# There Goes My retirement Plan!



## WinniWoman (Oct 30, 2015)

http://www.moneytalksnews.com/why-t...campaign=email-2015-10-30-pm&utm_medium=email


Well,first my husband's pension is chopped up and now this. I have no pension, so we planned on the file and suspend strategy as part of our retirement plan.

 My husband was going to retire at 66 (his FRA in 5 more years) and me at 65 (so I could get Medicare). He was going to file and suspend. We were going to live on savings for 2 years and then when I reached age 67 (my FRA) I was going to collect half of his and we were going to continue to live on savings. Then, we were going to file for our full benefits at age 70.

Well, no way are either of us working to age 70 and I am hoping we can even somehow hang in there until ages 66 and 67, though we are both burnt out right now and really slogging through.

Of course, who knows what the heck else they are going to do in 5 years when we are ready. Between a bad housing market here and this it is not going to be the retirement I was hoping for.


----------



## WinniWoman (Oct 30, 2015)

Here's two more links.


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ke...-budget-deal-2015-10-30?siteid=yhoof2&ref=yfp


http://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...-i-collect-my-own.asp?partner=YahooSA&ref=yfp


----------



## Jason245 (Oct 30, 2015)

These laws change all the time.. back in the good old days your could just put all your checks in the bank earn interest on them and then return the money when you turned 70 and refile at the higher rate. I recommend you talk to a fee based financial planner and try to figure out what the best options for you are.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## WinniWoman (Oct 30, 2015)

Jason245 said:


> These laws change all the time.. back in the good old days your could just put all your checks in the bank earn interest on them and then return the money when you turned 70 and refile at the higher rate. I recommend you talk to a fee based financial planner and try to figure out what the best options for you are.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk



Yeah- that was on my list anyway for next fall after my last big house update project is done. Need to find someone good. That and an estate atty.

You can't earn any interest on savings; you have to risk more money in the stock mutual funds and bond funds are just as risky. 

I am starting to think my parents got it right. Just wing it because you have no real control over most things anyway.


----------



## Jason245 (Oct 30, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> Yeah- that was on my list anyway for next fall after my last big house update project is done. Need to find someone good. That and an estate atty.
> 
> You can't earn any interest on savings; you have to risk more money in the stock mutual funds and bond funds are just as risky.
> 
> I am starting to think my parents got it right. Just wing it because you have no real control over most things anyway.


Save as much as possible,  get as big a nest egg as possible and expect nothing from others.  In 2006 I was getting 5 percent on cds. .

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## VacationForever (Oct 30, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> You can't earn any interest on savings; you have to risk more money in the stock mutual funds and bond funds are just as risky.



I know you are against annuity but I have done a lot of research and deferred fixed income annuity gives the best guaranteed returns.  There are many options, including ones that you actually don't lose the money if you die prematurely if you pick options that allow guaranteed 10 years stream etc.  for your beneficiary.  I don't like to be forced to use savings/investments in a downturn, and annuity will help smooth that out.  

I have run the initial thoughts with my financial advisor and I was surprised that he actually was very receptive to my proposal.


----------



## WinniWoman (Oct 30, 2015)

Jason245 said:


> Save as much as possible,  get as big a nest egg as possible and expect nothing from others.  In 2006 I was getting 5 percent on cds. .
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk



I have always been a big saver. I just worry about the market a lot.


----------



## WinniWoman (Oct 30, 2015)

Jason245 said:


> These laws change all the time.. back in the good old days your could just put all your checks in the bank earn interest on them and then return the money when you turned 70 and refile at the higher rate. I recommend you talk to a fee based financial planner and try to figure out what the best options for you are.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk



You can't still do that?


----------



## Jason245 (Oct 30, 2015)

That died a while ago..

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## Jason245 (Oct 30, 2015)

sptung said:


> I know you are against annuity but I have done a lot of research and deferred fixed income annuity gives the best guaranteed returns.  There are many options, including ones that you actually don't lose the money if you die prematurely if you pick options that allow guaranteed 10 years stream etc.  for your beneficiary.  I don't like to be forced to use savings/investments in a downturn, and annuity will help smooth that out.
> 
> I have run the initial thoughts with my financial advisor and I was surprised that he actually was very receptive to my proposal.


It isn't sexy, but for most..even that principal protection is a bad idea since it comes at cost of lower checks.. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## WinniWoman (Oct 30, 2015)

Now I am thinking the best thing might be for hubby to file and suspend at age 66 when he retires and we will live off savings and my salary;and when I am 65 and have Medicare (if that still exists!) I will retire and we will live off savings for 2 years. When I turn 67 I will take my SS and when my husband is 70 he will take his. And- if it is too hard, he will take his before he is 70 and the hell with it all!

Of course, life is what happens when we are making other plans and plenty more could happen to screw it up, like illness, layoffs, etc. I don't know that I can hack my job until age 67 with the commute and driving all day and in the snow- just the whole schedule is wearing on me. My husband is very tired from his commute and long days as well.  And with our property and school taxes here, things could get ugly.


----------



## Jason245 (Oct 30, 2015)

What is the benefit of him filing and suspending now that the law changed?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## WinniWoman (Oct 30, 2015)

Maybe I should invest in more cases of wine! LOL!:rofl:


----------



## WinniWoman (Oct 30, 2015)

Jason245 said:


> What is the benefit of him filing and suspending now that the law changed?
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk



Well, I guess not filing and suspending. Just waiting until age 70. I think you can also file and then change your mind and then suspend and wait until 70. Like if he decides to get a part-time job or whatever. (Ha Ha- not)

But- yeah- I meant just wait until 70.


----------



## Jason245 (Oct 30, 2015)

Before waiting till 70 I would take a full inventory of your physical and financial situation.   If one or both of you are sick or high risk.. it might make more sense to get what you can get when you can get it..

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## SMHarman (Oct 30, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> Now I am thinking the best thing might be for hubby to file and suspend at age 66 when he retires and we will live off savings and my salary;and when I am 65 and have Medicare (if that still exists!) I will retire and we will live off savings for 2 years. When I turn 67 I will take my SS and when my husband is 70 he will take his. And- if it is too hard, he will take his before he is 70 and the hell with it all!
> 
> Of course, life is what happens when we are making other plans and plenty more could happen to screw it up, like illness, layoffs, etc. I don't know that I can hack my job until age 67 with the commute and driving all day and in the snow- just the whole schedule is wearing on me. My husband is very tired from his commute and long days as well.  And with our property and school taxes here, things could get ugly.


Are you both from long lived families?

Filing and reinvestment is an option if you don't need the money and now it is your money not a potential future dollar of your money. 

If you are still earning you can divert 18+5k of your earnings to 401k and spend the SS. Maybe even put another 5.5k into an IRA for H. 

So while SS will push AGI up. The addition to 401k will pull it back down. 

Further if you are well and can flip to a HDHP at work you can shelter $3-6k of income there to pay part D premiums later.


----------



## WinniWoman (Oct 30, 2015)

Jason245 said:


> Before waiting till 70 I would take a full inventory of your physical and financial situation.   If one or both of you are sick or high risk.. it might make more sense to get what you can get when you can get it..
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk




For sure. Who knows what's to be? Plans are for the best case scenario but have to turn on the fly as circumstances change. We'll have the house issue to deal with as well. 

Gee- most people look forward to retirement. I wanted to be retired from the day I started working! I am getting a little worried now. But- I am going to try to think positive and we will see what the financial planner says when we finally get one.


----------



## Jason245 (Oct 30, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> For sure. Who knows what's to be? Plans are for the best case scenario but have to turn on the fly as circumstances change. We'll have the house issue to deal with as well.
> 
> Gee- most people look forward to retirement. I wanted to be retired from the day I started working! I am getting a little worried now. But- I am going to try to think positive and we will see what the financial planner says when we finally get one.


So did i.. which is why I have put away at least 10 percent a year of my gross pay into a combination of iras and 401k since I turned 18..compounding is a great thing on paper . .but watching it happen to my benefit has been amazing and full of shock and awe.   



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## Fern Modena (Oct 30, 2015)

Another partial solution is to begin to hone in on another skill that might work into a part time job if needed. Also, I think you live in a high tax area. You might want to look into relocating into a much lower tax area if you could be satisfied with moving. Begin to investigate while you still have lots of time. 

Fern



mpumilia said:


> For sure. Who knows what's to be? Plans are for the best case scenario but have to turn on the fly as circumstances change. We'll have the house issue to deal with as well.
> 
> Gee- most people look forward to retirement. I wanted to be retired from the day I started working! I am getting a little worried now. But- I am going to try to think positive and we will see what the financial planner says when we finally get one.


----------



## am1 (Oct 30, 2015)

Will your children be in a position to help you out?

Is it worth continuing to update a house when real estate is down?

You may be best to move away from the snow and find jobs you like without the commute.  Even if losing on your house.  

I am a long way from retiring.  Most likely will never stop working but what is a good estimate on how much to overshoot what I think I will need to retire in 25 years and hopefully live 30 more years.


----------



## Conan (Oct 31, 2015)

The loss of the file-and-suspend mechanism is big news - - I wish this thread had a more informative title to bring it to people's attention.

Even before this change, two-earner couples received very little in return for the social security taxes that the lower-earning working spouse paid. 

In the traditional couple model, one goes to work and the other stays home. They pay one set of social security taxes and collect 150% in benefits. 

In the two-earner couple, if the second earner is in a lower pay bracket, or does not work for all of the maximum 30 years, they pay two sets of social security taxes and their benefit may be no better for it.

At least file-and-suspend gave the second earner a shot at getting something for that second set of taxes paid (because by waiting to age 70 the benefit on her own record might bring her something more than the 50% benefit that every spouse gets). Now even that will be gone!


----------



## pedro47 (Oct 31, 2015)

Jason245 said:


> These laws change all the time.. back in the good old days your could just put all your checks in the bank earn interest on them and then return the money when you turned 70 and refile at the higher rate. I recommend you talk to a fee based financial planner and try to figure out what the best options for you are.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk



Yes! Back in the day banks were paying 4% interest on a pass book saving account and money markets accounts were praying on an average 6 to 8 interest all more on your money.


----------



## am1 (Oct 31, 2015)

Maybe time to do away with spousal benefits and everyone gets paid based on what they pay in?  Not everyone has the need for one to stay home.  Maybe spousal benefits for those who have raised children only.  No having dogs would not count as having children.  



Conan said:


> The loss of the file-and-suspend mechanism is big news - - I wish this thread had a more informative title to bring it to people's attention.
> 
> Even before this change, two-earner couples received very little in return for the social security taxes that the lower-earning working spouse paid.
> 
> ...


----------



## SmithOp (Oct 31, 2015)

Conan said:


> At least file-and-suspend gave the second earner a shot at getting something for that second set of taxes paid (because by waiting to age 70 the benefit on her own record might bring her something more than the 50% benefit that every spouse gets). Now even that will be gone!




Under these new rules it may make more sense for the lower earner to claim at 62 and then switch to the spousal benefit later, they both collect when spouse reaches 70.  There is also a family cap to consider.  



Sent from my iPad Mini 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## WinniWoman (Oct 31, 2015)

am1 said:


> Will your children be in a position to help you out?
> 
> Is it worth continuing to update a house when real estate is down?
> 
> ...



Yes. Worth it as we are using it NOW. People said what you said to me 4 years ago when I started the house updating. Well, my first rooms- the master bath and our bedroom- are now already 4 years old and guess what? We have been using those rooms! Other 2 bathrooms 3 years old. Central hall and bonus room just completed this past spring. My kitchen- now already two years old and I love it! We have two rooms left (living room and study) and I am finishing up this spring hopefully. Just got rid of our 35 year old couch. I feel that if we have to work for another 5 or 6 years I am going to enjoy our home that we worked so hard for. When we come home from a hard day's work we want to be comfortable and happy with our house NOW. It really needed upgrading. We, of course, have to pay the labor- painting refinishing floors- for our living room- will buy furniture. All big $$$. 

We can't move right now because of our jobs. Once we retire we have to give ourselves some breathing room to plan our move to another area. It will take a while to sell our home. (FOR SALE: Saltbox. Sunny. Big 2 car garage. It is only 2 bedrooms and no basement. Master bath has a steam shower. It does have a bonus room with big skylights, and a study (with direct access to garage) and 3 bathrooms. Whole house generator (propane) and central air. Large dog pen attached to garage with doggy door. Small screened porch with outside stamped concrete patio off that and long ground level deck with 2 sets of Marvin glass terrace doors from kitchen and dining room. Ground floor washer and dryer off the kitchen. Not an open plan house and simple- no fancy moldings or architecture or anything. Huge walk up attic. Vinyl siding. 8 year old roof. 8 year old System 2000 oil boiler. Outside above ground tall oil tank.10.5 wooded acres. Paved (twice)700 ft driveway which includes a bridge over a stream. House set way back- totally secluded. Good school district. Very well-maintained and clean by an OCD owner! Some local issues going on as well) The other thing is that despite the market here, new houses have sprung up around us that we will have to compete with. (Not that they are selling). In fact, a builder just bought the 2 lot property next to ours. So having an already somewhat updated house will help a little, although by the time we sell it everything we have just done will already be mostly 10 years old!! 

Crazy! Lived here 28 years as of yesterday. We know we will lose on our home. When all is said and done, I think we will have put at least $200,000 into this $200,000 home over the 28 years. Market value - 4 years ago according to 3 realtors- when only the master bathroom was done- was $247,000 and they told us even with redoing the kitchen it wouldn't help too much because of the market/area. Trust me when I say this is a really nice house- such a shame. Not Better Homes and Gardens, but really nice. In other markets- like near NYC or in California or someplace like that this house and property would easily be a million dollars or more.

No way can we change jobs. When we leave these that will be it. Don't have it in us to look for jobs anymore. In rural areas like this- you have to commute no matter what. Part time jobs aren't worth the gas and wear and tear on our cars and bodies. (Heck- the full time ones are barely worth it! Lol!)

We only have one kid and he lives in NH (who is not financially stable) and we have no other family nearby. My brother (who lives about 1.5 hours from here) will probably end up in Florida) No close friends nearby either. So- the plan is to most likely move to NH, although who knows what we will be able to afford there? I told hubby no way am I going into a mobile home park!! We shall see!


----------



## WinniWoman (Oct 31, 2015)

Conan said:


> The loss of the file-and-suspend mechanism is big news - - I wish this thread had a more informative title to bring it to people's attention.
> 
> Even before this change, two-earner couples received very little in return for the social security taxes that the lower-earning working spouse paid.
> 
> ...




We were never big earners- just middle class 5 figure salaries that put together helped us to do well. My husband and my incomes are not way far apart, but when I think of it I see that a woman who never worked and can claim 1/2 of her husbands SS is better off than me who has always worked full-time! I always hated working and now I see what an idiot I was!


----------



## vacationhopeful (Oct 31, 2015)

Did they change the Federal government rules for collecting retirement employees' benefits ... for the law makers and employees? 

Don't worry ... those effected by this will just get MORE UNHAPPY as they are facing down WHAT this has done; the closer and closer they get to retirement. 

I wonder how many 'equal' higher income married couples will get divoriced to "double dip" for a bigger (but personally earned) share of retirement income?

Here is the NEXT possible social security "revision" area: My sister gets to collect on HER first's husband (divoriced) of more than 10 years SS benefit; collects again on her DEAD husband (again more than 10 years) and finally, on HER income of maximum benefits plus her executive stock. She retired at 55 years old .... as a widow. 
Of course, the 1st marriage did cost her a division of assets (no pre-nup.) The deceased 2nd husband had NO WILL or pre-nup. I think she had now brought her home 3 times: when she moved into it, after the 1st husband (end of marriage) and after her deceased husband (settling of his estate in a community property state).


----------



## WinniWoman (Oct 31, 2015)

am1 said:


> Maybe time to do away with spousal benefits and everyone gets paid based on what they pay in?  Not everyone has the need for one to stay home.  Maybe spousal benefits for those who have raised children only.  No having dogs would not count as having children.



Considering all this that is happening, I think SS should be for people that work and pay into it period, with the exception of if a parent dies and some going to dependent minor children until they reach age 18. 

For a non-working spouse to get SS on her husband or wife's SS it should be only if he/she dies.


----------



## WinniWoman (Oct 31, 2015)

vacationhopeful said:


> Did they change the Federal government rules for collecting retirement employees' benefits ... for the law makers and employees?
> 
> Don't worry ... those effected by this will just get MORE UNHAPPY as they are facing down WHAT this has done; the closer and closer they get to retirement.
> 
> ...



Good points. 

My friend has been very lucky as she liked working and just now is retiring at age 71. She was able to collect on her divorced husbands SS for years and now will switch to her own, which will be much higher. She used that money to upgrade her first floor condo in Old Greenwich, Connect. and she is all set.


