Investing Curiouscatblog

Tag: social security

  • Delaying the Start of Social Security Payments Can Pay Off

    Delaying when you start collecting Social Security benefits in the USA can enhance your personal financial situation. You may start collecting benefits at 62, but each year you delay collecting increases your payment by 5% to 8% (see below). If you retire before your “normal social security retirement age” (see below) your payments are reduced from the calculated monthly payment (which is based on your earnings and the number of years you paid into the social security fund). If you delay past that age you get a 8% bonus added to your monthly payment for each year you delay.

    The correct decision depends on your personal financial situation and your life expectancy. The social security payment increases are based on life expectancy for the entire population but if your life expectancy is significantly different that can change what option makes sense for you. If you live a short time you won’t make up for missing payments (the time while you delayed taking payments) with the increased monthly payment amount.

    The “normal social security retirement age” is set in law and depends on when you were born. If you were born prior to 1938 it is 65 and if you are born after 1959 it is 67 (in between those dates it slowly increases. Those born in 1959 will reach the normal social security retirement age of 67 in 2026.

    The social security retirement age has fallen far behind demographic trends – which is why social security deductions are so large today (it used to be social security payments for the vast majority of people did not last long at all – they died fairly quickly, that is no longer the case). The way to cope with this is either delay the retirement ago or increase the deductions. The USA has primarily increased the deductions, with a tiny adjustment of the retirement age (increasing it only 2 years over several decades). We would be better off if they moved back the normal retirement age at least another 3 to 5 years (for the payment portion – given the broken health care system in the USA retaining medicare ages as they are is wise).

    In the case of early retirement, a benefit is reduced 5/9 of one percent for each month (6.7% annually) before normal retirement age, up to 36 months. If the number of months exceeds 36, then the benefit is further reduced 5/12 of one percent per month (5% annually).

    For delaying your payments after you have reached normal social security retirement age increases payments by 8% annually (there were lower amounts earlier but for people deciding today that is the figure to use).

    Lets take a quick look at a simple example:
    (more…)

  • Gen X Retirement

    Half of Gen X Doesn’t Expect to Retire

    Boomers who are frustrated that they can’t afford to retire may turn out to be lucky compared to their kids. A new survey shows that more than two-thirds of Generation X don’t think they’ll be able to retire at all.
    …
    “They are earning money and paying into Social Security and yet they fear they may never see the payback,” said Moloney. “They feel they deserve it, but it looks like a financial black hole to them right now.”

    The government certainly is failing to pay for future obligations today instead choosing to raise taxes on the future. But Social Security itself is actually in better shape than most think. We really do need to move out the benefit payment date (when it began projected life expectancy was almost the same as the date payments would start – which would mean moving the retirement date more than 15 years later, I believe). Going that far is not needed but it should be moved back. But really social security is in good shape for 30 years or more. First, it isn’t going to go from good shape to failed in a day. And second, they will make adjustments as they have in the past to make it work (the adjustment they made in the last 15 years helped a great deal so now they can just add some additional delays in when it starts paying out… and extend the good condition of Social Security without too much trouble).

    Medicare is the huge problem. The country either needs to stop paying an extra 50-80% for health care than other countries do (and thus reduce the cost of Medicare liabilities) or massively cut benefits or massively increase taxes. Likely a combination of all 3.
    (more…)

  • Old and Wealthy

    I am not exactly sure why but for some reason people seem very ignorant of the wealth distribution by age. The richest group by far are those over 65. There are several reasons for this including self preservation. Once you stop working you better have a large pool of capital or you will most likely have little income (you could have a great pension and no other savings but…). Another is that the “miracle” of compound interest. Those that actually saved enough for retirement often find their investments out-earning their spending thus wealth increasing yearly. This effect over time results in wealth increasing dramatically. Many of those that failed to save enough will have their savings dissolve very quickly thus leaving the inverse of a bell curve (a high number of wealthy and of poor and a lessor number in the middle). Social Security helps those that failed to save enough for retirement to slow the decline (and those that saved enough to become even wealthier even faster). The presence of large numbers of poor elderly I think is one reason so many are surprised that they are the richest age group.

    I used to be surprised how few people know this – now I know, for those I talk to anyway, they are always surprised. This has several public policy impacts such as why do we have a huge “social security transfer system” (social security including medicare) to move money from the young to the old when the old are wealthier than the young? People see the 7.65% deducted from their check but the employer has to pay an equal amount to this transfer of wealth between the generations bringing the total to 15.3%.

    It doesn’t make much sense to me to have those working at Wal-mart and McDonalds transfer 15.3% of the income from their labor to much wealthier people. Yes, paying something in I think is fair. But the system should be adjusted. One method I would use is to reduce (or eliminate) payments to the wealthy elderly (continuing the existing payments to the poor elderly is affordable so I see continuing those payments as good public policy) and reduce taxes on the working poor. Obviously others disagree so we transfer a large amount of money from those working at Wal-mart to those with hundreds of thousands in investments. I think this is wrong. I wish at least the facts would be known so that the decision is made with awareness of the facts.

    The median net worth of people 55 to 64 has climbed to nearly $250,000, while it has dropped to about $50,000 for those in their late 30s
    …
    The growing divide between the rich and poor in America is more generation gap than class conflict, according to a USA TODAY analysis of federal government data. The rich are getting richer, but what’s received little attention is who these rich people are. Overwhelmingly, they’re older folks. Nearly all additional wealth created in the USA since 1989 has gone to people 55 and older, according to Federal Reserve data. Wealth has doubled since 1989 in households headed by older Americans.
    …
    The implications are far-reaching and can turn conventional wisdom on its head. Social Security and Medicare increasingly are functioning as a transfer of money from less affluent young people to much wealthier older people.

    Wow, I don’t recall seeing publications actually point out this fact very often. Good for the USA Today.
    (more…)

  • Social Security Trust Fund

    The Washington Post really doesn’t like Social Security … by Brad Setser

    Best I can tell, Social Security is in the best financial shape of any federal program. It is in far better future shape than Medicare. And it is in way better shape than the portion of the government that isn’t financed by the payroll tax. That part of the government has a $434 billion deficit. Social Security, by contrast, has a $185b cash flow surplus. Social Security’s revenues exceed its expenditures – and will continue to do so for several years. Its financial assets are growing – they will top $2 trillion at the end of this year.

    This is not the way the story is normally told. Social Security is actually in good shape for at least 30 years. That doesn’t mean it is not a big problem after that but Brad Setser makes a good point that the huge increase in the rest of the debt has really made that problem seem minor. The main point? We need to fix the rest of the budget mess, and while I still think Social Security needs adjustment really that is not as important as fixing the rest of the spending money the government doesn’t have.

    Related: Estate Tax Repeal