There Goes My retirement Plan!

[VacationForever]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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.

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 that 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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 that 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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