American retirement planning

[stockmktgenius]

I've been reading Get What's Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security.  https://www.amazon.com/Get-Whats-Yours-Secrets-Security-ebook/dp/B00LD1OPP6/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1487051430&sr=1-1&keywords=get+what%27s+yours+the+secrets+to+maxing+out+your+social+security

 

I'm only half-way, but so far the only "secret" I've encountered is to claim as late as you can- up to your 70th birthday at the latest. You get 76% more money by waiting until 70 than you would if you claimed at 62.  So if you would have gotten $1000 a month at 62, you'll get $1760 a month at 70.  (On the other hand, you'll have passed on all those checks all those years.)  The author says unless you need it to finance a lifestyle you want (a friend could only have afforded to move to Italy if he had that money) or unless you have a reason to think you're going to die young, it's better to wait as long as possible. 

 

A couple of other interesting points:  The authors say often Social Security will go back 6 months from when you file, plus the 3 months it takes for them to start paying, and send you that as a sort of "bonus."  But it's no bonus, they say, as they'll also give you 6% less for life when they do that.  (So if you file at 70 and they do that, they'll count it as if you filed at 69 and 3 months.)  They say to be very definite when you file- in person or online- so this doesn't happen to you. Say or write, "I want to start at my 66th birthday"- or whenever.

 

When to file: They say only 2% of people wait till 70, and everyone plays the game of wondering how to get the most.  They recommend instead considering it like an insurance policy.  You don't get upset because you didn't get robbed or have a heart attack last year and cash in.  Similarly, since nobody knows how long they have to live, and some people live to 90 and even beyond, they recommend considering it as insurance, where if you wait you'll get a whole lot more and if you do live a long time, you'll be able to collect that whole lot more for many years.

[CaptHaddock]

Larry Kotlikoff, the author of the book you cite,  is a good source of accurate information on Social Security.  I have been using his excellent financial planning software, ESPlanner, for ten years now.  I found it indispensable when planning my own retirement.

[mania]

Quote

You get 76% more money by waiting until 70 than you would if you claimed at 62.  So if you would have gotten $1000 a month at 62, you'll get $1760 a month at 70. 

 

 

Of course none know & as some say it depends on what you need etc but............

Looking at it from a basic view this is what I see using your examples..........

 

Example  gets $1000 a month at age 62 or $1760 at age 70 if he waits....

 

Ok so the guy takes the 1k per month at age 62

 

He gets $1000 x 12 months x 8 years or $96,000 before the 70 year old starts collecting

 

Now the option of waiting till age 70 to get the bigger $1760 a month payday.......

This 70 year old lost 96k so we need to pay it back first to remain fair with the 62 year old guy

 

So $96,000 / $1760 a month takes 54 months to pay off or 4.5 years to get what the 62 yr old already got

 

Guy is now 74.5 years old before he is on even terms with the guy who started collecting at  62 year old

(Actually to be fair the guy who started at 62 year old  has an additional 54k collected during 4.5 years while the 70 yr old was playing catch up but lets ignore for now)

 

As you said also depends of course on how old a person lives to be but we cannot know that

BUT...we have averages & the average US citizen lives till 78.74 years of age

 

If this holds true the higher check will payout for 4.74 years since breaking even with 62 year old recipient ( which again is not really even)

So what is the additional $760 a month for 4.74 years worth? Bit over 43K?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 17, 2017 by mania

[JimGant]

Quote

I'm only half-way, but so far the only "secret" I've encountered is to claim as late as you can- up to your 70th birthday at the latest.

This is certainly a good option for those who don't need their Social Security benefit to live more comfortably than they could otherwise. But, if you're in this situation, there's a counter argument:

Quote

" However, if your savings are on track, and you don't need the larger monthly payments to live on, then breakeven analysis suggests that claiming early might be smarter than claiming later, depending on your life expectancy."

