The latest monthly figure making up the Social Security cost of living adjustment was announced by the Labor Department on the 16th.
The latest figure computes to a minus 1.5% for December 2008. Along with the announced decreases for October and November, the cumulative cost of living adjustment for Social Security, effective December 1 of this year stands at a minus 3.4%.
I do not believe there has ever been a decrease in the Social Security cost of living adjustment over the one year computation period, so I do not know how a decrease would be handled. And, I do not know what the law says.
I would think, however, that if this trend stays on track, there would not be a decrease for 2010, but rather no change in payments at all.
I think it will stay the same next year, but 2010 is very far away in this economic climate.
This month marks the first time this computation year that the CPI-W index used to compute the cost of living adjustment for Social Security recipients has shown an increase.
The increase in the computation was a plus .4. However, the cumulative for this year is still at a minus 4.1% meaning there will have to be some really large increases in living costs, before the traditional October 15 announcement, to push the adjustment up over zero.
A few weeks ago, someone in the government predicted there would not be a Social Security increase for two to three years.
I happily accepted the larger than usual increase in social security for this year. Why should I bitch about having to take a decrease if it happens? Wouldn't that just be fair?
I'll tell you whats not fair, is that by the time my generation gets old enough to collect Social Security, there won't be any. >:(
On the other side of the coin, something could happen to me tomorrow and I might need to draw social security disablilty. So you do not have to be old.
Quote from: Varmit on April 15, 2009, 04:50:05 PM
I'll tell you whats not fair, is that by the time my generation gets old enough to collect Social Security, there won't be any. >:(
You are so right! :'( >:( >:(
Please, correct me if I am wrong on this (yea, like I had to say that) but when the program was started, what you paid in is what you got. I've heard that it now takes 4 people paying in to support one recipient. If that is the case, then I say shut it down because it is nothing more than redistrubition of wealth. If that is not the case, than I shall rest mine.
It was based on your contribution, but SSA and other parts were also there. Remember, life expectancy was much lower then.
It is still based on your contribution or the contribution of the person whose account you are drawing from. I don't understand everything about SS but the more you pay in the more your monthly check will be up to a point. There is a maximum that you are required to pay in and you can't pay anymore than that. Unfortunately, the maximum is so high now that few ordinary workers reach it. My husband reached it for several years when he was working a lot of overtime, thus, my check, which comes from his account is higher than most. My mother-in-law, whose husband did not pay in much, had a much lower check than I am getting. My mother had a lower check than mine. But both these ladies had money left over at the end of the month. I am just now managing to make it through the month. It isn't how much you have, but what you do with it.
So what happens when the amount you recieve overall, exceeds the amount you have paid in?
Thanks, you said it much better than I. Back in the 70's, Al's Oct. thru Dec. paychecks had no SS taken out because he had put in the max. Eventually that caught up and every pay had SS taken out.
Nothing. Most people are going to receive more than they paid in. It is an insurance policy that you start collecting on before you die. You have paid premiums on it all these years so that you can collect on it when it matures, you retire or reach a certain age, which I don't know what it is now. If you buy a life insurance policy for $10,000.00, pay one premium of $150.00 on it and die, your beneficiary still receives the $10,000.00.
Thank you for explaining that....I think I'll leave this one alone.
You wouldn't want your kids to get SSI if you became permanently disabled? I sure don't mind paying into the pot for you. Keep in mind too that SS can be taxed now, so it's not "free" money.
well I tried...See here is the problem (as I see it) with Social Security. It is nothing more than a taxpayer backed retirement fund. If all a person got was what they put in, then ok. But thats not how it works. Seems like an Entitlement program to me. Yes, if I became disabled I would want my children and wife to recieve whatever money I had put into the program, but not a penny more. Thats why I have other savings.
The other problem with SSI is that it is mandatory, I cannot opt out. So the gov't takes the money I earn and gives it to other people without consulting me about it; in return all I get is an IOU with zero collateral that I can use to call in the note. Thats theft.
How much is in the "pot" these days?
I'm agreeing with Varmit on this one too.
You're doing good so stay right in there, Varmit.
There are still be cases where you can opt out. I know Al's aunt, a Philadelphia teacher, opted out to get more in her pay check. She had her teacher's pension when she retired, but no SS. My grandpa had a railroad pension but no SS. Our New Castle County police now do not pay into SS. They get 6.5 % more in their paycheck. SS was never meant to be a "retirement" to live on. It's a "supplement" to help people keep from starving to death. When FDR started it, that's what it was for. The pot isn't nearly big enough now because Gov't has dipped into it, we have a lot more older people now and we all live longer, so less has to go farther. Good for you that you have savings. I wish more people would take savings more seriously when they are young.
Thats the thing , I shouldn't have to go through the hassle of paperwork and phonecalls to opt out of a program that I never enrolled in.
Well, good, if you and enough more decide to not collect your social security, there will be more for the rest of us.
