NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label Social Security Trust Fund. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Security Trust Fund. Show all posts

14 August 2015

Time for all Democratic candidates to support Social Security expansion & Social Security at 80: Is it time for an overhaul? & Gridlock on needed reforms as Social Security turns 80 14&9AUG15

Image result for social security logo

HAPPY 80TH BIRTHDAY SOCIAL SECURITY!!!!! So many politicians continue to spend so much time and energy lying to the American people about the financial state of the Social Security program, manipulating the public's fears about how long Social Security has before running out of money, deceiving the American people on the options to improve and expand Social Security for future generations. These politicians, democrats and republicans, do this to protect the rich and powerful who have bought their loyalty through their campaign contributions. Social Security is financially sound and can be improved and expanded by lifting the income cap on the Social Security tax and by means testing for program recipients. None of the republican presidential candidates or the republican party leadership offer any proposals to improve and expand Social Security. Bernie Sanders, Martin O'Malley, Sen Elizabeth Warren D MA, are just a few of the Democratic presidential candidates, politicians and party leadership who are calling for improving and expanding Social Security. Below is an update from +BoldProgressives including a petition calling for Social Security to be expanded , and so far over one million people have signed it. Click the link to sign on and then share with others. This is followed by a piece from +PBS NewsHour which is a perfect example of the usual false propaganda about Social Security and another outlining the reforms needed and who is standing in the way.....


Eighty years ago today, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law The Social Security Act -- marking the beginning of the greatest anti-poverty program in the history of the United States.
Before Social Security existed, more than half of American seniors lived in poverty. Today, it’s less than ten percent. And while that number is still too high, for 80 years Social Security has survived despite extremist Republicans’ attempts to try and dismantle the program at every opportunity they get.
Two years ago, instead of playing defense on cuts, progressives made a decision to shift the debate to be about expanding benefits to keep up with the true needs of our grandparents and veterans.
The results have been amazing: 42 of 44 Senate Democrats who voted on the Warren-Manchin resolution in March said yes to expanding Social Security. So did a majority of House Democrats when they voted for the Progressive Caucus Budget.
And Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley have endorsed this big, bold idea on the campaign trail.
Our goal is to make Elizabeth Warren-style ideas like Social Security expansion a key issue in the 2016 presidential election by pressuring every single Democratic presidential candidate to get on board.
Click here to sign the petition calling on Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee to support expanding Social Security benefits -- and vow never to cut them.
We’ll hand-deliver your signature in one of the early primary states.
In addition to good policy, this is great politics. January polling by the Progressive Change Institute showed expanding Social Security is popular by 70% to 15% among likely 2016 voters.
Let's dare Republicans to oppose it and propose unpopular cuts. Oh wait, they have...
Just this week, John Kasich unveiled his own extreme plan to cut benefits for baby boomers, while Chris Christie says he wants to cut benefits and raise the retirement age.
Democrats need to take this fight head on. Not just come out against privatization. Not just come out against cuts.
Click here to urge Hillary Clinton, Jim Webb, and Lincoln Chafee to call for expanding Social Security benefits, and never cut them.
Together, we'll make this a central 2016 issue.
Thanks for being a bold progressive.
--Keith Rouda, PCCC organizer


Want to support the Warren wing? Senator Elizabeth Warren says, "When PCCC members donate millions in small-dollardonations and make millions of phone calls for progressive candidates, leaders in Washington, they take notice." Chip in $3 here.


Paid for by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee PAC (www.BoldProgressives.org) and not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee. Contributions to the PCCC are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.

Social Security at 80: Is it time for an overhaul?

