https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/12/02/social-security-has-tilted-favor-higher-earners-who-delay-claiming-benefits-report-says/

21 replies
  1. The Poker Pilot App
    The Poker Pilot App says:

    EVERYONE, both high and low earners, each have the same opportunity to increase their benefit by delaying when they begin taking their benefit. The article's title was misrepresented. A change or tilting to one-side would require a change to how benefits are calculated / determined  or taxed and the article DIDN'T identify any recent or upcoming changes that would cause an unfair advantage. Lower earners get their full benefit by way of ALL of their income is recorded, considered and compensated for. High wage earners can benefit by not having all of their wages taxed BUT they don't get any extra benefit beyond what they are taxed on.One benefit that isn't widely discussed which could be considered "unfair" is the spousal benefit. A spouse who has NEVER worked WILL receive a benefit of up to 1/2 of their working spouse which they never contributed to. This applies to me and although I will benefit greatly from it doesn't mean it isn't unfair. There are several things that can be tweaked to keep SSI solvent, i.e. change employee and employer contributions from 6.2 to 6.25 or greater; change FRA dates for the younger ones coming up to 67.5 or 68; reduce COLA amounts; increase the upper income limit of what is taxed. Of all of those things consider that my wife and I will receive almost $600,000 in spousal benefits and didn't pay any taxes in order to receive it. This is likely BY FAR the greatest benefit that one could argue isn't justified but it applies equally to both low and high wage earners.

    Reply
  2. STACKING4LIFE
    STACKING4LIFE says:

    It really doesn't TILT anything – the more you make, the later you collect, the bigger the benefit………somehow they write articles to make it seem like low income earners are getting the shaft while high earners are being greedy and rewarded at the expense of lower earners. At some point the math has to matter………..

    Reply
  3. Lew Speedwagon
    Lew Speedwagon says:

    Josh, raising FRA to 70, will automatically lower payment to age 62 retirees… , hence, low income people…
    SS should, raise top pay-outs to 72, or 75, so folks could delay claims longer…

    Reply
  4. Tim T.
    Tim T. says:

    You also have those people that always say I paid into the system I am getting mine as soon as possible. Everyone thinks they are going to die the day after tomorrow.

    Reply
  5. Gh S
    Gh S says:

    Common sense say's that you are 100% correct. The left doesn't operate on common sense, but on how things feel. I will say though that the optics of the extremely wealthy not having some sort of cap, works against anyone on the right politically. Personally, putting the FRA aside, there should be ZERO penalty for working once you take it.

    Reply
  6. jane nwodo
    jane nwodo says:

    Consider two workers a coal miner and a college professor. The miner by age 62 is most likely physically worn out . He takes his SS early and most likely has nothing much else.The professor can work well into his 70's at his physically undemanding job. He is most likely to also have other retirement sources i.e 401 k and a pension. Is this what they mean?

    Reply
  7. Peter Davila
    Peter Davila says:

    That article is nonsense. To file at age 70 means that you have to make a huge sacrifice, working longer while continuing to contribute to the tax needs of the country. I'm a perfect example. I don't want to continue working at my current age of 64 at my crappy job, with a 3 hour round-trip daily commute. But I do it because I have not saved enough to retire and therefore I'm doing the responsible thing to save for my old age for the benefit of myself and my wife. That decision does not hurt anyone else that files at 62. Someone else needs to make whatever decision is right for them.

    What is the author saying, is he trying to say "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"? The trend towards extreme socialism in the US is going to destroy our country. Just ask those living in California how the socialist people's state is working for them?

    Reply
  8. don mountford
    don mountford says:

    Social security is geared towards lower income earners. Sure high income can make strategic decisions to delay Social Security. But payouts are definitely skewed towards lower income and has kept millions out of poverty.

    Reply
  9. JD Thompson
    JD Thompson says:

    I would think the last thing the SSA system could use is everyone taking benefits at 62! The system is highly tilted more to those who pay in less! By a lot!! Like 200%. Some amount of people who wait to 67 or 70 die before they collect so money is actually saved by SSA in many cases.

    Reply
  10. Peter Davila
    Peter Davila says:

    What would probably work better for SS is to let those that retire and start collecting SS before FRA, and continue to work, and pay taxes. Let them do that without getting penalized for collecting SS while working. Encourage people to work and thereby save more money for their future. If someone does not want to work at 62 or can't, then at least they have SS at 62. Let others retire at 70. Who cares? Who knows, they may not get any social security if they die early. Then think of all the money everyone saves. Live and let live people. Stop always trying to figure out how to have someone else's money help you live. Work harder than most and get your own money. I'm old fashion I guess. For sure, these kinds of ideas are not something that most people believe in anymore.

    Reply
  11. Mel Blacke
    Mel Blacke says:

    I agree that the article is just utter political nonsense. This is an example of left wing fuzzy logic. The hope is that if they keep saying this nonsense long enough people will, sooner or later, just accept it as truth. That way, they can look us in the eye and say, "Since you have worked and saved your whole life, and worked hard to get and keep a job that pays you decently, we are going to cut your benefits because we don't have enough money left in the fund." Lest you think that I am singling out the left….let us consider the nonsense that flows from the right, who seems to consider Social Security to be an entitlement. In my opinion, the only way anyone could possibly use the word "entitlement" in regards to Social Security might come from the "entitled" attitude of the members of our federal government who felt "entitled" to steal from this fund thus creating the current shortfall.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *