Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Non-investing personal finance issues including insurance, credit, real estate, taxes, employment and legal issues such as trusts and wills
Morgan Dollar 1921
Posts: 208
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:04 am

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by Morgan Dollar 1921 »

ncbill wrote: Sat Oct 17, 2020 8:43 am
MikeG62 wrote: Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:09 am I was talking to my Dad a while back and he mentioned that he began taking SS at age 62. When I asked why, his response was that he needed the money to cover his (and my Mom's) expenses in retirement. In other words, he could not afford to delay to FRA. I could not help but wonder with that being the case whether he should then have retired as early as he did (late 50's) if he needed to begin collecting SS at age 62. My Dad is now 87 (and my mom is 84). Can't help but think he's past the breakeven point.
Many times one doesn't have a choice as to when they retire.

I just buried a close relative whose department was outsourced when they were age 60...cashed in their pension to make it to SS at age 62.

I have other relatives who worked physically demanding blue-collar jobs until they also took SS at age 62...they were "just plumb wore out."

Breakeven for them would be in their mid-80s and given their health problems, many caused by their jobs, none of them are likely to make it that far.
B-I-L 's B-I-L died of lung cancer, never smoked ever, but my B-I-L telling the sad story of his early demise sure did, and so did I, and so did my uncle for years after GI service to our country, WWII. A lot of guys started then, with bullets flying around did not care if they even knew. Uncle lived to 91, my Dad a non-smoker lived to 99, so what 8 years maybe, but not scientific of course.
I was at a Postmasters state convention years ago. The FERS specialized planners, insurance agents and a broker or two spoke during the afternoon groups. I watched most of those presentations over a three day span. Ten percent of my high school class was deceased by then. When they were all packing up their displays, I walked up to three of them and called another over tell them I had some wisdom for them. I asked them when they thought was the best time to start SSA payments? Another one walked up as I asked, he knew me, we had talked to him, as he walked up he told the others, "Look out it's a trap!"

I told them the best time to receive social security payments are ,... when you are alive. One looked down another nodded his head, Mike chuckled.

"+1. My distant cousin died a few years ago at 67 after collecting SS checks for one year. The cancer came out of nowhere, and he died 2-3 months after it was detected."
"Many times one doesn't have a choice as to when they retire.

""I just buried a close relative whose department was outsourced when they were age 60...cashed in their pension to make it to SS at age 62.

I have other relatives who worked physically demanding blue-collar jobs until they also took SS at age 62...they were "just plumb wore out."

Breakeven for them would be in their mid-80s and given their health problems, many caused by their jobs, none of them are likely to make it that far."

Many in my rural area fit this scenario. My legs were giving out on me, standing on hard concrete for 9+ hours a day. Stocking and picking auto parts that might weigh one pound or sixty.

The 'bend factor' for lower income recipients and a small FERS pension from a QDRO, ex wife makes my total income inflation resilient as both get COLA. I watched 12 of my classmates die prior to 62. I know this much they make a dozen plus brands of cars, not a right one for everyone, same with SSA, and much more than a math book can tell you. One of the insurance guys I spoke to at length (annuity sales of course) was a retired Postmaster, he knew why my ex-wife wanted out at 60. STRESS.

I rarely read a post in here about the BEND factor of SSA, and how people in the lower incomes get a larger replacement percentage of their lesser income than probably the majority of folks reading and posting here. It does make a big difference when combined with even a small defined benefit pension with cola on both. Add in a LCOL rural area, and the sailing is smooth.

Hope that is not to politically biased. He said "out live your money? Yes, but your expenses probably peak after 75- 80, how good will your health be in your late 80's compared to now, those are most folks, rocking chair years."

