President Franklin Roosevelt (D) created the Social Security program in the 1930’s. It’s a social insurance program, not an investment account. IRAs, 401(k)s, etc., supplement Social Security. Social Security has been a hugely successful program, providing important inflation-adjusted income throughout retirement. Workers pay a Social Security tax to accrue benefits. In 2023, any income above $160,200 is not subject to the Social Security tax (“maximum taxable earnings”). Shortfalls in the trust fund may easily be addressed by raising or eliminating that cap. It isn’t necessary or advisable to cut benefits in such an important program by raising the retirement age, reducing inflation adjustments, etc. So, whatever your politics may be, which party is much more likely to strengthen Social Security over the next few years? The same one that created Social Security in the first place - the Democratic Party. Hold your nose if you have to, but vote for Democrats for President, Senator, and members of the House of Representatives. (Voting at the state and local levels is another matter.) But, when voting for Democrats at the federal level, make sure you tell them that your support depends upon them strengthening Social Security by raising or eliminating the “maximum taxable earnings” and not cutting benefits.
The decision of trying to figure out when to collect SS sucks! I have no idea how long I am going to live to so am frustrated on how I'm supposed to analyze this...
When people say your employer pays in half of SS for you, that's a misconception. Everything that costs my boss, regardless of whether that is salary, benefits, or employer taxes, that's something I need to be providing a greater value for so my employer gets a return on their investment. Make no mistake, those employer taxes were earned.
Foe single people its use it or lose it, couples are given many options to maximize SS whether they are entitled to or not. Single people expenses are much higher than for couples, because housing, transportation, utilities expenses are borne by one person.
Thanks for your guidance! I have heard that one should file and suspend so their spouse can draw a spousal benefit. My waif was born in 1962 and I was born in 1965. My benefits are about 3 times hers. Can I file and suspend when eligible so she can draw spousal at a higher rate and will that mess up my benefits? Thanks for considering the topic!
Worked full time for 40 years in healthcare (clerical). I'm now retired at 67 with 2200 SS as only income. I'm setting aside 2000 dollars for taxes. I hope its enough..if not, I'll get a parttime job just to pay taxes.
Idk…who would ever wait to take SS at 80? Omg….in todays world I’d take it at the age you can, take what is owed to you and enjoy your life as long as you can. I’m in my 60’s and can walk, ride a bike, drive etc…geez…who knows what condition I’ll be in at 80?
Yea,that’s what happens when people love money so much. Take it early and enjoy the life the creator gave u in good health! Besides, when you die you’re not taking the money with you! It’s all over!
@@MannyC711not always. Some play the long game. I will wait till 70 but i will have 2 of my 3 other sources of income by age 60. Also SS and another source when i do retire at 70. I saw my great grandmother go from rich to poor due to being in a nursing home for almost 25 years. She died at 104. Also, and people forget this, SS used to be paid when people only lived 65 to 68 years. Noone thought there would be pensioners living 30 to 35 years after they retired.
is it true that a surviving spouse can apply to get 50% of the deceased spouses benefits should he pass? In other words… If the spouse had a higher benefit, let's say it was a full benefit at age 67 and it was $3000 a month. And he dies.. is the spouse now eligible to receive 1500 a month if she was getting less than that? OR... what if the spouse that died and taken his benefit early and was only getting $2000 a month... will the surviving spouse still get $1500 a month (which would've been his full benefit amount at 67...Or with the surviving spouse have the option to get only $1000 a month? ( which would be 50% of that $2000 that he c was getting because he took it early ) ??? Help! ❤️ and thank you!
You are confusing the spousal benefit and the survivor's benefit. They are two different things. A surviving spouse gets 100% of the larger benefit not 50%.
@@FinancialFastLane Ahhh...I very much appreciate the explanation. You are correct in that this is confusing stuff. I'm going to be 63 1/2 soon and I'm considering grabbing my benefit now, not that I need it necessarily but I have had a heart attack already and the extra money would benefit me more now more than waiting and hoping I make it to 75 (let alone 80.) besides, i'm thinking that if I become that old, I don't think ill be doing near as much as I am now to be honest. everyones situation is different.