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/02/03/americans-average-social-security-check-at-age-70.aspx

And, of course, the one unknown variable that makes it impossible to know when to take your benefit is "life expectancy." Sure, your current health and family health history should influence your decision. But, unless you live longer than you projected, you might not be happy with your decision -- not that you would probably care by that time. But your alien Thai wife, not eligible for a Social Security benefit, might care:

 

If you don't need your Social Security to enhance your lifestyle, but your alien Thai wife will never collect your Social Security when you die, why not collect as early as possible, at age 62. Since you don't need any of this to enhance your lifestyle, invest it for her future support (or yours, if you outlive her). The wisdom of this would be apparent if you die right around age 70, the time you had planned to begin your benefit payment. In this situation she would never see any of your Social Security benefit. However, if you had been investing your Social Security benefit since age 62 for her future support, she'd have 8 years of your Social Security benefits, plus their earnings, to fall back on. Thus, for expats with alien wives, there is another factor to consider when opting for your SS benefit.

 

 

[CaptHaddock]

2 hours ago, JimGant said:

This is certainly a good option for those who don't need their Social Security benefit to live more comfortably than they could otherwise. But, if you're in this situation, there's a counter argument:

And, of course, the one unknown variable that makes it impossible to know when to take your benefit is "life expectancy." Sure, your current health and family health history should influence your decision. But, unless you live longer than you projected, you might not be happy with your decision -- not that you would probably care by that time. But your alien Thai wife, not eligible for a Social Security benefit, might care:

 

If you don't need your Social Security to enhance your lifestyle, but your alien Thai wife will never collect your Social Security when you die, why not collect as early as possible, at age 62. Since you don't need any of this to enhance your lifestyle, invest it for her future support (or yours, if you outlive her). The wisdom of this would be apparent if you die right around age 70, the time you had planned to begin your benefit payment. In this situation she would never see any of your Social Security benefit. However, if you had been investing your Social Security benefit since age 62 for her future support, she'd have 8 years of your Social Security benefits, plus their earnings, to fall back on. Thus, for expats with alien wives, there is another factor to consider when opting for your SS benefit.

 

 

 

What you have done is to take the difficult planning problem of supporting  yourself until the age of death, which you do not know, and transformed it into the trivial, but wrong, problem of what is the best choice if you're going to die at 70.   I am amused that none of you break-even enthusiasts ever seems to lay out the plan of how you are going to support yourself in the event that you are still alive in your 90's at which point your portfolio, despite your no doubt superior grasp of investing, will likely have long since withered away to nothing.  There is only one "investment" that you cannot outlive, which is the life annuity, of which by far the best version available to Americans is Social Security.   And the only way to "buy" more Social Security is through delayed retirement credits.

[Jingthing]

There was a long thread about this before. 

The consensus conclusion which I concur with is:

 

-- The best (and arguably) only good reason to take it early is if you NEED to money to live on early. I would add if you have some kind of terminal diagnosis, etc. to that.

 

-- The majority of people though DO take it early and the most common reason they do that is because they do indeed NEED the money earlier.

 

-- Either choice you make, you MAY regret it later, but there is no great way of predicting that, so knowing that doesn't help so much. 

[JimGant]

 

Quote

There is only one "investment" that you cannot outlive, which is the life annuity, of which by far the best version available to Americans is Social Security.

Ok, my Air Force pension, much larger than my SS, is a life annuity -- with 55% of it going to my wife upon my death. Other immediate pay annuities I bought back when interest rates warranted it, also serve as life annuities. Social Security for me (and the wife, who has her own), were just excess cash goodies to play with. And we chose to take it at age 62, 'cause I'd really be pissed off if I croaked before the cross over point.

 

But to each his own. I still think the point about an alien Thai spouse needs to be considered by some reading this.

 

[Jingthing]

12 minutes ago, JimGant said:

 

Ok, my Air Force pension, much larger than my SS, is a life annuity -- with 55% of it going to my wife upon my death. Other immediate pay annuities I bought back when interest rates warranted it, also serve as life annuities. Social Security for me (and the wife, who has her own), were just excess cash goodies to play with. And we chose to take it at age 62, 'cause I'd really be pissed off if I croaked before the cross over point.

 

But to each his own. I still think the point about an alien Thai spouse needs to be considered by some reading this.

 

OK, that sounds like a case where you don't need the S.S. income very badly regardless of when you took it. I still think most people in that situation would have and should have waited. 

 

I will have a choice to take it early where I could deter but it would mean eating majorly into investments. In other words, painful and expensive. So technically, I won't "need" the income at 62 but it's a much harder calculation because depleting nest egg could be similarly tragic as taking it early in case of a long life.