----------



## ondeadlin (Oct 31, 2015)

I can't say I'm very surprised by this development.  This was a loophole that seemed destined to be targeted eventually.  If I understand the linked articles correctly, no one over 62 should be impacted.  If people over 62 who were already using this strategy were to lose it, I'd find that highly unfair.

This is a good reminder that the rules can change at any time.  Right now, 401k contributions are tax deductible (up to about $20k).  There's no guarantee that will continue.  Right now, Roth withdrawals are tax free.  Again, no guarantee that will continue.  In my state, Michigan, pensions used to be essentially tax free.  That changed in 2011.

Is it fair?  Of course not, but I was raised by people who repeatedly drilled the phrase "life's not fair," into me … and they're often proved correct.


----------



## bogey21 (Oct 31, 2015)

Full disclosure, I am retired with a Pension (Defined Benefit Plan) from my last employer.  However, IMO the problem started with Employers being incented to first create, then switch to Defined Contribution Plans.  Yes, I know it facilitates employee mobility, etc. but it puts too much pressure on Social Security (which should be a back-up) and is going to cause a train wreck down the road when younger generations reach retirement age.  Many in this generation are unwilling or unable to save for retirement partially because they will spend much of their lives paying off Student Debt.  In addition allowing employees to borrow against or close out 401ks for instant gratification should never have been allowed.  Thus, although well intended authorizing 401ks in their current form and facilitating the expansion of student debt are doing more damage than good.

George


----------



## Conan (Oct 31, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> We were never big earners- just middle class 5 figure salaries that put together helped us to do well. My husband and my incomes are not way far apart, but when I think of it I see that a woman who never worked and can claim 1/2 of her husbands SS is better off than me who has always worked full-time!



Your benefit won't be less than hers, if that's any comfort.
"If your spouse qualifies on his or her own record, we will pay that  amount first. But if he or she also qualifies for a higher amount as a  spouse, they'll get a combination of benefits that equals that higher  amount."
https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/yourspouse.html#&a0=0

Of course, the social security taxes you paid got you nothing....


----------



## SMHarman (Oct 31, 2015)

am1 said:


> Maybe time to do away with spousal benefits and everyone gets paid based on what they pay in?  Not everyone has the need for one to stay home.  Maybe spousal benefits for those who have raised children only.  No having dogs would not count as having children.


The went this model in the UK a while back. Same time they abolished joint tax returns.


----------



## am1 (Oct 31, 2015)

As long as you are happy with your decisions.  That is all that matters.  Everyone plays it differently.  It is great that you know you are going to lose money on the renovations but do them anyways.    



mpumilia said:


> Yes. Worth it as we are using it NOW. People said what you said to me 4 years ago when I started the house updating. Well, my first rooms- the master bath and our bedroom- are now already 4 years old and guess what? We have been using those rooms! Other 2 bathrooms 3 years old. Central hall and bonus room just completed this past spring. My kitchen- now already two years old and I love it! We have two rooms left (living room and study) and I am finishing up this spring hopefully. Just got rid of our 35 year old couch. I feel that if we have to work for another 5 or 6 years I am going to enjoy our home that we worked so hard for. When we come home from a hard day's work we want to be comfortable and happy with our house NOW. It really needed upgrading. We, of course, have to pay the labor- painting refinishing floors- for our living room- will buy furniture. All big $$$.
> 
> We can't move right now because of our jobs. Once we retire we have to give ourselves some breathing room to plan our move to another area. It will take a while to sell our home. (FOR SALE: Saltbox. Sunny. Big 2 car garage. It is only 2 bedrooms and no basement. Master bath has a steam shower. It does have a bonus room with big skylights, and a study (with direct access to garage) and 3 bathrooms. Whole house generator (propane) and central air. Large dog pen attached to garage with doggy door. Small screened porch with outside stamped concrete patio off that and long ground level deck with 2 sets of Marvin glass terrace doors from kitchen and dining room. Ground floor washer and dryer off the kitchen. Not an open plan house and simple- no fancy moldings or architecture or anything. Huge walk up attic. Vinyl siding. 8 year old roof. 8 year old System 2000 oil boiler. Outside above ground tall oil tank.10.5 wooded acres. Paved (twice)700 ft driveway which includes a bridge over a stream. House set way back- totally secluded. Good school district. Very well-maintained and clean by an OCD owner! Some local issues going on as well) The other thing is that despite the market here, new houses have sprung up around us that we will have to compete with. (Not that they are selling). In fact, a builder just bought the 2 lot property next to ours. So having an already somewhat updated house will help a little, although by the time we sell it everything we have just done will already be mostly 10 years old!!
> 
> ...


----------



## Tia (Oct 31, 2015)

Really? Wow



vacationhopeful said:


> ..........
> 
> Here is the NEXT possible social security "revision" area: My sister gets to collect on HER first's husband (divoriced) of more than 10 years SS benefit; collects again on her DEAD husband (again more than 10 years) and finally, on HER income of maximum benefits plus her executive stock. She retired at 55 years old .... as a widow.
> Of course, the 1st marriage did cost her a division of assets (no pre-nup.) The deceased 2nd husband had NO WILL or pre-nup. I think she had now brought her home 3 times: when she moved into it, after the 1st husband (end of marriage) and after her deceased husband (settling of his estate in a community property state).


----------



## WinniWoman (Oct 31, 2015)

Conan said:


> Your benefit won't be less than hers, if that's any comfort.
> "If your spouse qualifies on his or her own record, we will pay that  amount first. But if he or she also qualifies for a higher amount as a  spouse, they'll get a combination of benefits that equals that higher  amount."
> https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/yourspouse.html#&a0=0
> 
> Of course, the social security taxes you paid got you nothing....





LOL! I'm the female!


----------



## WinniWoman (Oct 31, 2015)

am1 said:


> As long as you are happy with your decisions.  That is all that matters.  Everyone plays it differently.  It is great that you know you are going to lose money on the renovations but do them anyways.




Yes. Not everything we do is based on making money off of it. Same with buying a car, or A TIMESHARE! LOL!

I love my house. I could drop dead tomorrow and never even make it to retirement. It's all about balance.


----------



## Tia (Oct 31, 2015)

Had wondered before how many x's can make a claim ONE persons  SS?  If someone has 3 x-spouses can all three be collecting SS off the one?


----------



## rapmarks (Oct 31, 2015)

Tia said:


> Had wondered before how many x's can make a claim ONE persons  SS?  If someone has 3 x-spouses can all three be collecting SS off the one?


yes, if married ten or more years.   probably not the third as I would imagine yui get it if married when spouse dies.


----------



## WinniWoman (Oct 31, 2015)

I believe you can claim on you divorced spouse as long as he/she has already filed and you were married at least 10 years and I believe it doesn't matter how many ex's you have had- they can all claim. I think the ex that is claiming off the divorced spouse can't be married, but not totally sure, but it is ok for the divorced person you are claiming off of to be married.


----------



## Talent312 (Oct 31, 2015)

ondeadlin said:


> Is it fair?  Of course not, but I was raised by people who repeatedly drilled the phrase "life's not fair," into me … and they're often proved correct.



How do we know that "life is not fair?"  Well, think about it...
If life was fair, then /this/ (waving hand in circle) is what fairness is thought to be.
Wouldn't that be a hell of a note. -- _unknown comedian_
.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Oct 31, 2015)

Tia said:


> Had wondered before how many x's can make a claim ONE persons  SS?  If someone has 3 x-spouses can all three be collecting SS off the one?



Yes, I was dumb-founded when she explained it to me. And she is VERY knowledgeable in this area ... from experience.


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Oct 31, 2015)

ondeadlin said:


> I can't say I'm very surprised by this development.  This was a loophole that seemed destined to be targeted eventually.  If I understand the linked articles correctly, no one over 62 should be impacted.  If people over 62 who were already using this strategy were to lose it, I'd find that highly unfair.
> 
> This is a good reminder that the rules can change at any time.  Right now, 401k contributions are tax deductible (up to about $20k).  There's no guarantee that will continue.  Right now, Roth withdrawals are tax free.  Again, no guarantee that will continue.  In my state, Michigan, pensions used to be essentially tax free.  That changed in 2011.
> 
> Is it fair?  Of course not, but I was raised by people who repeatedly drilled the phrase "life's not fair," into me … and they're often proved correct.



I live in Michigan and when I retire in 13 years (can you tell I'm counting down) I'm going to see what the laws are at that point and then decide if my choice of wanting to retire in either Arizona, Utah, or South Carolina still makes sense. No matter what I'm out of MI when I retire, I can't take the winters any more


----------



## dsmrp (Oct 31, 2015)

Friend of mine made a spreadsheet of all the states to find the cheaper ones for retirees to live in.  There were some online articles on the same thing.
She quit working nearly 20 years ago before her first child was born, and they lived off her husband's salary.  They made some good stock investments and he retired early last year, and their eldest is still a senior in high school. I don't know how else they can afford it. But they live semi-frugally.

I never thought when I was younger, that the last 10+ years before retirement was going to feel as LONG as it does


----------



## vacationhopeful (Oct 31, 2015)

dsmrp said:


> ..... ...
> 
> I never thought when I was younger, that the last 10+ years before retirement was going to feel as LONG as it does



Or as stressful.


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Oct 31, 2015)

dsmrp said:


> Friend of mine made a spreadsheet of all the states to find the cheaper ones for retirees to live in.  There were some online articles on the same thing.
> She quit working nearly 20 years ago before her first child was born, and they lived off her husband's salary.  They made some good stock investments and he retired early last year, and their eldest is still a senior in high school. I don't know how else they can afford it. But they live semi-frugally.
> 
> I never thought when I was younger, that the last 10+ years before retirement was going to feel as LONG as it does



I made a similar spreadsheet… I have selected only warm states to move to…That is how I feel, like I am going to drag through these next 13 years


----------



## isisdave (Oct 31, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> and me at 65 (so I could get Medicare)



I am sure you know that you do not have to stop working or file for SS benefits in order to get Medicare. Almost everyone is eligible at 65.

Depending on your employer, the size of the company, and any plan they have, it might be better to continue theirs. You don't HAVE to get Part B then if you're working, and there's no penalty for waiting in that case . This is what I did until retiring at 66 years, 7 months. [Employer's insurance was wonderful, but I'm healthy and Medicare would have been fine. But my wife and child couldn't be covered by the employer unless I took it for myself. That restriction cost my employer $1100 per month for 19 months.]

Since I retired in January, DW has been running on my employer's COBRA at $515 per month; next month she'll be 65 and change to Medicare at whatever price they finally agree on.

In any case, part A (hospital coverage) is free at 65 if you are eligible for SS benefits, whether or not you claim those benefits.

Incidentally, our plan is your plan ... I had to file at 62 due to unemployment, but after 5 months got a job with earnings that suppressed all benefits until FRA. Then I suspended. DW'll take spousal at FRA and we'll both collect at 70. In the meantime, we're dipping into the IRA.


----------



## SMHarman (Oct 31, 2015)

isisdave said:


> Depending on your employer, the size of the company, and any plan they have, it might be better to continue theirs. You don't HAVE to get Part B then if you're working, and there's no penalty for waiting in that case . This is what I did until retiring at 66 years, 7 months. [Employer's insurance was wonderful, but I'm healthy and Medicare would have been fine. But my wife and child couldn't be covered by the employer unless I took it for myself. That restriction cost my employer $1100 per month for 19 months.]
> 
> Since I retired in January, DW has been running on my employer's COBRA at $515 per month; next month she'll be 65 and change to Medicare at whatever price they finally agree on.



Most employers self insurer so the 1100 goes into their bank account.


----------



## Blues (Oct 31, 2015)

Jason245 said:


> What is the benefit of him filing and suspending now that the law changed?



Actually, my DW is at FRA (I'm not!), and we've been planning to file and suspend for her, even though I won't file a restricted application until she files for real.  What's the advantage, you ask?  Just one -- if she gets sick before the age at which we've planned for her to file, the file-and-suspend acts as a do-over.  At that point, we can tell the SSA to undo the "suspend" part and pay us back-benefits for the intervening years.  It acts as kind of an insurance policy in case your health status changes.

We had just been talking about making an appointment at the local SSA office to do that.  I guess we'd better call in quick.

Bob


----------



## VacationForever (Oct 31, 2015)

SMHarman said:


> Most employers self insurer so the 1100 goes into their bank account.



Self insure does not mean that it is free to the employer.


----------



## VacationForever (Oct 31, 2015)

Conan said:


> Your benefit won't be less than hers, if that's any comfort.



Technically If I make a low percentage, say 30 percent, of SS contribution limit each year and worked a full 35 years, but another person contributes in full to SS each year for 35 years, the spouse of this other person will get more than I do.


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Oct 31, 2015)

Medicare if You Work Past the Age of 65 - by John Grobe/ Medicare/ FedSmith/ fedsmith.com

"An individual who reaches the age of 65 becomes eligible for Medicare. However, if at the time they become eligible for Medicare, they are working at a job that provides them with health insurance, they will not be subject to the 10% Medicare Part B late enrollment if they enroll in Medicare Part B later than age of 65, as long as they enroll within the eight months after they retire..."







Richard


----------



## am1 (Oct 31, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> Yes. Not everything we do is based on making money off of it. Same with buying a car, or A TIMESHARE! LOL!
> 
> I love my house. I could drop dead tomorrow and never even make it to retirement. It's all about balance.



Have you thought of selling part of your land for other lots?  Is NH cheaper then where you live?  I would not plan on moving to a place where your only son is not settled.  Keep it as an option but explore others.


----------



## SMHarman (Oct 31, 2015)

sptung said:


> Self insure does not mean that it is free to the employer.


No it does not it means self insured. 

Yes the third person on the policy will mean a small extra charge from the network provider but unless the poster knows the exact $ value of his share of their premiums and the amount paid in claims the it cost them this much number is likely to be wrong.


----------



## Conan (Nov 1, 2015)

sptung said:


> Technically If I make a low percentage, say 30 percent, of SS contribution limit each year and worked a full 35 years, but another person contributes in full to SS each year for 35 years, the spouse of this other person will get more than I do.



The genders don't matter, but to make it easier to talk about say there are two couples, all four individuals turning age 66 this year, and in each couple the husband has earned the social security wage maximum for 35 years (in 2015 that's $118,500). So the husband can claim $2,663/month now, or he can wait to age 70 and get $3,501/month starting then.

Meanwhile if in one couple the wife never worked (and never paid any social security taxes) she can still get the corresponding half of his benefit i.e. $2,663 = $1,331/month starting now or half of $3,501 = $1,749/month starting at age 70.

If in the second couple the wife earned say one-third of the social security wage maximum for 35 years her own benefit is roughly the same $1,331/$1,749 per month. (The social security benefit calculation uses a skewed rate so one-third of maximum income gets you ~50% of the maximum benefit.)

That's my reason for saying that the wife in the second couple paid all her social security taxes for nothing. Had the wife in the second couple only earned 20% of the full wage for 35 years, or earned one-third of the full wage for 17 years, her benefit would be less than $1,331/$1,749 on her own record, but the social security administration would still top her up to 50% of her husband's benefit, resulting in her getting the same $1,331/$1,749 as the non-working wife.

[Edited to add: Thanks to subsequent clarifications I understand what  you're saying: The non-working wife of a high-earning husband gets 50%  of his benefit, and she paid no social security taxes. Meanwhile you  paid social security taxes on your earnings, and your benefit (being the  greater of your earned benefit or 50% of your husband's earned benefit)  will be less than hers.]


----------



## tompalm (Nov 1, 2015)

I think all of us on this forum are well traveled, smart and will find a way to make ends meet. The rules can and will change. The company I was working for shut down in 2008 and I was unemployed at 54 years old. We rented out the front 700 sq/ft of our 2800 sq/ft home and I took a job working in Japan while my wife stayed home. In 2009 that job ended and we took part time jobs and reduced expenses by driving older cars, and stopped buying things unless we really needed them.  At first we were really worried about not having the income we had planned on, but found ways to make ends meet.  Sometimes retirement plans don't work out and we need to change our plans to make retirement work.


----------



## Talent312 (Nov 1, 2015)

MULTIZ321 said:


> "An individual who reaches the age of 65 becomes eligible for Medicare. However, if at the time they become eligible for Medicare, they are working at a job that provides them with health insurance, they will not be subject to the 10% Medicare Part B late enrollment if they enroll in Medicare Part B later than age of 65, as long as they enroll within the eight months after they retire..."



I'm well aware of this delayed enrollment rule.
We are using it for my DW, as she has been covered by my employer's group health policy for several years past age 65.