BY Stephen Ohlemacher  August 14, 2015 at 12:00 PM EDT
President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the Social Security Act on Aug. 14, 1935. From left to right, Robert Lee Doughton, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Edwin E. Witte, Director of the President's Social Security Committee, with Senator Robert F. Wagner, co-author of the bill behind him, Senator Robert La Follette, Senator Augustine Lonergan, Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, Senator William H. King, Rep. David John Lewis, co-author of the bill and Senator Joseph F. Guffey. Photo by FPG/Archive Photos/Getty Images
President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the Social Security Act on Aug. 14, 1935, with members of his Social Security Committee, members of Congress and the president’s cabinet. Photo by FPG/Archive Photos/Getty Images
WASHINGTON — Social Security turns 80 on Friday, and the massive retirement and disability program is showing its age.
Social Security’s disability fund is projected to run dry next year. The retirement fund has enough money to pay full benefits until 2035. But once the fund is depleted, the shortfalls are projected to be enormous.
The stakes are huge: Nearly 60 million retirees, disabled workers, spouses and children get monthly Social Security payments, and that number is projected to grow to 90 million over the next two decades.
And the timing is bad: Social Security faces these problems as fewer employers are offering traditional pensions, forcing older workers to think hard about how they will afford retirement.
“This is a program that’s been immensely popular since it began,” said Nancy LeaMond, executive vice president of AARP. “Increasingly, people recognize that saving for retirement is becoming harder and harder, and Social Security is becoming even more important.”
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act on Aug. 14, 1935. Things to know about the federal government’s largest program on its 80th birthday:
Why is Social Security at Risk?
Social Security’s long-term financial problems are largely a result of demographic changes. Every day, about 10,000 people in the U.S. turn 65. These are the baby boomers.
Typical boomers, however, didn’t have as many children as their parents did. As a result, relatively fewer workers are left to pay the payroll taxes that support Social Security.
In 1960, there were more than five workers for every person receiving Social Security. Today there are fewer than three. In 20 years, there will be about two workers for every person getting benefits.
Americans are also living longer. In 1940, someone who was 65 could be expected to live about 14 more years, on average. Today, they can expect to live an additional 20 years, on average.
Benefits
Last year, Social Security paid benefits of nearly $850 billion — about a quarter of all federal spending. The average monthly payment is $1,221. That comes to about $14,700 a year.
For most retirees, Social Security accounts for the majority of their income, according to the Social Security Administration.
What Happens in 2016?
The trust fund that supports Social Security’s disability program is projected to run dry in late 2016 — right in the middle of the presidential election. If Congress allows that to happen, it will trigger an automatic 19 percent cut in benefits to the 11 million people who receive Social Security disability.
Lawmakers could redirect tax revenue from Social Security’s much bigger retirement program, as they have done in the past.
If the tax revenue were redirected, the retirement fund would lose one year of solvency, so both the retirement program and the disability program would have enough money to pay full benefits until 2034. At that point, Social Security would collect enough in taxes to pay 79 percent of benefits.
Republicans are balking at the fix. They see the funding crisis as an opportunity to improve a disability program that they believe is plagued by waste and abuse.
“Social Security retirement funds have been raided far too many times for far too many years,” said Rep. Tom Reed, R-N.Y.
Reed sponsored a rule adopted by House Republicans that would prevent the House from redirecting the tax revenue without making changes to improve the overall financial health of Social Security.
Democrats are much more eager to defend the disability program, noting that its modest benefits keep millions of disabled workers and their families out of poverty.
“The issue is whether you’re going to cut services and benefits to Americans who paid for them by saying that the Social Security program doesn’t have the money, when in fact it has nearly $3 trillion,” said Rep. Xavier Becerra, D-Calif., who has introduced a bill that would merge Social Security’s trust funds.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Friday, “We renew our vow to protect Social Security for every generation.”
How Big is the Long-term Problem?
The numbers are beyond comprehension.
Social Security uses a 75-year window to forecast its finances, so the projections cover the life expectancy of every worker paying into the system. Over the next 75 years, Social Security is projected to pay out $159 trillion more in benefits than it will collect in taxes, according to agency data.
That’s not a typo.
Adjusted for inflation, the shortfall comes to $35.3 trillion in 2015 dollars. That’s nearly twice the national debt, which took the entire federal government 239 years to accumulate.
Did Congress Already Spend the Trust Funds?
Yes. For much of the past three decades, Social Security produced big surpluses, collecting more in taxes than it paid in benefits. Social Security invested those surpluses in special U.S. Treasury bonds, which are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government.
They are now valued at $2.8 trillion.
But as Social Security was generating surpluses, the rest of the federal government was running deficits, for all but a few years around the turn of the century.
To finance deficit spending, the Treasury borrowed from the public and from other federal programs, including Social Security.
Didn’t Congress Fix Social Security Under Reagan?
Yes. Social Security was on the brink of insolvency in the early 1980s when Congress and President Ronald Reagan agreed to gradually increase payroll taxes and to reduce benefits, in part by gradually raising the retirement age. Those changes didn’t permanently fix Social Security, but they provided enough revenue to pay full benefits for about 50 years.
In today’s political climate, another feat like that would be historic.
Interactive: How would you fix Social Security?

