how much is you pension?

[Scotwight]

4 hours ago, Johpa said:

 

Relative to the public sector to where my remark was directed, as a taxpayer I work, I pay, and someone else receives a public pension.  The least they could do for that largess is spend the money back into the tax base from whence it came.  That is a far cry from totalitarianism and it is also sound economic policy.

I have been contributing to my Social Security account since 1960.  Now I am withdrawing the money I put in.  Who else pays for me?  Would I have been better off to invest in the S&P 500 or put my money in Social Security since 1960?

[returnofthailand]

it s impossible to pay 35 years of pension. some people now go beyond age 100.

you start to make money at 40, after paying 10 years of debt or more.

retirement at 65, so you have saved for 25 years only.
25 years against 35 years of retirement .? where the money come from.?

I call this a ponzy scheme, a scam...yeah they print money all day long.

[Gary A]

2 hours ago, CaptHaddock said:

 

The US government is currently making full interest and principal payments to the SS Trust Fund on schedule and will continue to do so, just like it pays interest on Treasury bonds.  The US government is viewed by the bond market as the gold standard of creditworthiness, which is one reason that the debt-servicing costs are so low.  The US govt has not raped the SS Trust Fund any more than it has raped its bondholders.  There was a risk of default by the govt in 2013, but that was not because of an inability to pay, but because the Republicans threatened to bring about a default as a transparent political maneuver.

 

You can't understand economics by listening Rush Limbaugh.  You might try reading an economics text sometime for a refreshing glimpse of reality.  Governments are not like households for various reasons including that they can roll over debt indefinitely since they are in theory immortal.  There's much more to it of course, but it's probably above your pay grade.

 

You are obviously correct that I must be talking above my pay grade. I certainly don't understand government fuzzy math. The government is making payments? They are making payments with funny money and as long as the printing presses don't stop running, everything will be great? How naive are you? I think that you actually believe that the government can continue to spend money that doesn't exist except for for useless paper funny money they keep printing.

[thaibeachlovers]

I'd be better off if I was able to pop out a bastard every few years.

The pension isn't even enough to pay rent on a 1 bedroom flat.

Edited September 19, 2016 by thaibeachlovers

[mikiea]

On 9/16/2016 at 5:15 PM, manfredtillmann said:

nothing! my government has decided that i am too wealthy to gain any benefit from the A$ 1,000,000 plus of taxes i have paid...

 

hey return are you chinese ? they are the only peeps crass enough to count other peoples money . you are a lonley man i feel ,  troll elsewhere.

 

[Scotwight]

3 hours ago, returnofthailand said:

it s impossible to pay 35 years of pension. some people now go beyond age 100.

you start to make money at 40, after paying 10 years of debt or more.

retirement at 65, so you have saved for 25 years only.
25 years against 35 years of retirement .? where the money come from.?

I call this a ponzy scheme, a scam...yeah they print money all day long.

 

You can't make up definitions unless  you are a dictionary.

 

Ponzi schemes are insolvent; Social Security is not insolvent.

Funds received into Social Security are invested in government-backed securities at a certain interest rate, thus generating returns.

In a Ponzi scheme, there are no investments made.

Ponzi schemes work only until people get wind of what is going on, at which point they inevitably collapse. Social Security's finances are plainly visible for all to see. Modest adjustments in tax rates, benefit formulas and the retirement age can ensure the program's viability for generations to come.

[CaptHaddock]

 

5 hours ago, returnofthailand said:

it s impossible to pay 35 years of pension. some people now go beyond age 100.

you start to make money at 40, after paying 10 years of debt or more.

retirement at 65, so you have saved for 25 years only.
25 years against 35 years of retirement .? where the money come from.?

I call this a ponzy scheme, a scam...yeah they print money all day long.

 

 

 

 

SS is not a Ponzi scheme.  A Ponzi scheme is a fraud in which early "investors" are paid off by the money from subsequent "investors" most of which however is siphoned off.  No actual investment occurs and every such scheme collapses eventually when it runs out of investors.