My question: What proof will they need that she's had coverage for those years... just her say-so?  I 'spose we should ask them.
.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

am1 said:


> Have you thought of selling part of your land for other lots?  Is NH cheaper then where you live?  I would not plan on moving to a place where your only son is not settled.  Keep it as an option but explore others.



Our lot would be very difficult to subdivide because there is no road frontage. At best, another home could be built on it MAYBE but only as part of the existing property with our home on it as well. Then there is the issue of the bridge, which is ours and the only way to access the property and we could end up with a messy right of way legality. We could sell off some of the trees for timber and the rock walls for landscapers, but the thought of that makes me sick.

Our son is not settled job wise but I think that he is settled NH wise (I could be wrong about that). We like NH and Vermont a lot- only places I ever considered to move to, as we are familiar with them and we love New England. NH is cheaper than NY in terms of income and sales tax and even property/school tax, although they are still high nationally. Plus, politically we fit in there more. My fav is Vermont near the Lake, but the tax situation there bothers me, including taxes in SS income (even NY doesn't have that!)

Considered nearby Pa and maybe North Carolina (never been- but heard it gets very humid- no like). Also, Maine is possible, but I keep reading taxes are high there. Not Florida types. Don't care for Virginia. Hubby likes Wyoming- not me- at least not to live. Maybe Hawaii? Now that I like! LOL! Just kidding.....

I feel I want to be somewhat nearby wherever our son is because, let's face it- when as we get old who the hell will care about us? Even now, sometimes my husband might need help with something - lets say moving a piece of furniture or whatever- we have no one to call. Not that we would bother our son constantly or try to prevent him from moving if he wants to (though he doesn't seem to be the type to want to move around). Also- we miss what other parents have- their kids once in a while stop in to say hello- even if it's just 5 minutes- things like that. In fact, I would say our son wouldn't mind it himself if we were within a reasonable driving distance because sometimes HE needs help with something. For ex- he would like if my husband could look at cars with him when it comes time for him to buy one. Holidays are very difficult for us because of the long drive. Again- only the three of us. 

It's these little simple things that we already miss now that mean a lot. I know other people don't care about that stuff but I do. What else is there that could be more important than family?

I see other people have their kids and even grandkids they see a lot for birthdays and holidays and in between and it's because it is easy to see them for the most part. No having to drive hours on end or take planes and so forth and the expense of all that that many cannot afford. And- no- skype isn't the same thing,


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

tompalm said:


> I think all of us on this forum are well traveled, smart and will find a way to make ends meet. The rules can and will change. The company I was working for shut down in 2008 and I was unemployed at 54 years old. We rented out the front 700 sq/ft of our 2800 sq/ft home and I took a job working in Japan while my wife stayed home. In 2009 that job ended and we took part time jobs and reduced expenses by driving older cars, and stopped buying things unless we really needed them.  At first we were really worried about not having the income we had planned on, but found ways to make ends meet.  Sometimes retirement plans don't work out and we need to change our plans to make retirement work.




Very true, My parents didn't have a lot of money in the bank. Their home was paid off. My mom never made more than $50,000 and my dad was on disability since age 50. No pension. My mom's was a small lump sum. They both had serious health issues and a lot of medical expenses. Yet, they were unbelievably generous with their money and lived in a high tax area in NY and still were comfortable (did their traveling BEFORE my mom retired at age 65. And still left my brother and I some money. Dad died at 78 and mom at 81 (3 months of assisted living at about $55K)


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

Conan said:


> I'm not following you here.
> 
> The genders don't matter, but to make it easier to talk about say there are two couples, all four individuals turning age 66 this year, and in each couple the husband has earned the social security wage maximum for 35 years (in 2015 that's $118,500). So the husband can claim $2,663/month now, or he can wait to age 70 and get $3,501/month starting then.
> 
> ...




EXACTLY RIGHT! Where's the fairness in this? And I wanted to stay home so badly! Was never a career person. Meanwhile, here I am at almost 60 years old and now I feel I have to keep working! What the??!


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

Blues said:


> Actually, my DW is at FRA (I'm not!), and we've been planning to file and suspend for her, even though I won't file a restricted application until she files for real.  What's the advantage, you ask?  Just one -- if she gets sick before the age at which we've planned for her to file, the file-and-suspend acts as a do-over.  At that point, we can tell the SSA to undo the "suspend" part and pay us back-benefits for the intervening years.  It acts as kind of an insurance policy in case your health status changes.
> 
> We had just been talking about making an appointment at the local SSA office to do that.  I guess we'd better call in quick.
> 
> Bob



Oh, yeah- right, I forgot about that- the pay pack of benefits! Hmmm.....but why would she not just wait to file later and if she gets sick she files then for the higher benefit at whatever age she is? Do you mean you could use the payback money for medical expenses if she goes the suspend route?


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

dsmrp said:


> Friend of mine made a spreadsheet of all the states to find the cheaper ones for retirees to live in.  There were some online articles on the same thing.
> She quit working nearly 20 years ago before her first child was born, and they lived off her husband's salary.  They made some good stock investments and he retired early last year, and their eldest is still a senior in high school. I don't know how else they can afford it. But they live semi-frugally.
> 
> I never thought when I was younger, that the last 10+ years before retirement was going to feel as LONG as it does



Your not kidding! Everyday I just want to scream! In fact, I do scream when I am getting ready for work or in my car! I wish I could feel differently. I try to just be thankful I have a job and the income coming in. But I can't get rid of that dreaded feeling......


----------



## Jason245 (Nov 1, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> EXACTLY RIGHT! Where's the fairness in this? And I wanted to stay home so badly! Was never a career person. Meanwhile, here I am at almost 60 years old and now I feel I have to keep working! What the??!


So just to clarify, you think it is unfair that some people earn more money than others or that there is a spousal component in case of a non working spouse ? 

Your generation created this situation and brought women into the workforce. on top of that.. thanks to the great decisions made by your generation,  I can expect Nothing from the government when I retire. . Hell I didn't even get government assistance on my mortgage BECAUSE I was financially responsible. . 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

isisdave said:


> I am sure you know that you do not have to stop working or file for SS benefits in order to get Medicare. Almost everyone is eligible at 65.
> 
> Depending on your employer, the size of the company, and any plan they have, it might be better to continue theirs. You don't HAVE to get Part B then if you're working, and there's no penalty for waiting in that case . This is what I did until retiring at 66 years, 7 months. [Employer's insurance was wonderful, but I'm healthy and Medicare would have been fine. But my wife and child couldn't be covered by the employer unless I took it for myself. That restriction cost my employer $1100 per month for 19 months.]
> 
> ...



I know that. I just want to at least retire at 65, since my husband will already be retired for a year by then and we want to get on with the next phase of our lives. No, actually I want to retire right now! LOL! 

I have health insurance through my husbands employer not mine.

You had better check to make sure your wife can still do that now with this new law. She might not be able to- I don't think so.


----------



## Conan (Nov 1, 2015)

Talent312 said:


> My question: What proof will they need that she's had coverage for those years... just her say-so?  I 'spose we should ask them.
> .



You and your employer fill out this form, and you take it with you when you sign up.
https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/CMS-Forms/CMS-Forms/Downloads/CMS-L564E.pdf


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

Jason245 said:


> So just to clarify, you think it is unfair that some people earn more money than others or that there is a spousal component in case of a non working spouse ?
> 
> Your generation created this situation and brought women into the workforce. on top of that.. thanks to the great decisions made by your generation,  I can expect Nothing from the government when I retire. . Hell I didn't even get government assistance on my mortgage BECAUSE I was financially responsible. .
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk



No! I absolutely do not think it is unfair that some people earn more money than others!! I am just saying many working people will not get as much SS as non working spouses and I do not think that is fair. I do not think non working spouses should get SS unless their spouse is deceased. 

I always say the feminists ruined it for a lot of women who just wanted to be  homemakers! In fact, most of my female coworkers agree.


----------



## Big Matt (Nov 1, 2015)

I think you are anchoring everything on age and medicare which may make sense or maybe it doesn't.  I would take a step back and try to figure out what you want to be doing at age 67, 72, 77, and 82.  

People discussed a spreadsheet, etc. which is a good start.  I would put together a list that includes the following:

1) Location 
2) What you want to do every day
3) How much travel you want to do
4) Amount of work after current jobs are done and/or you retire.  Consider part time.  Any money you make defers some of your expenses.  My guess is that you have been doing the same type of job for a while.  You may find something else that interests you
5) Other income sources.  Look  into rental properties if you can make a positive cash flow.  Maybe leverage some of your current property, etc.

Don't make all of your decisions NOW.  Time passes and things change including financial situation (including interest rates, taxes, and inflation), your health, and your children.  Get a direction figured out and change course as necessary as you age.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

Did it already.

1) New England- NH or Vermont

2) Not work. Live my life at my own pace. Homemaking. Start a blog for fun. Read a lot. Maybe get a small dog (miss having my dogs)

3) Use our timeshares in NH and VT (which will be even closer to drive to)and occasionally travel to National Parks- Hope to get Italy/Switzerland trip in BEFORE retiring

4) For me retiring means NOT WORKING. If you work, you are NOT retired. There is enough work to do at home. Only work/volunteer gig I would consider is working in a Vermont welcome center OR working as a tour guide at a NH site. I actually have had a lot of different jobs in my lifetime and think they all stink. My favorite job is homemaking.

5)Was a landlord. Hated it and lost a ton of money. Never again

"*Don't make all of your decisions NOW. Time passes and things change including financial situation (including interest rates, taxes, and inflation), your health, and your children. Get a direction figured out and change course as necessary as you age.*" 

***-GREAT ADVICE- with you on this!


----------



## Jason245 (Nov 1, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> No! I absolutely do not think it is unfair that some people earn more money than others!! I am just saying many working people will not get as much SS as non working spouses and I do not think that is fair. I do not think non working spouses should get SS unless their spouse is deceased.
> 
> I always say the feminists ruined it for a lot of women who just wanted to be  homemakers! In fact, most of my female coworkers agree.


Well marry rich and rep the benefit for life.. don't marry rich. ..

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 1, 2015)

Conan said:


> I'm not following you here.
> 
> The genders don't matter, but to make it easier to talk about say there are two couples, all four individuals turning age 66 this year, and in each couple the husband has earned the social security wage maximum for 35 years (in 2015 that's $118,500). So the husband can claim $2,663/month now, or he can wait to age 70 and get $3,501/month starting then.
> 
> ...



The issue is that mpumilla worked her entire life and so has her husband, but their income were not very high.  Her brother was a high income earner and her sis-in-law never worked.  This was discussed in a separate thread.  Her sis-in-law will get half of her husband's while never having worked.  Mpumilla had reported ahe would be getting less ss than her sis-in-law, while the latter had never worked.


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 1, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> I always say the feminists ruined it for a lot of women who just wanted to be  homemakers! In fact, most of my female coworkers agree.



I grew up wanting to work, very happy that I worked and thank goodness I worked.  I would go stark crazy being a homemaker.  Homemaker work never ends, cleaning, cooking, baby talking when kids are young, talking to walls instead of people during the day.  I enjoy the socialization and the challenge of the grey matter up there.  It is not feminists who ruin for women, it is the recognition that women are smart and "we can do everything that men can do, and more".


----------



## Talent312 (Nov 1, 2015)

conan said:


> you and your employer fill out this form, and you take it with you when you sign up.
> https://www.cms.gov/medicare/cms-forms/cms-forms/downloads/cms-l564e.pdf



Thanks for the Info!
.


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 1, 2015)

Jason245 said:


> Your generation created this situation and brought women into the workforce. on top of that.. thanks to the great decisions made by your generation,  I can expect Nothing from the government when I retire. . Hell I didn't even get government assistance on my mortgage BECAUSE I was financially responsible. .
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk



Blame it on ALL politicians.  No one wants to make the hard decisions and they all want to win the popular votes.


----------



## Jason245 (Nov 1, 2015)

sptung said:


> Blame it on ALL politicians.  No one wants to make the hard decisions and they all want to win the popular votes.


I hear ya.. they will buy votes any way they can.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Nov 1, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> I know that. I just want to at least retire at 65, since my husband will already be retired for a year by then and we want to get on with the next phase of our lives. No, actually I want to retire right now! LOL!
> 
> I have health insurance through my husbands employer not mine.
> 
> You had better check to make sure your wife can still do that now with this new law. She might not be able to- I don't think so.



I'm 54 and I want to retire right now as well… I have to wait till 67 to retire.  During the Great Depression that Michigan was in we lost a lot of income.  Hubby lost his job and it took till 2015 till he could get a direct hire job again. I was forced to take pay cuts. So we have 5 years to make up…


I just hope I can make it


----------



## vacationhopeful (Nov 1, 2015)

When I was younger, I was forced to dump a house I had brought the year before due to a "downsizing/layoff". Fortunately, a neighbor told me ANOTHER neighbor REALLY had wanted to buy the place, was still willing to buy the place and WE both had assumable mortgages. Without a realtor, we swapped houses and I had to bring cash to the table ... still way, way cheaper than MONTHS of trying to sell and paying a real estate commission. 

I was VERY happy .. my house was too big and I had to downsize & rent newly traded for house, to move to a graduate program 100 miles away. And got it done within 30-40 days. I still sob my eyes out the first night I slept in the "2 bdr UGLY house".

Retirement should be treated for what it is ... a major life changing event. Possessions are just "things" and many times, anchors to our living a better life.

Do I like where I am living now? Sure .... but I know within the next several years, I HAVE to move. I have a 6 bedroom house ... living there by myself. It is on a plot of almost 4 acres. Filled with my stuff and the prior generation's stuff. And whoever buys it, will almost for sure, tear it down for the ground. But I will stay until the local real estate market improves .... or the petro tank farm behind me blows up .


----------



## Conan (Nov 1, 2015)

This looked better in my Excel spreadsheet.

It shows that a couple that earns $80,000/year after tax and manages to save $12,000/year of it, investing the savings at a meager 3%/year over their 35-year working life, will have saved enough to withdraw $48,000/year during 20 years of retirement.

Maybe it's a two-earner couple: One of them earns $75,000/year pre-tax or $55,000 after tax. The other earns $35,000/year pre-tax or $25,000 after tax. 

Half of the second earner's take-home pay goes into the expense budget, and half goes to fund their retirement.

That's with nothing from social security.

Working Year                                    
              Earn After Tax /    Save    / 3% growth
  1           80,000            12,000           
  2           80,000            12,000            24,360 
  3           80,000            12,000            37,091 
  4           80,000            12,000            50,204 
  5           80,000            12,000            63,710 
  6           80,000            12,000            77,621 
  7           80,000            12,000            91,950 
  8           80,000            12,000            106,708 
  9           80,000            12,000            121,909 
  10        80,000            12,000            137,567 
  11        80,000            12,000            153,694 
  12        80,000            12,000            170,304 
  13        80,000            12,000            187,413 
  14        80,000            12,000            205,036 
  15        80,000            12,000            223,187 
  16        80,000            12,000            241,883 
  17        80,000            12,000            261,139 
  18        80,000            12,000            280,973 
  19        80,000            12,000            301,402 
  20        80,000            12,000            322,444 
  21        80,000            12,000            344,118 
  22        80,000            12,000            366,441 
  23        80,000            12,000            389,435 
  24        80,000            12,000            413,118 
  25        80,000            12,000            437,511 
  26        80,000            12,000            462,637 
  27        80,000            12,000            488,516 
  28        80,000            12,000            515,171 
  29        80,000            12,000            542,626 
  30        80,000            12,000            570,905 
  31        80,000            12,000            600,032 
  32        80,000            12,000            630,033 
  33        80,000            12,000            660,934 
  34        80,000            12,000            692,762 
  35        80,000            12,000            725,545 
  retirement year                                 
              spend             
  1           48,000                        699,311 
  2           48,000                        672,291 
  3           48,000                        644,459 
  4           48,000                        615,793 
  5           48,000                        586,267 
  6           48,000                        555,855 
  7           48,000                        524,531 
  8           48,000                        492,267 
  9           48,000                        459,035 
  10        48,000                        424,806 
  11        48,000                        389,550 
  12        48,000                        353,236 
  13        48,000                        315,833 
  14        48,000                        277,308 
  15        48,000                        237,628 
  16        48,000                        196,756 
  17        48,000                        154,659 
  18        48,000                        111,299 
  19        48,000                        66,638 
  20        48,000                        20,637


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

sptung said:


> I grew up wanting to work, very happy that I worked and thank goodness I worked.  I would go stark crazy being a homemaker.  Homemaker work never ends, cleaning, cooking, baby talking when kids are young, talking to walls instead of people during the day.  I enjoy the socialization and the challenge of the grey matter up there.  It is not feminists who ruin for women, it is the recognition that women are smart and "we can do everything that men can do, and more".