Start taxing AI. ( artificial intelligence) for revenue. It would have almost an infinity of income stream in all areas. We had to start paying the Social Security and taxes when we start working this is another working avenue but it’s based on mechanical My two. Cents
You can blame this problem on President Johnston. After all he's the one that said "There's much to much money sitting here" and he proceeded to turn it over to congress to spend at will.
I hope these corrupt politicians can make it into law to offer social security recipients cash out offer to get off social security let the offer be a one time payment for 10 to 15 years cash out payment I’ll take it with pride and never want social security again
Social Security is an annuity. It would be foolish to take a one-time lump sum payment. Foolish and short sighted. And no, not all politicians are corrupt. Just mostly Republican politicians.
That's ridiculous. If you put into the system for 35, 40, or 45 years why shouldn't you collect it? That's like saying you shouldn't collect unemployment if you lose your job, but have emergency savings to still pay your bills.
@@livingtheslolife Losing your job is like having a house fire. You collect because of your LOSS. Try to stretch your thinking. Are you entitled to collect all the premiums paid for your insurance if you never have a fire/accident? No. You count your blessings that you didn’t suffer them and consider the premiums you paid as “security” in case of emergency.
@@susandavenport9257 everyone who pays into Social Security for the minimum amount of time can collect, just like you can go on Medicare at 65. Should you not be allowed to go on Medicare if you can afford to pay for private insurance?
I’d save my own SS if I could! I don’t need daddy government to do it for me. And if people can’t do it themselves bc they don’t have self control, I can’t help that, I can’t control that. Our corrupt government will screw us at every turn
Thank you Lane!
President Franklin Roosevelt (D) created the Social Security program in the 1930’s. It’s a social insurance program, not an investment account. IRAs, 401(k)s, etc., supplement Social Security.
Social Security has been a hugely successful program, providing important inflation-adjusted income throughout retirement.
Workers pay a Social Security tax to accrue benefits. In 2023, any income above $160,200 is not subject to the Social Security tax (“maximum taxable earnings”). Shortfalls in the trust fund may easily be addressed by raising or eliminating that cap.
It isn’t necessary or advisable to cut benefits in such an important program by raising the retirement age, reducing inflation adjustments, etc.
So, whatever your politics may be, which party is much more likely to strengthen Social Security over the next few years? The same one that created Social Security in the first place - the Democratic Party. Hold your nose if you have to, but vote for Democrats for President, Senator, and members of the House of Representatives. (Voting at the state and local levels is another matter.)
But, when voting for Democrats at the federal level, make sure you tell them that your support depends upon them strengthening Social Security by raising or eliminating the “maximum taxable earnings” and not cutting benefits.
The decision of trying to figure out when to collect SS sucks! I have no idea how long I am going to live to so am frustrated on how I'm supposed to analyze this...
Please make video on SSI
When people say your employer pays in half of SS for you, that's a misconception. Everything that costs my boss, regardless of whether that is salary, benefits, or employer taxes, that's something I need to be providing a greater value for so my employer gets a return on their investment. Make no mistake, those employer taxes were earned.
I thought that may be the case… thanks!
Foe single people its use it or lose it, couples are given many options to maximize SS whether they are entitled to or not. Single people expenses are much higher than for couples, because housing, transportation, utilities expenses are borne by one person.
Thanks for your guidance! I have heard that one should file and suspend so their spouse can draw a spousal benefit. My waif was born in 1962 and I was born in 1965. My benefits are about 3 times hers. Can I file and suspend when eligible so she can draw spousal at a higher rate and will that mess up my benefits?
Thanks for considering the topic!
The file and suspend strategy was something we recommended all the time but it has been phased out. It is no longer available.
Worked full time for 40 years in healthcare (clerical). I'm now retired at 67 with 2200 SS as only income. I'm setting aside 2000 dollars for taxes. I hope its enough..if not, I'll get a parttime job just to pay taxes.