Edited February 17, 2017 by Jingthing

[JimGant]

Quote

I will have a choice to take it early where I could deter but it would mean eating majorly into investments. In other words, painful and expensive. So technically, I won't "need" the income at 62 but it's a much harder calculation because depleting nest egg could be similarly tragic as taking it early in case of a long life.

Yep, the situation that CaptHaddock mentions.

[Jingthing]

As I said I will be screwed in case of long longevity regardless but I'm not savvy enough to know which choice would be worse. Depleted nest egg or lower income. In any case the nest egg will get trashed so its a question of how soon. Keeping it real. Most Americans are underfunded for retirement but that offers no personal comfort.

[CaptHaddock]

15 hours ago, JimGant said:

 

Ok, my Air Force pension, much larger than my SS, is a life annuity -- with 55% of it going to my wife upon my death. Other immediate pay annuities I bought back when interest rates warranted it, also serve as life annuities. Social Security for me (and the wife, who has her own), were just excess cash goodies to play with. And we chose to take it at age 62, 'cause I'd really be pissed off if I croaked before the cross over point.

 

But to each his own. I still think the point about an alien Thai spouse needs to be considered by some reading this.

 

1.  You double-dippers have nothing to worry about.  So, your choice on SS, even if sub-optimal, doesn't matter that much.

 

2.  You, and others here, naively believe that the way to protect a legacy is to claim SS as early as possible.  You believe this because you have never read anything about portfolio longevity in retirement by a competent financial analyst.  Here is the graphical result of one such analysis.  It shows how long an investment portfolio survives relative to the age at which the retiree begins receiving SS benefits.  Lo and behold, contrary to naive assumptions, the longer this recipient delays SS the longer his portfolio survives even though it takes a big hit in the years up until age 70.

 

If you don't understand this then you don't understand retirement financial planning.  If you think that the adverse outcomes of a) dying before the "break-even" year and running out of money in extreme old age are somehow commensurate then you don't understand the real risk retirees, other than double-dippers, face.

 

https://www.onefpa.org/journal/pages/how the social security claiming decision affects portfolio longevity.aspx

 

Edited February 18, 2017 by CaptHaddock

[stockmktgenius]

I have a couple of thoughts.  First, I think it's naïve to think that if you claim early, you will be investing and multiplying that money.  99% of guys will just be spending it.  Nothing wrong with that, except that it won't be around to grow, and if you do live a long time, that's money you won't have.  So waiting to claim is kind of a form of saving.

 

If you are a smoker, you will live an average 8 years less than non-smokers.  If you have diabetes 2, you will live an average 6 years less.  In these cases, I think it makes perfect sense to claim as early as possible.

 

One last thought, some of us have wives who are citizens or who otherwise qualify to get our Social Security.  In these cases, the higher the payout the more they will receive- and that should be an important consideration if we care about them.

[Jingthing]

Well I'm a case where I would be investing nest egg funds aggressively if I take SS early. But the returns are unknown. I do agree everyone should have a sober look at their life expectancy expectations based on health history but such guesses are notoriously inaccurate in either direction.

I think for many the choice is more or less a crap shoot. Too many unpredictable factors.

[partington]

11 hours ago, CaptHaddock said:

1.  You double-dippers have nothing to worry about.  So, your choice on SS, even if sub-optimal, doesn't matter that much.

 

2.  You, and others here, naively believe that the way to protect a legacy is to claim SS as early as possible.  You believe this because you have never read anything about portfolio longevity in retirement by a competent financial analyst.  Here is the graphical result of one such analysis.  It shows how long an investment portfolio survives relative to the age at which the retiree begins receiving SS benefits.  Lo and behold, contrary to naive assumptions, the longer this recipient delays SS the longer his portfolio survives even though it takes a big hit in the years up until age 70.

 

If you don't understand this then you don't understand retirement financial planning.  If you think that the adverse outcomes of a) dying before the "break-even" year and running out of money in extreme old age are somehow commensurate then you don't understand the real risk retirees, other than double-dippers, face.

 

https://www.onefpa.org/journal/pages/how the social security claiming decision affects portfolio longevity.aspx

 

Those golden years between 92 and 102 will certainly be a bitch !