Good luck and hope you hit your rocking chair days.
Shallowpockets
Posts: 1681
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:26 am

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by Shallowpockets »

If you delay SS you either have enough money to last through the delay without working or you are still working. Either way, you don’t need the money at all.
If you are still working until you take it at 70, well, you wasted many years working that you could have not.
There is a time/money line for SS delay, and there is a time/life left line also. Even if you are in good health the whole way.
You could of course, split the difference. It is not only 62 or 70.
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by vineviz »

wolf359 wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 9:31 pm
chipperd wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:26 am
"Even if someone starts at age 62 and benefits are adjusted a few years later, I would expect that their benefits will be impacted as well--that they won't be grandfathered in. "
Why would you be so certain of that? I don't agree at all. Please provide rationale.
Because it's stated in the law. If no action is taken and the trust fund runs out, all payments are reduced to match the inflow.
I think we’ve been over this ground before, but this statement isn’t true: it is not “stated in the law” that payments are automatically reduced.

A reduction in benefits requires a positive action by Congress ( ie a change in the law). The SSA does not have legal authority to unilaterally reduce your benefit.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
phxjcc
Posts: 525
Joined: Thu Aug 23, 2018 3:47 pm

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by phxjcc »

Leesbro63 wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 5:00 am
phxjcc wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 12:07 am
ObliviousInvestor wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 6:52 pm
fsrph wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 6:50 pm
Johm221122 wrote: Thu Oct 15, 2020 6:20 am

When you reach full retirement age you'll be automatically be converted. Not 70
Say you're receiving SSDI and reach full retirement age. Can you then defer your regular SS till 70 years old to capture the 8% per year gain in benefits?

Francis
Yes. When you reach FRA your disability benefit is converted to a retirement benefit. At that point, it's just a normal retirement benefit, and you have the option to voluntarily suspend it, as would anybody age FRA-70 who is receiving a retirement benefit.
Nm
What’s “Nm”?
nevermind--had a comment and deleted it.
Cruise
Posts: 987
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 7:17 pm

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by Cruise »

Parents both took SS at 62. One lived to 96 (blue-collar dad who couldn't wait to retire), the other to 78 (low-level clerical type). Break-even was around 78.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/13/those-s ... ading.html

I took at 62 (white-collar professional who wanted a bird in hand), with spouse filing restricted at age 66. So given our age differences, we had extra income for the past four years that probably boosted the breakeven age to 80-82). I''ll be ticked pink if I pass the breakeven age. :)
Leesbro63
Posts: 6785
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 4:36 pm

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by Leesbro63 »

Cruise wrote: Sat Oct 17, 2020 6:38 pm Parents both took SS at 62. One lived to 96 (blue-collar dad who couldn't wait to retire), the other to 78 (low-level clerical type). Break-even was around 78.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/13/those-s ... ading.html

I took at 62 (white-collar professional who wanted a bird in hand), with spouse filing restricted at age 66. So given our age differences, we had extra income for the past four years that probably boosted the breakeven age to 80-82). I''ll be ticked pink if I pass the breakeven age. :)
Didn’t your dad regret not having that bigger amount to age 96?
FactualFran
Posts: 1141
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:29 pm

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by FactualFran »

vineviz wrote: Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:55 pm I think we’ve been over this ground before, but this statement isn’t true: it is not “stated in the law” that payments are automatically reduced.

A reduction in benefits requires a positive action by Congress ( ie a change in the law). The SSA does not have legal authority to unilaterally reduce your benefit.
Paying full retirement benefits when the sum of payroll tax revenue plus trust fund balance would also require a positive action by Congress.

Here is the third paragraph of the Summary section of the Congressional Research Service report Social Security: What Would Happen If the Trust Funds Ran Out?
If a trust fund became depleted and current receipts were insufficient to cover current expenditures, there would be a conflict between two federal laws. Under the Social Security Act, beneficiaries would still be legally entitled to their full scheduled benefits. However, the Antideficiency Act prohibits government spending in excess of available funds, so the Social Security Administration (SSA) would not have legal authority to pay full Social Security benefits on time.
GreenLawn
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 10:58 am

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by GreenLawn »

For me it's psychological. The best years of the remaining years of my life will be my 60's. If I feel I have enough money to wait to claim and still spend freely to enjoy those early years, I'll wait to take SS. If I begin to feel doubts about spending while seeing my investment accounts decrease by the year, then I'll start taking it then to remove those doubts.

Up until recently I assumed I'd take it at 62 so I could spend freely without worry, but after reading the analysis posted by Cut-Throat (on having your cake and eat it too) I've decided to wait.

