what is the supplement?
Posted on 04/25/2018 11:37:15 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Newbie retirees may need to lower their expectations when it comes to their Social Security checks.
According to a new survey released by the National Retirement Institute, more than a quarter (27%) of new retirees say their monthly checks are less than they expected.
What’s more, nearly two in three of soon-to-be retirees (63%) admit that they are not confident in their overall knowledge of how Social Security works.
That number is alarming because nearly one in four (26%) future retirees believe they can live comfortably on Social Security alone.
“It’s problematic that so many people are planning to rely solely on Social Security for income in retirement,” says Tina Ambrozy, president of sales and distribution at Nationwide. “There's a major disconnect between what consumers think their Social Security benefit will be – and cover – compared to reality.”
The biggest problem is that most adults think they are eligible for the benefits sooner than they actually are. The most common age to start collecting is 62, which is also the earliest age a person can do so.
But a majority (about a third) say they don’t care about withdrawing too early as many of them don’t believe Social Security will even be around when they reach their full retirement age.
According to the report, future retirees expect to receive $1,628 a month on average, but that amount is almost 30% more than what current retirees say they are collecting. Today, the average monthly rate reported is $1,257.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxbusiness.com ...
I do not recommend taking out a Roth account. You pay income tax up front. The likelihood of your living as long as you think you will is never one hundred percent. So why give the government something up front that, with proper planning, you may be able to avoid paying completely later?
Anyone can (and should) check what their expected social security check will be online.
Similar for my husband. I think it would have taken 12 years to “break even”, by waiting until his prescribed “full retirement age” for a slightly higher monthly benefit, just based on the pure dollar amounts (ignoring time value of money and possible COLA adjustments to SS, etc.).
Half the population is below average. Never forget this simple fact.
For a time my late father-in-law was living in rural Alabama. Built himself a really nice, new 3BR house.
His annual property taxes on that were $253.00!
And that got rebated to him because he was a Senior Citizen!
There are some boroughs around Pittsburgh where you pay over $9K/year for the privilege of living in your own home!
I guess I would lean toward taking the SS FIRST, and then later taking the IRAs and 401(k) monies, or using them to supplement the SS as needed. Let’s say you retire at 65, and plan to start taking IRA money first, and nothing from SS until age 70, so as to increase your monthly benefit slightly.
But the Grim Reaper shows up when you are 69. You have spent down your own funds that might have been passed on to your spouse and/or children, and now you will get ZERO from SS.
IRAs force you to start withdrawing funds at age 701/2. The amount is based on a formula involving your total account and your life expectancy. You can take more than that but face a penalty if you take less. What I found interesting is that the formula is designed to draw the account down to zero if you reach your life expectancy.
Seriously, the spouse doesn’t get ANYTHING if I die before starting SS? There is no reduced death benefit or anything similar available to the spouse who did not work?
Yes, there is something to the spouse, but only if the surviving spouse’s own benefit is less, I think. I am not familiar with the details on this, as far as reduced retirement benefits to surviving spouse. There is not a “death benefit”, as far as I know (or, it is under $300 one-time, IIRC).
Yes, that is because the funds in the IRA were never taxed as income, and they want to be sure to get income tax on that money.
If you die and pass along the IRA to spouse/kids, it will be set up to become taxable to them, one way or another.
>
You should start taking SS as soon as possible. If you are still working, invest all of it in mutual funds/Roth depending on your tax rate. It will earn faster than the increase you get by waiting.
>
Not only are you more likely to make up the taxes/lower $$, you’ll have something you can actually bequeath to family upon death.
>Why do you have to pay back Social Security?
A: Because it’s not ‘yours’?
Had I known that, I would have quit working last year when I turned 62. I got a part time job that will get me close to the $17K level until I hit 66. All in all, "retirement" (such as it is) is underrated.
what is the supplement?
Those who will be whining, "Could you live on $1200/month?"
At 66 years and 8 months I can start to collect about $2,000 a month. At 70 it is about $2,500
I can wait as I have savings. I hope social security is there when I retire.
Run by Renown Hospital in Reno. Hometown Health Senior Care Plus.
thx
I retired at age 75,had started drawing SS at 65+ 2mos.,so had almost 10 yrs. of a double income. I had to pay all the normal withholdings from my working income,but very little from what I received from SS. In fact,the last couple working years,income had dropped & I basically got all my taxes back when I filed. Saved what I could those last 10 working years & had enough for a decent emergency fund,but that’s about all. If I have to draw out of it to live,it won’t be much of a living for any length of time. Most of the folks I know who are ordinary working people either don’t have a decent company retirement plan at all or don’t make enough to be able put anything into it. Most seem resigned to the fact that they will never see any SS money.
We all get a statement every year stating exactly how much we can expect from SS. It cost millions of dollars to send this out. Started under Clinton.
So what is the deal with this 27%?
****************************************************
It used to be that there was always “10% who wouldn’t get the word”. Now it’s 27% — the leftists’ “education” objectives are being met. They’re succeeding in dumbing down the American populous.
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.