Gridlock on needed reforms as Social Security turns 80

An American flag flutters in the wind next to the sign for a Social Security Administration office in Burbank, California October 25, 2012. As Social Security approaches its 80th birthday Friday, the benefit program urgently needs reforms to remain solvent in the future. Photo by Fred Prouser/Reuters
An American flag flutters in the wind next to the sign for a Social Security Administration office in Burbank, California October 25, 2012. As Social Security approaches its 80th birthday Friday, the benefit program urgently needs reforms to remain solvent in the future. Photo by Fred Prouser/Reuters
WASHINGTON — As Social Security approaches its 80th birthday Friday, the federal government’s largest benefit program stands at a pivotal point in its history.
Relatively modest changes to taxes and benefits could still save it for generations of Americans to come, but Congress must act quickly, and even limited changes are politically difficult.
The longer lawmakers wait, the harder it will become to maintain Social Security as a program that pays for itself, a key feature since President Franklin Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act on Aug. 14, 1935.
“The more time that they take, the less acceptable the changes will be because there needs to be adequate time for the public to prepare and to adjust to whatever changes Congress will make,” Carolyn Colvin, acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration, said in an interview.
Social Security’s long-term financial problems are largely a result of demographic changes. As baby boomers swell the ranks of retirees, relatively fewer workers are left to pay taxes.
In 1960, there were more than five workers for every person receiving Social Security. Today there are fewer than three. In 20 years, there will be about two workers for every person getting benefits.
“Remember, these are our most vulnerable population,” Colvin said. “These are the elderly who helped to build this country. These are the disabled who certainly did not wish to become disabled.”
The options fall into broad categories: benefit cuts, tax increases or a combination of both.
None is popular.
Nearly 60 million retirees, disabled workers, spouses and children get monthly Social Security payments, a number that is projected to grow to 90 million over the next two decades.
About 168 million workers pay Social Security taxes.
Adding to the gridlock, policymakers are moving in opposite directions. Republicans are pushing to cut benefits while a growing number of Democrats is pulling to expand them. The debate is playing out in Congress and the presidential campaign, increasing the likelihood that Washington will deal with Social Security the same way it has so many other issues – not until it becomes a crisis.
Some 72 members of Congress signed a letter to President Barack Obama in July, calling for Social Security benefits to be enhanced.
“In my view, given the fact that poverty among seniors is going up, that seniors are struggling, that people with disabilities are struggling, we have got to expand benefits, not cut them,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., who is running for the Democratic nomination for president.
The poverty rate among those 65 and older has inched up in recent years. But it still is significantly lower than the poverty rate for younger age groups, in large part because of Social Security.
Sanders has proposed increasing Social Security’s annual cost-of-living adjustment, or COLA, and increasing minimum benefits for low-wage workers.
The average monthly payment is $1,221. That comes to about $14,700 a year.
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, scoffs at the idea of expanding benefits.
“Where are they going to get the money?” asked Hatch, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over Social Security. “They don’t ever seem to give any consideration to how deeply in debt our country is and how difficult it’s going to be to get out of it.”
For much of the past three decades, Social Security produced big surpluses, collecting more in taxes than it paid in benefits. Social Security’s combined trust funds are now valued at $2.8 trillion.
The retirement trust fund has enough money to pay full benefits until 2035. At that point, the program would collect enough payroll taxes to pay about 79 percent of benefits, triggering an automatic 21 percent cut.
The disability trust fund is projected to run out of reserves much sooner, in late 2016. If that happens, it would trigger an automatic 19 percent cut in benefits.
Obama and other Democrats want to redirect tax revenue from the much bigger retirement fund to the disability fund, as Congress has done in the past. But Republicans say that would be like robbing seniors to pay the disabled.
If the two funds were combined, they would have enough money to pay full benefits for both programs until 2034, according to the trustees.
But long before then, Social Security’s long-term financial problems could become too big to solve without painful remedies or excessive borrowing.
Once the surplus is gone, the gap between scheduled benefits and projected tax revenues starts off big and quickly becomes huge. In the first year, the gap would be $571 billion, according agency data. Over the first decade, the deficit would total more than $7 trillion.
Social Security uses a 75-year window to forecast its finances, so the projections cover the life expectancy of every worker paying into the system.
Options to address Social Security’s finances, along with the share of the 75-year shortfall that each one would eliminate:
TAXES
Social Security is financed by a 12.4 percent tax on wages. Workers pay half and their employers pay the other half. The tax is applied to the first $118,500 of a worker’s wages, a level that increases each year with inflation.
Options:
-apply the payroll tax to all wages, including those above $118,500. This option would wipe out 66 percent of the shortfall.
-increase the combined payroll tax rate by 0.1 percentage point a year, until it reaches 14.4 percent in 20 years. This option would eliminate 49 percent of the shortfall.
RETIREMENT AGE
Workers qualify for full retirement benefits at age 66, a threshold that gradually rises to 67 for people born in 1960 or later. Workers are eligible for early retirement at 62, though monthly benefits are reduced.
Options:
-gradually increase the full retirement age until it reaches 68 in 2033. This option would eliminate 15 percent of the shortfall.
-raise the early retirement age to 64 in 2023, and the full retirement age to 69 in 2027. This option would wipe out 29 percent of the shortfall.
COLAs
Each year, if consumer prices increase, Social Security benefits go up as well. By law, the increases are pegged to an inflation index. This year, benefits went up by 1.7 percent.
Options:
-adopt a new inflation index called the Chained CPI, which assumes that people change their buying habits when prices increase to reduce the impact on their pocketbooks. The Chained CPI would reduce the annual COLA by 0.3 percentage point, on average.
This option would eliminate 19 percent of the shortfall.
-adopt a new measure of inflation that takes into account the higher costs that older people have to pay for health care. This measure, called the CPI for the Elderly, would increase the annual COLA by about 0.2 percentage point, on average.
This option would increase the shortfall by 13 percent.