When will I claim? I have no idea, but for now I'm waiting.
Cruise
Posts: 987
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2016 7:17 pm

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by Cruise »

Leesbro63 wrote: Sat Oct 17, 2020 6:55 pm
Cruise wrote: Sat Oct 17, 2020 6:38 pm Parents both took SS at 62. One lived to 96 (blue-collar dad who couldn't wait to retire), the other to 78 (low-level clerical type). Break-even was around 78.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/13/those-s ... ading.html

I took at 62 (white-collar professional who wanted a bird in hand), with spouse filing restricted at age 66. So given our age differences, we had extra income for the past four years that probably boosted the breakeven age to 80-82). I''ll be ticked pink if I pass the breakeven age. :)
Didn’t your dad regret not having that bigger amount to age 96?
I doubt it. Not that he ever verbalized. He was a frugal (BH-kinda) guy who died with >$1M in the bank. And that was after residential assisted living for five years @ $8K per month.
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by vineviz »

FactualFran wrote: Sat Oct 17, 2020 6:58 pm
vineviz wrote: Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:55 pm I think we’ve been over this ground before, but this statement isn’t true: it is not “stated in the law” that payments are automatically reduced.

A reduction in benefits requires a positive action by Congress ( ie a change in the law). The SSA does not have legal authority to unilaterally reduce your benefit.
Paying full retirement benefits when the sum of payroll tax revenue plus trust fund balance would also require a positive action by Congress.

Here is the third paragraph of the Summary section of the Congressional Research Service report Social Security: What Would Happen If the Trust Funds Ran Out?
If a trust fund became depleted and current receipts were insufficient to cover current expenditures, there would be a conflict between two federal laws. Under the Social Security Act, beneficiaries would still be legally entitled to their full scheduled benefits. However, the Antideficiency Act prohibits government spending in excess of available funds, so the Social Security Administration (SSA) would not have legal authority to pay full Social Security benefits on time.
Yep. A literal impasse.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 5763
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:44 pm

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by JoeRetire »

vineviz wrote: Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:55 pm
wolf359 wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 9:31 pm
chipperd wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:26 am
"Even if someone starts at age 62 and benefits are adjusted a few years later, I would expect that their benefits will be impacted as well--that they won't be grandfathered in. "
Why would you be so certain of that? I don't agree at all. Please provide rationale.
Because it's stated in the law. If no action is taken and the trust fund runs out, all payments are reduced to match the inflow.
I think we’ve been over this ground before, but this statement isn’t true: it is not “stated in the law” that payments are automatically reduced.

A reduction in benefits requires a positive action by Congress ( ie a change in the law). The SSA does not have legal authority to unilaterally reduce your benefit.
Sorry, you are simply incorrect.

Social Security is a form of a PAYGO system. Once the Trust Fund is depleted, it can only pay out what comes in through payroll taxes. Benefits will be automatically reduced to match that income. No laws need be changed for that to happen.
It's the end of the world as we know it. | It's the end of the world as we know it. | It's the end of the world as we know it. | And I feel fine.
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by vineviz »

JoeRetire wrote: Sat Oct 17, 2020 9:08 pm
vineviz wrote: Sat Oct 17, 2020 2:55 pm
wolf359 wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 9:31 pm
chipperd wrote: Fri Oct 16, 2020 11:26 am
"Even if someone starts at age 62 and benefits are adjusted a few years later, I would expect that their benefits will be impacted as well--that they won't be grandfathered in. "
Why would you be so certain of that? I don't agree at all. Please provide rationale.
Because it's stated in the law. If no action is taken and the trust fund runs out, all payments are reduced to match the inflow.
I think we’ve been over this ground before, but this statement isn’t true: it is not “stated in the law” that payments are automatically reduced.

A reduction in benefits requires a positive action by Congress ( ie a change in the law). The SSA does not have legal authority to unilaterally reduce your benefit.
Sorry, you are simply incorrect.

Social Security is a form of a PAYGO system. Once the Trust Fund is depleted, it can only pay out what comes in through payroll taxes. Benefits will be automatically reduced to match that income. No laws need be changed for that to happen.
Thats not what the law says. There is no provision anywhere in Federal code that permits an automatic reduction of benefits.

