Social Security Benfits For Us Citizens

[stevehaigh]

i just found a really cool tool for calculating your social security benefit (only if you are a US tax payer).

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/AnypiaApplet.html

i just punched in my yearly earnings and found that if i stop working now (at 45) i get about $1100/mth (in 2004 dollars) from age 62. that's pretty livable in muang thai since i own my own house and the kids will be all grown up, etc.

interestingly, if i continue working for another 17 years at $100,000/yr the benefit only goes up to $1500. why bother!

the only question is will the US gov still have any money in 17 years. the way Bush is pissing it away, who knows!

[dr_Pat_Pong]

i just found a really cool tool for calculating your social security benefit (only if you are a US tax payer).

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/AnypiaApplet.html

i just punched in my yearly earnings and found that if i stop working now (at 45) i get about $1100/mth (in 2004 dollars) from age 62. that's pretty livable in muang thai since i own my own house and the kids will be all grown up, etc.

interestingly, if i continue working for another 17 years at $100,000/yr the benefit only goes up to $1500. why bother!

the only question is will the US gov still have any money in 17 years. the way Bush is pissing it away, who knows!

Only if he finds the W's of MD

[Boon Mee]

Don't know how you got that 1100$ figure, Steve. For me, who's been paying in the max amount of SS earnings for the last 20 some years I get only $1,373.00 per month at 62?

Cheers,

Boon Mee

[Thaiquila]

i just found a really cool tool for calculating your social security benefit (only if you are a US tax payer).

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/AnypiaApplet.html

i just punched in my yearly earnings and found that if i stop working now (at 45) i get about $1100/mth (in 2004 dollars) from age 62. that's pretty livable in muang thai since i own my own house and the kids will be all grown up, etc.

interestingly, if i continue working for another 17 years at $100,000/yr the benefit only goes up to $1500. why bother!

the only question is will the US gov still have any money in 17 years. the way Bush is pissing it away, who knows!

Thanks for that.

The general line now is that you should not count on getting 100 percent of the benefits shown in those calculators if you are in your age group.

Older folks who are older now are much secure, but there will so many baby boomers collecting benefits that it is highly likely that benefits will be cut, but not eliminated.

Based on what I have read, I think you can guess about 75 percent, if you want to be conservative about it, figure 50 percent.

I have another question that maybe you can answer.

When they project the estimates based on 2004 dollars, what exactly are they saying? I know this refers to inflation and current and future dollars, but the wording from social security is imprecise.

For example, if they say your benefit is 1000 in current dollars, we can assume the actual number of dollars would be much higher in future dollars?

BTW: I am in a similar boat and I also noticed that working longer doesn't produce proportionally greater benefits. Also note, there is a MINIMUM social security benefit (if you meet the minimum credits) so that is comforting for fans of dog food.

[Pepe']

The SS system has been bankrupt my any conconetional standards of annuity or retirement plans for at least 15 year.

In all the discussion about retiring with personal bankers, investment couselors and accountants , the general cosecus is that the system will go totaly bust sometime as soon as 20012 to as late as 2020.

[Boon Mee]

i just found a really cool tool for calculating your social security benefit (only if you are a US tax payer).

http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/AnypiaApplet.html

i just punched in my yearly earnings and found that if i stop working now (at 45) i get about $1100/mth (in 2004 dollars) from age 62. that's pretty livable in muang thai since i own my own house and the kids will be all grown up, etc.

interestingly, if i continue working for another 17 years at $100,000/yr the benefit only goes up to $1500. why bother!

the only question is will the US gov still have any money in 17 years. the way Bush is pissing it away, who knows!

Thanks for that.

The general line now is that you should not count on getting 100 percent of the benefits shown in those calculators if you in your age group.

Older folks who are older now are much secure, but there will so many baby boomers collecting benefits that it is highly likely that benefits will be cut, but not eliminated.

Based on what I have read, I think you can guess about 75 percent, if you want to be conservative about it, figure 50 percent.

I have another question that maybe you can answer.

When they project the estimates based on 2004 dollars, what exactly are they saying? I know this refers to inflation and current and future dollars, but the wording from social security is imprecise.

For example, if they say your benefit is 1000 in current dollars, we can assume the actual number of dollars would be much higher in future dollars?

BTW: I am in a similar boat and I also noticed that working longer doesn't produce proportionally greater benefits. Also note, there is a MINIMUM social security benefit (if you meet the minimum credits) so that is comforting for fans of dog food.

According to SSA, the Yearly Increase Rate is now projected to be 8% if you're born 1943 or later. Therefore, whatever you work out now can be projected based on that percentage.

From everything I've read/heard, Social Security is totally funded through 2030 or thereabouts.

[GuestHouse]

Pepe, You should worry, Europeans, especially the French and the Germans are being lied to by their governments, they are unable to support pensions systems but they are not discussing this with their people.

[KevinN]

the only question is will the US gov still have any money in 17 years. the way Bush is pissing it away, who knows!