27 July 2013

34 Social Security Secrets You Need to Know Now 3JUL12

I have some family and friends who are retired, some who are close to retirement, and some, like me, who have 11 years to go to be able to collect my full social security benefits. This is from The Business Desk of the PBS NewsHour and there is a link to e mail them with any questions on Social Security you may have. Hope you will share this with others....


A blank U.S. Treasury check before it's run through a printer. Treasury employee Linda Tarkenton of Philadelphia holds a blank U.S. Treasury check before it's run through a printer at the U.S. Treasury printing facility. Photo by William Thomas Cain/Getty Images.
Update: | Laurence Kotlikoff has agreed to answer your questions about Social Security and retirement. Read his first set of responses here and submit your queries in the comments below.
FOM$* (and sometime tennis sparring partner) Larry Kotlikoff of Boston University is a noted economist, prolific author and frequent contributor to Bloomberg and Forbes.com, among other venues. We've featured him on this page before and will again. Today, we post a recent essay of his: "34 Social Security 'Secrets' All Baby Boomers and Millions of Current Recipients Need to Know."
Be forewarned that Larry is sometimes wrong but rarely in doubt. Know, however, that he has worked for many years to fine-tune retirement software -- ESPlanner -- that is widely considered the gold standard in the online world. We've long linked to the basic free version of ESPlanner from this page. Know also that Larry is my own personal social security advisor. His advice to apply for a dependent spousal benefit while my wife and I put off full retirement benefits until age 70 has been a boon, and so impressed the woman with whom I spoke at Social Security, that she thanked me for informing her of it and said she'd advise callers about this option henceforth. Note that many of Larry's "secrets" involve the dependent spouse benefit. Be advised that the folks at Social Security with whom I've dealt have been uniformly courteous, responsive and efficient.
Editor's Note | A version of this post originally ran July 3, 2012, on Forbes.com.
34 Social Security 'Secrets' All Baby Boomers and Millions of Current Recipients Need to Know
By Laurence Kotlikoff
The Social Security Handbook has 2,728 separate rules governing its benefits. And it has thousands upon thousands of explanations of those rules in its Program Operating Manual System, called the POMS, which provides guidance on implementing the 2,728 rules. Talk about a user's nightmare!
As a young economist, I did a fair amount of academic research on saving and insurance adequacy. At the time, I thought I had a very good handle on the rules. Then I started a financial planning software company, which makes suggestions about what benefits to take from Social Security and when to take them to get the best overall deal. (See, in this regard, www.maximizemysocialsecurity.com and www.esplanner.com.)
At that point, I realized I needed to quadruple check my understanding of Social Security's provisions. To do this, I established contacts with experts at Social Security's Office of the Actuary. I also hired a specialist whose only job is to audit my company's Social Security, Medicare premium, and federal and state income tax code.
The problem with this strategy is you can only check on things you know about. Over the years, I discovered things I had never heard of. I would then check with the Social Security actuaries who would say, "Oh yes, that's covered in the POMS section GN 03101.073!"
Mind you, a large share of the rules in the Social Security Handbook are indecipherable to mortal men, and the POMS is often worse. But thanks to patience on the part of the actuaries, I've learned things that almost no current or prospective Social Security recipient knows, but which almost all should know.
The reason is that taking the right Social Security benefits at the right time can make a huge difference to a retiree's living standard.
Unfortunately, Social Security has some very nasty "gottcha" provisions, so if you take the wrong benefits at the wrong time, you can end up getting the wrong, as in smaller, benefits forever.
Also, the folks at the local Social Security offices routinely tell people things that aren't correct, including about what benefits they can and can't receive and when they can receive them. Taking Social Security benefits -- the right ones at the right time -- is one of the biggest financial decisions you'll ever make, so you need to get it right.
Getting it right on your own, however, is neigh impossible. One of my engineers and I calculated that for an age-62 couple there are over 100 million combinations of months for each of the two spouses to take retirement benefits, spousal benefits and decided whether or not to file and suspend one's retirement benefits. There are also start-stop-start strategies to consider. Each combination needs to be considered to figure out what choices will produce the highest benefits when valued in the present (measured in present value). For some couples who are very different in age, survivor benefits also come into play. In that case, the number of combinations can exceed 10 billion!
Fortunately, www.maximizemysocialsecurity.com can help you find the right answer generally within a matter of seconds. It does exhaustive searches of all combinations of months in which you can take actions, but thanks to modern computing power and careful programming, our Maximize My Social Security program can run through millions upon millions of combinations of decisions incredibly fast.
