Now I know why old people work for Walmart. Social Security.

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,493
3,159
136
The death of my neighbor, she was 85. Her husband is 84. Both were collecting social security. About $1000 a month EACH for a total income of aprox $2000.
They lived simple. I'm assuming some of their family helped out with finances, like when they needed a new furnace last Winter and then got new carpet last Summer.
Something I know they could never afford on their own.

Well, the wife passed away last month, and I was talking to the old man yesterday.
He said he doesn't know what he is going to do. Why, I asked?
Because with the death of his wife, her social security income stops.
I had always understood that the surviving spouse could collect 50% of the spouses SS after death.
Not true. Not at all. Not any more....

The current retirement age for collecting full SS is 66, not 65 as a lot of people still assume.
Full retirement use to be 65, but when people weren't looking, the age was raised.
You would be surprised at how many people do not realize the retirement age has been raised to 66.
I was talking to a senior citizen waitress at Perkins, she has been there for a long long time.
She mentioned she was planning to retire when she turned 65.
I told her that she can retire at 65, but 66 is the actual retirement age.
She never knew that and became a little upset.
"YOU MEAN I HAVE TO WORK ANOTHER FULL YEAR TO RETIRE?"
And she didn't say that in her happy waitress voice.

No doubt many people do not actually realized that if they and their spouse are both retired and both collecting SS, that if one spouse passed away so does their SS benefits. All of it.

My neighbor will be going from an income of $2000 a month down to $1000 a month.
His personal SS income as the only income.
How many people, retired or not, could afford a sudden 50% cut in income?
I know the retire meant age was raised to 66, but I had always heard one could then still collect 50% of a deceased spouses SS income.
I guess its true, there is no alternative for some seniors but to eat cat food and live out of their car.
This old man and his wife next door were living off their SS, nothing extravagant to say the least, but they were still in their home and making ends meet on that $2000 monthly income.

The loss of half of that household SS income for the surviving souse is going to be worse than devastating.
And no doubt he too will be greeting people as they enter Wally World, sooner or later.
I think this is tragic. Especially to happen in America. And especially for seniors that can not find a job let alone have the physically ability to work a job.

And to top it off, this morning that old rich scumbag Dick Cheney was on TV remarking how awful it was that under president Obama the military budget has been cut.
And that going into war in the middle east was the right thing to do.

And all the while, some poor old guy that lost his wife will now be forced into deep poverty.
And actually eating cat food. And or losing his home, and living out of his car.
Assuming he can afford his car.
And at the age of 84, probably going back into the work force or jumping off the nearest bridge.
I find this hard to believe that this American tragedy is possible for any senior citizen to go through.

You can say what you want about social security, or its short comings, lack of funding, or SS running out of money, but this tragedy could be fixed.
Especially for current SS dependent seniors.
And maybe cut the military funding a little more, and cut all the other pork that congress has no problem with wasting taxpayers money over.
But allowing an old man to live out his life with a little dignity after his wife's death, NO!
Congress refuses to do anything about THAT, except make it even worse at every chance they get. And doing that quietly so that no one notices.

For everyone nearing retirement age, just a thumbs up.

PS.
Another funny BS advice you hear all the time.
Financial experts suggest saving for ones retirement.
Setting aside three years of ones current earnings for their retirement nest egg.
And investing into that 401K as well.
What the experts fail to mention, is if and when that day comes when one needs nursing home care, that the state and the nursing home will take all of that nest egg savings whatever that amount may be, just to qualify for nursing home residency.
So, you can save and save just like they suggest, only to have every penny taken by the state and the nursing home.
So much for that nest egg.

And republicans have the nerve to label Obama as THE FOOD STAMP PRESIDENT.
Yeah... RiGhT....
 

Jumpem

Lifer
Sep 21, 2000
10,757
3
81
The SS tax cap needs to be removed. Earnings above $106k should still have SS withheld.

Also, for many reasons income tax rates need to go up. Particularly above say $250k per household.
 

KeithP

Diamond Member
Jun 15, 2000
5,659
198
106
Anyone that relies on SS for their sole retirement income is as big of fool as you are.

-KeithP
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
The SS tax cap needs to be removed. Earnings above $106k should still have SS withheld.

The SS income cap is $117k IIRC. If you're going to eliminate the cap, then the government better increase benefit payouts for those of us who make more than that as far as I'm concerned.
 

Jimzz

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2012
4,399
190
106
That's why you should not relay on just 1 income source for retirement. Me and my wife plan our retirement as though we get nothing from SS. We have 401, roth, cash/cds, rental property, etc...
 