 

Seriously in the UK you can put 15,000GBP annually into a completely tax free stock investment plan called an ISA, which remains tax free for both cap gains and dividends for the rest of your life.  

 

I am going to take my US ss as soon as I can (probably around 8000GBP per year) and put it yearly into one of these for as long as I am able to live without spending it (which from this graph will be when I turn 92!)

[JimGant]

Quote

One last thought, some of us have wives who are citizens or who otherwise qualify to get our Social Security.  In these cases, the higher the payout the more they will receive- and that should be an important consideration if we care about them.

Of course. Only when your alien wife/significant other will get nothing from SS when you die does the equation change. Kind of unique to many of the expat community, thus why its discussion here resonates.

[CaptHaddock]

47 minutes ago, partington said:

Those golden years between 92 and 102 will certainly be a bitch !

 

Seriously in the UK you can put 15,000GBP annually into a completely tax free stock investment plan called an ISA, which remains tax free for both cap gains and dividends for the rest of your life.  

 

I am going to take my US ss as soon as I can (probably around 8000GBP per year) and put it yearly into one of these for as long as I am able to live without spending it (which from this graph will be when I turn 92!)

And that makes good sense because the stock market never goes down.

[partington]

1 hour ago, CaptHaddock said:

And that makes good sense because the stock market never goes down.

True-obviously the market goes up and down, but I have two other annuity-style pensions that will prevent starvation permanently, as well as the 700k 401k equivalent, so I can absorb that risk. 

 

I agree with you that if this wasn't the case it would be something to be wary of.

[NancyL]

OP, did that book you're reading mention that sometimes it makes sense for a spouse to take the "spousal benefit" and delay claiming her own benefit until age 70?  That's the advice we received from our financial adviser.

 

 

 

 

[CaptHaddock]

34 minutes ago, NancyL said:

OP, did that book you're reading mention that sometimes it makes sense for a spouse to take the "spousal benefit" and delay claiming her own benefit until age 70?  That's the advice we received from our financial adviser.

 

 

 

 

That option was eliminated last year by the SSA.

 

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/claiming.html

[NancyL]

CaptHaddock -- many thanks for bringing this to my attention.  I turned 62 just a few days after January 2, 2016.  It would appear that our financial adviser has overlooked this rather important detail in doing our retirement planning financial projections.  Bummer.

[CaptHaddock]

1 hour ago, NancyL said:

CaptHaddock -- many thanks for bringing this to my attention.  I turned 62 just a few days after January 2, 2016.  It would appear that our financial adviser has overlooked this rather important detail in doing our retirement planning financial projections.  Bummer.

Sounds like your FA's incompetence has caused you a significant loss which you could have avoided.  You might be better off with a new advisor.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I don't think there's any absolute answer to this, just lots of variations depending on individual circumstances.

 

If I remember correctly, the advantage to letting your SS benefits wait after you turn age 62 ends up being about an 8% increase in deferred payments each year -- which is better than anything you're going to get from a bank, and close to what stock market average gains have been over extended periods of time. That's assuming you live long enough to receive those funds and the benefit.

 

On the other hand, if you wait, you could end up dying sooner than expected and thus lose those earlier year payments for yourself and for your non-SS eligible Thai wife in terms of accumulated savings (not everyone spends everything they receive). It would also be interesting to know more as to the potential differences in life expectancy for someone in our age group living in the U.S. vs. living in a foreign country such as Thailand. I'm guessing the stats are not good.

 

As for the financial chart the Captain posted above, I recognize those kinds of calculations. But if I'm reading it right, it basically assumes that one's stock portfolio is largely reliant on capital gains or losses, and any money you're spending out of it to support retirement is reducing your principal balance. Whereas, there are those of us who build those accounts based on dividend-paying stocks and hopefully grow the account balance to the point where the dividends alone become a kind of lifetime annuity to support retirement and where the principal pretty much can remain in tact instead of getting whittled down year by year and potentially much quicker in the event of a market downturn.

 

For me, the biggest question is wondering what the various crazies in Washington are potentially going to do with the Social Security benefits formulas, age brackets, etc. in future years. I think, but I'm willing to be corrected if I'm wrong, that one advantage of taking early is that once you've begun taking payments, those are pretty much locked in. If you started taking at 62 and the next year Congress raised the minimum age to 65, they can't go back and apply those kinds of things retroactively, AFAIK.