Whether or not you use our software, it's important to have as full a handle on Social Security's provisions as possible. Listed below are 34 things I've learned over the years that you may not fully know. (The list started at 25, but I've been learning some new secrets and recalling some others.)
  1. If you are already collecting your retirement benefit and are at or over full retirement age, you can tell Social Security you want to suspend further benefits and then ask them to restart your benefits at a later date, say age 70. Social Security will then apply its Delayed Retirement Credit to your existing benefit once you start collecting again. Hence, this is a means by which current Social Security recipients who aren't yet 70 can collect higher benefits, albeit at the cost of giving up their check for a while. But this trade off will, on net, often be very advantageous. For example, if you started collecting at 62 and are now at your full retirement age, i.e., 66, you can suspend benefits until 70 and then start collecting 32 percent higher benefits for the rest of your life. This benefit collection strategy can be called Start Stop Start. We are in the process of rolling out a new update of www.maximizemysocialsecurity.com, which incorporates Start Stop Start.
  2. If you aren't now collecting and wait until 70 to collect your retirement benefit, your retirement benefit starting at 70 can be as much as 76 percent higher than your age-62 retirement benefit, adjusted for inflation. The reason is that your benefit is not reduced due to Social Security's Early Retirement Reduction; moreover, it's increased due to Social Security's Delayed Retirement Credit. For many people, the increase in the retirement benefit can be even higher if they continue to earn money after age 62 thanks to Social Security's Re-computation of Benefits.
  3. But if you are married or divorced, waiting to collect your retirement benefit may be the wrong move. If you are the low-earning spouse, it may be better to take your retirement benefit starting at age 62 and then switch to the spousal benefit you can collect on your current or ex-spouse's account starting at your full retirement age. But beware of the Gottcha in item 5.
  4. If you're married, you or your spouse, but not both, can receive spousal benefits after reaching full retirement age while deferring taking your retirement benefits and, thereby, letting them grow. This may require having one spouse file for retirement benefits, but suspend their collection. This is called the File and Suspend strategy.
  5. Be careful! If you take your own retirement benefit early and are below full retirement age, you will be forced to take your spousal benefit early and at a permanently reduced level if your spouse collects his/her his/her retirement benefit before or in the month in which you apply to collect your retirement benefit. If your spouse is not collecting a retirement benefit when you apply for an early retirement benefit, you will not be deemed to be applying for your spousal benefit. Hence, you can start collecting your spousal benefit later. (See item 33)
  6. Start Stop Start may also make sense for married workers who aren't already collecting and whose age differences are such they they can't take advantage of File and Suspend. Take, for example, a 62 year-old high earner, named Sally, with a 66-year old low earner spouse, named Joe. By starting retirement benefits early, Sally permits Joe to start collecting a spousal benefit immediately. The reason is that spouses aren't eligible to collect spousal benefits unless the worker is either collecting a retirement benefit or has filed for a retirement benefit, but suspended its collection. If Sally starts her retirement benefit at 62, Joe can apply just for his spousal benefit at 66 and then wait until 70 to collect his own retirement benefit, which will be at its highest possible value thanks to Social Security's Delayed Retirement Credit. As for Sally, she can suspend her retirement benefit at 66, when she reaches full retirement, and then restart it at 70, at which point her benefits will be 32 percent higher than what she was collecting. Even singles workers may opt for Start Stop Start to help with their cash flow problems.
  7. If your primary insurance amount (your retirement benefit available if you wait until full retirement) is less than half that of your spouse and you take your own retirement benefit early, but are able to wait until full retirement age to collect your spousal benefit, your total check, for the rest of your life, will be less than one half of your spouse's primary insurance amount. Nonetheless, this may still be the best strategy. This reflects another Gotcha explained in 8.
  8. On its website, Social Security states, "your spouse can receive a benefit equal to one-half of your full retirement benefit amount if they start receiving benefits at their full retirement age." This is true only if your spouse isn't collecting his/her own retirement benefit. If your spouse is collecting her own retirement benefit, his/her spousal benefit is calculated differently. Rather than equaling one half of your full retirement benefit, it's calculated as half of your full retirement benefit less your spouse's full retirement benefit. This difference is called the excess spousal benefit. The total benefit your spouse will receive is her retirement benefit, inclusive of any reduction, due to taking benefits early, or increment, due to taking benefits late, plus the excess spousal benefit. The excess spousal benefit can't be negative; i.e., its smallest value is zero.