 

SS is insurance.  The difference between insurance and legitimate investment is that every investor expects an eventual return greater than his original investment.  Most purchasers of insurance realize they are unlikely to receive their payments back since they are transferring their risk to the insurance company.  They will only be reimbursed for covered losses that occur.  Although the insurance company will invest the premiums the main source of reimbursements to cover the losses of contributors is not investment, but the contributions of those who never suffer a loss.  So, when you buy fire insurance for your house, you do so because you could not afford to bear the financial burden of the loss of your house.  So, you pay the insurance company to bear it for you.  While you cannot know whether your house will burn down, the insurance company can estimate very well how many houses in total will burn down and sets the premium rates accordingly.

 

SS is indeed an insurance program, which is why the SSA refers to your retirement benefit as your "Primary Insurance Amount" or "PIA."  In the case of SS the loss that each of us cannot afford to bear is the financial cost of living to old age, which is enormous.  So, the SSA collects premiums, called in this case the "payroll tax" from employees and employers.  Each of us faces the difficult financial problem  of funding our old age although we cannot know how long we will live and how much money we will need to cover our costs.  However, the SSA, like the insurance companies, knows very well from statistical studies of mortality how many of us will live until 70, 78, 86, 92, etc.  So they adjust the payroll tax to cover the lifetime costs (although only partially, since SS is not a full pension system.)  It's an insurance, not an investment, program because only the survivors are paid with the contributions of the deceased.  It's not a Ponzi scheme because the survivors have all been paid in full for the past 80 years without causing the system to collapse for want of new participants, nor is it a fraud.  Insurance companies rarely go broke because of the statistical certainties of large groups.

 

So, basically, your terms the money comes from dead people.

[micmichd]

2 hours ago, returnofthailand said:

yeah... bla bla bla! .... always the same. you won't impress a famous economist like me coming from Harvard with mention.
SS is NOW a ponzy scheme. this is why they say they can not pay anymore or need to extend retirement age.
this is why they say they need 10 workers to pay one retired, in fact they don't have even enough money to pay my parent pension.
you claim its legal and everything will be fine because you put you head in sand.
I don't care if you call it insurance or whatever, they are all ponzy schemes.
the printing money machine is a ponzy scheme. wall streets is a ponzy scheme. the entire world is now a ponzy scheme. even you as a human being you are a ponzy scheme. you are nothing else than a SS number. Music is ending, not enough chairs remain to continue this circus .

!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, they're already lifting the retirement age in Germany. Yes, you're nothing but a SS number, but you're entitled to get your pension as property. Yes, printing paper money without material value behind is a ponzi scheme. Then consequently it should make no difference in the long run, even your assets will be worthless if you have any. In case you have already brought them to Thailand, then you invested in Thailand, in workplaces for Thais or education or whatsoever. Thailand may become richer, and you may become poorer (absolutely or relatively) But that'll take time. You will lower your expectations, and in the end you'll die. You'll fight or don't fight, you'll be dead anyway.

Maybe you're lucky and learned how to socialize with Thais, and learned you no better than them. Your income in pensions might not be worth so much in the long run, it'll be the way you spend it that counts. Don't rely on your money; better keep your brain awake, adjust to environment, and prove you're reliable - more reliable than ponzi scheme money. 

[grabitanrun]

My pensions are not great, only worth around 50,000thb per month but I have around £650k of assets, which I should be able to squeeze to £750k on retirement. After houses that should leave £500k to invest, hopefully that'll be enough to relax with

[Rdrokit]

21 minutes ago, grabitanrun said:

My pensions are not great, only worth around 50,000thb per month but I have around £650k of assets, which I should be able to squeeze to £750k on retirement. After houses that should leave £500k to invest, hopefully that'll be enough to relax with

In my opinion I think without a house or car payment you could live comfortably on 50,000baht a month.

[grabitanrun]

23 hours ago, Rdrokit said:

In my opinion I think without a house or car payment you could live comfortably on 50,000baht a month.

In Thailand, yes, but I want to split my time between the UK and Thailand with some travel - think I'll be OK but you never know......

[nausea]

Whatever you think, double it. Just speaking from experience. There are hidden costs, emergencies, etc. I've survived in Thailand for 10 years mostly through luck than judgement.

[rickudon]

Some people seem to be unhappy on their pensions ..... but most are getting FAR more than average pensioners. Some European pensions are among the best in the world - Denmark is rated one of the best with retirees getting on average about $50,000 a year total income (before tax). The UK is a lot lower at about $24,000 a year total income before tax. However, a lot of this is in other income - the actual average PENSION is around $12,000. And due to falling annuities, interest rates and dividends the other income will probably fall. At least in the UK no medical bills to worry about if you only use the NHS.