I guess this is why we are all different. I don't want to do what men do and I bet there are many men who don't want to either! LOL! My husband can't wait to retire!

I like doing things on my own terms. I like doing what I want to do. I don't want to account to anyone or be on THEIR schedule. I do not find work interesting in the least. I find it to be drudgery and a bore.

All I do at work is talk to people all day and I realize I really don't want to talk to most of them about nonsense. (I am a talker which is why I am in marketing- I do it for a living).

On top of this, it is the schedule of work that really is awful as far as I am concerned. Talk about repetitive! Same thing day in and day out. Wearing out my car and my body. At least if I am home I can plan what I need to do or not do anything at all or do something completely different. I can be spontaneous. As far as I know, work at a job never ends- that is what is endless! And I can't wait for it to end!

Socializing at work with coworkers is minimal. Hell- we only get a 1/2 hour for lunch. Yes, we do have some laughs. Best part of the day.

I am out talking to people all day- some very nice and all that, but I have no connection to these people outside of work. When I retire I won't see them again and I really don't care as we have nothing in common outside of the business connection.

If people want to work until they drop- more power to them. Not me.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

Jason245 said:


> Well marry rich and rep the benefit for life.. don't marry rich. ..
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk



Ha! ha! I should have been born rich instead of beautiful! LOL!


----------



## Laurie (Nov 1, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> I always say the feminists ruined it for a lot of women who just wanted to be  homemakers! In fact, most of my female coworkers agree.


Yeah! and they ruined things for the men and women who didn't want women to have the right to vote, or the right to own property, or decide who and when to marry, or not, and on and on...


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

Sugarcubesea said:


> I'm 54 and I want to retire right now as well… I have to wait till 67 to retire.  During the Great Depression that Michigan was in we lost a lot of income.  Hubby lost his job and it took till 2015 till he could get a direct hire job again. I was forced to take pay cuts. So we have 5 years to make up…
> 
> 
> I just hope I can make it




Same here. Same situation. Pay cuts/layoffs/lost money. Lets hold on for dear life! I am trying to think positive! We are in better shape than most and I am thankful for that. We at least have jobs and income.


----------



## dsmrp (Nov 1, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> Your not kidding! Everyday I just want to scream! In fact, I do scream when I am getting ready for work or in my car! I wish I could feel differently. I try to just be thankful I have a job and the income coming in. But I can't get rid of that dreaded feeling......





mpumilia said:


> I know that. I just want to at least retire at 65, since my husband will already be retired for a year by then and we want to get on with the next phase of our lives. No, actually I want to retire right now! LOL!
> 
> I have health insurance through my husbands employer not mine.
> ...



mpumilia, I get that you don't want to work, I feel that way myself more often than not.  But I like to eat, travel, shop at Costco and have children who need financial help, so it's off to work I go.  Having a job or work you like goes a long way towards life satisfaction.  Since changing paying jobs in middle age is pretty difficult perhaps you could look at doing the following,
if you already haven't:
1. working a little less, e.g. 80%, 4 days a week.  Since your health insurance is thru your husband that's less a factor for having to be FT.
2. telecommuting, 1 day a week, if your job position and employer allows.
3. car-pooling, part ways perhaps, with someone else
4. taking a class in something that interests you
5.  getting that dog


----------



## x3 skier (Nov 1, 2015)

“Life is fair. We all get the same nine-month shake in the box, and then the dice roll. Some people get a run of sevens. Some people, unfortunately, get snake-eyes. Its just how the world is.” 
― Stephen King, Full Dark, No Stars

Cheers


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

Laurie said:


> Yeah! and they ruined things for the men and women who didn't want women to have the right to vote, or the right to own property, or decide who and when to marry, or not, and on and on...



 It's a sarcastic joke I was making and that we make at work. I am not talking about the right to vote or own property. Heck- that stuff was way before my time! 

Did you read the book "The Two Income Trap", by Elizabeth Warren  and Amelia Warren Tyagi? That is more in line with what I am getting at.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

dsmrp said:


> mpumilia, I get that you don't want to work, I feel that way myself more often than not.  But I like to eat, travel, shop at Costco and have children who need financial help, so it's off to work I go.  Having a job or work you like goes a long way towards life satisfaction.  Since changing paying jobs in middle age is pretty difficult perhaps you could look at doing the following,
> if you already haven't:
> 1. working a little less, e.g. 80%, 4 days a week.  Since your health insurance is thru your husband that's less a factor for having to be FT.
> 2. telecommuting, 1 day a week, if your job position and employer allows.
> ...




Lol! Middle age? I am past middle age at almost 60! ha! ha! 

What you say is exactly why I (and most mere mortals) muster up the strength to keep working! 

Can't car pool or telecommute, as my work involves driving all day- with my own car. Ugh!

No time for classes and that would involve more driving after work- I can't even keep my eyes open! Don't need a class anyway; I occupy my free time just fine. I have a varied amount of interests.

Don't get me going on the dog thing....Am waiting until we retire as no one home all day and doing home remodeling right now. Plus, too much in the winter with working and having to take the dog out and so on. I know- had dogs all my life. Want one, though.

Part-time work might be a possibility to ease into retirement financially speaking. I used to work from home and I loved doing so, so that is something I would look into bat some point.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

Conan said:


> This looked better in my Excel spreadsheet.
> 
> It shows that a couple that earns $80,000/year after tax and manages to save $12,000/year of it, investing the savings at a meager 3%/year over their 35-year working life, will have saved enough to withdraw $48,000/year during 20 years of retirement.
> 
> ...



Thanks, Conan! This is great. I have to get a financial planner this year.


----------



## Conan (Nov 1, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> "The Two Income Trap", by Elizabeth Warren  and Amelia Warren Tyagi? That is more in line with what I am getting at.



Book review here:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/04/21/the-warren-brief


----------



## am1 (Nov 1, 2015)

Do most people nearing retirement feel this way?  Posts on this thread are good reason not to hire people nearly retirement or to keep them employed.


----------



## dsmrp (Nov 1, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> Can't car pool or telecommute, as my work involves driving all day- with my own car. Ugh!
> 
> Don't get me going on the dog thing....Am waiting until we retire as no one home all day and doing home remodeling right now. Plus, too much in the winter with working and having to take the dog out and so on. I know- had dogs all my life. Want one, though.



Too bad you can't bring a dog to work.  Since you're using your own car, a dog would be a good driving companion. Some tech-y companies do allow that.  I interviewed for a job at Amazon about 15 years ago, and many of them had dogs at their desks.  I thought strange at the time, but overall culture wasn't for me.


----------



## pedro47 (Nov 1, 2015)

One key to having a good retirement is to start saving early. Also, you need to invest into a good ROTH account with a low expense ratio.


----------



## isisdave (Nov 1, 2015)

*Musings*

I do think that the fact that two-earner households are now the norm has pushed costs up.  It's just supply and demand ... a family who is willing and able to pay twice as much will be able to find a way to do that.

When I was a kid 50 years ago, 1500 square feet was an ENORMOUS house, and electronics were relatively expensive, so one TV was standard. Moms rarely worked. They did lots of volunteer work and organized things like community theatre. Child care wasn't an issue because they could stay at home. An illness could be managed more easily. And there was huge pressure to stay married, because most women were economically dependent.

But now standards are different, and families want big houses and lavish vacations and roomfuls of electronics. Still, settling for smaller places in not-so-expensive locations would let most families get by with one income, at least some of the time.

Or course things are different now; there wasn't "outsourcing" then or sending jobs abroad, and a lot more work was done manually. The lack of predictability (and pensions!) has really had an effect.

If you're looking at the bottom for my solution, I'm sorry ... don't have one. We were lucky, had about 1.6 jobs at a time averaged over 40 years, and are embarking on a modest retirement with hopefully adequate resources.

Here are a couple of planning tools I've found useful:

http://www.flexibleretirementplanner.com/wp/

http://www.firecalc.com/

and good input from http://www.early-retirement.org/

all of which will help you think of Social Security as the frosting on your cake.


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 1, 2015)

am1 said:


> Do most people nearing retirement feel this way?  Posts on this thread are good reason not to hire people nearly retirement or to keep them employed.



No.  I want to keep working, even into my 80s if health and husband permit.  Husband ready to retire but I want to work.


----------



## x3 skier (Nov 1, 2015)

am1 said:


> Do most people nearing retirement feel this way?  Posts on this thread are good reason not to hire people nearly retirement or to keep them employed.



Retired 17 years ago and very very happy about it. Lots of IRA and 401k savings I don't really need, live in the same house that was paid for many years before I retired, part time work just for something to do, travel where and when I want to, spoiling grandkids, etc, etc, etc. 

Life is better than good. 

Cheers


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 1, 2015)

am1 said:


> Do most people nearing retirement feel this way?  Posts on this thread are good reason not to hire people nearly retirement or to keep them employed.



No.  I worked between 10 and 12 hours a day until the day I retired.  I actually wondered if I would be able to adjust to being retired.  Answer is that it took all of 24 hours.

George


----------



## Helaine (Nov 1, 2015)

I have been lucky.  I've done work I love most of my life, so I was in no hurry to retire.  Seeing all the traveling people do here is making me consider it though.


----------



## Helaine (Nov 1, 2015)

bogey21 said:


> No.  I worked between 10 and 12 hours a day until the day I retired.  I actually wondered if I would be able to adjust to being retired.  Answer is that it took all of 24 hours.
> 
> George



I've worried about that too!  Good to know.


----------



## x3 skier (Nov 1, 2015)

bogey21 said:


> No.  I worked between 10 and 12 hours a day until the day I retired.  I actually wondered if I would be able to adjust to being retired.  Answer is that it took all of 24 hours.
> 
> George



Same for me except I never even thought about needing to adjust. My wife was worried about my adjustment but not me.

Three days after I retired, I was in Steamboat Springs, had a place to live, a season ski pass and was on the mountain skiing. It would have been sooner but it took two days to drive there. :whoopie:

Cheers


----------



## vacationhopeful (Nov 1, 2015)

x3 skier said:


> Same for me except I never even thought about needing to adjust. My wife was worried about my adjustment but not me.
> 
> Three days after I retired, I was in Steamboat Springs, had a place to live, a season ski pass and was on the mountain skiing. It would have been sooner but it took two days to drive there. :whoopie:
> 
> Cheers



Where was the wife? Still working or with you skiing?


----------



## x3 skier (Nov 1, 2015)

vacationhopeful said:


> Where was the wife? Still working or with you skiing?



She came with me having left her job several years previously. She worked because she enjoyed it, not because she had to and stopped working when she wanted. 

Cheers


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

dsmrp said:


> Too bad you can't bring a dog to work.  Since you're using your own car, a dog would be a good driving companion. Some tech-y companies do allow that.  I interviewed for a job at Amazon about 15 years ago, and many of them had dogs at their desks.  I thought strange at the time, but overall culture wasn't for me.



Gosh! I would love that! When I worked at home (also had to drive all over on that job, but had a home office) and had my dogs by my side it was wonderful. Best of both worlds- I could throw a load of laundry in and start dinner while I worked on my computer. Heaven for someone like me- as far as jobs go.


----------



## Fern Modena (Nov 1, 2015)

Gee, none of my (blue collar) coworkers feel that way. We were very ardent feminists, back in the day, working to see that we got the same pay as the men did for the same job. THAT is what it was all about, not forcing all women to work.

I worked in an industry where I was outnumbered by about 150 to 1 by men in those days. Now women are about 15% of the workforce, and if you talk to any of them, they are there because they want to be. Its very competitive, in part because women can make good money there without a college degree (there are other reasons, too).

Fern



mpumilia said:


> I always say the feminists ruined it for a lot of women who just wanted to be  homemakers! In fact, most of my female coworkers agree.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

am1 said:


> Do most people nearing retirement feel this way?  Posts on this thread are good reason not to hire people nearly retirement or to keep them employed.



No. I have very good friends- a couple 84 and 80. Both worked until they were 80 for the money and because they liked it. Kept them connected they said.

I also have another friend who is my age and she likes her job, but still is looking forward to retiring. And she works from home and has lots of flexibility. She can travel and work from her second home in Florida and with her job.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

Fern Modena said:


> Gee, none of my (blue collar) coworkers feel that way. We were very ardent feminists, back in the day, working to see that we got the same pay as the men did for the same job. THAT is what it was all about, not forcing all women to work.
> 
> I worked in an industry where I was outnumbered by about 150 to 1 by men in those days. Now women are about 15% of the workforce, and if you talk to any of them, they are there because they want to be. Its very competitive, in part because women can make good money there without a college degree (there are other reasons, too).
> 
> Fern



That's great. I just was never a career type person. I'm the kind that most career women or feminists so to speak despise and look down upon. More domestic and introverted believe it or not, although I am very gregarious and social and talkative.

People would never suspect this of me. I do not come across that way and the position I have certainly doesn't resonate to this (Physician Liaison). I work with nurses, and doctors and radiology techs all day. I am well-liked by my coworkers and my bosses. (I look at it as kind of like an acting job where the best parts of me come out, but where deep inside I am really someone else. Some days I really have to force it). Certainly working has helped me grow as a person- I will give you that. It forced me to stretch myself. But I have had it with the stretching at this point! 

I think if I never worked I might have maybe joined an organization to connect with the community. I do belong to 2 organizations right now, but I don't have a lot of time or energy to give them. I try to participate as much as I can, but it ain't much.

I feel that with working I have 2 jobs (most people do): the work at home and the paid work. I have always felt the work at home took up enough of my time and was rewarding. I am the one that handles the domestic work (cooking, cleaning, laundry, decorating, some outdoor things) and the finances. Hubby handles domestic work as well- the outside stuff and maintenance and fixing things. We like THAT work. Maybe we should have been farmers! LOL!

As I am getting older, it's harder to have 2 "jobs".


----------



## radmoo (Nov 1, 2015)

dsmrp said:


> mpumilia, I get that you don't want to work, I feel that way myself more often than not.  But I like to eat, travel, shop at Costco and have children who need financial help, so it's off to work I go.  Having a job or work you like goes a long way towards life satisfaction.  Since changing paying jobs in middle age is pretty difficult perhaps you could look at doing the following,
> if you already haven't:
> 1. working a little less, e.g. 80%, 4 days a week.  Since your health insurance is thru your husband that's less a factor for having to be FT.
> 2. telecommuting, 1 day a week, if your job position and employer allows.
> ...




I would LOVE to cut back to 4 day work week and/ or 1 day tel-commute.  Problem is my employers are Not interestd in work/life balance for the employees.  So. , too, at age 63 1/2 am looking to extricate myself from the madness.  Hubby is 14 years my senior and already retired.  Hopefully We can make things work.  
I also am disillusioned with SSA.  If I file now and work p/t, I have to pay back $1 for every $2 earned over $14k?  The system makes little sense to me, they clearly need to move into 21st century and 21st century economics.


----------



## ondeadlin (Nov 1, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> I always say the feminists ruined it for a lot of women who just wanted to be  homemakers!



Comments like this - and the support they receive - always remind me how TUG skews heavily, heavily toward the post-50 crowd (of which I am not a part). None of my friends or co-workers, or my wife's friends or co-workers have ever expressed a sentiment like this to either of us.

Because the fact is, nothing is ruined.  Absolutely nothing.  I have friends and co-workers in their 20s, 30s and 40s who all opted out of work to raise children, some of whom returned (some full and some part-time) and others who did not.

None of them, incidentally, have a negative thing to say about feminism, and I've seen them roll their eyes at those who do (usually men, in fairness to the OP).

The fact is, most married women who choose to work do so for one of two reasons: 1. They want to; or 2. They can't afford not to (or both, I suppose).  Neither has anything to do with feminism.

Incidentally, my 70-something mom and I were talking today about the fact that the four superiors in my chain of command at the United States Attorneys office are all women:  The U.S. Attorney, her No. 2, the head of the civil division, and the head of my unit.  They are all incredible at their jobs.  Think of all that talent that was wasted when women were (and still are) actively excluded from the workplace.


----------



## rapmarks (Nov 1, 2015)

well  I am well post 50, and I don't like that comment at all.   yes, a person who never worked will get half of the spouse's  ss, but they went without all that added income all those years. 

 I have done both, taking off eight years for my children  consequently, I lost income, received a much lower pension, and when i went back, got a big hit in pay, but I got to enjoy my children and I wish my daughter had that opportunity too.  she is not a feminist, she is a single mom


----------



## Blues (Nov 1, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> Oh, yeah- right, I forgot about that- the pay pack of benefits! Hmmm.....but why would she not just wait to file later and if she gets sick she files then for the higher benefit at whatever age she is? Do you mean you could use the payback money for medical expenses if she goes the suspend route?



