(USA topic) The grim psychology of deciding on when to take social security benefits

[Jingthing]

CaptHaddock brought up the option of subsidized low income housing for seniors in the U.S. Based on my understanding, there are upper income limits for this kind of housing, I think current about 22,000, and the rent taken is one third of income. That wouldn't be my first option but it's an interesting fall back option. Thinking about the implications of that, a higher income (resulting from NOT taking s.s. early) would mean a higher rent in such housing. Of course, also less left from the check. But seems to me perhaps a case where claiming early would not be so bad IF there are significant savings left.

Not only are there upper income limits for subsidized housing there are also limits on your net worth

Let's not forget your previous thread, where to move to in the US, and the search for Expanded Medicaid that was abandoned when you added your "nest egg" into the mix

You are wrong. There are no upper limits for assets for either HUD senior housing OR expanded medicaid qualification

Perhaps you are confused. In another thread I was learning about the expanded medicaid in the states that offered it and discovered that INCOME from IRA withdrawals would put me over the income levels for that and into the zone of eligibility for regular A.C.A. (subsidized) private insurance. That had NOTHING to do with having money in accounts. It was about how withdraws count as INCOME. All about INCOME.

Cheers.

Edited May 27, 2016 by Jingthing

[Langsuan Man]

Well since I am currently looking for a house in the US I have been told that my assets preclude me from certain subsidized properties that I have looked at; but what do Realtors know anyway

Jingthing thing knows everything so I often wonder why he even bothers to ask

[Jingthing]

Well since I am currently looking for a house in the US I have been told that my assets preclude me from certain subsidized properties that I have looked at; but what do Realtors know anyway

Jingthing thing knows everything so I often wonder why he even bothers to ask

Is that HUD SENIOR housing? I wasn't talking about Section 8. I'm not exactly an expert but I personally know an elder dealing with this now and I have seen websites as well and it's clear that asset limits aren't a problem. There are strict income limits (upper end) though.

[Jingthing]

I'll add to the question of whether assets are even considered for HUD low income SENIOR housing.

Well, I'm seeing somewhat conflicting information so the best thing to do is to look at the area you might want to live in and check out the current rules for SPECIFIC housing complexes.

I did see one very dated source saying in one place TWO PERCENT of total assets was counted as income.

Withdraws from IRA are counted as income.

I believe it's usually looked at annually but there are also adjustments based on typical expenses, such as medical.

It's good that there are at least some such opportunities for some seniors that may need it.

Here's an example where assets are NOT considered:

http://seniorhousingoptions.org/become-a-resident/affordable-apartment-living/

Eligibility

Recurring monthly income not greater than qualifications set by federal standard. (No fixed asset tests)

Edited May 29, 2016 by Jingthing

[tonray]

Low income housing, Medicaid, HUD Section 8........isn't it better to stay in Thailand where you won't have the mental stigma of being a pauper ? (I would also be in the same boat)

[joeyg]

I made it through most of the first page. I retired at 62. Waiting until 66 to take SS. Thank God I don't need it. Factor this into the calculations though...

62% of Americans have less than $1000.00 in savings. Talk about grim reality. It's a damn shame really.

http://www.gobankingrates.com/savings-account/62-percent-americans-under-1000-savings-survey-finds/

[joeyg]

I made it through most of the first page. I retired at 62. Waiting until 66 to take SS. Thank God I don't need it. Factor this into the calculations though...

62% of Americans have less than $1000.00 in savings. Talk about grim reality. It's a damn shame really.

http://www.gobankingrates.com/savings-account/62-percent-americans-under-1000-savings-survey-finds/

[Jingthing]

Low income housing, Medicaid, HUD Section 8........isn't it better to stay in Thailand where you won't have the mental stigma of being a pauper ? (I would also be in the same boat)

Possibly.

I am reevaluating my tactics.

I am now seeing more pros in trying to stay in Thailand until about age 65 (lower costs), then take close to "full" social security (which for me is 66 plus) and also be eligible for Medicare.

The coming election may even influence my decision, regarding the future of ACA.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Interesting political news about potentially RAISING benefits for social security. Funded by upping the CAPS that high income people pay into the system. Obviously, this would be something maybe a President Hillary Clinton might address:

It’s time we finally made Social Security more generous ... so that today’s retirees and future generations get the dignified retirement that they've earned.— President Obama, June 1

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-obama-social-security-20160603-snap-story.html

[Jingthing]

I made it through most of the first page. I retired at 62. Waiting until 66 to take SS. Thank God I don't need it. Factor this into the calculations though...

62% of Americans have less than $1000.00 in savings. Talk about grim reality. It's a damn shame really.

http://www.gobankingrates.com/savings-account/62-percent-americans-under-1000-savings-survey-finds/

Yes, it is going to be VERY grim for a lot of older Americans. It already is for many of them.