 

I expect in USA somewhat higher, saw one quote just under $32,000 in total income.

 

Me, I will be about on the UK average once i get the state pension. But in Thailand have to pay for medical bills..........

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

USA "pension" 32,000 dollars?

Hmm.

Most Americans now are retiring only with government social security pensions.

The average benefit is MUCH LESS than that.

According to this the AVERAGE annual social security benefit is HALF of that.

https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/Article/3736/What-is-the-average-monthly-benefit-for-a-retired-worker

That's only an average. That means many millions of people with benefits much less than the average. 

Edited September 28, 2016 by Jingthing

[rickudon]

Yes, that is average and includes other income i think. So yes plenty only have SS (about one third of US retirees I think). Obviously some have much higher incomes.  In the UK, other income is important, but also there are a lot on only pensions of well under $1,000 a month, although the lowest paid pensioners will qualify for means tested benefits.

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, rickudon said:

Yes, that is average and includes other income i think. So yes plenty only have SS (about one third of US retirees I think). Obviously some have much higher incomes.  In the UK, other income is important, but also there are a lot on only pensions of well under $1,000 a month, although the lowest paid pensioners will qualify for means tested benefits.

I think you're talking historically with your 1/3 estimate. Consider baby boomers now entering the system. I would be very surprised if only 1/3 of them have only the government pension. Private pensions became much rarer. People change jobs a lot. The system for baby boomers shifted to telling people to invest in 401Ks and IRAs. Other than government workers, military, some private firm elites, etc. 

[watcharacters]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I think you're talking historically with your 1/3 estimate. Consider baby boomers now entering the system. I would be very surprised if only 1/3 of them have only the government pension. Private pensions became much rarer. People change jobs a lot. The system for baby boomers shifted to telling people to invest in 401Ks and IRAs. Other than government workers, military, some private firm elites, etc. 

 

 

To me it's a scary thing to  me how ill prepared so many fellow boomers are for retirement.       I wonder if someday it'll have a major impact in the USA.

Too bad companies were allowed to get on the 401K bandwagon as an exclusive vehicle.   

[Jingthing]

Just now, watcharacters said:

 

 

To me it's a scary thing to  me how ill prepared so many fellow boomers are for retirement.       I wonder if someday it'll have a major impact in the USA.

Too bad companies were allowed to get on the 401K bandwagon as an exclusive vehicle.   

Well, yes, it's a big problem.

There is already political talk (from only democrats of course) that lower income social security recipients need more money. It would be easy to do ... just raise the higher income limits on pay ins. Not saying that will happen, but the problem will become more visible.

[micmichd]

20 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

USA "pension" 32,000 dollars?

Hmm.

Most Americans now are retiring only with government social security pensions.

The average benefit is MUCH LESS than that.

According to this the AVERAGE annual social security benefit is HALF of that.

https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/Article/3736/What-is-the-average-monthly-benefit-for-a-retired-worker

That's only an average. That means many millions of people with benefits much less than the average. 

So,it's 1.361 US$ per month, averagely.  

Germany should be about the same (statistics are not very reliable in that) 

 

"Average" means a substantial portion of the population will get less, those people will face severe problems in Thailand. 

In Germany they make a sharp distinction between the amounts based on contributions to the Social Security System (deferred compensation for labour)  and the amounts based on taxpayers' money (welfare benefits) In fact, more and more people get both. Doubtful if any of the genuine welfare benefits will be paid to Thailand.

Then there's an additional problem: Costs for health care. Germans that retire in Thailand are getting kicked out of the German health care system, since there's no social security contract between Germany and Thailand. Consequently they need a substantial portion of their pensions for private health insurance, and this portion gets bigger and bigger the older they get. 

 

Income based on labour in Thailand?  

OK if you're an expat sent here. Not so easy if you are not, the Thai labour market is becoming closed.  

Income based on assets? Doubtful, asset holders are about getting expropriated in the countries they come from. 

After all, I doubt that too many Farangs will stay in Thailand in the long run. Especially if they do not completely change sides and continue to live in Farang ghettos. 