No, I wasn't talking about the pay back of benefits (which is now restricted to just one year, BTW, and I think it's going to 6 months with the new budget deal).  Just the opposite, actually.

I was talking about using file and suspend to lock in the fact that you indeed "filed" at age 66, but are waiting 'til age 70 to get a higher benefit because it will yield more money over your lifetime.  But then something happens to make you believe that you won't live long enough for that higher benefit to work out.  So you call the SSA, un-suspend your filing, and get back-benefits from age 66 to present.  You'll then be locking in the lower benefit, but presumably you have a reason to now believe that will work out better.

Bob


----------



## Sandy (Nov 1, 2015)

Recently "retired" after a forced downsizing.  I was really scared, figuring I was not financially ready.  Caring for a disabled DH compounded the problems and my stress levels. I read this book, How to Retire Happy, Wild, and Free, which focuses on all of the other benefits of retirement. Plus, it shows that retirement is not all geared on the financial aspects which most financial advisers caution against.  After all, if I listened to them, I would be scared to death that I could never survive. I believe that the book talks about some of the life benefits that many TUGGERS value. This book brings another perspective to the conversation -

http://www.amazon.com/How-Retire-Ha...-1&keywords=how+to+retire+happy+wild+and+free


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Nov 1, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> Same here. Same situation. Pay cuts/layoffs/lost money. Lets hold on for dear life! I am trying to think positive! We are in better shape than most and I am thankful for that. We at least have jobs and income.



I so agree, after the Great Depression that hit our state I'm very grateful that I'm employed at a great place, with a decent 401K, and a decent bonus (if we hit our numbers) we finally can afford to do some much needed repairs to our home and through the help of TUG I was able to purchase a timeshare that will allow our family to bond.


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Nov 1, 2015)

pedro47 said:


> One key to having a good retirement is to start saving early. Also, you need to invest into a good ROTH account with a low expense ratio.



Does anyone have any low cost Roth IRA to invest with.  I have one that I don't want to put any more money into as the fees nickle and dime me


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

Sugarcubesea said:


> Does anyone have any low cost Roth IRA to invest with.  I have one that I don't want to put any more money into as the fees nickle and dime me



I use T Rowe Price for all my IRAS, including a Roth. And all my other accounts as well.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

Sandy said:


> Recently "retired" after a forced downsizing.  I was really scared, figuring I was not financially ready.  Caring for a disabled DH compounded the problems and my stress levels. I read this book, How to Retire Happy, Wild, and Free, which focuses on all of the other benefits of retirement. Plus, it shows that retirement is not all geared on the financial aspects which most financial advisers caution against.  After all, if I listened to them, I would be scared to death that I could never survive. I believe that the book talks about some of the life benefits that many TUGGERS value. This book brings another perspective to the conversation -
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/How-Retire-Ha...-1&keywords=how+to+retire+happy+wild+and+free



I read it. Very good!


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

rapmarks said:


> well  I am well post 50, and I don't like that comment at all.   yes, a person who never worked will get half of the spouse's  ss, but they went without all that added income all those years.
> 
> I have done both, taking off eight years for my children  consequently, I lost income, received a much lower pension, and when i went back, got a big hit in pay, but I got to enjoy my children and I wish my daughter had that opportunity too.  she is not a feminist, she is a single mom




But that person went without that income by choice. They did not pay into the system. Why should people who did pay into the system have to pay for someone who chose not to? SS is not supposed to be welfare or an entitlement program so to speak.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

Blues said:


> No, I wasn't talking about the pay back of benefits (which is now restricted to just one year, BTW, and I think it's going to 6 months with the new budget deal).  Just the opposite, actually.
> 
> I was talking about using file and suspend to lock in the fact that you indeed "filed" at age 66, but are waiting 'til age 70 to get a higher benefit because it will yield more money over your lifetime.  But then something happens to make you believe that you won't live long enough for that higher benefit to work out.  So you call the SSA, un-suspend your filing, and get back-benefits from age 66 to present.  You'll then be locking in the lower benefit, but presumably you have a reason to now believe that will work out better.
> 
> Bob




I am sorry. I am still not understanding. I admit, I am not the sharpest tool in the shed. 

You said in the first paragraph that you are not talking about a payback of benefits and that they are restricted to one year and possibly 6 months now, but in the second paragraph you are stating that you would would get back- benefits from age 66 to whatever age you un suspend. 

Which is it?


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

You might not like the "feminist" comment (which is a joke) but I will tell you that at least where I work, most of the women get it and in fact, most of them of ALL ages- especially the YOUNGER ones and most definitely the older ones - don't want to work but have to. (Most of the younger ones never voted a day in their lives and many do not own any property except their cars. Some are single mothers) 

That's my story and I''m sticking to it. Maybe the culture is different up here in Hudson Valley NY than where you are from.


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 1, 2015)

rapmarks said:


> ....I don't like that comment at all.   Yes, a person who never worked will get half of the spouse's  ss, but they went without all that added income all those years.



I agree with this.  Because I traveled a lot during my career I strongly  encouraged my wife to stay home and take care of our 3 kids.  To this day I believe the reason our kids turned out so well is because she was there to monitor and manage their activities.

When we divorced I willingly agreed that she would get about 45% of my pension while I am alive, increasing to 55% after I die.  The assumption being that she will outlive me as I am 20 years her senior.  She has been collecting for 15 years now and I am 100% comfortable with our arrangement as I believe she earned every penny she is getting.

George


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 1, 2015)

bogey21 said:


> I agree with this.  Because I traveled a lot during my career I strongly  encouraged my wife to stay home and take care of our 3 kids.  To this day I believe the reason our kids turned out so well is because she was there to monitor and manage their activities.
> 
> When we divorced I willingly agreed that she would get about 45% of my pension while I am alive, increasing to 55% after I die.  The assumption being that she will outlive me as I am 20 years her senior.  She has been collecting for 15 years now and I am 100% comfortable with our arrangement as I believe she earned every penny she is getting.
> 
> George




A private pension and a divorce settlement are different animals from a SS check.


----------



## elaine (Nov 1, 2015)

RE. women having to work---even for those with high incomes and professional degrees, many now HAVE to work b/c of student loans. My niece graduated from an Ivy law school with $200K in loans. She's 28 now. Even if she wanted to, she does not have the option of being a home-maker or even taking a significant break to raise kids, as she has to repay her loans. And pretty much all of her peers are in the same boat.
I went to a state law school 3 decades ago--a decision I made b/cof the costs--I couldn't imagine having $40K in student loans from a private shcool. I didn't get the prestige, but I did get the luxury of having no debt and being able to do whatever I wanted. I now see this thinking coming back into fashion.


----------



## Jason245 (Nov 1, 2015)

elaine said:


> RE. women having to work---even for those with high incomes and professional degrees, many now HAVE to work b/c of student loans. My niece graduated from an Ivy law school with $200K in loans. She's 28 now. Even if she wanted to, she does not have the option of being a home-maker or even taking a significant break to raise kids, as she has to repay her loans. And pretty much all of her peers are in the same boat.
> I went to a state law school 3 decades ago--a decision I made b/cof the costs--I couldn't imagine having $40K in student loans from a private shcool. I didn't get the prestige, but I did get the luxury of having no debt and being able to do whatever I wanted. I now see this thinking coming back into fashion.


That is the thinking I followed  15 years ago. .it served me well. . State school on a combination of scholarships and tuition reimbursement. . Walked out with degrees, no debt and a decent career path. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 1, 2015)

rapmarks said:


> well  I am well post 50, and I don't like that comment at all.   yes, a person who never worked will get half of the spouse's  ss, but they went without all that added income all those years.


Huh, we the taxpayers (SS contributors) are supposed to pay someone SS who has chosen not to work?  Somone who has not contributed into SS and gets to collect "extra" does not bode well with alot of us.  It needs to be fixed in the next round of SS tweaks, only if politicians don't worry about pissing off the homemaker voters.


----------



## am1 (Nov 1, 2015)

sptung said:


> Huh, we the taxpayers (SS contributors) are supposed to pay someone SS who has chosen not to work?  Somone who has not contributed into SS and gets to collect "extra" does not bode well with alot of us.  It needs to be fixed in the next round of SS tweaks, only if politicians don't worry about pissing off the homemaker voters.



I agree.  I do not like double dipping or a much younger spouse getting the survivor benefits.  There is not enough money in social security fund for people to game the system.  

I think what one pays into a government pension plan is what they should get paid out but that is not the case.


----------



## tompalm (Nov 1, 2015)

Sugarcubesea said:


> Does anyone have any low cost Roth IRA to invest with.  I have one that I don't want to put any more money into as the fees nickle and dime me



The Roth account cost peanuts and should not be a factor. The fees you pay for a mutual fund cost money. Vanguard has the lowest cost in the industry. Fidelity offers the most funds with lowest fees to pick from. At the end of your investing, the most important part is the rate of return you achieved over the years. The only thing more important is not taking a big loss like the market took in 2008. There is program I use to follow which funds to use and when to change them. It will tell you when to move to cash and when to buy back in. It is all based on technical analysis, computer driven and back tested for proven results. The link is below. If you want more info, send me a pm. 

http://www.sumgrowth.com/default.aspx


----------



## Jason245 (Nov 1, 2015)

sptung said:


> Huh, we the taxpayers (SS contributors) are supposed to pay someone SS who has chosen not to work?  Somone who has not contributed into SS and gets to collect "extra" does not bode well with alot of us.  It needs to be fixed in the next round of SS tweaks, only if politicians don't worry about pissing off the homemaker voters.


Stay at home parents do a lot of uncompensated work.. and our entire tax and entitlement system is based on them..Hense the marriage penalty. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## Jason245 (Nov 1, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> But that person went without that income by choice. They did not pay into the system. Why should people who did pay into the system have to pay for someone who chose not to? SS is not supposed to be welfare or an entitlement program so to speak.


Social Security is and was designed to be welfare and entitlement. . If you don't think so.. go back to the fdr proposal on it..

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 1, 2015)

Jason245 said:


> Stay at home parents do a lot of uncompensated work.. and our entire tax and entitlement system is based on them..Hense the marriage penalty.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk



Stay at home parents are working for themselves, their spouse and children.  Why should society pay for them when they are not contributing outside of their own family circle?   Marriage penalty hits 2-income family especially when both are equal income earners.  No fair.

PS. I hate the word entitlement.  That is living in CA for too long... it is the State of entitlement.  Don't start me...


----------



## Jason245 (Nov 1, 2015)

sptung said:


> Stay at home parents are working for themselves, their spouse and children.  Why should society pay for them when they are not contributing outside of their own family circle?   Marriage penalty hits 2-income family especially when both are equal income earners.  No fair.
> 
> PS. I hate the word entitlement.  That is living in CA for too long... it is the State of entitlement.  Don't start me...


They are providing the support role needed for their partner to be successful. .

Marriage penalty sux.. it hits hard when there are two income households. .benefits one income households  (the traditional family ). 

Just to be clear,  you are for those people getting Nothing and living on the street begging for handouts when their partner of 50 years dies? 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## tompalm (Nov 1, 2015)

sptung said:


> Huh, we the taxpayers (SS contributors) are supposed to pay someone SS who has chosen not to work?  Somone who has not contributed into SS and gets to collect "extra" does not bode well with alot of us.  It needs to be fixed in the next round of SS tweaks, only if politicians don't worry about pissing off the homemaker voters.



This is such a minor issue compared to how the politicans already spent our money or how we paid in 2 or 3 times more than we will ever receive.  There are such bigger issues to worry about like the cost of Medicare or how the next generation will pay off or down the debt this country has built up. Now that is something to be angry about. This thread started because of cutbacks. Stand by for more. 

My father used to say "cheer up, things could always be worse".  We could have been born in a third world country with nothing, or North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc...  Everyday I wake up and thank God I was born in America.  The government has made a lot of mistakes, but we are still better off than 90 percent of other people in the world.


----------



## am1 (Nov 1, 2015)

tompalm said:


> My father used to say "cheer up, things could always be worse".  We could have been born in a third world country with nothing, or North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, etc...  Everyday I wake up and thank God I was born in America.  The government has made a lot of mistakes, but we are still better off than 90 percent of other people in the world.



Insulting to compare all 3rd world countries to the other 4 you mentioned here.  

You may be right that it could always be worse off but the world is changing.  Better off than 90% is going to get lower.  For sure not happier than 90% now.


----------



## tompalm (Nov 1, 2015)

am1 said:


> Insulting to compare all 3rd world countries to the other 4 you mentioned here.
> 
> You may be right that it could always be worse off but the world is changing.  Better off than 90% is going to get lower.  For sure not happier than 90% now.



Nobody is comparing third world countries to the other four I mentioned.  You are making things up. The point was we are better off than any of those. Being content and happy is a better way of life than being angry all the time. Let it go and move on.


----------



## dsmrp (Nov 1, 2015)

tompalm said:


> Nobody is comparing third world countries to the other four I mentioned.  You are making things up. The point was we are better off than any of those. Being content and happy is a better way of life than being angry all the time. Let it go and move on.



Totally agree!
IMO dissatisfaction and unhappiness occurs when reality does not meet our expectations.  The only things we can change are ourselves, our behavior and our expectations.  And doing that sometimes can affect others.  I know... easier said than done...moving on.


----------



## Fern Modena (Nov 1, 2015)

You want to be ticked about Social Security? Here's one...

I worked with a May -->  December couple. When he was 65, he retired. She was 35, and had been working about ten years. She continued to work. He was able to collect Social Security, not only for himself, but for "the minor child." Somehow I don't think that was the original intent of Social Security.

Fern


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 2, 2015)

Jason245 said:


> They are providing the support role needed for their partner to be successful. .
> 
> Marriage penalty sux.. it hits hard when there are two income households. .benefits one income households  (the traditional family ).
> 
> ...



No, I believe in widow/widower benefits.  Just not the 50% additional SS that is not earned.


----------



## tompalm (Nov 2, 2015)

sptung said:


> No, I believe in widow/widower benefits.  Just not the 50% additional SS that is not earned.



The number of people that have never worked is pretty small. Most people work a few years here or there and obtained some benefit. All you have to do is work 40 quarters to qualify for your own benefit. My wife worked eight years before we were married and latter worked three years after our son was grown. So she met the minimum requirements and is egilible for $1150 at age 65. Her spouse benefit will be a little more than $1250.  The max spouse benefit might be $1300.  So in most cases, it doesn't cost much for the government to pay the spouse benefit. 

The ones that lived off welfare probably married others on welfare and never achieved much of a benefit. The minimum benefit for low wage earners that worked 40 quarters is less than $1000. So the spouse benefit is less than $500. 

There will be more cutbacks coming as the government tries to balance the budget. The cutbacks will not be to those people that have low income. The cutbacks will be for those that already paid the most and still have high income from investments or those that have a large amount of wealth.  I just hope the government can balance the budget. The Paper money will be worthless soon if it doesn't.


----------



## Jason245 (Nov 2, 2015)

sptung said:


> No, I believe in widow/widower benefits.  Just not the 50% additional SS that is not earned.


So you believe that two people who didn't save enough should live off of 1 social security check and collect other government benefits  (food stamps ) instead of 2 checks.. 

Ultimately, a whole generation in this country thought that they would win the lotto,  only to find themselves overweight and broke and having destroyed the environment.  This type of Change won't impact the boomers  since they are already at or near retirement and instead will screw the melenials or Gen x ers.. sounds like a fantastic plan.. when in doubt screw the younger generation, which has been the mantra for the last 30 years anyway. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 2, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> A private pension and a divorce settlement are different animals from a SS check.



No kidding.  The point I was trying to make (inarticularly I guess)  was that allowing surviving spouses to collect on husbands Social Security is appropriate when the surviving spouse's job was to stay at home,take care of the home front and take care of the kids.  This was the model when Social Security was implemented and still holds true for families that follow the old model.

George


----------



## vacationtime1 (Nov 2, 2015)

bogey21 said:


> No kidding.  The point I was trying to make (inarticularly I guess)  was that allowing surviving spouses to collect on husbands Social Security is appropriate when the surviving spouse's job was to stay at home,take care of the home front and take care of the kids.  This was the model when Social Security was implemented and still holds true for families that follow the old model.
> 
> George



I don't think anyone questions the propriety of a widow collecting a survivor's pension based on the deceased spouse's social security contributions.  

The difference is that "file and suspend" allows a spouse in an intact marriage to collect a survivor's pension while the other spouse is alive.