Why don't you look at the excess over what you pay in as interest. You earn interest on your savings, don't you? Would you have investments if they didn't make any money for you?
At the time social security was started, jobs didn't pay enough to raise a family and put away savings for your old age. They didn't even pay enough for a family to buy a decent house. It is a forced way of saving, but in the long run, what you collect is far more than what you pay in. If you can manage to save enough to provide you with a comfortable lifestyle after you retire, fine. But there is many a slip twixt cup and lip.
Well said.
I draw ss and believe you me, working for 50 years sure didn't give me much of a monthly income now. Like Wilma said, it's not the amount you get, but how you manage it. I always manage to run out before the end of the month. :'( Another side of this is, what about the people who do not live long enough to draw the social security they paid in for years and years. My husband died exactly one month after he got his first check. I draw on my own, so someone else will reap the benefits of the years he worked and paid in. I hope they appreciate it.
How true. How about that inflation? Maybe it's too complicated for some of the "younger" readers to understand...poke, poke... ;D
Flo, that stinks. That money should be yours. And I agree, folks should manage their money better.
Well, good, if you and enough more decide to not collect your social security, there will be more for the rest of us.-wilma
and if you, and more like you, would decide to not collect and cash those checks I wouldn't have to pay in. Thus, more of MY money in MY pocket.
Dr. Walter Williams has a recent good article entitled "The National Ponzi Scheme"
and you can read right here:
http://www.creators.com/opinion/walter-williams/the-national-ponzi-scheme.html
excellent post!!!
I'll keeep paying in and if there isn't any left for me I will cross that bridge when I get there. Still think this Country is better than any other.
I am drawing from my own account, but then I am drawing enough more from my husband's account to bring my check up to what his check was. My account didn't amount to much as most of my working years was for the federal government. My husband, on the other hand, had worked for wages and paid in for 38 years, sometimes the maximum. If my account had been big enough to pay me the widow's amount, my husband's account wouldn't have been used for me.
Quote from: flo on April 17, 2009, 02:50:00 PM
I draw ss and believe you me, working for 50 years sure didn't give me much of a monthly income now. Like Wilma said, it's not the amount you get, but how you manage it. I always manage to run out before the end of the month. :'( Another side of this is, what about the people who do not live long enough to draw the social security they paid in for years and years. My husband died exactly one month after he got his first check. I draw on my own, so someone else will reap the benefits of the years he worked and paid in. I hope they appreciate it.
Flo, i worked 32 years paying into it the last 10 years i worked i maxed out my SS payments, and when i became disabled It took me 3 years to draw on it. I don't get full retirement, only 60% i think and i barely make it to the end of the month.
My dad worked 40 years and never got to see one dime when he died at 56. My mom can't even make it on what they pay with the life insurance my dad left her.
Quote from: Diane Amberg on April 17, 2009, 02:56:02 PM
How true. How about that inflation? Maybe it's too complicated for some of the "younger" readers to understand...poke, poke... ;D
When the gasoline went up to 4 dollars a gallon, i never went anywhere. It would cost me more on gas than i spent on groceries to go get them
Just seems like one of those things whose time has come and gone, just sort of "outlived" its usefulness
Do you really think that by the time you retire in some 30 years or so, that you will have saved enough to keep you the rest of your life? Or do you have another income that you haven't worked for? What about huge medical expenses? How do you plan to take care of them and believe me, you will have them?
well, thanks to the mismanagement of SSI, the astronomical growth of our national debt, the huge spike in taxes thats coming, I don't plan on retiring in 30 years if ever. and as far as medical bills, well I'll take quality of life over quanity anyday.
afterall, death is just Gods way of telling you that you need a vacation ;)
Should I say my goodbyes now just in case you drop dead in a few minutes. Not that I want that to happen. Hope I haven't put a curse on you. Oh, gee, I didn't mean to jinx you.
Wilma, God has already fixed a time and place for my death, so don't worry about it, I don't. After all, I can't change it and neither can anyone else.
Our dependence ought to be on God, not society or the government.
Quote from: Wilma on April 18, 2009, 07:15:42 AM
Do you really think that by the time you retire in some 30 years or so, that you will have saved enough to keep you the rest of your life? Or do you have another income that you haven't worked for? What about huge medical expenses? How do you plan to take care of them and believe me, you will have them?
I know that if i had of been allowed to invest the 180k i paid into social security, i would have enough right now to live the rest of my life comfortably and have what i wanted.
:)
Back in the 60's the word was out that we, ME, wouldn't have SS either, it would be gone, used up by the previous generation, mishandled, misappropriated, you name it. It may be anemic and pock marked but it's still here. Be smart, assume it won't be available and then when it is, you'll have a little extra. That is what we did, and I'm sure glad.
One of the things I like about this forum is, as Tobina has stated elsewhere, you learn a lot. When I was lurking around this subject I decided to look up the history of Social Security.