    Take Sue and Sam. Suppose they are both 62 and a) Sue opts to take her retirement benefit early and b) Sam opts to file and suspend at full retirement and take his retirement benefit at 70. Between ages 62 and 66 (their full retirement age), Sue collects a reduced retirement benefit, but is not forced to take her spousal benefit (which would be reduced) because Sam isn't collecting a retirement benefit during the years that Sue is 62 to 66. Now when Sue reaches age 66, she starts to collect an unreduced spousal benefit because Sam has qualified her to do so by filing and suspending for his retirement benefit. OK, but her unreduced spousal benefit is calculated as 1/2 x Sam's full retirement benefit less Sue's full retirement benefit. Sue ends up getting a total benefit equal to her own reduced retirement benefit plus her unreduced excess spousal benefit. This total is less than half of Sam's full retirement benefit. To see this note that the total equals half of Sam's full retirement benefit plus Sue's reduced retirement benefit minus Sue's full retirement benefit. The last two terms add to something negative.
  9. Are there are two different formulas for spousal benefits depending on whether the spouse is collecting his/her own retirement benefit? It sure seems that way because when the spouse is collecting a retirement benefit, the excess spousal benefit (potentially reduced for taking spousal benefits early) comes into play. And when the spouse isn't collecting a retirement benefit, the spousal benefit equals half of the worker's full retirement benefit. (Note, the spouse has to collect a retirement benefit before full retirement age if she applies for her spousal benefit.) The answer, in fact, is no. There is only one formula. The formula for the spousal benefit is always the excess benefit formula. But here's what happens to the application of that formula if the spouse is not collecting a retirement benefit. In that case, the spouse's full retirement benefit (also called the Primary Insurance Amount) is set to zero in calculating the excess spousal benefit. The reason, according to Social Security, is that a worker's Primary Insurance does not exist (i.e., equals zero) if the worker has not applied for a retirement benefit (and either suspended its collection or started to receive it). In other words, your Primary Insurance Amount is viewed as non-existant until you apply for a retirement benefit. This construct - the primary insurance amount doesn't exist until it's triggered by a retirement benefit application -- lets Social Security claim to have one formula for spousal benefits. But there are, in effect, two spousal benefit formulas and which one you -- the person who will collect a spousal benefit -- faces will depend on whether or not you take your retirement benefit early.
  10. If you are divorced, both you and your ex can collect spousal benefits (on each others work histories) after full retirement age while still postponing taking your own retirement benefits until, say, age 70, when they are as high as can be. This is an advantage for divorcees. But there's also a disadvantage. A divorcee who applies for spousal benefits before full retirement age will automatically be forced to apply for retirement benefits even if her/his ex isn't collecting retirement benefits.
  11. There is no advantage to waiting to start collecting spousal benefits after you reach your full retirement age.
  12. There is no advantage to waiting to start collecting survivor benefits after you reach your full retirement age.
  13. If you started collecting Social Security retirement benefits within the last year and decide it wasn't the right move, you can repay all the benefits received, including spousal and child benefits, and reapply for potentially higher benefits at a future date.
  14. If you wait to collect your retirement benefit after you reach your full retirement age, but before you hit age 70, you have to wait until the next January to see your full delayed retirement credit show up in your monthly check.
  15. Millions of Baby Boomers can significantly raise their retirement benefits by continuing to work in their sixties. This may also significantly raise the spousal, child, and mother and father benefits their relatives collect.
  16. If you take retirement, spousal, or widow/widower benefits early and lose some or all of them because of Social Security's earnings test, Social Security will actuarially increase your benefits (under the Adjustment of Reduction Factor) starting at your full retirement age based on the number of months of benefits you forfeited. This is true whether the loss in benefits due to the earnings test reflects benefits based on your own work record or based on your spouse's work record. Consequently, you should not be too concerned about working too much and losing your benefits if you elected to take them early.
  17. When it comes to possibly paying federal income taxes on your Social Security benefits, withdrawals from Roth IRAs aren't counted, but withdrawals from 401(k), 403(b), regular IRAs, and other tax-deferred accounts are. So there may be a significant advantage in a) withdrawing from your tax-deferred accounts after you retire, but before you start collecting Social Security, b) using up your tax-deferred accounts before you withdraw from your Roth accounts, and c) converting your tax-deferred accounts to Roth IRA holdings after or even before you retire, but before you start collecting Social Security.
  18. Social Security's online benefit calculators either don't handle or don't adequately handle spousal, divorcee, child, mother, father, widow or widower benefits, or file and suspend options.
  19. The default assumptions used in Social Security's online retirement benefit calculators is that the economy will experience no economy-wide real wage growth and no inflation going forward. This produces benefit estimates that can, for younger people, be significantly less than what they are most likely to receive.
  20. Some widows/widowers may do better taking their survivor benefits starting at 60 and their retirement benefits at or after full retirement. Others may do better taking their retirement benefits starting at 62 and taking their widow/widowers benefits starting at full retirement age.
