22 Replies Latest reply on Nov 27, 2013 9:25 AM by herbyreed

    Retirement

    0221dena50
      If I retire at age 64, would my son whose 8 get SS benefits.
        • Re: Retirement
          MyR Community Manager
          0221dena50,
           
          Thank you for creating a new discussion thread! We appreciate and enjoy your participation in the MyRetirement.org online community and look forward to your future contributions.
           
          • Re: Retirement
            vintagegal
            why would he, a CHILD?  is he handicapped in some way?
            If so, no wonder SS is going broke.  This was NOT the intent. 
              • Re: Retirement
                rollingwoods
                I wish people would stop saying things like "Social Security is going broke," trying to scare everyone. It isn't, it has enough money to keep going for many years. With minor tweaks--first, lift the cap on how much annual earnings are taxed, which affects the wealthier and is disliked by conservatives; and second, change the formula used for future cost-of-living increases, which affects beneficiaries and is disliked by liberals--Social Security is good to go for as long as anyone on this chat will be alive.
                  • Re: Retirement
                    Sorry, it is broke, maybe you haven't heard, there is no money, or assets the way you and I have to invest in; all we have is a bunch of IOUs, which the government probably will pay, or maybe not. This situation probably explains why more young people believe in UFOS and ET than they do that they will receive all the SS benefits they are entitled to. Even if you are absolutely certain they will pay off all the IOUs, even the IOUs run out in 20-something years or less, and SS will only be able to pay about 70% promised benefits.
                      • Re: Retirement
                        rollingwoods
                        That's just silly talk. No government puts dollars in strong boxes or savings accounts to pay for future obligations. All future obligations are in fact IOU's that could be changed by Congress. But NO national politician could be elected in the US if they didn't swear to meet the obligations under Social Security.
                         
                        You yourself say there is enough money coming in to cover 20 years of obligations, and as I originally posted, some relatively minor tweaks would extend that number for decades.
                         
                        Social Security is an INSURANCE program, not a bank account--that's what the "I" in "SSI" stands for, I think. And all insurance programs rely on a steady flow of dollars coming in, into the future, to meet obligations.
                         
                        There are plenty enough things to worry about in the government without being paranoid about Social Security! 
                        • Re: Retirement
                          Art
                          Your wrong. SS is not broke. Check your facts prior to making such statements. Like rollingwoods posted, the system needs some "tweaks" to make it more financially stable for generations in the future. Tweaks that can be initiated in small steps over many years without being  a hardship to all tax payers.
                      • Re: Retirement
                        chrlsrchrdsn
                        Social Security isn't going broke.  It has, on paper, a $2T surplus.  That T is for Trillion.  The Social Security fund is calculated to be good until the year 2040 when the issue will quite literally "die away", with the dying of the Baby Boomers.  This is a matter of record and you can get to these numbers on the SS site or in the Congressional Budget Office number or in the General Accounting Office documents covering the SS fund.  I suggest reading primary documents and doing your own research to avoid the emotional rhetoric of the political spin masters. The issue is that the tax cuts made in 2002 which ended the surplus and put us in deficit for an average rate of $625B annually has sucked up that surplus.  The fact is the money was paid and then was used for other things.  SO, now the people who used the money for other things have taken to calling SS an entitlement.  You paid it along with your employer.  You paid it for a specific purpose.  Your payments have been adjusted for life expectancy and inflation and yield.  If this is an entitlement, then so is the money in your 401K.  Anyway, they spent it and they don't want to take the blame for over use of the credit card.
                          • Re: Retirement
                            JerryD
                            You are SO correct. I have been trying to convince even the optimists that think that this "surplus" is waiting for us that it is NOT! Congress will have to cut other programs in order to "find" the money to pay the debt they owe SS. When you are already in deficit spending that is impossible to do. Now they are trying to re-frame the description of SS as something that they are giving to us rather than something that they owe us.
                             
                            AARP had an excellent description of how to corner your Congressional representatives (remember, next year is the mid-term elections). You must get across to them that the budget and SS are totally separate and disjoint. They do have to tweak SS to keep it on course, and that does NOT mean redefining the cost-of-living. You must insist that Congress NOT fix the budget problem using our investment in SS.
                              • Re: Retirement
                                herbyreed
                                SS is not going broke.  If someone owes you money you are not broke.  SS is owed money by the U.S. Treasury, a lot of money.  Therefore it is not broke or going broke.  However, there is some question about the ability of future earners to keep up with the payments on the debt which is owed as well as to make sure that enough SS is continuing to be collected to pay current and future retirees.  So there is reason for current and future leaders to look at ways to manage the public debt and the SS fund in a way which will make sure that the obligations can be paid.  One relatively simple fix would be to raise or remove the cap on wages subject to SS.  
                                  • Re: Retirement
                                    JerryD
                                    You can keep insisting that the Feds will pay us back. How will they do that when they are already in deep deficit spending? Cut food stamps? Eliminate the military? Raid the gas tax and stop further maintenance to our roads? Eliminate Federal pensions? Cut off Medicaid? You get the point.