 

Edited February 19, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Jingthing]

If you're already 60 or probably 55, the chances of raising the ages is almost nil. 

That's something for younger people to worry about. 

[CaptHaddock]

53 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

For me, the biggest question is wondering what the various crazies in Washington are potentially going to do with the Social Security benefits formulas, age brackets, etc. in future years. I think, but I'm willing to be corrected if I'm wrong, that one advantage of taking early is that once you've begun taking payments, those are pretty much locked in. If you started taking at 62 and the next year Congress raised the minimum age to 65, they can't go back and apply those kinds of things retroactively, AFAIK.

 

 

The political risk to our SS benefits, which we heave earned, is certainly the highest it has been since SS started in 1935.  Many people suppose, as you do, that those who are actually collecting will somehow be grandfathered in and protected from reductions in payouts.  However, there is really no basis for such confidence.  The Republican Party in 2013 attempted to cause default on payments and redemptions for US Treasury Bonds, which is the basis for the high credit rating for US debt.  Trump, as you know, attempted illegally to lock out green card holders from re-entry to the US to which they are fully entitled.

 

In view of the Republicans willingness to renege on these previously sacrosanct obligations of the federal government, there is no reason to believe that SS recipients will be safe.

 

That said, it is looking like repealing Obamacare is going to be more difficult than the right wingers believed both because of push-back from angry voters who are going to lose their coverage and because of reluctance of some Republican members of Congress to see their state's Medicaid reimbursement be taken away.  Ryan may not have the votes to repeal the ACA.

 

If the resistance to repealing Obamacare is substantially successful, then Medicare and SS might be safe.  Time will tell.

[Jingthing]

I'm sorry, but I think if you're over 60 or even 55 to worry about S.S. not being there for you as the reason to take it early is totally irrational. 

[gk10002000]

In general it is hard to pick which is optimum of the extremes:  Take the early age retirement at 62 or wait until the full retirement age (which keeps increasing year after year), I was born in 1957 so at the moment my full retirement age is 66 and 6 months.  I am glad to see more people understanding the difference and at least comparing the total amounts of money they would get under each plan.  So many people don't sit down and run the numbers.  The SSA came up with their numbers using correct actuarial statistics (supposedly).  My family has tended to be long lived.  Grandmother and 8 great aunts and uncles all lived to late 80s in decent health. Late night card playing, sleeping until noon, eating baklava and other greek goodies I guess was the secret!   Mom is 88 and going strong.  Dad was a chain smoker for decades until he stopped and did well into his 80s.  So I am leaning towards a compromise and taking SS a bit later than early age.    Right now if I work 2.5 more years that will get me to the 62 age and I also would then get full vestment on my company 401K matching contributions.   Probably won't take the early retirement but will wait one or two years.  It depends a bit on my job satisfaction level. 

[gk10002000]

4 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

I don't think there's any absolute answer to this, just lots of variations depending on individual circumstances.

 

If I remember correctly, the advantage to letting your SS benefits wait after you turn age 62 ends up being about an 8% increase in deferred payments each year -- which is better than anything you're going to get from a bank, and close to what stock market average gains have been over extended periods of time. That's assuming you live long enough to receive those funds and the benefit.

 

On the other hand, if you wait, you could end up dying sooner than expected and thus lose those earlier year payments for yourself and for your non-SS eligible Thai wife in terms of accumulated savings (not everyone spends everything they receive). It would also be interesting to know more as to the potential differences in life expectancy for someone in our age group living in the U.S. vs. living in a foreign country such as Thailand. I'm guessing the stats are not good.

 

As for the financial chart the Captain posted above, I recognize those kinds of calculations. But if I'm reading it right, it basically assumes that one's stock portfolio is largely reliant on capital gains or losses, and any money you're spending out of it to support retirement is reducing your principal balance. Whereas, there are those of us who build those accounts based on dividend-paying stocks and hopefully grow the account balance to the point where the dividends alone become a kind of lifetime annuity to support retirement and where the principal pretty much can remain in tact instead of getting whittled down year by year and potentially much quicker in the event of a market downturn.

