BHM's Homesteading & Self-Reliance Forum

Posting requires Registration and the use of Cookies-enabled browser


Go Back   BHM Forum > Self-Reliance & Preparedness > Financial

Financial Anything money-related that does not have a dedicated board.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #21  
Old 08-20-2015, 07:36 PM
coaltrain's Avatar
coaltrain Male coaltrain is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: NW Penna
Posts: 1,722
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildapple View Post
Hubby is getting SS. I'm not. Hoping to wait until I'm 70 to start collecting in order to get the max benefits. Since it rises 8% each year after your full retirement age that's a pretty good investment.
That's a gamble depending on one's health.
__________________
~Stan~
It is what it is
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-20-2015, 08:07 PM
doc doc is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: central WI--finally!
Posts: 1,473
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissouriFree View Post
Doc,
Your plan is unclear to me - - who does this mutual fund investing -? individuals with thier own money or the fedgov with SS collection from companies and individuals ?
Let the Feds do it, collecting from payrolls like they do now. The DJIA is selected because it consists of the 30 biggest, presumably best companies in the US,and therefore the most stable. A mutual fund is used because it avoids picking the "winners & losers." For the indigent, a tax supported stipend could be given, but, to encourage NOT having kids you can't afford, maybe some of the tax should come out of the parents' welfare checks.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-20-2015, 08:14 PM
doc doc is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: central WI--finally!
Posts: 1,473
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildapple View Post
Hubby is getting SS. I'm not. Hoping to wait until I'm 70 to start collecting in order to get the max benefits. Since it rises 8% each year after your full retirement age that's a pretty good investment.
Actually, by waiting, you're increasing your odds of getting MINIMUM benefits: If you wait, you'll draw bigger checks each month, but you won't get as many of them. At age 85, you will have received the same total amount of payout. Since most people live less than 85 yrs, chances are great you'll be getting less total by waiting.

If you do live more than 85 yrs, then you win the gamble and would receive more overall. But remember (now while you're still able to remember) after age 85, chances are someone else will be cashing those checks for you.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-21-2015, 12:24 AM
hunter88 hunter88 is online now
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Nebraska
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,933
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildapple
Hubby is getting SS. I'm not. Hoping to wait until I'm 70 to start collecting in order to get the max benefits. Since it rises 8% each year after your full retirement age that's a pretty good investment.


Actually, by waiting, you're increasing your odds of getting MINIMUM benefits: If you wait, you'll draw bigger checks each month, but you won't get as many of them. At age 85, you will have received the same total amount of payout. Since most people live less than 85 yrs, chances are great you'll be getting less total by waiting.

If you do live more than 85 yrs, then you win the gamble and would receive more overall. But remember (now while you're still able to remember) after age 85, chances are someone else will be cashing those checks for you.
Being self employed and needing to buy my own health insurance anyway, I took my SS at 62 instead of waiting till 66. I figured with the smaller check I would have to live to 80 to break even.
__________________
Gun control: It's like fighting drunk driving by restricting the sober drivers.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-21-2015, 12:59 AM
Wildapple's Avatar
Wildapple Female Wildapple is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny FL
Posts: 212
Question

Quote:
Originally Posted by doc View Post
Actually, by waiting, you're increasing your odds of getting MINIMUM benefits: If you wait, you'll draw bigger checks each month, but you won't get as many of them. At age 85, you will have received the same total amount of payout. Since most people live less than 85 yrs, chances are great you'll be getting less total by waiting.

If you do live more than 85 yrs, then you win the gamble and would receive more overall. But remember (now while you're still able to remember) after age 85, chances are someone else will be cashing those checks for you.
At age 85 I will have received the same total amount of payout as what? I reach full retirement age at 66. So there's no advantage in waiting? Never thought about most living less than 85 years.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-21-2015, 01:46 AM
Selena Selena is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissouriFree View Post
I can't agree with means testing at all. A person puts in (involuntarily I might add)they must get the benifit they paid for.
Still not agreeing with you on that - seen too many who worked public sector, hauling in one or more public pensions. When you use your SS to pay greens fees, you don't need SS.

We had a states atty retire to, and I quote "spend more time with his family". Pension of $125K per year. Imagine my shock <not> when shortly (I'm talking weeks) after his "retirement", he is appointed to an open judicial position. Collecting pension, collection 6 figure salary and now starting new pension "credits". Upside I was not the only person who thought this sucked. Mr. Arrogant thought he did not have to campaign come election time and was resoundingly rousted from his judgeship. THEN he becomes the head of the local United Way, making a high 5 figure salary. Which I think is appalling. Had I not quit donating to United Way in the 80s (when they allowed the catholic church to have too much influence combined with the head guy living high on the hog), I'd surely told them to stick it.