                                    True. SS needs to be tweaked to insure future payments. But I wouldn't count on the Feds contributing much by paying us back money they have already spent. So, in effect, SS will have to be tweaked in order to make up for the irresponsible use of our funds by the Feds too.
                                      • Re: Retirement
                                        herbyreed
                                        JerryD said...
                                        You can keep insisting that the Feds will pay us back. How will they do that when they are already in deep deficit spending? Cut food stamps? Eliminate the military? Raid the gas tax and stop further maintenance to our roads? Eliminate Federal pensions? Cut off Medicaid? You get the point.
                                        In fact, we are not in "deep deficit spending", not in real dollars as a percent of GDP, which is the only sensible way to measure it.  Borrowing 200 thousand dollars to buy a house seems like a lot compared to 1950 when there was only one wage earner making a couple thousand dollars annually but it is not a lot when a couple has a combined salary of over $100,000 a year.  But that is basically the argument you are making. By historical standards and in comparison to other industrialized countries neither the annual deficit nor the national debt is very high. Why do you think investors keep buying U.S. Treasury bills when they pay very little in interest?  Because long term they are a better investment than gold. What do investors know which you don't know? 
                                          • Re: Retirement
                                            JerryD
                                            I hear you saying that the Feds will "borrow" their way out of our debt since there is no surplus to pay it.

                                            No need for either of us to get too excited right now about who is "right". We will soon hear what the Feds plan to do. I don't think that we will like their "solution" which they are already talking about - cut SS. Even Obama is agreeing to this when he concurs with a new cost-of-living calculation. Don't hear any discussion of the other tweaks that reasonable people would look at.

                                              • Re: Retirement
                                                herbyreed
                                                JerryD said...
                                                I hear you saying that the Feds will "borrow" their way out of our debt since there is no surplus to pay it.

                                                No need for either of us to get too excited right now about who is "right". We will soon hear what the Feds plan to do. I don't think that we will like their "solution" which they are already talking about - cut SS. Even Obama is agreeing to this when he concurs with a new cost-of-living calculation. Don't hear any discussion of the other tweaks that reasonable people would look at.

                                                I said no such thing.  What I said was that the current U.S. deficit and debt is not high by historical standards or in comparison to other industrialized countries.  That is not my opinion, it is a fact.   Another fact is that the current deficit is actually shrinking and there is no imperative to actually pay off the debt - most economists agree that would actually be a bad thing.  What is important is to have a healthy economy so that debt can be serviced - pay the interest - without jeopardizing other commitments.  Economists disagree but most agree that we are doing that and will continue to be able to do that for the long term.  Note - I said Economists - most politicians say what they need to say about the economy - they respond to political pressure.  It is best not to pay too much attention to what they say about it.  Look at what they actually do - that is a little more instructive.  Example:  Which political party has talked the most about balanced budgets but has done the least to actually balance a national budget in the last 50 years?
                                                  • Re: Retirement
                                                    JerryD
                                                    Since you seem to be new, it would be nice if you could add some background in your profile for others reading your posts. Just a thought. :-)))
                                                      • Re: Retirement
                                                        herbyreed
                                                        JerryD said...
                                                        Since you seem to be new, it would be nice if you could add some background in your profile for others reading your posts. Just a thought. :-)))
                                                        Sorry, I don't care to share a lot of personal information beyond what is needed to make a point.  Not sure why it matters on a site like this - basically information sharing about retirement issues.
                                        • Re: Retirement
                                          herbyreed
                                          vintagegal said...
                                          why would he, a CHILD?  is he handicapped in some way?
                                          If so, no wonder SS is going broke.  This was NOT the intent. 
                                          Actually, it was the intent.  Children, whether or not they are handicapped, still need to eat and they need clothing, etc.  The SS payment a person receives is only intended to cover their own costs, not that of a minor child.  Minor children receive a SS benefit if a parent is entitled to a benefit.    Very few retirees have minor children so this is not as much of a strain on the system as one might think.  And the total family benefit (spouse + minor children) is capped as well.    
                                        • Re: Retirement
                                          caterina829

                                           
                                          To my best knowledge, he would only receive SS benefits if you die.  He would then receive benefits until the age of 18.  I am not absolutely sure, but I know my mom received benefits for me when my father died. 
                                            • Re: Retirement
                                              0221dena50
                                              I spoke to a Social Security officer and my son is eligible for benefits.  He will draw off of my benefits.
                                               
                                              Benefits for family members

                                              If you are getting Social Security retirement benefits, some members of your family also can receive benefits, including:



                                                   
                                                   
                                              1. Spouses who are age 62 or older;
                                              2.    
                                                       
                                              3. Spouses who are younger than 62, if they are taking care of a child entitled on your record who is younger than age 16 or disabled;


                                              9




                                                   
                                                   
                                                   
                                                         
                                                         
                                                               
                                                  1. Former spouses, if they are age 62 or older (see "Benefits for a divorced spouse" on page 11);
                                                  2.            
                                                                           
                                                  3. Children up to age 18, or up to 19 if they are full-time students who have not yet graduated from high school; and
                                                  4.            
                                                                           
                                                  5. Disabled children, even if they are age 18 or older.
                                                  6.            
                                                             
                                                             
                                                             
                                                             

                                                  If you become the parent of a child (including an adopted child) after you begin receiving benefits, let us know about the child so we can decide if the child

                                                             
                                                  • Re: Retirement
                                                    caterina829
                                                    thanks, good to know!
                                                  • Re: Retirement
                                                    Yes
                                                    • Re: Retirement
                                                      I was a single mom and took the S.S. at 62 while still working part time.  My son received 1/2 the amount I would have received if I continued working full time until at was 65 1/2.  It was a life saver for me enabling me to be home with him more while he was in grade school and junior high and giving us enough to live on.  Children use to receive this benefit if the continued education in college for 4 more years but Reagan administration took that benefit away.  We could certainly use it to help pay for expenses while he is in school but it isn't an option now.