Jumpem

Lifer
Sep 21, 2000
10,757
3
81
The SS income cap is $117k IIRC. If you're going to eliminate the cap, then the government better increase benefit payouts for those of us who make more than that as far as I'm concerned.

People that make more sure consider themselves blessed in life and be happy that others will have a slightly better life.
 

brianmanahan

Lifer
Sep 2, 2006
24,229
5,627
136
My neighbor will be going from an income of $2000 a month down to $1000 a month.
His personal SS income as the only income.

i guess he didn't save any money for retirement, or ran out?

that's a terrible spot to be in, but depending on the government for %100 of your income doesn't work well in almost any country
 

MagnusTheBrewer

IN MEMORIAM
Jun 19, 2004
24,135
1,594
126
That's why you should not relay on just 1 income source for retirement. Me and my wife plan our retirement as though we get nothing from SS. We have 401, roth, cash/cds, rental property, etc...
There are many MANY without those options. Even with those options, it only takes one to have a long term catastrophic illness to eliminate all your plans.
 

child of wonder

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2006
8,307
175
106
The SS tax cap needs to be removed. Earnings above $106k should still have SS withheld.

Also, for many reasons income tax rates need to go up. Particularly above say $250k per household.

Yes, because I clearly don't pay enough taxes already and I am so eager to pay more into SS, a program that will pay a small pittance to me when I retire, that is, unless they begin using means testing to determine if someone makes "too much" and then I'll get no retirement benefits at all.

Who wouldn't want to pay in 6.2% of the entire income for the entire span of their life only to have that money never given back, as originally promised, because they were "too responsible" or "fortunate" and saved their own money for their retirement?
 
Last edited:

lxskllr

No Lifer
Nov 30, 2004
57,407
7,590
126
i guess he didn't save any money for retirement, or ran out?

that's a terrible spot to be in, but depending on the government for %100 of your income doesn't work well in almost any country

$1k/month would be a comfortable retirement if the government didn't steal it back in property taxes.

edit:
I suppose renting would be an issue though.
 
Last edited:

KB

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 1999
5,396
383
126
I do feel bad for the guy. Government promises that social security would provide a comfortable retirement caused people to not save enough. But he is hardly blameless. He should have had alternative retirement funds. Also If they were living simply they should have paid off their house by now. He would now have an asset he can sell or rent to supplement his income.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,308
4,427
136
The OP is incorrect. As per the SS Web site:https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/retirechart.html

Full retirement age is the age at which a person may first become entitled to full or unreduced retirement benefits.

If your full retirement age is older than 65 (that is, you were born after 1937), you still will be able to take your benefits at age 62, but the reduction in your benefit amount will be greater than it is for people who were born before 1938.


Age To Receive Full Social Security Benefits (Called "full retirement age" or "normal retirement age.")

Year of Birth * Full Retirement Age
1937 or earlier 65
1938 65 and 2 months
1939 65 and 4 months
1940 65 and 6 months
1941 65 and 8 months
1942 65 and 10 months
1943--1954 66
1955 66 and 2 months
1956 66 and 4 months
1957 66 and 6 months
1958 66 and 8 months
1959 66 and 10 months
1960 and later 67
 

brianmanahan

Lifer
Sep 2, 2006
24,229
5,627
136
Full retirement use to be 65, but when people weren't looking, the age was raised.
You would be surprised at how many people do not realize the retirement age has been raised to 66.

it's been planned for ages 66 and 67 since 1983. people haven't noticed for 32 years?
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,999
1,396
126
That's why I have several investments/income generators for my golden years.

If you rely on SS as your only income when you retire, good luck with that. You have no one to blame but your own foolish self.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,981
3,318
126
The OP is incorrect. As per the SS Web site:https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/retirechart.html

Full retirement age is the age at which a person may first become entitled to full or unreduced retirement benefits.

If your full retirement age is older than 65 (that is, you were born after 1937), you still will be able to take your benefits at age 62, but the reduction in your benefit amount will be greater than it is for people who were born before 1938.


Age To Receive Full Social Security Benefits (Called "full retirement age" or "normal retirement age.")

Year of Birth * Full Retirement Age
1937 or earlier 65
1938 65 and 2 months
1939 65 and 4 months
1940 65 and 6 months
1941 65 and 8 months
1942 65 and 10 months
1943--1954 66
1955 66 and 2 months
1956 66 and 4 months
1957 66 and 6 months
1958 66 and 8 months
1959 66 and 10 months
1960 and later 67
beat me to it!! The OP is very incorrect!!
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
People that make more sure consider themselves blessed in life and be happy that others will have a slightly better life.