 

For me, the biggest question is wondering what the various crazies in Washington are potentially going to do with the Social Security benefits formulas, age brackets, etc. in future years. I think, but I'm willing to be corrected if I'm wrong, that one advantage of taking early is that once you've begun taking payments, those are pretty much locked in. If you started taking at 62 and the next year Congress raised the minimum age to 65, they can't go back and apply those kinds of things retroactively, AFAIK.

 

the thing about so many people's retirement funds is the people tend to just think of a pile of cash they will spend down.  Sure you can do that, and surprisingly most of the senior engineers I know at work think that way.  None invested or plan to invest for income, dividend paying stocks, bonds, REITs, etc.  I think I have worked the tax angles pretty good. For example the tax free bonds are in my brokerage and the "taxable" income are in my Roth IRA.  I get over 50k a year in divvies and interest and that stuff is just compounding and I haven't touched any of that and plan to let that keep growing until I do my retirement.  Then I will work out what I need or want and factor that into my Social Security Retirement approach.

 

Nothing wrong with deficit spending.  Like the line in Ocean's 11, I want my last check to bounce!?  But all those draw down and withdrawal calculations are a bit off. If you have a pile of cash, get some income generated.

[NancyL]

10 hours ago, CaptHaddock said:

Sounds like your FA's incompetence has caused you a significant loss which you could have avoided.  You might be better off with a new advisor.

I'm not certain how this "significant loss could have been avoided".  Maybe my parents should have been better motivated so I could have been born a month earlier? 

 

I'm playing the same waiting game with a corporate pension and they closed that loophole about the same time, but had the good grace to send everyone a letter.  The corporate pension grows about 8.2% a year while SS grows about 7.4% a year, if I recall correctly.  I looked at this when I received the letter from my previous employer that effective in January 2016, once people reached age 65, the amount of their monthly pension wouldn't increase.  Previously, you could let them keep it until you were age 70.5. In retrospect, they were simply bringing themselves in line with SSA policy.

 

I've sent an email to our adviser.  I'm not certain how to shop for a new one when we haven't set foot in the U.S. for over 8 years.

[CaptHaddock]

50 minutes ago, NancyL said:

I'm not certain how this "significant loss could have been avoided".  Maybe my parents should have been better motivated so I could have been born a month earlier? 

 

I'm playing the same waiting game with a corporate pension and they closed that loophole about the same time, but had the good grace to send everyone a letter.  The corporate pension grows about 8.2% a year while SS grows about 7.4% a year, if I recall correctly.  I looked at this when I received the letter from my previous employer that effective in January 2016, once people reached age 65, the amount of their monthly pension wouldn't increase.  Previously, you could let them keep it until you were age 70.5. In retrospect, they were simply bringing themselves in line with SSA policy.

 

I've sent an email to our adviser.  I'm not certain how to shop for a new one when we haven't set foot in the U.S. for over 8 years.

If you turned 62 in January, 2016 you had until April 29, 2016 to file claiming spousal benefits while allowing your benefit on your own earnings to earn delayed retirement credits up until age 70, if you chose.  But now you can't because your FA was asleep at the wheel and did not alert you to the crucial deadline.  I call that a significant loss that could have been avoided had your FA fulfilled his responsibilities competently. 

 

Your comments on your private pension imply that you don't understand what the SSA changed last year.  The SSA did not change the beneficiary's ability to earn Delayed Retirement Credits, which your private pension provider did.  They only removed the option for you to file exclusively for spousal benefits while earning DRCs on your Primary Insurance Amount.  You can still earn DRCs by not claiming, but you just can't claim spousal benefits in the meantime.

[CaptHaddock]

10 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I'm sorry, but I think if you're over 60 or even 55 to worry about S.S. not being there for you as the reason to take it early is totally irrational. 

If George W. Bush had succeeded in passing his plan to "privatize" SS then the payroll taxes of young workers would have gone to their private investment accounts, not to paying the SS benefits of retired workers.  Initially, those benefits would have been made up by payments from the government's General Revenue, but as time went on the shortfall would have increased.  Eventually, the Republicans would have argued that the country simply can't afford to support retirees and would have made efforts to reduce benefits in various ways.

 

So, if the Republicans prevail now, when they at last have the upper hand in all three branches, then those of us just starting to receive benefits might not be adversely impacted immediately, but we surely would down the line as our numbers and voting influence declines.

 

So, not irrational.