[CaptHaddock]

There is an interesting aspect to this year's presidential race. For the first time since probably Nixon, both candidates support Social Security and Medicare. That's if we take Trump at his word, which would be unwise. The possibly temporary breakdown of the Republican strategy of duping their middle-class supporters into voting against their own interests may mean that candidates on the right will no longer be able to threaten to destroy SS.

Progressives like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have been pushing for a long time to expand SS into a full-fledged retirement system. Obama is only lately getting on board with that.

[Jingthing]

There is an interesting aspect to this year's presidential race. For the first time since probably Nixon, both candidates support Social Security and Medicare. That's if we take Trump at his word, which would be unwise. The possibly temporary breakdown of the Republican strategy of duping their middle-class supporters into voting against their own interests may mean that candidates on the right will no longer be able to threaten to destroy SS.

Progressives like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have been pushing for a long time to expand SS into a full-fledged retirement system. Obama is only lately getting on board with that.

That's true. There is a conflict between trump and Ryan over social security. Ryan wants to cut and probably privatize it while trump wants it to stand. But this idea of EXPANDING it also raising the cap on high income earners is not a place I would imagine trump would ever go. It's not clear whether Clinton will, but she might as it would provide a good contrast. As far as the argument that the money isn't there, that's easy to address by raising the caps. I never understood the caps in the first place.

[CaptHaddock]

There is an interesting aspect to this year's presidential race. For the first time since probably Nixon, both candidates support Social Security and Medicare. That's if we take Trump at his word, which would be unwise. The possibly temporary breakdown of the Republican strategy of duping their middle-class supporters into voting against their own interests may mean that candidates on the right will no longer be able to threaten to destroy SS.

Progressives like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have been pushing for a long time to expand SS into a full-fledged retirement system. Obama is only lately getting on board with that.

That's true. There is a conflict between trump and Ryan over social security. Ryan wants to cut and probably privatize it while trump wants it to stand. But this idea of EXPANDING it also raising the cap on high income earners is not a place I would imagine trump would ever go. It's not clear whether Clinton will, but she might as it would provide a good contrast. As far as the argument that the money isn't there, that's easy to address by raising the caps. I never understood the caps in the first place.

Sure raise the caps. Make all compensation subject to payroll tax including stock options. Make the payroll tax progressive, instead of regressive. End the exclusion of dividend, interest, and capital gains income.

My point is not that Trump is likely to favor expansion, but that the whole national political discussion on SS has turned somewhat surprisingly to the left if only by a notch. This is a signiificant development. What Trump himself thinks is not so important. He is never going to hold office. But it may be harder for other Repub candidates to push to destroy SS once their voters have awoken to where their real interests lie.

[Jingthing]

Well probably getting too political here but assuming trump loses the next try from that party could likely be Ryan who is hard core right wing on entitlements.

[CaptHaddock]

Well probably getting too political here but assuming trump loses the next try from that party could likely be Ryan who is hard core right wing on entitlements.

Of course, but by then Ryan and the rest could be forced to be arguing against Medicare-for-all and expanded SS instead of talking about cutting benefits or raising the age of eligibility.

[Jingthing]

Sure. I guess one election at a time.

Sorry folks for getting political here.

I do realize there is a lot of polarization about U.S. politics especially in the middle of a presidential election year.

There are always numerous other threads to focus on that for those who choose to.

I do want this thread to be focused on more practical matters about social security claiming tactics.

On that note, I noticed in the L.A. Times article I linked it was mentioned there is a MINIMUM social security benefit amount for even the lowest earners that are eligible at all for the program.

Do you think that minimum is based on your BIRTH YEAR or does it apply to all regardless?

Does anyone know what those amounts are?

Yes, I am curious whether the amounts I am being quoted are much above the minimums or even just the minimums as I have so many ZERO earning years.

Edited June 5, 2016 by Jingthing

[SpokaneAl]

Here is what social security says . . . https://www.ssa.gov/retirementpolicy/program/special-minimum.html

[SpokaneAl]

SS further states this on eligibility for benefits . . . To be eligible for Social Security retirement benefits, a worker born after 1928 must have accumulated at least 40 quarters of work in "covered employment". A "quarter of coverage" generally means the three-month calendar quarter. In addition, you must earn at least $1,260 in a quarter (in 2016) for it to count. However, the SSA looks at how much you earned in a year and divides that figure by the minimum amount required to earn credit for a quarter. Thus, if you earn at least $5,040 in January and February of 2016 and don't work the rest of the year, you will receive credit for four quarters of work ($5,040/$1,260 = 4).