  21. If you're below full retirement age and are collecting a spousal benefit and your spouse is below full retirement age and is collecting a retirement benefit, your spousal benefit can be reduced if your spouse earns beyond the Earnings Test's exempt amount. And it can also be reduced if you earn beyond the Earnings Test's exempt amount.
  22. The Windfall Elimination Provision affects how the amount of your retirement or disability benefit is calculated if you receive a pension from work where Social Security taxes were not taken out of your pay, such as a government agency or an employer in another country, and you also worked in other jobs long enough to qualify for a Social Security retirement or disability benefit. A modified formula is used to calculate your benefit amount, resulting in a lower Social Security benefit than you otherwise would receive.
  23. Based on the Government Pension Offset provision, if you receive a pension from a federal, state or local government based on work where you did not pay Social Security taxes, your Social Security spouse's or widow's or widower's benefits may be reduced.
  24. If you have children, because you started having children late or adopted young children later in life, they can collect child benefits through and including age 17 (or age 19 if they are still in secondary school) if you or your spouse or you ex spouse are collecting retirement benefits.
  25. If you have children who are eligible to collect benefits because your spouse or ex spouse is collecting retirement benefits, you can collect mother or father benefits until your child reaches age 16.
  26. Your children can receive survivor benefits if your spouse or ex-spouse died and they are under age 18 (or age 19 if they are still in secondary school).
  27. You can collect mother or father benefits if you spouse or ex-spouse died and you have children of your spouse or your ex-spouse who are under age 16.
  28. There is a maximum family benefit that applies to the total benefits to you, your spouse, and your children that can be received on your earnings record.
  29. If you choose to file and suspend in order to enable your spouse to collect a spousal benefit on your earnings record while you delay taking your benefit in order to collect a higher one later, make sure you pay your Medicare Part B premiums out of your own pocket (i.e., you need to send Social Security a check each month). If you don't, Social Security will pay it for you and treat you as waving (i.e., not suspending) your benefit apart from the premium and, get this, you won't get the Delayed Retirement Credit applied to your benefit. In other words, if you don't pay the Part B premiums directly, your benefit when you ask for it in the future will be NO LARGER than when you suspended its receipt. This is a really nasty Gotcha, which I just learned, by accident, from one of Social Security's top actuaries.
  30. If you are collecting a disability benefit and your spouse tries to collect just his/her Social Security benefit early, she will be deemed to be filing for her spousal benefits as well. I.e., if your spouse takes his/her retirement benefit early, he/she won't be able to delay taking a spousal benefit early, which means both her retirement and spousal benefits will be permanently reduced thanks to the early retirement benefit and early spousal benefit reduction factors.
  31. When inflation is low, like it is now, there is a disadvantage to delaying until, say 70, collecting one's retirement benefit. The disadvantage arises with respect to Medicare Part B premiums. If you collecting benefits (actually were collecting them last year), the increase in the Medicare premium this year will be limited to the increase in your Social Security check. This is referred to as being "held harmless." Hence, when inflation is low, the increase in your check due to the cost of living adjustment will be small, meaning the increase in your Medicare Part B premium will be limited. But, if you aren't collecting a benefit because you are waiting to collect a higher benefit later, tough noogies. You're Medicare Part B premium increase won't be limited. And that increase will be locked into every future year's Medicare Part B premium that you have to pay. You can wait to join Medicare until, say, age 70, but if you aren't working for a large employer, the premiums you'll pay starting at 70 will be higher and stay higher forever. So much for helping the government limit its Medicare spending!
  32. Hold harmless -- the provision that your increase in Medicare Part B premium cannot exceed the increase in your Social Security check due to Social Security's Cost of Living Adjustment -- does not apply if you have high income and are paying income-related Medicare Part B premiums.
  33. The thresholds beyond which first 50 percent and then 85 percent of your Social Security benefits are subject to federal income taxation are explicitly NOT indexed for inflation. Hence, eventually all Social Security recipients will be tax on 85 percent of their Social Security benefits.
  34. If you take your retirement benefit early and your spouse takes his/her retirement benefit any time that is a month or more after you take your retirement benefit, you will NOT be deemed, at that point (when your spouse starts collecting his/her retirement benefit) to be applying for a spousal benefit. In other words, you can, in this situation, wait until your full retirement age to start collecting your unreduced excess spousal benefit. The retirement benefit collection status of your spouse in the month you file for early retirement benefits determines whether you are deemed to be also be applying for spousal benefits. This means that you should think twice about applying for retirement benefits in the same month as your spouse if one or both of you are applying early.
-* Friend of Making Sen$e.
This entry is cross-posted on the Rundown- NewsHour's blog of news and insight.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2012/07/social-security-secrets-you-ne.html