If not enough you might look at remote freelance work. Been doing that for 10 years PT.
you wont own any tax
Idk…who would ever wait to take SS at 80? Omg….in todays world I’d take it at the age you can, take what is owed to you and enjoy your life as long as you can. I’m in my 60’s and can walk, ride a bike, drive etc…geez…who knows what condition I’ll be in at 80?
The latest anyone would ever start SS is age 70. There is no advantage to go past 70. Age 80 is the typical break even point.
Yea,that’s what happens when people love money so much. Take it early and enjoy the life the creator gave u in good health! Besides, when you die you’re not taking the money with you! It’s all over!
@@MannyC711not always. Some play the long game. I will wait till 70 but i will have 2 of my 3 other sources of income by age 60. Also SS and another source when i do retire at 70. I saw my great grandmother go from rich to poor due to being in a nursing home for almost 25 years. She died at 104. Also, and people forget this, SS used to be paid when people only lived 65 to 68 years. Noone thought there would be pensioners living 30 to 35 years after they retired.
is it true that a surviving spouse can apply to get 50% of the deceased spouses benefits should he pass? In other words… If the spouse had a higher benefit, let's say it was a full benefit at age 67 and it was $3000 a month.
And he dies.. is the spouse now eligible to receive 1500 a month if she was getting less than that? OR...
what if the spouse that died and taken his benefit early and was only getting $2000 a month... will the surviving spouse still get $1500 a month (which would've been his full benefit amount at 67...Or with the surviving spouse have the option to get only $1000 a month? ( which would be 50% of that $2000 that he c was getting because he took it early ) ??? Help! ❤️ and thank you!
You are confusing the spousal benefit and the survivor's benefit. They are two different things. A surviving spouse gets 100% of the larger benefit not 50%.
@@FinancialFastLane Ahhh...I very much appreciate the explanation. You are correct in that this is confusing stuff. I'm going to be 63 1/2 soon and I'm considering grabbing my benefit now, not that I need it necessarily but I have had a heart attack already and the extra money would benefit me more now more than waiting and hoping I make it to 75 (let alone 80.) besides, i'm thinking that if I become that old, I don't think ill be doing near as much as I am now to be honest. everyones situation is different.
Start taxing AI. ( artificial intelligence) for revenue. It would have almost an infinity of income stream in all areas.
We had to start paying the Social Security and taxes when we start working this is another working avenue but it’s based on mechanical
My two. Cents
I am 65. Now what, should I worke another five years?
Not to mention, I start working at age 15. Now I am 65.
You can blame this problem on President Johnston. After all he's the one that said "There's much to much money sitting here" and he proceeded to turn it over to congress to spend at will.
I hope these corrupt politicians can make it into law to offer social security recipients cash out offer to get off social security let the offer be a one time payment for 10 to 15 years cash out payment I’ll take it with pride and never want social security again
Social Security is an annuity. It would be foolish to take a one-time lump sum payment. Foolish and short sighted. And no, not all politicians are corrupt. Just mostly Republican politicians.
Social Security is income INSURANCE . . . those with higher retirement incomes should not collect . . . they don't need it!
If you compare yourself to the world's poor then you don't "need" most of your daily luxuries either. Give them away!
That's ridiculous. If you put into the system for 35, 40, or 45 years why shouldn't you collect it? That's like saying you shouldn't collect unemployment if you lose your job, but have emergency savings to still pay your bills.
@@livingtheslolife Losing your job is like having a house fire. You collect because of your LOSS. Try to stretch your thinking. Are you entitled to collect all the premiums paid for your insurance if you never have a fire/accident? No. You count your blessings that you didn’t suffer them and consider the premiums you paid as “security” in case of emergency.
@@susandavenport9257 everyone who pays into Social Security for the minimum amount of time can collect, just like you can go on Medicare at 65. Should you not be allowed to go on Medicare if you can afford to pay for private insurance?
That's garbage. Why should I have to pay for you but don't get a piece for myself? Sorry but, I'll be taking my cut.
I’d save my own SS if I could! I don’t need daddy government to do it for me. And if people can’t do it themselves bc they don’t have self control, I can’t help that, I can’t control that. Our corrupt government will screw us at every turn