Reply
Highlighted
Contributor
0
Kudos
965
Views

965 Views
Message 181 of 329
Social Security benefits are based on your top 35 years of inflation adjusted income. If you work in retirement replaces a lower earning year, your benefits will be adjusted to reflect your higher earnings record. However, it can take up to two years for the SSA to receive and process your tax returns, so the process can take awhile. Visit http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/question-and-answer/?ssfaq=work for more information.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
965
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
969
Views

969 Views
Message 182 of 329

@judyz68 wrote:
It will only increase if your annual pay increases above the highest income year that your current benefit is now based on. So, if your highest wage was $50K per year and you're now earning more then that, you should get a benefit adjustment, not to be confused with the annual cost of living increases. Otherwise, you are set for life, which is why I did not start drawing at 62 but waited.

When SS evaluates your annual incomes for the years that you worked, they adjust for inflation.  In my case, my highest income year was 1968!

~~~
Start every day with a smile and get it over with.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
969
Views
Highlighted
Contributor
0
Kudos
980
Views

980 Views
Message 183 of 329
It will only increase if your annual pay increases above the highest income year that your current benefit is now based on. So, if your highest wage was $50K per year and you're now earning more then that, you should get a benefit adjustment, not to be confused with the annual cost of living increases. Otherwise, you are set for life, which is why I did not start drawing at 62 but waited.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
980
Views
Highlighted
Contributor
0
Kudos
1005
Views

1,005 Views
Message 184 of 329
US Congressmen have not received pay increases for at least the last 3 years that I know of and the last one was rejected as well. Gasoline costs are partly due to refined fossil fuels being our #1 export, which keeps supply low despite low demand and also speculation by bankers, etc. who have no interest in taking possession of the commodity for their use. This is called the CFTA and was passed into law around 2000-2001. We are probably paying 1.50 more per gallon then we otherwise would be and that also drives up the costs of all other consumer goods.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1005
Views
Highlighted
Contributor
0
Kudos
1002
Views

1,002 Views
Message 185 of 329

My biggest concern is that our government become so corrupted that Wall Street is finally successful in privatizing SS.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1002
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
1031
Views

1,031 Views
Message 186 of 329

Did she receive overpayments,   and now she is having to pay them back?    That could be a possible reason.   But she should have got a letter from SS explaining the process of reducing benefits until the overpayment is fully reimbursed.   

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1031
Views
Highlighted
Newbie
0
Kudos
1148
Views

1,148 Views
Message 187 of 329
About my foster mom, She does not receive what was said she should receive. Please explain why!
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1148
Views
Highlighted
Newbie
0
Kudos
1095
Views

1,095 Views
Message 188 of 329
In my knowledge I believe that being disabled I should at least have enough money to cover all my bills, food prices, and a small bit of entertainment. On what I receive it is all gone the first day. I can barely round up enough for my medications. I am on quite a lot.
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1095
Views
Highlighted
Regular Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
1145
Views

1,145 Views
Message 189 of 329

"a reduced survivor benefit can be taken as early as age 60."  However, many surviving spouses receive a nasty surprise when they find out that in order to do so they will have to give up their own retirement benefits. "

 

Not quite.   No one is ever forced to give up their own retirement (drawing on their own work record instead of spouse)  if that monthly amount is higher.  

 

Here is where I think you are confused.   As you say,  a widow (er) can start drawing on deceased spouse at age 60.  If she does,  she gets like 70.5 , 71 %  (I would have to look it up to be exact) of the spouses full benefit.  Spouse's full benefit meaning what he would have gotten at his full retirement age,  65,  66. 

 

Now, let's say,  in your scenario,   a widow does this yet she continues to work herself.  Full time,  at a decent salary.  Now,  because she is going to be going over the earnings limit, she is going to have to give back a good deal of that social security check she is getting on husband's account.   But,  if this is what she wants,  fine.   The reward would come in 6 years.  She could then switch her monthly benefits from spousal to HER record,  since she herself is now at full retirement age,   and get a fatter soc. sec.  check for the rest of her life.  She was not locked in to taking spousal benefits as you seem to think.  She could make the switch if it meant more $$$

Soc. Sec.  has always allowed people to pick whichever gives the most money if a person is eligible to draw on more than one account. 

I think what you are griping about is  -  if a widow or widower starts drawing spousal benefits at their age of 60,  you seem to think when they turn 66 or 67,  whatever is their own full retirmemt age,  the benefit checks should be bumped up to 100% (maximum benefit amount)

 

Sorry,  it doesn't work that way.  

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1145
Views
Highlighted
Contributor
0
Kudos
1095
Views

1,095 Views
Message 190 of 329

instead of using the surplus Social Security revenue to buy good bonds in the open market, the government chose to spend the money and issue IOUs to replace the spent money.*** These IOUs are non-marketable and could not be sold to anyone, even for a penny on the dollar. The government has the legal authority to declare these IOUs null and void.

The Social Security trust fund does not hold any real economic assets that can be drawn down to pay future benefits. That is an indisputable fact today, and it has been true ever since the 1983 payroll tax hike was enacted. Every dollar of the $2.5 trillion in surplus revenue, generated by the payroll tax hike, has been spent on programs unrelated to Social Security, leaving nothing to save or invest.

Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn warns. “We have stolen $2.6 trillion from it. We put paper money in there. The problem is, we spent the money – we didn’t just take it, we took it and spent it,”

Obama knows this and just keeps borrowing to spend even more. 17 trillion. Hillary is just more of the same. We the voters seem powerless. We must vote the Progressive Democrats out in 2016.


@Powderhorn63 wrote:
I am new to receiving Social Security.  Last week I went to the grocery store and bought staples, many of which were not previously prepared foods.  When I arrived home, I went to my files and checked the same 19 items that I purchased this time last year and found that I had paid 30% more this year than last for the same items.  Gasoline has increased almost double (average) in the last 12 months.  Most federal employees, including US Congressmen, have received cost of living increases.  Some in the amount of 16% increase in one year, as per the US News reported on television.  I have been told that the Social Security recipients have NOT received even a cost of living increase for at least three years (as per local recipients). 

Is there a chance that this inequity of passing out increases will be addressed?  And When?

Jack V. Smith

instead of using the surplus Social Security revenue to buy good bonds in the open market, the government chose to spend the money and issue IOUs to replace the spent money.*** These IOUs are non-marketable and could not be sold to anyone, even for a penny on the dollar. The government has the legal authority to declare these IOUs null and void.

The Social Security trust fund does not hold any real economic assets that can be drawn down to pay future benefits. That is an indisputable fact today, and it has been true ever since the 1983 payroll tax hike was enacted. Every dollar of the $2.5 trillion in surplus revenue, generated by the payroll tax hike, has been spent on programs unrelated to Social Security, leaving nothing to save or invest.

Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn warns. “We have stolen $2.6 trillion from it. We put paper money in there. The problem is, we spent the money – we didn’t just take it, we took it and spent it,”

Obama knows this and just keeps borrowing to spend even more. 17 trillion. Hillary is just more of the same. We the voters seem powerless. We must vote the Progressive Democrats out in 2016.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
1095
Views
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

September is Emergency Preparedness month.

Do you have an emergency plan in place?

Share or ask questions today.

Emergency preparedness kit