In short, a reduction in benefits would require a change in the Social Security Act.

How the Treasury pays those benefits in the event of trust fund depletion is a conundrum, because in that circumstance they are not allowed to reduce benefits AND not allowed to pay full benefits.

It’s not as simple as people think it is, and the CBO quote provided above captures some of the nuance. Effectively, a trust fund depletion without additional changes by Congress in the law would trigger a default by the US government.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
User avatar
#Cruncher
Posts: 3055
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 2:33 am
Location: New York City
Contact:

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by #Cruncher »

MikeG62 wrote: Sat Oct 17, 2020 7:09 am... my Dad ... mentioned that he began taking SS at age 62. When I asked why, his response was ... he could not afford to delay to FRA. ... My Dad is now 87 (and my mom is 84). Can't help but think he's past the breakeven point.
He's well past the breakeven age for delaying from 62 to Normal Retirement Age (NRA), Mike. Your dad was born in 1932 or 1933. For those born before 1938, the NRA was only 65. They would only have to live beyond age 77 to collect more total benefits than if he claimed at age 62.

This doesn't change much for people born more recently. As shown on the SSA webpage, Effect of Early or Delayed Retirement on Retirement Benefits, the NRA is 67 for someone born 1960 or later. The breakeven age for delaying to NRA is 78.7, only 1.7 years longer than for someone born before 1938.

However, the breakeven for delaying beyond NRA has changed considerably over the years. For those born after 1942 the yearly Delayed Retirement Credit (DRC) has been 8% of the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA). But it was much lower for those born earlier. This means those people must live longer before the increased benefit from delaying past NRA offsets the benefits foregone by delaying.

With a DRC of 8% one need only live to age 82.5 for delaying from NRA to 70 to break even. But Mike's dad (or his wife) would need to live beyond (his) age 90 (if born in 1932) or 88 (if born in 1933) for delaying to 70 to break even with claiming at NRA. This is because the DRC for each year past NRA was only 5% (born in 1932) or 5.5% (born in 1933) compared to the 8% it is for those born after 1942.

Here is a table showing, in the right four columns, the ages for breaking even by delaying from 62 to NRA, from NRA to 70, from 62 to 70, and for delaying just one year from 69 to 70.

Code: Select all

                              -- Percent PIA --  ------- Breakeven Age -------
Born       NRA        DRC     At 62    At 70     62-NRA  NRA-70  62-70   69-70

Code: Select all

1924       65         3       80       115         77.0   103.3   88.3   107.3
1925-26    65         3 1/2   80       117  1/2    77.0    98.6   87.1   102.6
1927-28    65         4       80       120         77.0    95.0   86.0    99.0
1929-30    65         4 1/2   80       122  1/2    77.0    92.2   85.1    96.2
1931-32    65     ==> 5       80       125         77.0    90.0   84.2    94.0 <== [*]
1933-34    65         5 1/2   80       127  1/2    77.0    88.2   83.5    92.2
1935-36    65         6       80       130         77.0    86.7   82.8    90.7
1937       65         6 1/2   80       132  1/2    77.0    85.4   82.2    89.4

1938       65 2 mo    6 1/2   79 1/6   131  5/12   77.2    85.4   82.1    89.2
1939       65 4 mo    7       78 1/3   132  2/3    77.4    84.3   81.5    88.0
1940       65 6 mo    7       77 1/2   131  1/2    77.6    84.3   81.5    87.8
1941       65 8 mo    7 1/2   76 2/3   132  1/2    77.7    83.3   81.0    86.7
1942       65 10 mo   7 1/2   75 5/6   131  1/4    77.9    83.3   80.9    86.5
1943-54    66         8       75       132         78.0    82.5   80.5    85.5