Forgive me for not being thankful for potentially having even more of my hard-earned income stolen from me with little or no hope of ever seeing it again.

My purpose in life isn't to support others (other than my family) or to provide retirement for others. I already pay more in taxes than a sizable portion of the population even makes and that's enough. If you eliminate the SS cap, you'd better be increasing my payout. Those who contribute more should be the ones who benefit the most.
 
Last edited:

Ken g6

Programming Moderator, Elite Member
Moderator
Dec 11, 1999
16,240
3,825
75
I had always understood that the surviving spouse could collect 50% of the spouses SS after death.
Not true. Not at all. Not any more....
As I understand it, you have a choice when you sign up for SS. You can either:

  1. Get 100% of your benefits while alive; then give your spouse nothing when you die.
  2. Get (at a guess) ~90% of your benefits while alive; then give your spouse 50% of those benefits when you die.
  3. Get (at a guess) ~80% of your benefits while alive; then give your spouse 100% of those benefits when you die.

My parents opted for #3.
 

IndyColtsFan

Lifer
Sep 22, 2007
33,656
687
126
Yes, because I clearly don't pay enough taxes already and I am so eager to pay more into SS, a program that will pay a small pittance to me when I retire, that is, unless they begin using means testing to determine if someone makes "too much" and then I'll get no retirement benefits at all.

Who wouldn't want to pay in 6.2% of the entire income for the entire span of their life only to have that money never given back, as originally promised, because they were "too responsible" or "fortunate" and saved their own money for their retirement?

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 

brianmanahan

Lifer
Sep 2, 2006
24,229
5,627
136
As I understand it, you have a choice when you sign up for SS. You can either:

  1. Get 100% of your benefits while alive; then give your spouse nothing when you die.
  2. Get (at a guess) ~90% of your benefits while alive; then give your spouse 50% of those benefits when you die.
  3. Get (at a guess) ~80% of your benefits while alive; then give your spouse 100% of those benefits when you die.

My parents opted for #3.

i am not aware of the ability to make that choice that for social security. pensions usually allow that type of choice, but i didn't think social security did.
 

olds

Elite Member
Mar 3, 2000
50,053
710
126
I'll never get people who don't put away at least something.
After getting out of the Army, my job search was based on where I could get retirement.
I took a job with a state agency. I don't make ATOT money but I put some into my 457. I also put some into a 401. When I retire I will get 100% medical and 76%-80% (depending on what age I retire) of my salary. I will aslo get SS.
I won't get rich working here but I'll have a comfortable retirement.
Slow but steady wins the race. Unless I die tomorrow.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,234
701
126
45% of Americans pay no federal income taxes...I guess somebody has to work to subsidize them.

That's what happens when the good jobs for many of those people left the shores of the US. The government has been trying to make up the falling wages for decades, to the point of negative taxes (EIC). Big business took the jobs, talked government into subsidizing it and then gave loans to the people to keep the whole thing going (until it crashed in 2007-2008 - and then Uncle Fed stepped in to keep it going).

Oh, and those people do pay payroll and other (sales, etc) taxes. 7.65% to the federal government + 7.65% employer match to the federal government minus negative rebates (EIC, refundable tax credits, etc).

Falling real wages = more and more people not paying federal income taxes. Fix the wages and you'll fix the taxes.

Would be interesting to see an updated chart of % of TOTAL taxes paid vs % TOTAL national income received:

taxday2012table.jpg
 
Last edited:

Jumpem

Lifer
Sep 21, 2000
10,757
3
81
Yes, because I clearly don't pay enough taxes already and I am so eager to pay more into SS, a program that will pay a small pittance to me when I retire, that is, unless they begin using means testing to determine if someone makes "too much" and then I'll get no retirement benefits at all.

Who wouldn't want to pay in 6.2% of the entire income for the entire span of their life only to have that money never given back, as originally promised, because they were "too responsible" or "fortunate" and saved their own money for their retirement?

We Americans simply don't pay enough in taxes. There isn't enough revenue to support current spending, and certainly not enough to enhance social programs or pay down the debt.
 

Jumpem

Lifer
Sep 21, 2000
10,757
3
81
Forgive me for not being thankful for potentially having even more of my hard-earned income stolen from me with little or no hope of ever seeing it again.

My purpose in life isn't to support others (other than my family) or to provide retirement for others. I already pay more in taxes than a sizable portion of the population even makes and that's enough. If you eliminate the SS cap, you'd better be increasing my payout. Those who contribute more should be the ones who benefit the most.

Your purpose in life is to support both your family and society at large. :)