Any comments about Mr Madoff?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

It will never fail. And the rates/retirement ages/upper tax limits can be adjusted for the times.

Ok, I've not thought of it this way before, I recognize that there will be little to nothing when I retire and try to plan accordingly.

But for the sake of the argument, if they raise the age to say 80 and I die at 79 1/2 how much do I get?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

Ok, I've not thought of it this way before, I recognize that there will be little to nothing when I retire and try to plan accordingly.

You recognize incorrectly, then. As stated, there will definitely not be "nothing". The actual amount is dependant on many varibles, including the ratio of workers to retirees and the state of the economy (how much total salary there is to tax). It will probably be significant, but it is always good to plan to have more, if you can.

But for the sake of the argument, if they raise the age to say 80 and I die at 79 1/2 how much do I get?

It depends on whether you opted to enter the program early at a reduced payout.

[Beestie]

SS is supposed to be enough to keep you out of the soup line. It'll probably do that but not much more. That's not really what its for.

[Shawnee123]

So I now have PERS, and I paid into FICA since I was, I think, 16. I don't think I had to pay into that until I turned 16; I worked on a produce farm in the summers and they didn't take out any taxes until then. I've been in PERS instead for 7 + years.

Anyway, I hear that you can't get both. How does that work? I thought I heard of a guy who retired early and took a payout on PERS so he could still get SS. Of course he lost some PERS, but...

Anyone know anything about this?

[Clodfobble]

I don't know exactly what PERS is, but if it's a state-run retirement program, then in general the rule is you can't take both. My mother-in-law is a teacher: in Illinois, teachers pay into the normal SS system. But in Texas, where she moved later in life, teachers pay into a special state retirement program. She cannot collect both. At this point, her teacher retirement payout will be much more than SS, so obviously she knows which one she's going to choose to take, but she has basically just lost those ten years or so that she was paying into SS.

[Shawnee123]

Public Employee Retirement System.

There is a teacher's version, I know faculty has a bit different retirement than staff.

But I wonder about the retire early...actually I mean resign early, take a payout of PERS and collect SS. Is this legal? I mean, I paid into SS for a long time. It just seems one could get benefits from both.

I should probably find out, huh?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Beestie

SS is supposed to be enough to keep you out of the soup line. It'll probably do that but not much more. That's not really what its for.

Yea, but not until you are old or your spouse/mother/father(if you are a minor dependent child) kicks in. Otherwise it is more like the governments life insurance policy, they keep your money and bet you can't make it to an age where you will be able to use it. And just think of all those who pay into it and get squat in the end because they never make it. Yea, the gobberment keeps that money.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Yea, the gobberment keeps that money.

Well, hopefully they actually give it to some old people, often to the spouse of the person who died.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Correction: they are rapidly failing programs. "Some people" need SS and Medicare, just like all social programs. It's when you try to pretend that everyone will receive reasonable and fair benefits when they retire that it becomes a Ponzi scheme. The money simply isn't there.

And I believe people who don't need the money when they hit retirement age (Gates, Buffet, etc.) should be allowed to not take the money, so that money could be divided among the people who DO need it, but they aren't allowed to do that. If they were though, that would go a long way toward increasing benefits for those who do count on that money to survive.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I don't know exactly what PERS is, but if it's a state-run retirement program, then in general the rule is you can't take both. My mother-in-law is a teacher: in Illinois, teachers pay into the normal SS system. But in Texas, where she moved later in life, teachers pay into a special state retirement program. She cannot collect both. At this point, her teacher retirement payout will be much more than SS, so obviously she knows which one she's going to choose to take, but she has basically just lost those ten years or so that she was paying into SS.

That is just wrong. If you pay into both, you should receive a % amount for the years you paid in. 10 years worth wouldn't be much, but still, she paid in, she should be paid out.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

That is just wrong. If you pay into both, you should receive a % amount for the years you paid in. 10 years worth wouldn't be much, but still, she paid in, she should be paid out.

Yes, thanks for the response.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

That is just wrong. If you pay into both, you should receive a % amount for the years you paid in. 10 years worth wouldn't be much, but still, she paid in, she should be paid out.

I'm assuming you mean "wrong" from a moral standpoint? Because from a factual standpoint, I assure you it's true. It's called the Windfall Elimination Provision, and while they don't strictly calculate it as "one or the other," it's a pro-rated reduction of your SS benefits which depends on how many years you paid in, and what year you turn 62. In her case, the reduction amount is equal to (or greater than, I don't know her exact numbers anymore) the amount she would have received, so the end result is no SS payout.

[TheMercenary]

If you pay into it you should get something out of it, regardless of what you make or how much money you have. It is not the fault of the people who pay in that the gobberment has screwed up the process.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

I'm assuming you mean "wrong" from a moral standpoint? Because from a factual standpoint, I assure you it's true. It's called the Windfall Elimination Provision, and while they don't strictly calculate it as "one or the other," it's a pro-rated reduction of your SS benefits which depends on how many years you paid in, and what year you turn 62. In her case, the reduction amount is equal to (or greater than, I don't know her exact numbers anymore) the amount she would have received, so the end result is no SS payout.

I'm talking about from an ethical, moral standpoint. If you pay in, you should get something back, even if it's a very small amount. Otherwise, it's like stealing.

[Shawnee123]

Agreed. I shall get screwed upon my retirement.

Always screwing the working folks...