1955       66 2 mo    8       74 1/6   130  2/3    78.1    82.5   80.5    85.3
1956       66 4 mo    8       73 1/3   129  1/3    78.3    82.5   80.5    85.2
1957       66 6 mo    8       72 1/2   128         78.4    82.5   80.5    85.0
1958       66 8 mo    8       71 2/3   126  2/3    78.5    82.5   80.4    84.8
1959       66 10 mo   8       70 5/6   125  1/3    78.6    82.5   80.4    84.7
>= 1960    67         8       70       124         78.7    82.5   80.4    84.5
If a person born in 1932 lives to age 94, delaying one year from 69 to 70 will break even. This means the real return on the one year's benefit forgone is exactly 0%.
0.0% = RATE(94 - 70, (125 - 120), -120, 0, 0)
But for someone born 1960 or later who lives to age 94, the real return is 4.5%!
4.5% = RATE(94 - 70, (124 - 116), -116, 0, 0)

* Sample calculations for someone born in 1932.

Code: Select all

 80   = % of PIA at 62      = 100 - (5 / 9) * 36 - (5 / 12) * ((65 - 62) * 12 - 36)
125   = % of PIA at 70      = 100 + 5 * (70 - 65)
 77.0 = Breakeven  62 - NRA = 65 + ( 80 * 3) / (100 -  80)
 90.0 = Breakeven NRA -  70 = 70 + (100 * 5) / (125 - 100)
 84.2 = Breakeven  62 -  70 = 70 + ( 80 * 8) / (125 -  80)
 94.0 = Breakeven  69 -  70 = 70 +  120 / 5
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 5763
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:44 pm

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by JoeRetire »

vineviz wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:36 am In short, a reduction in benefits would require a change in the Social Security Act.
That's not what Phillip Moeller, author of "Get What's Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security" said when I asked him. I asked him about it and he replied "Should Congress fail to deal with Social Security's projected shortfall, benefits would be cut across the board. If the cut was 25 percent, for example, someone due $1,000 a month would get only $750."

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I suspect it will never come to that anyway, but that discussion isn't permitted here.
It's the end of the world as we know it. | It's the end of the world as we know it. | It's the end of the world as we know it. | And I feel fine.
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by vineviz »

JoeRetire wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:09 am
vineviz wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:36 am In short, a reduction in benefits would require a change in the Social Security Act.
That's not what Phillip Moeller, author of "Get What's Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security" said when I asked him. I asked him about it and he replied "Should Congress fail to deal with Social Security's projected shortfall, benefits would be cut across the board. If the cut was 25 percent, for example, someone due $1,000 a month would get only $750."
If that's what Moeller said, then he's wrong.

You could always ask him to show you the language in the Social Security Act which allows any part of the executive branch to unilaterally modify the benefit formula as it is currently written into law. He won't be able to show it to you, because that language isn't there.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
mptfan
Posts: 6205
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 9:58 am

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by mptfan »

vineviz wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:50 am
JoeRetire wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:09 am
vineviz wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:36 am In short, a reduction in benefits would require a change in the Social Security Act.
That's not what Phillip Moeller, author of "Get What's Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security" said when I asked him. I asked him about it and he replied "Should Congress fail to deal with Social Security's projected shortfall, benefits would be cut across the board. If the cut was 25 percent, for example, someone due $1,000 a month would get only $750."
If that's what Moeller said, then he's wrong.

You could always ask him to show you the language in the Social Security Act which allows any part of the executive branch to unilaterally modify the benefit formula as it is currently written into law. He won't be able to show it to you, because that language isn't there.
I agree that what he said is wrong, but he did not say the executive branch would act unilaterally.
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by vineviz »

vineviz wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:50 am
JoeRetire wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:09 am
vineviz wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:36 am In short, a reduction in benefits would require a change in the Social Security Act.
That's not what Phillip Moeller, author of "Get What's Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security" said when I asked him. I asked him about it and he replied "Should Congress fail to deal with Social Security's projected shortfall, benefits would be cut across the board. If the cut was 25 percent, for example, someone due $1,000 a month would get only $750."
If that's what Moeller said, then he's wrong.

You could always ask him to show you the language in the Social Security Act which allows any part of the executive branch to unilaterally modify the benefit formula as it is currently written into law. He won't be able to show it to you, because that language isn't there.
Here's an analogy: you rent an apartment and sign a lease stipulating that you'll pay $500 on the first of each month. If you only have $400 on November 1st and your bank doesn't provide overdraft protection, you can write a check for $400 to the landlord but that does NOT alter the amount of your legal obligation to them. Only a change in the language of the lease can do that.