One of the fun facts was that a man who retired the day after his company began collecting taxes had paid in five cents for the day he worked and received a lump sum payment of seventeen cents. For the first few years all benefits were paid in lump sums.
There is no record of who received the first Social Security card.
A woman from Vermont contributed $24.57 total (I hope I remembered the numbers right} and began collecting $24.72 a month for life. After ten years, the Social Security Act was changed allowing for yearly increases and hers went to $41 a month. She lived to be 100 years old and collected thousands of dollars in benefits.
A true fact. My father died when I was three years old. My mother began collecting benefits from his Social Security and I also collected one-half of that amount as a surviving dependent. My mother was a substitue teacher so work was on-again, off-again and there were many months that the Social Security was the only thing that kept food on the table. And we are talking about $90 a month if I remember correctly. When I turned 18, my share stopped and when my mother began a full time teaching position paying into social security, hers stopped.
When I retired I began collecting my benefits because I could even though I had a retirement and a 401k. These amounts put food on my table and pay the bills. Without the social security things would be a little tougher and I probably would have had to sell the house and move into a cheap apartment somewhere.
AND, when it comes to your turn to leave the work force, you had better have saved a lot more that you think you need. Not only does the cost of living go up, but there are many other factors. As mentioned, the older you get the more medicines you might have to take. Without a Part D plan or private retirement insurance. legal drugs can be more expensive than the illegal ones. Ten years ago, I took no medicines for anything other than an occasional aspirin. Today I am on eight different prescription medicines. Another factor-----and this is true more often than not--------there is the problem of those nitpicking aging parents, both yours and your significant others, who decide they can no longer care for themselves and can ill afford a nursing home on their meager income so they are going to come live with you increasing your monthly food bills and utliltiy costs (my father-in-law was with us for ten years resulting in increased heating and air conditioning that would not normally be on during the day when nobody was home) or you might have to cover the cost of in-home nursing care (we had that) and actually have to pay the cost of the nursing home. We were fortunate in that he paid us some money for "room and board" as he called it-------------from his Social Security check. In his last year, he was in a nursing home, the costs were covered by a savings plan he had put into over the years. When he passed, there was about enough left to pay for the funeral.
So, hope and pray that social security will be there when you retire, but putting aside something each payday can add up in a hurry and it is all yours to use. One of my cousins told me, "you should pay yourself %10 first and then give the rest to whoever you owe it to, and if you have some left over, pay yourself again".
AND, srkruzich, if you live to be one hundred years old putting 35 years into your investment plan and need say $40000 a year (don't forget prices go up) that is $1,400,000 you will need. That would be some investment plan!!! :o ;D
Don't read into the parents thing anymore than what I said. I sincerely liked my father-in-law and had no problems with my wife when she announced he was moving in. I took him to his Doctors appointments and went to see him almost on a daily basis when he was in the nursing home. If you are a parent and living with a child of yours, lucky you that child is taking care of you, and if you are the one who is taking care of a parent, lucky you, because you can give back what that parent gave to you.
Larryj
There is now something called "substantial quarters."
New retirees have to have forty substantial quarters.
That is still rather lenient.
A little more about "substantial quarters", please, Waldo. I haven't heard about this.
I am one of those who sheltered a parent until I could no longer take care of her. I wouldn't do it any differently now and my husband was wonderful about having her with us. She ended her days out here in our wonderful Howard Twilight Manor with people who really cared about her. No, I wouldn't do it any differently. Hopefully I have set a good example for my daughters although not a one of them has a husband that would be as good to me as my husband was to my mother. I shouldn't say that. They would want to be.
If one is born 1943 through 1954, the Social Security retirement age is now 66.
If one is born in 1960, or after, the retirement age is 67.
Substantial quarters appears to have been changed to credits, of which a person can earn four credits each year.
One earns one credit for each $1,000 of earnings.
One can earn a maximum of four credits each year.
Forty credits is needed to receive Social Security at the appropriate retirement age.
What about people born between 1954 and 1960. I have a daughter that falls in there. I am sure glad that I am already retired. Things are getting too complicated.
1955 -- 66 and 2 months
1956 -- 66 and 4 months
1957 -- 66 and 6 months
1958 -- 66 and 8 months
1959 -- 55 and 10 months
Those with 40 credits can still retire at age 62 but the penalty is much stiffer than before.
Waldo, check 1959 please.
66 and 10 months.
Someone changed the keys on me.
I thought so. Little gremlins again.
Quote from: W. Gray on April 18, 2009, 03:39:27 PM
If one is born 1943 through 1954, the Social Security retirement age is now 66.
If one is born in 1960, or after, the retirement age is 67.
Substantial quarters appears to have been changed to credits, of which a person can earn four credits each year.
One earns one credit for each $1,000 of earnings.
One can earn a maximum of four credits each year.
Forty credits is needed to receive Social Security at the appropriate retirement age.
hmmm then i would have 120 quarters in over the years.