And really, does Mitt Romney et al *need* SUPPLEMENTAL income in retirement? No, they do not. Sorry, in life, we all pay for certain things (insurance, unemployment, workmen comp) and never collect. Hell, John Oliver proved this with his Church of Perpetual Exemption. My tax dollars allow all too many hypochristians to live high-on-the-hog. And those who truly need SS (pre-1980s stay at home moms for instance) should not suffer due to greed. Any female after 1980 should have garnered the skills and earned credits on her own, not relying on her traditional marriage husband to ensure her and her kids did not end up in poverty.
__________________
If only women voted, the Democratic party would win by 458 electoral votes to 80.
If only non-whites voted, the Democratic party would win every state in the union.
If only Millennials voted, the Democratic party would win over 400 electoral votes in a landslide.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-21-2015, 01:48 AM
Selena Selena is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildapple View Post
Hubby is getting SS. I'm not. Hoping to wait until I'm 70 to start collecting in order to get the max benefits. Since it rises 8% each year after your full retirement age that's a pretty good investment.
I plan on not collecting till I am 70. And even if I became disabled today (before age 55), I'd collect $2500 per month. Which is not too shabby.
__________________
If only women voted, the Democratic party would win by 458 electoral votes to 80.
If only non-whites voted, the Democratic party would win every state in the union.
If only Millennials voted, the Democratic party would win over 400 electoral votes in a landslide.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-21-2015, 01:56 AM
Selena Selena is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doc View Post
Let the Feds do it, collecting from payrolls like they do now. The DJIA is selected because it consists of the 30 biggest, presumably best companies in the US,and therefore the most stable. A mutual fund is used because it avoids picking the "winners & losers." For the indigent, a tax supported stipend could be given, but, to encourage NOT having kids you can't afford, maybe some of the tax should come out of the parents' welfare checks.
lol.. Enron comes to mind. Mutual funds do pick winners and losers. They sell - some times based on whiffs of info average investor doesn't smell. Sometimes they buy and cannot sell for a certain time period. You act like mutual funds never lose money which could not be farther from the truth. See how well mutual funds with oil related holding are doing these days.

As to children you cannot afford, you'll have to get religion out of politics. And stop the BS that "aborting black babies is encouraged" and is "the number one cause of death for blacks" - Carson is full of excrement. And then you'd have to have uniform federal law. No private adoptions. Federal waiting list and once one parent turns 40, off the list you go unless you adopt a child out of social services. Medicaid pays for delivery of child, public legal system handles adoptions. All the bitching about abortion being a cash cow is bull shit - adoption of caucasian babies is a huge money maker. Which is why religious groups hate abortion and Planned Parenthood. Most of their clinics (like 65%+ are in "white" neighborhoods).
__________________
If only women voted, the Democratic party would win by 458 electoral votes to 80.
If only non-whites voted, the Democratic party would win every state in the union.
If only Millennials voted, the Democratic party would win over 400 electoral votes in a landslide.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-21-2015, 02:00 AM
Selena Selena is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doc View Post
Actually, by waiting, you're increasing your odds of getting MINIMUM benefits: If you wait, you'll draw bigger checks each month, but you won't get as many of them. At age 85, you will have received the same total amount of payout. Since most people live less than 85 yrs, chances are great you'll be getting less total by waiting.

If you do live more than 85 yrs, then you win the gamble and would receive more overall. But remember (now while you're still able to remember) after age 85, chances are someone else will be cashing those checks for you.

You have to do the math - spouse is collecting at 62. Come time he turns 78 (if he makes it that is) is the point where waiting to 66 *might* give him more money if enough years pass. I make more money so collecting a spousal benefit will never give me more income. I'd be stupid to take 1/2 of my spouse's SS. At this juncture, we don't know if he should continue collecting his or take 1/2 of mine. We'll see come the day I start to collect. There is no one size fits all. And yes, we'll pay taxes on 85% of his SS.
__________________
If only women voted, the Democratic party would win by 458 electoral votes to 80.
If only non-whites voted, the Democratic party would win every state in the union.
If only Millennials voted, the Democratic party would win over 400 electoral votes in a landslide.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-21-2015, 05:19 PM
doc doc is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: central WI--finally!
Posts: 1,473
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildapple View Post
At age 85 I will have received the same total amount of payout as what? I reach full retirement age at 66. So there's no advantage in waiting? Never thought about most living less than 85 years.
If you start collecting at age 62, you'll get less per month, but you'll get 48 extra checks compared to collecting at age 66 and 96 more checks than if you wait until age 70: by age 85, you will have received the same total amount of money either way. You're gambling on whether or not you live past 85. If you do, you win money. If you don't, you lose money. And you don't get the winnings until you're too old to enjoy it.