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 2, 2015)

Jason245 said:


> So you believe that two people who didn't save enough should live off of 1 social security check and collect other government benefits  (food stamps ) instead of 2 checks..
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk



Yes, because they come from separate accounts.  Food stamps, at least in California, comes from the general fund and it comes out of a "balanced" budget each year.  No borrowing from the future or hiding the problem.  Plus it is needs based, as opposed to stroke of a brush in SS in claiming 50 percent.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 2, 2015)

bogey21 said:


> No kidding.  The point I was trying to make (inarticularly I guess)  was that allowing surviving spouses to collect on husbands Social Security is appropriate when the surviving spouse's job was to stay at home,take care of the home front and take care of the kids.  This was the model when Social Security was implemented and still holds true for families that follow the old model.
> 
> George



Surviving- yes. I agree. But not when the working spouse is alive and collecting his or her's SS.  That's what my beef is. In effect, that couple gets two checks when only one worked.

Not for nothing- I would have liked to stay home. Instead I roll my butt out of bed every day at 4am- had to take care of my house and kid and everything else anyway- while the stay at home spouse (mom, dad. or not. Why does everyone think a stay at home spouses are always parents?) can take their time in the am, go to their yoga class while the kids (if they have them) are in school, have lunch out with a friend and do their hobbies, shopping or whatever else they want to do. So that non working person should collect in many cases the same SS benefit as me in addition to his/her spouse's SS check? If you think that is fair I don't know what else to say...


----------



## am1 (Nov 2, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> Surviving- yes. I agree. But not when the working spouse is alive and collecting his or her's SS.  That's what my beef is. In effect, that couple gets two checks when only one worked.



Even 65 and 28?  How much social security should the surviving spouse get in that case?  There really is nothing fair about social security.  

Or what about someone that just works the minimum amount of quarters at the minimum amount of pay at the tail end of their working career?  Their payments are going to be a lot better then someone who paid for 45 years.  The first person may already be collecting a pension from a different country.


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 2, 2015)

am1 said:


> Even 65 and 28?  How much social security should the surviving spouse get in that case?  There really is nothing fair about social security.
> 
> Or what about someone that just works the minimum amount of quarters at the minimum amount of pay at the tail end of their working career?  Their payments are going to be a lot better then someone who paid for 45 years.  The first person may already be collecting a pension from a different country.



Surviving spouse can only start collecting at 60.

The first person will collect waaaay less from the SS system.  It averages income/SS contributions from the highest 35 years of contribution.  No work equals zero for that year.  There is a formula that gets applied, with greater weightage given to the lower brackets (grouped into 3 brackets) after the average is derived.


----------



## Conan (Nov 2, 2015)

vacationtime1 said:


> I don't think anyone questions the propriety of a widow collecting a survivor's pension based on the deceased spouse's social security contributions.
> 
> The difference is that "file and suspend" allows a spouse in an intact marriage to collect a survivor's pension while the other spouse is alive.



The new budget deal ends file and suspend as a means to get additional spousal benefits.

The perceived inequality is something else: A spouse who never worked collects an extra 50% in every year of their retirement for which no social security taxes were ever paid. In contrast to the second-earner spouse who paid taxes every year and in most cases gets not a penny more than a spouse who never worked.

If the sole earner/higher earner in the couple then dies, the surviving spouse in both cases steps up to 100%. Most people wouldn't deny that to the spouse who never worked, but again the surviving spouse who did work gets not a penny more.


----------



## geekette (Nov 2, 2015)

bogey21 said:


> Full disclosure, I am retired with a Pension (Defined Benefit Plan) from my last employer.  However, IMO the problem started with Employers being incented to first create, then switch to Defined Contribution Plans.  Yes, I know it facilitates employee mobility, etc. but it puts too much pressure on Social Security (which should be a back-up) and is going to cause a train wreck down the road when younger generations reach retirement age.  Many in this generation are unwilling or unable to save for retirement partially because they will spend much of their lives paying off Student Debt.  In addition allowing employees to borrow against or close out 401ks for instant gratification should never have been allowed.  Thus, although well intended authorizing 401ks in their current form and facilitating the expansion of student debt are doing more damage than good.
> 
> George


Disagree on a few small points.  

Part of contributing to 401k is understanding that it is My Money.  Over-contributing with the knowledge I could take a loan out worked well for me.   I otherwise might not have put so much away, would have kept more in savings account so I could get to it when crap happens.  Of course I should be allowed to use my money for whatever I want.  It is not advantageous to cash out but sometimes people lose their jobs and I would rather allow them to cash out THEIR MONEY than live on the street.  Note also that people don't always have one giant 401k. For a while, I had 5.  Recently I had 3 until old one rolled into main nest egg while new job starts new 401k at $0.  cashing out that last one might have helped me in a few ways with current problems but rolling it over serves my retirement.  There is no reason why govt should forbid me from taking my 3 year old 401k, paying the taxes and penalties and using it however I want.  It is My Money.  

The max contributions on IRAs needs to be raised, significantly, to about same as 401k because not everyone has a 401k and why should a person without a 401k not be allowed to contribute as much?  This single thing could help a lot but IRA limits remain pitifully low.

-- previous poster said 401k is tax deductible, this is incorrect, it is pre-tax.  IRA can be tax deductible, or not, depending on your situation.


----------



## geekette (Nov 2, 2015)

*Taxes by state*



dsmrp said:


> Friend of mine made a spreadsheet of all the states to find the cheaper ones for retirees to live in.  There were some online articles on the same thing.
> She quit working nearly 20 years ago before her first child was born, and they lived off her husband's salary.  They made some good stock investments and he retired early last year, and their eldest is still a senior in high school. I don't know how else they can afford it. But they live semi-frugally.
> 
> I never thought when I was younger, that the last 10+ years before retirement was going to feel as LONG as it does



http://www.kiplinger.com/tool/retir...by-state-guide-to-taxes-on-retirees/index.php

IMO, best of its kind for figuring out what taxes you will Really face in different states.


----------



## klpca (Nov 2, 2015)

tompalm said:


> This thread started because of cutbacks. Stand by for more.



This.

It helps to look at SS in the context of when it was created. There weren't a lot of two earner families then, and I imagine that the numbers at that time were worked in a way that allowed for a benefit to be paid for the non-working spouse. Times and attitudes have, and continue, to change. Once the politicians feel that they can tinker with SS and not face any repercussions at the ballot box, they will make changes. They will probably have to, to keep the program afloat. My understanding was that SS was supposed to be a safety net. I think that we are headed back to that model. 

My husband and I have never, ever had a pension plan. We started saving for retirement when we were in our early 20's (always a 401(k)). We started out saving 2% and bumped up that percentage whenever we received a raise. It took a few years, but lo and behold, eventually we were saving 15% of our salary. You never even miss it if you do it gradually. We have been lucky and have never had any job layoffs. But we have also lived frugally - still in the same house after nearly 30 years, drive "regular" cars - which we drive until they fall apart, we camped with our kids when we were younger - because we couldn't afford anything else. We stayed out of credit card debt. We paid off our student loans.

I have always worked part time because it was what worked best for our family, and also because I watched my mom struggle after my dad left our family. She had no skill, no degree, and no credit. I was determined to not wind up in that situation. But I certainly don't begrudge anything to those people who stayed home instead of working. It's just not for me. 

Just read what Geekette wrote and I agree about the IRA limits, but if you are in that situation, put in the max and then save the rest in a regular account. I realize that you miss out on the tax benefit (and that is a shame) but it's not an excuse for not having enough retirement savings. If you don't have enough to retire on when you turn 65 (or whatever - my FRA is 67+ yay  ) then you will have to dial back your lifestyle. 

_Edit - not going to take this out because that would be a chickensh!t move, but I want to clarify that the earlier part of my post is not directed at you (OP). I used to hate (HATE!) my job too. Sometimes you have to make a change even if it seems impossible. There are better things out there.  _ OP - you need to make a change in your life. You aren't as stuck as you think you are. Trust me, if you were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow you would suddenly be able to see your options quite clearly. You have lived in your home for a long time - surely you can sell for enough to payoff your loan? Then move somewhere cheap and rent. There are places that have a very low cost of living. Life is too short.


----------



## geekette (Nov 2, 2015)

sptung said:


> I grew up wanting to work, very happy that I worked and thank goodness I worked.  I would go stark crazy being a homemaker.  Homemaker work never ends, cleaning, cooking, baby talking when kids are young, talking to walls instead of people during the day.  I enjoy the socialization and the challenge of the grey matter up there.  It is not feminists who ruin for women, it is the recognition that women are smart and "we can do everything that men can do, and more".


Two sides to the coin.  

I also would go nuts "staying home" and doing housework and play dates, etc.  But the fact of the matter is that for the propagation of the species, there will be pregnant females, and there will be young to raise.  Society needs this.  Starving the widowed females that brought up the youth is not an idea I would support, even tho I never had any interest in having children.  

Females are already mommy-tracked on the basis of being female and we earn less, on the basis of being female, so we can save less, on the basis of being female since price of milk is not modified to female pay.  To further punish the only gender that can bear children by not allowing them to stay home and raise their own children would be fairly devastating and we would have a lot more very poor women and kids bringing themselves up because Mommy has to work, too.

I could have chosen to be a housewife and pop out kids as my life's work and get old age pay on the basis of spousehood.  None of this is perfect, but denying females some kind of widow offset is very important to people like my mother, who already is barely making it on Dad's pension and SS.  She raised me to be a productive citizen so in some ways, she paid her debt to society, it's just that society didn't value it in dollars and cents.  And never will.


----------



## geekette (Nov 2, 2015)

am1 said:


> Do most people nearing retirement feel this way?  Posts on this thread are good reason not to hire people nearly retirement or to keep them employed.



Not sure what "near" means, but I'm within 10 years and I am ready to retire today.  Too much of my life spent on call, fouling My Time.  It's simply too many hours out of my life spent at someone elses direction, while I want control of my waking hours.  

I have enjoyed my career but have hit burnout a few times and this time it is really enduring.  Humans weren't meant to "be on" 24x7.  I need more downtime that Sat and Sun provide.


----------



## geekette (Nov 2, 2015)

Sugarcubesea said:


> Does anyone have any low cost Roth IRA to invest with.  I have one that I don't want to put any more money into as the fees nickle and dime me



Sharebuilder.com (now Capital One Investing).   There are fund families with no transaction fees, plenty of index funds in those families, and you can also invest in stocks.  Sometimes you can find a special promo where transferring your existing account in gains $ or free trades.


----------



## geekette (Nov 2, 2015)

elaine said:


> RE. women having to work---even for those with high incomes and professional degrees, many now HAVE to work b/c of student loans. My niece graduated from an Ivy law school with $200K in loans. She's 28 now. Even if she wanted to, she does not have the option of being a home-maker or even taking a significant break to raise kids, as she has to repay her loans. And pretty much all of her peers are in the same boat.
> I went to a state law school 3 decades ago--a decision I made b/cof the costs--I couldn't imagine having $40K in student loans from a private shcool. I didn't get the prestige, but I did get the luxury of having no debt and being able to do whatever I wanted. I now see this thinking coming back into fashion.



yeah, but....   why would someone that doesn't want a career rack up giant student loans anyway???   Really, if you don't want to work, don't run up a multi hundred thousand dollar tab.


----------



## geekette (Nov 2, 2015)

klpca said:


> Just read what Geekette wrote and I agree about the IRA limits, but if you are in that situation, put in the max and then save the rest in a regular account. I realize that you miss out on the tax benefit (and that is a shame) but it's not an excuse for not having enough retirement savings. If you don't have enough to retire on when you turn 65 (or whatever - my FRA is 67+ yay  ) then you will have to dial back your lifestyle.



Thanks for adding that point.  Because I want to quit working before age 59.5 I have begun saving a lot more in my taxable portfolio, whether or not I've hit max on retirement shelters.  

I am averse to paying 10% penalty to get at retirement savings below 59.5 but also do not want to raid Roth.  If I can't make it on taxable savings, will go ahead and take from Roth, but problem is, you can't put the money back!


----------



## Blues (Nov 2, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> I am sorry. I am still not understanding. I admit, I am not the sharpest tool in the shed.
> 
> You said in the first paragraph that you are not talking about a payback of benefits and that they are restricted to one year and possibly 6 months now, but in the second paragraph you are stating that you would would get back- benefits from age 66 to whatever age you un suspend.
> 
> Which is it?



OK, I'll try one more time, then give up.  We're talking about two completely different things.

1. You've been talking about payback of benefits -- a strategy that used to work, but is now severely restricted.  When it was possible, you'd file for bennies at FRA (66 in my case), and then at age 70, pay back everything you had collected (pocketing any interest you earned).  The government would then act like you had never filed at all.  You'd then file for increased benefits at age 70.

2. I'm talking about something totally different -- file and suspend.  You file and suspend at age 66, thus putting a stake in the sand about your normal retirement bennies.  You intend to not file for real until 70, when your bennies will be higher.  But then, you get a bad health diagnosis.  You're not gonna live long enough to make the increased bennies pay off.  What do you do?  You tell the government "Just kidding!  I wanted to start bennies at age 66 after all!  Please give me all the bennies I've been passing up the last 4 years, retroactivley.  Thank you."

Case 1 - you take smaller bennies now, but pay them back to get bigger bennies later.

Case 2 - you pass up on the smaller bennies now, but then learn that your health is bad so you really should have taken them.  The government lets you do that, as long as you had done a "file and suspend" at FRA.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 2, 2015)

klpca said:


> This.
> 
> It helps to look at SS in the context of when it was created. There weren't a lot of two earner families then, and I imagine that the numbers at that time were worked in a way that allowed for a benefit to be paid for the non-working spouse. Times and attitudes have, and continue, to change. Once the politicians feel that they can tinker with SS and not face any repercussions at the ballot box, they will make changes. They will probably have to, to keep the program afloat. My understanding was that SS was supposed to be a safety net. I think that we are headed back to that model.
> 
> ...




FYI- our home has been paid off for quite a long time. It's the taxes that are a killer.


----------



## am1 (Nov 2, 2015)

geekette said:


> Not sure what "near" means, but I'm within 10 years and I am ready to retire today.  Too much of my life spent on call, fouling My Time.  It's simply too many hours out of my life spent at someone elses direction, while I want control of my waking hours.
> 
> I have enjoyed my career but have hit burnout a few times and this time it is really enduring.  Humans weren't meant to "be on" 24x7.  I need more downtime that Sat and Sun provide.



Nearing retirement age.  I guess maybe a lot like senioritis.  Not a group I would want to take a chance on after hearing about how many do not like their jobs and it is a chore.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 2, 2015)

Blues said:


> OK, I'll try one more time, then give up.  We're talking about two completely different things.
> 
> 1. You've been talking about payback of benefits -- a strategy that used to work, but is now severely restricted.  When it was possible, you'd file for bennies at FRA (66 in my case), and then at age 70, pay back everything you had collected (pocketing any interest you earned).  The government would then act like you had never filed at all.  You'd then file for increased benefits at age 70.
> 
> ...




Ok. Thanks. I got it now. That is definitely something to consider then strategy wise.


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 2, 2015)

geekette said:


> Two sides to the coin.
> 
> I also would go nuts "staying home" and doing housework and play dates, etc.  But the fact of the matter is that for the propagation of the species, there will be pregnant females, and there will be young to raise.  Society needs this.  Starving the widowed females that brought up the youth is not an idea I would support, even tho I never had any interest in having children.
> 
> ...



No one said anything about denying widow/widower benefits.


----------



## geekette (Nov 2, 2015)

sptung said:


> No one said anything about denying widow/widower benefits.



What would you call denying benefits to someone that never worked?


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 2, 2015)

geekette said:


> What would you call denying benefits to someone that never worked?



No.  The deceased spouse worked, so SS contributions were made.  So there is no double-dipping. The widow/widower gets to continue to receive benefits that were made by the deceased spouse.


----------



## geekette (Nov 2, 2015)

am1 said:


> Nearing retirement age.  I guess maybe a lot like senioritis.  Not a group I would want to take a chance on after hearing about how many do not like their jobs and it is a chore.



Didn't say I don't like my work, I'm saying it takes a lot out of me and too many years of 60-80 hour weeks where evenings and weekends were not my own.  I began vacationing out of country in order to not be called while on "time off".   Difficult to ever relax if you never get a chance to think your own thoughts.  

Some lines of work are a sacrifice and some are 40 hours and out the door.  I'm tired, that's all.  I would not stay with a job I didn't like, I move on to what I do like.  Makes it easier to heed the alarm clock, makes it easier to do the work, makes it easier to be pleasant when taking after hours calls.  

You can certainly choose to not hire anyone over the age of 50, but aside from that being illegal, you would bypass a lot of great experience and a lot of knowledge about what it takes to get things done.   

senioritis for a decade?  Don't think so, Pal, I'd be stark raving mad well before the end of that time period.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 2, 2015)

am1 said:


> Nearing retirement age.  I guess maybe a lot like senioritis.  Not a group I would want to take a chance on after hearing about how many do not like their jobs and it is a chore.



