The deal President Barack Obama and congressional leaders have reached would end a strategy, called file and suspend, that retirees are using to get more money out of the Social Security system.

Here's what will happen if the provision, as currently written, becomes law and how it could affect you

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/lose-50-00...01690.html

I wonder why "file and suspend" was made part of the law to begin with?

(10-30-2015 12:48 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I wonder why "file and suspend" was made part of the law to begin with?

I have no idea. I'm not very familiar with it since unlike Paul Ryan, I actually will not receive social security.

(10-30-2015 01:24 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:48 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I wonder why "file and suspend" was made part of the law to begin with?

I have no idea. I'm not very familiar with it since unlike Paul Ryan, I actually will not receive social security.

Not sure of your Ryan connection there, but, IMO, that loophole was probably put there on purpose.

I've used the loophole since I didn't sell my business until I was 68 and had income from an "consulting contract" until I was 70.

One of the reasons it is an effective strategy is that the 50% spousal benefit is calculated on the earning spouse's benefit at age 66. So there is no reason to wait until age 70 when you get the maximum.

By the way, if you wait until 70, the difference over your 66 benefit is approximately 32%, or 8% a year return. That's a guaranteed 8% return. And then it would be compounded by every COLA adjustment, forever.

Well forever isn't really true since it stops when you die.

The advantage of waiting until 70 only makes sense if you are in good health because the payback is about 10 years. So don't bother if you are obese, smoke or have Aids. Or are under 45 now.

(10-30-2015 02:40 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  I've used the loophole since I didn't sell my business until I was 68 and had income from an "consulting contract" until I was 70.

One of the reasons it is an effective strategy is that the 50% spousal benefit is calculated on the earning spouse's benefit at age 66. So there is no reason to wait until age 70 when you get the maximum.

By the way, if you wait until 70, the difference over your 66 benefit is approximately 32%, or 8% a year return. That's a guaranteed 8% return. And then it would be compounded by every COLA adjustment, forever.

Well forever isn't really true since it stops when you die.

The advantage of waiting until 70 only makes sense if you are in good health because the payback is about 10 years. So don't bother if you are obese, smoke or have Aids. Or are under 45 now.

Yep, not planning on SS being a viable retirement option when I retire.

(10-30-2015 01:24 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:48 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I wonder why "file and suspend" was made part of the law to begin with?

I have no idea. I'm not very familiar with it since unlike Paul Ryan, I actually will not receive social security.

And yet anytime someone proposes a measure to save SS the left throws a hissy fit. I *MIGHT* get it but there is no way in hell the system will be around for my kids.

I'm wondering if a lot of the pressure will be taken off the system as the baby boomers start dying off. I'm thinking that in another 25-30 years the ratio of working to retired will start rising. The issue is particularly acute from now to 30 years out. No?

(10-30-2015 08:00 PM)Crebman Wrote:  I'm wondering if a lot of the pressure will be taken off the system as the baby boomers start dying off. I'm thinking that in another 25-30 years the ratio of working to retired will start rising. The issue is particularly acute from now to 30 years out. No?

Not with the birth rate

No way no how.

Why do you think the big government pubes and dims want to let millions of illegals into the country and give them amnesty?

You should read Mark Levins "Plunder and Deceit", excellent book that explains how the ruling generation is robbing the rising generation and has been doing so foe decades.

(10-30-2015 04:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 01:24 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:48 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I wonder why "file and suspend" was made part of the law to begin with?

I have no idea. I'm not very familiar with it since unlike Paul Ryan, I actually will not receive social security.

And yet anytime someone proposes a measure to save SS the left throws a hissy fit. I *MIGHT* get it but there is no way in hell the system will be around for my kids.

The left throws a fit? They are the ones trying to save it. The GOP wants to gut it.

(10-31-2015 08:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 04:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 01:24 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:48 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I wonder why "file and suspend" was made part of the law to begin with?

I have no idea. I'm not very familiar with it since unlike Paul Ryan, I actually will not receive social security.

And yet anytime someone proposes a measure to save SS the left throws a hissy fit. I *MIGHT* get it but there is no way in hell the system will be around for my kids.

The left throws a fit? They are the ones trying to save it. The GOP wants to gut it.

So you agree with raising the age of eligibility from 65 to 67 then for people under 50?

(10-31-2015 09:28 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-31-2015 08:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 04:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 01:24 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:48 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I wonder why "file and suspend" was made part of the law to begin with?

I have no idea. I'm not very familiar with it since unlike Paul Ryan, I actually will not receive social security.

And yet anytime someone proposes a measure to save SS the left throws a hissy fit. I *MIGHT* get it but there is no way in hell the system will be around for my kids.

The left throws a fit? They are the ones trying to save it. The GOP wants to gut it.

So you agree with raising the age of eligibility from 65 to 67 then for people under 50?

Fit doesn't really care - his retirement isn't part of SS. I guarantee his teachers retirement will be much better than anything SS does or does not come up with.

(10-31-2015 09:45 AM)Crebman Wrote:  Fit doesn't really care - his retirement isn't part of SS. I guarantee his teachers retirement will be much better than anything SS does or does not come up with.

To give you a specific example. I teach at a university that participates in both TTRS and social security. After 15 years, my TTRS retirement will equal or exceed social security accumulated over 50 years.

(10-30-2015 04:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 01:24 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:48 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I wonder why "file and suspend" was made part of the law to begin with?

I have no idea. I'm not very familiar with it since unlike Paul Ryan, I actually will not receive social security.

And yet anytime someone proposes a measure to save SS the left throws a hissy fit. I *MIGHT* get it but there is no way in hell the system will be around for my kids.

They both steal from the trust fund, so yes, I'd rather control my own retirement.

(10-31-2015 08:34 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 04:49 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 01:24 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(10-30-2015 12:48 PM)VA49er Wrote:  I wonder why "file and suspend" was made part of the law to begin with?

I have no idea. I'm not very familiar with it since unlike Paul Ryan, I actually will not receive social security.

And yet anytime someone proposes a measure to save SS the left throws a hissy fit. I *MIGHT* get it but there is no way in hell the system will be around for my kids.

The left throws a fit? They are the ones trying to save it. The GOP wants to gut it.

America gets screwed everytime moonbats try to "save" something.