[Fookhaht]

Dammit.  Prying worse than the new immigration foreigner information form. 

[mesterm]

On 9/17/2016 at 8:19 AM, DUS said:

68,568.63

 

Kind sir, would you mind sparing 63 satang every month to a poor man?

[gk10002000]

On ‎9‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 10:04 PM, Jingthing said:

USA "pension" 32,000 dollars?

Hmm.

Most Americans now are retiring only with government social security pensions.

The average benefit is MUCH LESS than that.

According to this the AVERAGE annual social security benefit is HALF of that.

https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/Article/3736/What-is-the-average-monthly-benefit-for-a-retired-worker

That's only an average. That means many millions of people with benefits much less than the average. 

Living?  More like existing.  They have been lucky a child or relative took them in, gave them a small bedroom to sleep in.  probably 10-15% have reverse mortgaged their homes and are getting monthly payments that don't count as income. 

[Gary A]

If you count the employers share of SS payments you will find that the average is about 25 percent of your wages. For many retirees, that means that you have about 500,000 dollars in you SS account. That means that you will collect for about 20 years and that is not counting any accumulation of interest. Adding interest over 40 years is a great deal more money. Eliminating the fraud would mean even many more years of solvency.

[micmichd]

49 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

Living?  More like existing.  They have been lucky a child or relative took them in, gave them a small bedroom to sleep in.  probably 10-15% have reverse mortgaged their homes and are getting monthly payments that don't count as income. 

Monthly payments don't count as income?  Guess they do, and they'll be taxed and/or used to reduce welfare benefits.

[Rdrokit]

5 minutes ago, micmichd said:

Monthly payments don't count as income?  Guess they do, and they'll be taxed and/or used to reduce welfare benefits.

Reverse mortgages are considered loan advances to you, not income you earned so they are not taxable. Also, any monthly disability payments are not taxable.

[micmichd]

39 minutes ago, Rdrokit said:

Reverse mortgages are considered loan advances to you, not income you earned so they are not taxable. Also, any monthly disability payments are not taxable.

In Germany (probably all over the EU) any kind of monthly money transfer is regarded as (taxable) income.  Just a question of the threshold. In Germany, it's presently 8,652 EUR p.a. net for a bachelor with no kids ("net" means gross minus expenditures on health care, inventions etc.) Disability pensions are only tax free as long as they don't exceed this threshold. The treashold is also the amount granted by (tax-financed) welfare benefits.  

You can get an exempt from being taxed in Germany if you live in Thailand. Funny enough you have to claim "unlimited taxation" ("unbegrenzte Steuerplicht") for this. 

 

Edited October 4, 2016 by micmichd
Fonts adjusted.

[Rdrokit]

1 hour ago, micmichd said:

In Germany (probably all over the EU) any kind of monthly money transfer is regarded as (taxable) income.  Just a question of the threshold. In Germany, it's presently 8,652 EUR p.a. net for a bachelor with no kids ("net" means gross minus expenditures on health care, inventions etc.) Disability pensions are only tax free as long as they don't exceed this threshold. The treashold is also the amount granted by (tax-financed) welfare benefits.  

You can get an exempt from being taxed in Germany if you live in Thailand. Funny enough you have to claim "unlimited taxation" ("unbegrenzte Steuerplicht") for this. 

 

I would be in trouble in Germany as 3 months of my disability payments would exceed that threshold.  USA residents still have to pay federal income tax if living abroad if you are over the threshold.

[CaptHaddock]

2 hours ago, Gary A said:

If you count the employers share of SS payments you will find that the average is about 25 percent of your wages. For many retirees, that means that you have about 500,000 dollars in you SS account. That means that you will collect for about 20 years and that is not counting any accumulation of interest. Adding interest over 40 years is a great deal more money. Eliminating the fraud would mean even many more years of solvency.

 

Gary A you are as reliable as Old Faithful.  It's just that your "information" is always wrong.

 

The current payroll tax contribution for SS for an employee is 6.2%.  For a self-employed persion, it's double that or 12.4%.  Medicare tax is in addition.  Historically, the payroll tax rate was lower, so for those who are retiring now their average payroll tax rate over their lives was lower.  Since there is now and has always been a ceiling on the payroll tax those earning above that ceiling pay nothing on the income over the ceiling amount making their effective payroll tax rate lower. 