To Selena: don't know what got you off on your liberal emotional roller coaster. Who's talking about abortion?

In regards mutual funds: I'm suggesting one of the funds that is tied to the DJIA. One share of the fund buys one share of each of the 30 stocks in the Dow. While the Dow does occasionally drop one stock and pick up another, they do it by set rules, not whims or guesses. The history of the Dow is that it's gained an average of 5.5% per annum since its inception 125 or so yrs ago. If the Dow crashes over the long haul, this country is in big trouble and you will be having more problems than not getting a monthly check: it means the economy has totally failed and we'll be in a true SHTF scenario.

The only part of this solution I haven't thought through completely is the problem all that wealth will cause in terms of inflation. Poverty is relative. Some day the "poor" will only be living on a few $million per year while average income is in $10 Million quantities.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-21-2015, 06:21 PM
MissouriFree's Avatar
MissouriFree MissouriFree is online now
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: central missouri woods
Posts: 17,148
Default

Thinking more on this I am not sure what you will invest Since SS expenditures now exceed SS revenue.
__________________
work like you don't need the money- love like you never been hurt and dance like no one is watching !!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-21-2015, 08:07 PM
Wildapple's Avatar
Wildapple Female Wildapple is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny FL
Posts: 212
Default

Thanks for explaining that, doc. I'm following you now.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-21-2015, 09:27 PM
Colorado Female Colorado is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,153
Default

I started get SS at 70. I was still working full time. I banked the checks for couple years. Got two raises a year, one for working and one they gave all . I was making lot more than SS paid. I worked till I was 72. My deceased husband SS was no good to me as very small. How it worked for me.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-21-2015, 11:12 PM
Wildapple's Avatar
Wildapple Female Wildapple is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny FL
Posts: 212
Default

That's interesting Colorado. I am 64 and will be 65 next month. I now realize that I have left money on the table as doc pointed out by not starting my SS at 62. Oh well you don't know what you don't know. I am going to think it over this weekend, but as of now I will probably apply for mine Monday.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-22-2015, 10:23 AM
coaltrain's Avatar
coaltrain Male coaltrain is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: NW Penna
Posts: 1,722
Default

I had always planned on taking my SS at age 62. I am in the age group that I would have to wait until age 66 & 7 months before I would collect the full amount. Just as doc laid out in his post is the reason.

Also - who wants to work for the man anymore than one has to? While I have always enjoyed my job to the best of my ability there is so much more to life than being part of the rat race. If you have the sense to plan ahead some you can easily get out of it at age 62.

I had my meager financial goals set by retiring at age 62 having my mortgage paid off when I was 60 and have the next 2 years of working to do any maintenance/remodeling to the house as needed.

When I was planning this some 15-20 years ago I was in decent health - actually had never been sick all my life. But then the high blood pressure starting with the associated medication - then the type II Diabetes. This help seal the deal that my plan was the right one.

Of course that all went out the window 4 years ago when I got RA (Rheumatoid Arthritis) out of the blue.
__________________
~Stan~
It is what it is
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-22-2015, 11:56 AM
Wildapple's Avatar
Wildapple Female Wildapple is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Sunny FL
Posts: 212
Default

coaltrain your story is another good reason for me not to wait another day. When you are in good health you think it will continue forever. I am like you never been sick a day in my life, but as you pointed out all that can change tomorrow. It's good to remember that. Hope all goes well with you.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-22-2015, 02:03 PM
Colorado Female Colorado is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,153
Default

My SS was not enough at 62 as I did not go to work till almost 40 after husband died. First years were low pay and part time. I had 3 kids. It was last years that increased my SS , pension money and savings. I was left a flat broke widow. I did not have a choice. House was paid for.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-22-2015, 02:34 PM
MissouriFree's Avatar
MissouriFree MissouriFree is online now
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: central missouri woods
Posts: 17,148
Default