I think there are different situations. 

There are people who are older and have been working all their lives and are burned out and tired of the rat race and can't wait to do things on their own terms and enjoy life. They have lots of outside interests and work just gets in the way of their life. (that's the camp I am in- work is this huge chunk of time taken out of my day that I would rather being doing a hundred other things). You don't have to worry about hiring them- they are done. Many didn't start out that way (although I did! Lol!). They initially were enthusiastic and motivated when younger, but over time become jaded, tired and unmotivated. They just want a change- whatever.

The other is people that realize after being retired for awhile that they are bored to death and want to go back to work to keep busy and maybe have some social interaction. Those are ones you would want to hire.

Then there are those who loved their pre-retirement jobs but had to retire for whatever reason and are looking for another great job in retirement (which, to me- isn't retiring). Those you want to hire.

Then there are those who have to go back to work for financial reasons. They can be good to hire also because they really NEED the work.

There is nothing wrong with people who have worked over 40 years not liking their jobs. Some, like myself, are actually very good workers. To overcome our feelings of drudgery, we have to be pretty strong and disciplined individuals- good qualities for sure. I never call out: I am always at work; I always take care of my responsibilities.  I can run rings around many of the younger ones. All despite that I hate going to work. So, you really can't judge.

Here's the thing- I venture to guess that if given the chance NOT to work at their jobs- like winning the lottery or something like that- most people would quit in a heartbeat. Just the way it is. Most don't live to work they work to live.


----------



## geekette (Nov 2, 2015)

sptung said:


> No.  The deceased spouse worked, so SS contributions were made.  So there is no double-dipping. The widow/widower gets to continue to receive benefits that were made by the deceased spouse.



Elsewhere in the thread, someone mentioned they don't like that someone that never worked receives benefits, there was no "unless they married someone that worked".  It was about dipping at all, not double dipping.

I'm cool with it, else mom would be living in a cardboard box eating cat food.


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 2, 2015)

geekette said:


> Elsewhere in the thread, someone mentioned they don't like that someone that never worked receives benefits, there was no "unless they married someone that worked".  It was about dipping at all, not double dipping.
> 
> I'm cool with it, else mom would be living in a cardboard box eating cat food.



The issue is the extra 50%.  Never an issue about the full 100% benefits and widow/widower benefits and children/dependent benefits.  I am not going to into whether a divorcee (>=10 years of marriage) should get benefits or not.  It gets too complicated for me to have an opinion on that.


----------



## SMHarman (Nov 2, 2015)

The NYT article on this says 1/10 of 1% so 0.1% use this strategy. 

I guess most of them also own timeshares!


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Nov 2, 2015)

geekette said:


> Sharebuilder.com (now Capital One Investing).   There are fund families with no transaction fees, plenty of index funds in those families, and you can also invest in stocks.  Sometimes you can find a special promo where transferring your existing account in gains $ or free trades.



OMG,  Thank you so much….


----------



## Talent312 (Nov 2, 2015)

Originally Posted by Sugarcubesea: 
Does anyone have any low cost Roth IRA to invest with. I have one that I don't want to put any more money into as the fees nickle and dime me.
--------------------------------------
Geekette suggested Capital One Investing. -- _which may be fine._

Over my lifetime, I've used these discount online brokers who also have commission-free no-load funds and ETF's, without any set-up or maintenance fees:
... E-Trade
... Scottrade
... TD Ameritrade.
_We're currently at Ameritrade w- 2 Roth + 2 Rollover IRA's for me and DW._
https://www.tdameritrade.com/home.page
.


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 2, 2015)

am1 said:


> Nearing retirement age.  I guess maybe a lot like senioritis.  Not a group I would want to take a chance on after hearing about how many do not like their jobs and it is a chore.



Beware of making statements like that.  It is called age discrimination.  Hiring  is based on skillset and track record. Promotion is based on performance.  Don't mix age into any of this.


----------



## klpca (Nov 2, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> FYI- our home has been paid off for quite a long time. It's the taxes that are a killer.


Time to move


----------



## Jason245 (Nov 2, 2015)

klpca said:


> Time to move


Florida has all kinds of tax exemptions.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Nov 2, 2015)

Talent312 said:


> Originally Posted by Sugarcubesea:
> Does anyone have any low cost Roth IRA to invest with. I have one that I don't want to put any more money into as the fees nickle and dime me.
> --------------------------------------
> Geekette suggested Capital One Investing. -- _which may be fine._
> ...



I never thought of these other places. Thanks


----------



## am1 (Nov 2, 2015)

sptung said:


> Beware of making statements like that.  It is called age discrimination.  Hiring  is based on skillset and track record. Promotion is based on performance.  Don't mix age into any of this.



I am just going off of some of the posts on here.  I have no interest in hiring anyone or trying to get hired a few years before retirement.  

But lets lot think that age discrimination does not exist.  No doubt a lot are hard workers with lot of knowledge but I would not want to work with people or have them work for me if they do not want to be there.  Even if they think it does not show.  

I do not think I will ever "retire" but working till the age of 65 seems too long.   Would we all not be better off if those jobs were given to younger people who are currently unemployed?  On an overall basis not individual.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 2, 2015)

klpca said:


> Time to move



Can't- our jobs....have to wait until retirement. Hubby has 4 years to go.


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 2, 2015)

am1 said:


> I do not think I will ever "retire" but working till the age of 65 seems too long.   Would we all not be better off if those jobs were given to younger people who are currently unemployed?  On an overall basis not individual.



No.  It is called meritocracy.  Best person, performer, should have the job.


----------



## klpca (Nov 2, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> Can't- our jobs....have to wait until retirement. Hubby has 4 years to go.


Then hang in there and have fun planning your exit strategy  It will be here before you know it.


----------



## FLDVCFamily (Nov 2, 2015)

Jason245 said:


> Florida has all kinds of tax exemptions.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk



Yup. We moved from MA to FL before we had kids. We aren't retirement age by any stretch, but we still appreciate the much lower cost of living. Cost of living matters for a lot before retirement and especially after.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 2, 2015)

geekette said:


> http://www.kiplinger.com/tool/retir...by-state-guide-to-taxes-on-retirees/index.php
> 
> IMO, best of its kind for figuring out what taxes you will Really face in different states.




Thanks for this link. This is great.


----------



## tompalm (Nov 3, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> Thanks for this link. This is great.



If you consider moving, take a hard look at Las Vegas. Once you get in the suburbs, you forget that you are in Vegas and feel like it is any other city. Utilities, tax, food and housing cost are very cheap. Lots to do and see and lots of day trips to explore that will keep you entertained.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 3, 2015)

tompalm said:


> If you consider moving, take a hard look at Las Vegas. Once you get in the suburbs, you forget that you are in Vegas and feel like it is any other city. Utilities, tax, food and housing cost are very cheap. Lots to do and see and lots of day trips to explore that will keep you entertained.



Only been to Las Vegas city- not suburbs. I know it is tax friendly- but - well- don't like traffic or crowds or cities- like a lot of greenery and mountains and lakes and small rural towns, like in New England. Don't like excessive heat. I also don't like living in an area where there are water shortages. No deserts for me.

Thinking NH, North Carolina (never been), maybe PA, or possibly Colorado- (never been). My favorite place is Vermont, but not tax friendly. If Alaska wasn't so cold, dark and far away, I would even consider there. Then- there's always Hawaii- not tax friendly, but who cares! LOL!


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Nov 3, 2015)

tompalm said:


> If you consider moving, take a hard look at Las Vegas. Once you get in the suburbs, you forget that you are in Vegas and feel like it is any other city. Utilities, tax, food and housing cost are very cheap. Lots to do and see and lots of day trips to explore that will keep you entertained.



Not to hijack the thread, but Vegas is on my radar as a place to retire to… I have really bad RA and I need a warm climate for when I retire...


----------



## Fern Modena (Nov 3, 2015)

You know that Vegas, being a desert, is not hot all year, right? It will be in the 50's tomorrow, with a low the following morning of 38, And it isn't winter yet!

Just wanted to make sure you know this. Plan to spend several different times  of year here before you move permanently if weather is a big factor.

Fern



Sugarcubesea said:


> Not to hijack the thread, but Vegas is on my radar as a place to retire to… I have really bad RA and I need a warm climate for when I retire...


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 3, 2015)

Sugarcubesea said:


> Not to hijack the thread, but Vegas is on my radar as a place to retire to… I have really bad RA and I need a warm climate for when I retire...



I believe with RA it is about being dry vs. humid as opposed to hot vs. cold.  I believe Vegas area will do wonders for your RA.  I know alot about RA from my mother's experience.  She suffered so much in hot and humid enviroment and her symptoms all went away when she spent a year in Beijing with me.  Beijing is very dry year round and extremely cold in winter.


----------



## PigsDad (Nov 3, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> ... I also don't like living in an area where there are water shortages.  No deserts for me.
> 
> Thinking NH, North Carolina (never been), maybe PA, or *possibly Colorado*- (never been).


Not sure if you know, but most of Colorado is a high desert.  Maybe not as extreme as Vegas area, but if you are looking for a place that does not have to deal with water shortages / droughts, you might consider crossing it off your list.

Kurt


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 3, 2015)

PigsDad said:


> Not sure if you know, but most of Colorado is a high desert.  Maybe not as extreme as Vegas area, but if you are looking for a place that does not have to deal with water shortages / droughts, you might consider crossing it off your list.
> 
> Kurt



Thanks. Didn't know. I guess I have to take a trip out there someday anyway. I think of Colorado and rocky (as in the mtns) but also green. I thought I might like the vibe there- somewhat like Vermont with the skiing and hiking mountains and so on. Are there a lot of Lakes?


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Nov 3, 2015)

Fern Modena said:


> You know that Vegas, being a desert, is not hot all year, right? It will be in the 50's tomorrow, with a low the following morning of 38, And it isn't winter yet!
> 
> Just wanted to make sure you know this. Plan to spend several different times  of year here before you move permanently if weather is a big factor.
> 
> Fern




Fern,  Thanks so much… Yes, I know that its not warm all the time, but the key factor is there is no SNOW and ICE to deal with and that is huge for me…

We are going to be using the timeshare over the next 5 years to travel to locations we want to retire in to check it out


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Nov 3, 2015)

sptung said:


> I believe with RA it is about being dry vs. humid as opposed to hot vs. cold.  I believe Vegas area will do wonders for your RA.  I know alot about RA from my mother's experience.  She suffered so much in hot and humid enviroment and her symptoms all went away when she spent a year in Beijing with me.  Beijing is very dry year round and extremely cold in winter.



The hot and humid weather in MI does me in each year, but the damp constant rain we got these last few years have been brutal on me…There is no perfect climate but to get hot and dry most of the time will be a blessing for me


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 3, 2015)

Sugarcubesea said:


> The hot and humid weather in MI does me in each year, but the damp constant rain we got these last few years have been brutal on me…There is no perfect climate but to get hot and dry most of the time will be a blessing for me



Arizona is another possibility. Or- Hawaii! Or even California- but high taxes and expensive.


----------



## klpca (Nov 3, 2015)

Sugarcubesea said:


> The hot and humid weather in MI does me in each year, but the damp constant rain we got these last few years have been brutal on me…There is no perfect climate but to get hot and dry most of the time will be a blessing for me


I have RA too (but mine is pretty well under control) and the relief that I feel when we go to Palm Desert is amazing. I love the dry heat.


----------



## Luanne (Nov 3, 2015)

klpca said:


> I have RA too (but mine is pretty well under control) and the relief that I feel when we go to Palm Desert is amazing. I love the dry heat.



Just two words......Santa Fe.


----------



## PigsDad (Nov 3, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> Thanks. Didn't know. I guess I have to take a trip out there someday anyway. I think of Colorado and rocky (as in the mtns) but also green. I thought I might like the vibe there- somewhat like Vermont with the skiing and hiking mountains and so on. Are there a lot of Lakes?


Only lakes of any size are man-made reservoirs (no trees / natural shore lines).  Mountains are fairly wooded, but not a dense as your would be used to out east, but that is only about 1/2 of the state.  Living in the mountains is 1) expensive, and 2) you have to deal w/ the constant threat of forest fires.  #2 is what keeps me on the plains (especially after living through a few really bad forest fire years.

Kurt


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Nov 3, 2015)

Luanne said:


> Just two words......Santa Fe.



Is Santa Fe, dry heat like AZ?  What do you love most about this area


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 3, 2015)

PigsDad said:


> Only lakes of any size are man-made reservoirs (no trees / natural shore lines).  Mountains are fairly wooded, but not a dense as your would be used to out east, but that is only about 1/2 of the state.  Living in the mountains is 1) expensive, and 2) you have to deal w/ the constant threat of forest fires.  #2 is what keeps me on the plains (especially after living through a few really bad forest fire years.
> 
> Kurt



Thanks for the info. Where I live in the woods in Hudson Valley, NY, we had a fire in our area last spring that was really becoming a concern. It started on the ridge and kept spreading. First time we ever experienced a threat of that kind.

Well, guess I have to stick with the east coast then. I like big gorgeous lakes and mountains and lots of greenery and scenery.

I am not into the plains or desserts. When we were in Wyoming and Montana and Arizona I decided that. Although- don't get me wrong- they were awesome states to explore. And I definitely don't want more expensive.


----------



## Luanne (Nov 3, 2015)

Sugarcubesea said:


> Is Santa Fe, dry heat like AZ?  What do you love most about this area



Yes dry heat, dry cold.  It doesn't get as hot as some areas of Arizona (although there are areas of Arizona that don't get as hot as others).  We are in the high desert so we do get snow, but it usually doesn't stick on the roads for long.

Things we love are the beauty of the area, there are so many things to do, plus wonderful restaurants.

Santa Fe is definitely a city for retirees.  For example there is an organization called Renesan, which is billed as lifelong learning.  Some fabulous classes and field trips.  The symphony starts at the civilized hour of 4 p.m., so you're done by 6 and can have dinner after. It takes us about 15 minutes from our house to get into town, park and get into our seats.  When we lived in California going to the symphony became a weekend event as it took an hour to get there (and back) and it didn't start until 8:00 p.m.


----------



## DebBrown (Nov 3, 2015)

I am embarrassed to admit that I am in my 50s and had no idea about how social security really worked.  I am confused about the spousal benefit vs my own work record.  It seems that only one of us can take the full benefit at whatever age we choose.  The other is limited to just spousal benefits?  We have both worked full time but I never realized that we wouldn't each get our own full benefits.  What the heck?!

We have managed to save quite a bit so I've never thought that we'd be dependent on SS.  Still, I expected to get full benefits.  :annoyed:

Deb


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Nov 3, 2015)

DebBrown said:


> I am embarrassed to admit that I am in my 50s and had no idea about how social security really worked.  I am confused about the spousal benefit vs my own work record.  It seems that only one of us can take the full benefit at whatever age we choose.  The other is limited to just spousal benefits?  We have both worked full time but I never realized that we wouldn't each get our own full benefits.  What the heck?!
> 
> We have managed to save quite a bit so I've never thought that we'd be dependent on SS.  Still, I expected to get full benefits.  :annoyed:
> 
> Deb




I thought that if both spouses worked you would each get your own benefits vs.one having to take the spouses…dang, I might have to get divorced in retirement….


----------



## DebBrown (Nov 3, 2015)

Sugarcubesea said:


> I thought that if both spouses worked you would each get your own benefits vs.one having to take the spouses…dang, I might have to get divorced in retirement….



Well, maybe you are right.  That's what I'm trying to figure out.

I just found this on the SSA website:  "If a spouse is eligible for a retirement benefit based on his or her own earnings, and if that benefit is higher than the spousal benefit, then we pay the retirement benefit. Otherwise we pay the spousal benefit."

So I guess I was upset for nothing?  DH will probably have a higher benefit than me but not by much so my benefit will be better than the spousal benefit.  Definitely confusing!


----------



## Elan (Nov 3, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> Well, guess I have to stick with the east coast then. I like big gorgeous lakes and mountains and lots of greenery and scenery.
> 
> .



Yeah, we certainly don't have any of those things out west, LOL.

Seriously, is there a mountain of note east of the Rockies?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk


----------



## Luanne (Nov 3, 2015)

Sugarcubesea said:


> I thought that if both spouses worked you would each get your own benefits vs.one having to take the spouses…dang, I might have to get divorced in retirement….



Both dh and I are taking our own benefits.


----------



## Passepartout (Nov 3, 2015)

DebBrown said:


> We have both worked full time but I never realized that we wouldn't each get our own full benefits.  What the heck?!
> 
> We have managed to save quite a bit so I've never thought that we'd be dependent on SS.  Still, I expected to get full benefits.  :annoyed:



If both spouses worked and paid in to SS, both spouses get their own retirement benefits. This thread has been more than a little misleading. IF there is a large discrepancy between the spouse's contributions- and consequently- benefits, the lower earning spouse can choose to take half the higher earning spouse's benefit- or their own. Whichever is greater.