 

SS beneficiaries do not have individual "accounts" and therefore do not have dollars or securities in their non-existent "accounts."  Nor do beneficiaries receive interest of any kind although the SS Trust Fund does receive substantial interest on US bonds.

 

Once again, no fraud has occurred and the SS system remains solvent having never failed to make full beneficiary payments in its 80 year history.

 

I post this correct information in the hopes that the merely ignorant may benefit from it.  Of course, it's obvious that the invincibly ignorant will not become informed.

Edited October 4, 2016 by CaptHaddock

[Gary A]

1 hour ago, CaptHaddock said:

 

Gary A you are as reliable as Old Faithful.  It's just that your "information" is always wrong.

 

The current payroll tax contribution for SS for an employee is 6.2%.  For a self-employed persion, it's double that or 12.4%.  Medicare tax is in addition.  Historically, the payroll tax rate was lower, so for those who are retiring now their average payroll tax rate over their lives was lower.  Since there is now and has always been a ceiling on the payroll tax those earning above that ceiling pay nothing on the income over the ceiling amount making their effective payroll tax rate lower. 

 

SS beneficiaries do not have individual "accounts" and therefore do not have dollars or securities in their non-existent "accounts."  Nor do beneficiaries receive interest of any kind although the SS Trust Fund does receive substantial interest on US bonds.

 

Once again, no fraud has occurred and the SS system remains solvent having never failed to make full beneficiary payments in its 80 year history.

 

I post this correct information in the hopes that the merely ignorant may benefit from it.  Of course, it's obvious that the invincibly ignorant will not become informed.

 

As much as I hate to admit it, you are correct about the tax rate. I doubled the "12.4"  plus 2.9 percent rate that already included the employer's share. As far as MY account, see below;

https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/

Ignorant? I view rabid democrats as naive and ignorant.

 

1 hour ago, CaptHaddock said:

 

Gary A you are as reliable as Old Faithful.  It's just that your "information" is always wrong.

 

The current payroll tax contribution for SS for an employee is 6.2%.  For a self-employed persion, it's double that or 12.4%.  Medicare tax is in addition.  Historically, the payroll tax rate was lower, so for those who are retiring now their average payroll tax rate over their lives was lower.  Since there is now and has always been a ceiling on the payroll tax those earning above that ceiling pay nothing on the income over the ceiling amount making their effective payroll tax rate lower. 

 

SS beneficiaries do not have individual "accounts" and therefore do not have dollars or securities in their non-existent "accounts."  Nor do beneficiaries receive interest of any kind although the SS Trust Fund does receive substantial interest on US bonds.

 

Once again, no fraud has occurred and the SS system remains solvent having never failed to make full beneficiary payments in its 80 year history.

 

I post this correct information in the hopes that the merely ignorant may benefit from it.  Of course, it's obvious that the invincibly ignorant will not become informed.

 

Edited October 4, 2016 by Gary A

[CaptHaddock]

3 hours ago, Gary A said:

 

As much as I hate to admit it, you are correct about the tax rate. I doubled the "12.4"  plus 2.9 percent rate that already included the employer's share. As far as MY account, see below;

https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/

Ignorant? I view rabid democrats as naive and ignorant.

 

 

 

Still wrong.  The 2.9%, which consists of the employee's and the employer's share of the Medicare tax is not included in the 12.4% which is only the SS portion.  So, the total payroll tax for a self-employed person is 15.3% up to the salary ceiling which is about $111,000/yr above which there is no additional payroll tax.

 

It's true that the SSA uses the "account" terminology when speaking of beneficiaries, but unlike a bank or brokerage, there is no "account" anywhere that holds assets in your name which you can transfer, withdraw, use as the basis of a loan, or pass as an inheritance.  What is true is that the SSA recognizes a liability with your name on it.  You can only collect once you have met certain criteria including age, contribution period, etc.  And you can only collect as long as you are alive, although there is a survivor's benefit for a spouse and the possibility of dependent benefits under certain circumstances.  We leave disability benefits out of this discussion.

 

I note that no matter how often your garbled information is shown to be totally incorrect, you nevertheless retain unshakeable certainty in your correct understanding of SS.  Impressive.  Indeed, invincible.