[phuketrichard]

I get the min as only worked the min 40 quarters (10 years) and never really paid much in

its now up to $307/month

[Gary A]

Yes, I know, off topic but relevant.

I really should be a liberal and support the politician promising the highest benefits. Since I am an old fart, I will be dead and gone before the whole scheme implodes. The problem is that I have been unlucky being born with a conscience. I do worry about the young people who are going to inherit this socialist created mess. There will come a day when the world no longer trusts the US printing massive amounts of funny money.

[CaptHaddock]

I always find it interesting that to those who know the least an apocaplypse of one kind or another always seems like the most reasonable outcome.

[Jingthing]

I get the min as only worked the min 40 quarters (10 years) and never really paid much in

its now up to $307/month

307 a month?

I know it's a program based on paying in, in theory anyway, but that sounds ridiculously low.

[phuketrichard]

I get the min as only worked the min 40 quarters (10 years) and never really paid much in

its now up to $307/month

307 a month?

I know it's a program based on paying in, in theory anyway, but that sounds ridiculously low.

LOL: tell me about it !!!

I know a few that thats all we get.

[Gary A]

I know a guy who was on his last legs financially. He was out of the US for more than twenty years. He was 65 years old at the time. One of his friends urged him to apply for SS. He told me that he didn't bother because he had paid very little in. The friend helped him apply and he now gets about 600 dollars a month. He was surprised and happy. Compared on what he was existing on, he now lives quite well.

[Boon Mee]

I get the min as only worked the min 40 quarters (10 years) and never really paid much in

its now up to $307/month

307 a month?

I know it's a program based on paying in, in theory anyway, but that sounds ridiculously low.

It's all dependant on your earning history.

[Jingthing]

I get the min as only worked the min 40 quarters (10 years) and never really paid much in

its now up to $307/month

307 a month?

I know it's a program based on paying in, in theory anyway, but that sounds ridiculously low.

It's all dependant on your earning history.

Obviously.

[NancyL]

I know a guy who was on his last legs financially. He was out of the US for more than twenty years. He was 65 years old at the time. One of his friends urged him to apply for SS. He told me that he didn't bother because he had paid very little in. The friend helped him apply and he now gets about 600 dollars a month. He was surprised and happy. Compared on what he was existing on, he now lives quite well.

I also know someone who'd never paid in much and has been over here for a long time. He and his wife never bothered to get divorced and she went on to have a high-powered, high-earning career. They've kept in touch from time-to-time. When his friends encouraged him to apply for SS, the person who interviewed him over the phone from the Manila SS office asked about his marital status and after getting a few details together, he was pleased to learn his "spousal benefit" is W-A-Y higher than his own benefit and it doesn't affect the amount his "former" wife receives. Heck, she's still working!

[CaptHaddock]

I know a guy who was on his last legs financially. He was out of the US for more than twenty years. He was 65 years old at the time. One of his friends urged him to apply for SS. He told me that he didn't bother because he had paid very little in. The friend helped him apply and he now gets about 600 dollars a month. He was surprised and happy. Compared on what he was existing on, he now lives quite well.

I also know someone who'd never paid in much and has been over here for a long time. He and his wife never bothered to get divorced and she went on to have a high-powered, high-earning career. They've kept in touch from time-to-time. When his friends encouraged him to apply for SS, the person who interviewed him over the phone from the Manila SS office asked about his marital status and after getting a few details together, he was pleased to learn his "spousal benefit" is W-A-Y higher than his own benefit and it doesn't affect the amount his "former" wife receives. Heck, she's still working!

He would be entitled to a spousal benefit even if they had been divorced as long as they had been married at least ten years. But doesn't she have to have filed and not suspended for benefits in order for him to collect, which I wouldn't expect to be the case if she were still working?

[JimGant]

But doesn't she have to have filed and not suspended for benefits in order for him to collect, which I wouldn't expect to be the case if she were still working?

If they're still married, yes. But if divorced, the spouse divorcee has an easier path to collecting spousal SS benefits:

Unlike married couples, divorcees don’t have to wait for former spouses to file for Social Security benefits. As long as they were married 10 years and have been divorced at least two years, they can file for spousal benefits at age 62, regardless of their spouse’s filing status. However, their former spouse must also be at least age 62.

[CaptHaddock]

But doesn't she have to have filed and not suspended for benefits in order for him to collect, which I wouldn't expect to be the case if she were still working?

If they're still married, yes. But if divorced, the spouse divorcee has an easier path to collecting spousal SS benefits:

Unlike married couples, divorcees don’t have to wait for former spouses to file for Social Security benefits. As long as they were married 10 years and have been divorced at least two years, they can file for spousal benefits at age 62, regardless of their spouse’s filing status. However, their former spouse must also be at least age 62.

But in the example cited the couple never divorced.