I Doing a bit more thinking on solution I think I was wrong . Raising the income cap would have a very small affect on the SS solvency.
Two reasons:
1. A person benifit is based on the high 3 SS income. So if you raise the cap over the present cap the high earners would get a higher benifit . That is unless you are a progressive and and want an unfair progressive tax .." The rich should pay more cause they can afford it! "

2. Only around 6 % of earners make more than the cap anyway .
That leaves raise age or cut benifits .
__________________
work like you don't need the money- love like you never been hurt and dance like no one is watching !!
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-22-2015, 03:55 PM
MissouriFree's Avatar
MissouriFree MissouriFree is online now
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: central missouri woods
Posts: 17,148
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Selena View Post
Still not agreeing with you on that - seen too many who worked public sector, hauling in one or more public pensions. When you use your SS to pay greens fees, you don't need SS.

We had a states atty retire to, and I quote "spend more time with his family". Pension of $125K per year. Imagine my shock <not> when shortly (I'm talking weeks) after his "retirement", he is appointed to an open judicial position. Collecting pension, collection 6 figure salary and now starting new pension "credits". Upside I was not the only person who thought this sucked. Mr. Arrogant thought he did not have to campaign come election time and was resoundingly rousted from his judgeship. THEN he becomes the head of the local United Way, making a high 5 figure salary. Which I think is appalling. Had I not quit donating to United Way in the 80s (when they allowed the catholic church to have too much influence combined with the head guy living high on the hog), I'd surely told them to stick it.

And really, does Mitt Romney et al *need* SUPPLEMENTAL income in retirement? No, they do not. Sorry, in life, we all pay for certain things (insurance, unemployment, workmen comp) and never collect. Hell, John Oliver proved this with his Church of Perpetual Exemption. My tax dollars allow all too many hypochristians to live high-on-the-hog. And those who truly need SS (pre-1980s stay at home moms for instance) should not suffer due to greed. Any female after 1980 should have garnered the skills and earned credits on her own, not relying on her traditional marriage husband to ensure her and her kids did not end up in poverty.

How much money a person earns should not be a factor in receiving or not receiving benifits from a program the person involuntarily contributed to.
The money they are using to play golf could just as easily and honestly be said to come from money they earned not from SS .

If you don't want them to recieve bennies , When they earned more than you then you won't mind if they opt out of the system right ?


Sounds to me like you're mostly upset that some people earn lots of money . And this SS discussion is just an excuse to support a progressive " tax the rich cause they can afford it " more than me.
Let's not forget whose money we' re talking about - theirs fair and square not yours .

IMHO

No
__________________
work like you don't need the money- love like you never been hurt and dance like no one is watching !!

Last edited by MissouriFree; 08-22-2015 at 07:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-24-2015, 01:11 AM
Selena Selena is offline
Grand Master Pontificator
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MissouriFree View Post
How much money a person earns should not be a factor in receiving or not receiving benifits from a program the person involuntarily contributed to.
The money they are using to play golf could just as easily and honestly be said to come from money they earned not from SS .

If you don't want them to recieve bennies , When they earned more than you then you won't mind if they opt out of the system right ?


Sounds to me like you're mostly upset that some people earn lots of money . And this SS discussion is just an excuse to support a progressive " tax the rich cause they can afford it " more than me.
Let's not forget whose money we' re talking about - theirs fair and square not yours .

IMHO

No
Again, all of us pay into programs/plans and never collect a dime. Workers comp, insurance of all flavors (the number of people who pay life insurance premiums for decades then lapse the policy would amaze you), unemployment come to mind. I make too much money to qualify for food stamps but there may come a day when I don't and I've paid into that too. So under your line of thinking, I should get food stamps because hey, it is my money. I'm sure other programs/plan to which I've contributed would jump at sending my fair share

I've hit the top wages a few times in my working career. And lest you not forget, social security is meant to be supplemental. Do those collecting a 5 figure pension need a supplement? The intent of program was to minimize the number of elderly living in poverty.

And are you okay that private pension plans, again, to which workers paid into, decreased the workers' pension based on social security benefit? I see what the "offset" did to my grandfather's pension. I still have a copy of the official worksheet.
__________________
If only women voted, the Democratic party would win by 458 electoral votes to 80.
If only non-whites voted, the Democratic party would win every state in the union.
If only Millennials voted, the Democratic party would win over 400 electoral votes in a landslide.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -2. The time now is 09:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 1996 to Present. Backwoods Home Magazine, Inc.