14 December 2012

For the Last Time, the Social Security Trust Fund Is Real 14DEZ12

AGAIN and again the American people need to be reminded that Social Security is solvent and doesn't contribute to the federal debt (the author claims it does, with a credible argument. It wouldn't if the federal government actually taxed the rich and corporations so they paid their fair share, ended corporate tax loopholes and corporate welfare AND enacted means testing so that those retired with incomes over $250,000 would not be able to to collect). From Mother Jones....
Does Social Security contribute to the deficit? Is the Social Security trust fund a fiction? I've taken a crack at explaining both of these things before, but I've never really succeeded. The truth is that it's complicated. So today I'm going to try again. I figure I'm bound to hit on a formulation that makes sense eventually.
First things first: Social Security is funded via a payroll tax on all income up to $110,000. You pay 6.2 percent and your employer pays 6.2 percent. These numbers were set by the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, and for the next three decades payroll taxes provided more money than was needed to pay out benefits to retirees.
Now, suppose this surplus had been invested in corporate bonds. What exactly would that mean? It means that workers would be giving money to corporations, who would turn around and spend it. In return, the Social Security trust fund would receive bonds that represent promises to repay the money later out of the company's cash flow. In effect, it gives workers a claim on the cash flows of the company at a later date in time. When that time comes, the company would have to pay up, which would make it less profitable. If the company was already unprofitable, it would make their deficit even worse.
If that's what had happened, there would be no confusion about the trust fund. Everyone agrees that corporate bonds are real things, and that the corporations who sell them have an obligation to pay them back, even though it means less money for shareholder dividends.
Now let's change a few words in this story. What actually happened is that the Social Security surplus was invested in treasury bonds. What does that mean? It means that workers gave money to the federal government, which turned around and spent it. In return, the Social Security trust fund received bonds that represented promises to repay the money later out of the federal government's income tax receipts. In effect, it gave workers a claim on the income tax receipts of the government at a later date in time. When that time came, the federal government would have to pay up, which would make it less profitable. If the government was already running a deficit, it would make the deficit even worse.
These two stories are identical. Treasury bonds are real things: They are promises to repay money at a later date out of the government's cash flow. The federal government has an obligation to pay them back even if it has to raise income taxes to do it.
That's where we are today. Payroll taxes are no longer enough to cover payments to retirees, so Social Security is cashing in the treasury bonds in its trust fund to make up the difference. Those bonds, which were purchased with the payroll taxes of workers, represent a promise of repayment from the income taxpayers of America, and that promise is every bit as real as a promise from the board of directors of a corporation. But the money is real too, which means that paying it back makes the federal deficit even worse than it already is. To cover that deficit, our only options are to either (a) raise income taxes or (b) sell new bonds to outsiders, thus increasing the net public debt.
So: Does Social Security contribute to the deficit? Yes. Is the Social Security trust fund a fiction? No. Does everything make sense now?
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/12/social-security-trust-fund-is-real

15 February 2011

Petition to Keep Social Security safe, stable and secure. from CREDO & DEMOCRACY FOR AMERICA 15FEB11

Politicians are doing their best to confuse and scare us about Social Security in relation to the deficit and budget cuts. We have to remain vigilant to protect what is probably the only retirement program many of us will be depending on. The truth is this, Social Security doesn't contribute to the federal deficit. Please sign this petition to the House leadership telling them to keep their hands out of the Social Security Trust Fund and not raise the retirement age. Tell them to do away with the cap on taxing income to keep Social Security well funded for all of us. Please share with family and friends and co-workers.
Either House Majority Leader Eric Cantor doesn't understand how Social Security works or he doesn't care.
Just hours after President Obama said that Social Security cuts and privatization are off the table, Cantor said that Social Security had to be cut to balance the budget. But here's the thing: Social Security does not and never has added a single dime to the federal deficit.
Let me try to explain this to Mr. Cantor. Social Security is paid for through the payroll tax. Currently, the payroll tax raises way more money than Social Security pays out and things are projected to keep going this way for another couple of decades.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? They add to the deficit. Tax breaks for billionaires? They add to the deficit. Subsidies for big oil? They add to the deficit. Bailing out Mr. Cantor's friends on Wall Street when they make a bunch of shady deals, cause a financial crisis and almost ruin the world economy? That adds a lot to the deficit.
Simply put, Social Security will run a surplus for decades. The rest of the budget runs a deficit. So, why are we even talking about Social Security?
Here's why: Eric Cantor and his right-wing friends want to destroy the program. That's the only reason we're having this conversation. Join me now and let's send Eric Cantor and other members of Congress a message Keep Social Security safe, stable and secure.
Eric Cantor's comments aren't anything new. Right-wing Republicans have been trying to tear down Social Security for generations. It's the holy grail of the right-wing.
Now Republicans are playing with fire — they're threatening to shut down the government. They're holding the debt ceiling hostage. They'll do whatever it takes to put cutting Social Security on the table.
But America is a community. We stand up for one another — including our seniors. That's why DFA has launched it's biggest campaign ever to push back against the right-wing lies and spin and to push a real solution to keep Social Security safe, stable and secure forever.
See, right now people like Mitch McConnell and Sarah Palin don't pay the same percentage of their income into Social Security that most Americans do — and big surprise — neither does Eric Cantor. That's because the tax is capped at $106,800, but most Americans don't know it. All we need to do is scrap the cap and make the payroll tax fair and equal for everyone to keep Social Security safe, stable and secure.
When we stand up for our values of community, security and liberty, America wins.
-Arshad
Arshad Hasan, Executive Director
Democracy for America
© 2011 CREDO. All rights reserved.