off by SS and Medicare, just like my two Friends were.
Have to Die so those Old Hillary loving Democrat Women can have a great Retirement. It seems like they live forever and then show up at Democrat Townhall’s to complain how they really hate sharing the Kibble and Bits with their Dogs.
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.