But ya gotta remember that it wasn't Bush that gave SS dollars and bennies to any foreigner that had ever been in the states and worked,whether he ever paid in or not and even if you were now in another country,like mexico they set up SS offices in the consulates so you can get it. so look to your Demo's for that.

[Boon Mee]

the only question is will the US gov still have any money in 17 years. the way Bush is pissing it away, who knows!

But ya gotta remember that it wasn't Bush that gave SS dollars and bennies to any foreigner that had ever been in the states and worked,whether he ever paid in or not and even if you were now in another country,like mexico they set up SS offices in the consulates so you can get it. so look to your Demo's for that.

Ra-Wang, Kevin...or this topic will end up closed as it's getting into the Bear Pit area...

[sendbaht]

SS will be there for you and for me. Just the age AGAIN might get raised.

I am surprised they have kept the 62 option. I do hope that is around for my 62nd 11 years from now other wise it's now 66 for full benefits for me.

We can get by without it but it will be the icing on the Thai cake.

I understand with the right documentations one can apply for SS at the US embassy?

[JimGant]

Thaiquila,

For example, if they say your benefit is 1000 in current dollars, we can assume the actual number of dollars would be much higher in future dollars'

Maybe not much higher, but it will be higher by two factors:

1. When you first file for SS, they'll 'inflate' your credited earnings to equate to what they estimate would be the equivalent earnings in 'today's' dollars based on productivity improvements, etc. (i.e., 'today' being the year you file for SS).

2. Then, every year thereafter, you get a 'cost of living' inflation factor that ups your takehome by whatever this factor is. (It's the same factor used to boost military and US government pensions.) Believe me, this makes a big difference, especially when compared to a 'defined benefit' pension from a civlian firm, where there is normally no inflation factor used to increase your annual annuity. I retired from the Air Force 17 years ago, and my pension is now over 35% higher based on these annual 'cost of living' increases.

Boonmee,

According to SSA, the Yearly Increase Rate is now projected to be 8%

From everything I've read/heard, Social Security is totally funded through 2030 or thereabouts.

Not sure what your "Yearly Increase Rate" of 8% is, but no one's takehome will increase by that amount. Even that 'productivity' factor I mentioned above won't approach 8%. Can you further explain?

But, yes, SS looks pretty safe thru 2030, based on recent reports. But I'm sure "normal" retirement age will be bumped up, probably to age 70, or higher, meaning the reduction you get by retiring at age 62 will go to around 50% (today you receive about 78% of what you'd get at "normal" retirement age).

And, yes, many get only nickles on the dollar they pay into SS in their last years of work, as it's entirely 'front loaded' since it's a social program, not a retirement program. This allows the janitor who works 40 years to get nearly what the high roller gets, whether that high roller works 10 years, or 40 (the last 30 years being almost pure subsidy for the 'janitors.') The fact that the high roller can get such a nice SS check after working only 10 years (the vesting minimum) is being look at as a possible 'loop hole' to correct.

There certainly will be corrections coming to SS -- the age change I mention above, probably a lower inflation factor, and no doubt some others. But SS will still be around in some form or fashion. Some (most) of the European social schemes are on far shakier ground. Just too bad we spent all that money in NATO protecting Europe from the Russians. It certainly could have been better spent in shoring up our social future -- not that of those we protected, for whatever stupid reason I've never figured out.

[Boon Mee]

The yearly increase rate I was talking about refers to when you delay your retirement based on the birth year. Your benefit will be increased by a certain percentage for each month you don't receive from your full retirement age to age 70. Sorry, my 1st post was misleading.

Myself, I can't think of working until 70 but that's the numbers SSA is putting out.

If your full retirement age is 66, the benefits will be reduced by 25% at age 62; 20 % at age 63; 13 !/3 % at age 64 and 6 2/3 % at age 65.

[JimGant]

Boon Mee,

Thanks for the clarification.

Myself, I can't think of working until 70

Amen, brother.

I understand with the right documentations one can apply for SS at the US embassy?

Good question. And sure hope so(?).

[Debaryman101]

the only question is will the US gov still have any money in 17 years. the way Bush is pissing it away, who knows!

Dear Sir Mr. Bush is not the only one pissing it away so why do u just single him out?

chok dee

[retiree]

Myself, I can't think of working until 70

Perhaps, but there's a reason not to file for SS until 70. Normally, the 'early' retirement penalties are a wash -- you receive the same total, regardless of when you first claim, if you reach maximum life expectancy according to the standard actuarial tables.

Delaying filing, if you can, is a better worst-case scenario (that is, if you consider being broke at 90 to be the worst case). It maximizes your ongoing income if you outlive the tables (and any other savings).

[ProThaiExpat]

When I discussed the issue of when best to claim SS with my accountant, I was told and he showed me, that early retirement was foolish and the benefits earned in the two or three years you get by retiring early are swallowed up by the higher return at age 66, I think by age 72. If you don't expect your life expectancy to be past that, take it early. And don't hold me to the math, do it yourself.

As far as waiting until after normal retirment, he showed me that was not wise either, but I can't remember why.