So, there is no reason to be annoyed. Your benefit is your own, based on what you and your employers contribute during your working years.

Jim


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Nov 3, 2015)

Luanne said:


> Yes dry heat, dry cold.  It doesn't get as hot as some areas of Arizona (although there are areas of Arizona that don't get as hot as others).  We are in the high desert so we do get snow, but it usually doesn't stick on the roads for long.
> 
> Things we love are the beauty of the area, there are so many things to do, plus wonderful restaurants.
> 
> Santa Fe is definitely a city for retirees.  For example there is an organization called Renesan, which is billed as lifelong learning.  Some fabulous classes and field trips.  The symphony starts at the civilized hour of 4 p.m., so you're done by 6 and can have dinner after. It takes us about 15 minutes from our house to get into town, park and get into our seats.  When we lived in California going to the symphony became a weekend event as it took an hour to get there (and back) and it didn't start until 8:00 p.m.



Thanks for this great info… I'm going to have to plan a trip to Santa Fe to check out the area….


----------



## tompalm (Nov 4, 2015)

DebBrown said:


> Well, maybe you are right.  That's what I'm trying to figure out.
> 
> I just found this on the SSA website:  "If a spouse is eligible for a retirement benefit based on his or her own earnings, and if that benefit is higher than the spousal benefit, then we pay the retirement benefit. Otherwise we pay the spousal benefit."
> 
> So I guess I was upset for nothing?  DH will probably have a higher benefit than me but not by much so my benefit will be better than the spousal benefit.  Definitely confusing!



What plan might work best for you is to take the spouse benefit at FRA, 66-67, and later at age 70 you could apply for your own benefit that would be a lot higher than getting it at FRA. So if you have longevity in your family and expect to live past 90 years old, you would collect more by waiting.


----------



## MuranoJo (Nov 4, 2015)

tompalm said:


> What plan might work best for you is to take the spouse benefit at FRA, 66-67, and later at age 70 you could apply for your own benefit that would be a lot higher than getting it at FRA. So if you have longevity in your family and expect to live past 90 years old, you would collect more by waiting.



And I heard they're considering getting rid of this option. 

This thread has certainly been a' wandering all over the place.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 4, 2015)

DebBrown said:


> I am embarrassed to admit that I am in my 50s and had no idea about how social security really worked.  I am confused about the spousal benefit vs my own work record.  It seems that only one of us can take the full benefit at whatever age we choose.  The other is limited to just spousal benefits?  We have both worked full time but I never realized that we wouldn't each get our own full benefits.  What the heck?!
> 
> We have managed to save quite a bit so I've never thought that we'd be dependent on SS.  Still, I expected to get full benefits.  :annoyed:
> 
> Deb



No! NO! If you each worked you each are entitled to your own full benefit. 

But- there are/were other strategies for collecting SS that couples could utilize to maximize their Lifetime benefits, such as file and suspend. I have spent a lot of time reading books and articles on it, but now the Congress has eliminate the key strategy my husband and I were going to implement, hence the reason for my original thread here.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 4, 2015)

Elan said:


> Yeah, we certainly don't have any of those things out west, LOL.
> 
> Seriously, is there a mountain of note east of the Rockies?
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk



What I meant was you said the mountains were expensive to live in in Colorado. Not as much here in the East. 

You said there wasn't the same greenery or lakes. 

I think the scenery and mountains out West are awesome! My husband really loves Wyoming- but I don't like the flat plains to live on or the cold winters, which I hear are really windy and freezing. I love a lot of things about the West- love to travel there and want to see more- never been to Utah or the Dakotas- but- not sure I would want to live in those areas, that's all.

BTW- Mt Washington and Mt Mansfield are note worthy, and I here there are some good ones in the Smokies down south. Sure- nothing like the Rockies for sure. But still beautiful nonetheless.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 4, 2015)

tompalm said:


> What plan might work best for you is to take the spouse benefit at FRA, 66-67, and later at age 70 you could apply for your own benefit that would be a lot higher than getting it at FRA. So if you have longevity in your family and expect to live past 90 years old, you would collect more by waiting.




I started this thread because the Congress just eliminated this option in the new budget so bye bye to that. I am pissed.:annoyed:


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 4, 2015)

Passepartout said:


> If both spouses worked and paid in to SS, both spouses get their own retirement benefits. This thread has been more than a little misleading. IF there is a large discrepancy between the spouse's contributions- and consequently- benefits, the lower earning spouse can choose to take half the higher earning spouse's benefit- or their own. Whichever is greater.
> 
> So, there is no reason to be annoyed. Your benefit is your own, based on what you and your employers contribute during your working years.
> 
> Jim



EXACTLY RIGHT! As with everything else run by the government,the SS system can be very confusing. If you and your husband will have similar benefits, and you have enough savings and so forth, then keep it simple and just collect yours when you want and he collects his when he wants. End of story.


----------



## ann824 (Nov 4, 2015)

I just noticed that if you were born before 1954 you can still use this option.

The new restricted application rules apply to those who reach age 62 after 2015, he said, which means people born before 1954 can still pursue this strategy. The limitations on the file-and-suspend approach go into effect six months after the budget’s effective date.


----------



## SMHarman (Nov 4, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> I started this thread because the Congress just eliminated this option in the new budget so bye bye to that. I am pissed.:annoyed:


An option. That 0.1% of retirees elected.


----------



## Conan (Nov 4, 2015)

Passepartout said:


> If both spouses worked and paid in to SS, both spouses get their own retirement benefits. This thread has been more than a little misleading. IF there is a large discrepancy between the spouse's contributions- and consequently- benefits, the lower earning spouse can choose to take half the higher earning spouse's benefit- or their own. Whichever is greater.
> 
> So, there is no reason to be annoyed. Your benefit is your own, based on what you and your employers contribute during your working years.
> 
> Jim



Let's agree to disagree. Unless in the course of 35 years the second spouse earned more than slightly under half of what the higher earner made, she gets no greater benefit than had she never worked.


----------



## DebBrown (Nov 4, 2015)

Conan said:


> Let's agree to disagree. Unless in the course of 35 years the second spouse earned more than about 2/3's of what the higher earner made, she gets no greater benefit than had she never worked.



Thanks, everyone.  DH and my projected SS benefits are almost the same so I'm glad to get this cleared up.  

Deb


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 4, 2015)

Conan said:


> Let's agree to disagree. Unless in the course of 35 years the second spouse earned more than about 2/3's of what the higher earner made, she gets no greater benefit than had she never worked.



The number is probably closer to slightly under half than 2/3rd due to the scale used to calculate PIA (Primary Insurance Amount).


----------



## Conan (Nov 4, 2015)

sptung said:


> The number is probably closer to slightly under half than 2/3rd due to the scale used to calculate PIA (Primary Insurance Amount).



My mistake - - I had it backwards. If the higher earner is at the top it could be near as little as 1/3rd (not 2/3 as I had it). But a better formulation for most people is "slightly under half"

I'll go back and edit my post.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 4, 2015)

SMHarman said:


> An option. That 0.1% of retirees elected.



I know. I think a lot of people didn't even know about it.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 4, 2015)

Conan said:


> Let's agree to disagree. Unless in the course of 35 years the second spouse earned more than slightly under half of what the higher earner made, she gets no greater benefit than had she never worked.



Correct- that is true also


----------



## tompalm (Nov 4, 2015)

mpumilia said:


> I started this thread because the Congress just eliminated this option in the new budget so bye bye to that. I am pissed.:annoyed:



The way I read the regulation is they eliminated file and suspend. If husband and wife are the same age, one person can file for benefits at full retirement age and the other collects spouse benefits.  The spouse that suspended benefits files again at age 70 to collect the higher amount. At age 70, the person collecting spouse benefits can start their own benefit at a higher amount. This might not work for everyone because the spouse benefit might be higher than their own benefit at age 70. If a married couple are a few years apart and the lower wage earner is older, it just doesn't work. Also, both people in a marriage must have a desire to collect a higher benefit at 70 and willing to wait. 

File and suspend means one person files at full retirement age so the spouse can collect spouse benefits. Then, the person that filed for full benefits suspends those benefits and waits until age 70 to start taking benefits at the higher amount.  This works for very few people because most want the income prior to age 70. If I remember correctly, someone else posted less than .01 percent file and suspend, or 1 out of 10,000. So it is a regulation the government can due away with and not receive much backlash.


----------



## tompalm (Nov 4, 2015)

Looking at it again, it says the bill extends to what you are talking about. But, I think it is still possible if your spouse benefit is more than your full retirement benefit at age 66. Possibly take the spouse benefit and at age 70 collect the higher. Very few people can do that because their own benefit will be higher than the spouse benefit.  Maybe I am reading it wrong and once you file, there is no collecting a higher amount later.  That has more to it than file and suspend and is a big change. Each person really needs to ask an expert about this. We did an interview with a Schwab Rep a couple months ago and figured out which plan works best for us. They have someone that will call you and collect your information to inform you what works best. The spouse benefit just didn't work for us and was not an issue. But I did change my mind about collecting at 62 and decided to wait until 66 years old after the interview.

Are there any experts on this forum that can clear this up.  This is a much bigger change than I thought it was. Sounds like once you file for spouse benefits, it is over because you are required to take your own benefit if it is higher. But in a very few cases someone's own benefit at age 66 might be lower than the spouse benefit and later at age 70 their own benefit is higher. Not sure they can file again if already collecting.


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 4, 2015)

It brings to mind whether a person can simply file and not suspend, and spouse draws at FRA, to then switch to self's benefit at 70.


----------



## geekette (Nov 4, 2015)

tompalm said:


> ... If I remember correctly, someone else posted less than .01 percent file and suspend, or 1 out of 10,000. So it is a regulation the government can due away with and not receive much backlash.



Yes, that and most people using this were higher income earners, so perhaps part of discreet strategy to preserve SS.


----------



## Conan (Nov 4, 2015)

Here's the actual text:



> subtitle C—Protecting Social Security Benefits
> 
> SEC. 831. Closure of unintended loopholes.
> 
> ...


It looks to me like "deemed to have filed" in (a) means that as soon as you're eligible to get a spousal benefit, your own benefit is triggered (so no second bite at the apple for you at age 70). And under (c), if you do file and suspend, your spouse gets no spousal benefit payment until your payments resume.


----------



## wilma (Nov 4, 2015)

Agree that this was a predicted change to close loopholes. When we went a financial planner a few years back he told us about some of these SS loopholes including the one where you could start getting benefits at 62, refile at 66 or 70 & pay back what you have received and start collecting your higher benefit. He warned though that these were unintended SS benefits that savvy financial planners had discovered and would likely be taken away at some point to shore up SS for the longterm. We need to be flexible and have a diverse stream of retirement funds, things change and we need to be prepared.


----------



## Blues (Nov 4, 2015)

tompalm said:


> Looking at it again, it says the bill extends to what you are talking about. But, I think it is still possible if your spouse benefit is more than your full retirement benefit at age 66. Possibly take the spouse benefit and at age 70 collect the higher. Very few people can do that because their own benefit will be higher than the spouse benefit.  Maybe I am reading it wrong and once you file, there is no collecting a higher amount later.  ...
> 
> Are there any experts on this forum that can clear this up.  This is a much bigger change than I thought it was. Sounds like once you file for spouse benefits, it is over because you are required to take your own benefit if it is higher.



The issue you're talking about is "deemed filing", and yes, the change that's going in (for people who aren't yet 62) will preclude the refiling later.  Specifically, what "deemed filing" means is that if you try to file for your spousal benefit, they "deem" that you're actually filing for your own benefit.  If the spousal benefit is higher, then they'll make up the difference.  If not, you're simply filing for your own benefit.  But in either case, you're filing for your own benefit first, and they'll make up the difference if the spousal is higher.

What this means is that if you file for spousal at age 66, there's no extra benefit later.  You've already claimed your age 66 benefit, so it doesn't go up at age 70.

As noted, those of us old folks over age 62 are grandfathered in.  We can still file once for spousal and then later for increased benefits at age 70.  I'm terribly sorry that the rest of you young folks are missing out.  But I'd still trade with you -- I'll take going back to my 50's in exchange for this small benefit difference


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 4, 2015)

Blues said:


> The issue you're talking about is "deemed filing", and yes, the change that's going in (for people who aren't yet 62) will preclude the refiling later.  Specifically, what "deemed filing" means is that if you try to file for your spousal benefit, they "deem" that you're actually filing for your own benefit.  If the spousal benefit is higher, then they'll make up the difference.  If not, you're simply filing for your own benefit.  But in either case, you're filing for your own benefit first, and they'll make up the difference if the spousal is higher.
> 
> What this means is that if you file for spousal at age 66, there's no extra benefit later.  You've already claimed your age 66 benefit, so it doesn't go up at age 70.
> 
> As noted, those of us old folks over age 62 are grandfathered in.  We can still file once for spousal and then later for increased benefits at age 70.  I'm terribly sorry that the rest of you young folks are missing out.  But I'd still trade with you -- I'll take going back to my 50's in exchange for this small benefit difference



Filing or deemed filing was never in our plan so it does not affect my husband and I.  Our plan is still the same, he claims at 70 and I claim on my own account at 62.  My 62 benefit is already greater than half of his at my FRA so we would not have benefited from that loophole.


----------



## SmithOp (Nov 4, 2015)

sptung said:


> Filing or deemed filing was never in our plan so it does not affect my husband and I.  Our plan is still the same, he claims at 70 and I claim on my own account at 62.  My 62 benefit is already greater than half of his at my FRA so we would not have benefited from that loophole.




Thats our plan too, my wife will file next year. The other factor is that when either dies the surviving spouse receives whichever is higher so it makes sense to maximize the higher earner by claiming at 70.


Sent from my iPad Mini 4 using Tapatalk


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 4, 2015)

SmithOp said:


> Thats our plan too, my wife will file next year. The other factor is that when either dies the surviving spouse receives whichever is higher so it makes sense to maximize the higher earner by claiming at 70.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad Mini 4 using Tapatalk



In my case my husband is quite a bit older so it is a no-brainer.  He would have to live beyond 100 for me not to file at 62 for the breakeven.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 4, 2015)

My husband's SS will only be slightly higher than mine. I want to retire badly, but I figured if I could just hold out somehow until age 65 to get Medicare, he would already be retired - he's 2 years older than me(but he would have filed and suspended at age 66 (his FRA)) and I would not take SS until age 67 (my FRA) and claim spousal benefits at that time, not mine. That plus our savings would get us to age 70, when we would each take our own max SS benefits. 

Can't do it now.

I guess maybe now the plan might be to just take my SS at FRA 67 plus use our savings and have my husband just wait until age 70. I don't know....or maybe both just tale it at full retirement age and the heck with everything...

Will see what goes on in a few years in our lives and decide then...hopefully will have a reputable financial planner by then.


----------



## uop1497 (Nov 4, 2015)

How a person find out how much he / she will get a a certain age . Also, how to calculate how much money to get if apply for spouse retirement benefit


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 4, 2015)

uop1497 said:


> How a person find out how much he / she will get a a certain age . Also, how to calculate how much money to get if apply for spouse retirement benefit



There is a calculator you can use on th ss website.  You can also make an appointment with a local ss office to run numbers.  The issue with the local ss office is that their calculator presumes that you stop working immediately. You should get a pretty good idea between the 2.


----------



## tompalm (Nov 5, 2015)

uop1497 said:


> How a person find out how much he / she will get a a certain age . Also, how to calculate how much money to get if apply for spouse retirement benefit



Both of these work pretty good. But not sure if the AARP has been updated for the new regulation. 

https://www.ssa.gov/retire/estimator.html

http://www.aarp.org/work/social-sec...?intcmp=FTR-LINKS-SSMEDI-SSCALC-EWHERE#/step1


----------



## Blues (Nov 5, 2015)

sptung said:


> There is a calculator you can use on th ss website.  You can also make an appointment with a local ss office to run numbers.  The issue with the local ss office is that their calculator presumes that you stop working immediately. You should get a pretty good idea between the 2.



That works.  Even better is to create an online Social Security account at www.ssa.gov.  There's a bit of security hassle when you set it up, to verify your identity.  But then you can create a personal Social Security statement any time you'd like, as often as you'd like.  It shows, among other things, your projected benefit at age 62, at FRA, and at age 70.  Plus projected survivor benefits, minor child benefits, etc.  Plus your full earnings record, which is important to review every couple of years to make sure your earnings were reported correctly (I had a missing year in mine once; it took quite a while to get it corrected).


----------