If the trust fund is depleted, benefits (what participants are owed) are not reduced. Only the authority of the Treasury to pay those benefits in a timely manner is reduced.

If Jane is owed $1,000 according to the benefits formula and the Treasury only sends her $750 then, absent an amendment to the Social Security legislation being passed by Congress and signed by the President, the US government still owes Jane the difference of $250. The US government will have defaulted on its obligation to Jane.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by vineviz »

mptfan wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:55 am
vineviz wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:50 am
JoeRetire wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:09 am
vineviz wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:36 am In short, a reduction in benefits would require a change in the Social Security Act.
That's not what Phillip Moeller, author of "Get What's Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security" said when I asked him. I asked him about it and he replied "Should Congress fail to deal with Social Security's projected shortfall, benefits would be cut across the board. If the cut was 25 percent, for example, someone due $1,000 a month would get only $750."
If that's what Moeller said, then he's wrong.

You could always ask him to show you the language in the Social Security Act which allows any part of the executive branch to unilaterally modify the benefit formula as it is currently written into law. He won't be able to show it to you, because that language isn't there.
I agree that what he said is wrong, but he did not say the executive branch would act unilaterally.
He actually did: that's what the qualifier "should Congress fail to deal with Social Security's projected shortfall" means.

Congress has three potential ways to "deal with the shortfall": 1) reduce benefits; 2) increase payroll taxes; or 3) remove the requirement that benefit payments be tied to the funding status of the trust fund.

Congress can pick #1, #2, or #3 (or some combination, I suppose), but any of those choices would be "dealing with the shortfall". If Congress does NOT pick 1, 2, or 3 then none of those three things have any other Constitutional mechanism for happening.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 5763
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:44 pm

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by JoeRetire »

vineviz wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 8:50 am
JoeRetire wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 7:09 am
vineviz wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 5:36 am In short, a reduction in benefits would require a change in the Social Security Act.
That's not what Phillip Moeller, author of "Get What's Yours: The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security" said when I asked him. I asked him about it and he replied "Should Congress fail to deal with Social Security's projected shortfall, benefits would be cut across the board. If the cut was 25 percent, for example, someone due $1,000 a month would get only $750."
If that's what Moeller said, then he's wrong.

You could always ask him to show you the language in the Social Security Act which allows any part of the executive branch to unilaterally modify the benefit formula as it is currently written into law. He won't be able to show it to you, because that language isn't there.
The SSA cannot pay out money it doesn't have. They could, however write out IOUs. No laws need be changed.
It's the end of the world as we know it. | It's the end of the world as we know it. | It's the end of the world as we know it. | And I feel fine.
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by vineviz »

JoeRetire wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:53 pm The SSA cannot pay out money it doesn't have. They could, however write out IOUs. No laws need be changed.
Again, there is no provision in the law (as it currently exists) that gives the Social Security Administration the authority to write an "IOU" to recipients.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 5763
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:44 pm

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by JoeRetire »

vineviz wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 2:22 pm
JoeRetire wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:53 pm The SSA cannot pay out money it doesn't have. They could, however write out IOUs. No laws need be changed.
Again, there is no provision in the law (as it currently exists) that gives the Social Security Administration the authority to write an "IOU" to recipients.
As far as I can tell, there is no law preventing it.
It's the end of the world as we know it. | It's the end of the world as we know it. | It's the end of the world as we know it. | And I feel fine.
User avatar
vineviz
Posts: 7815
Joined: Tue May 15, 2018 1:55 pm

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by vineviz »

JoeRetire wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 3:23 pm
vineviz wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 2:22 pm
JoeRetire wrote: Sun Oct 18, 2020 12:53 pm The SSA cannot pay out money it doesn't have. They could, however write out IOUs. No laws need be changed.
Again, there is no provision in the law (as it currently exists) that gives the Social Security Administration the authority to write an "IOU" to recipients.
As far as I can tell, there is no law preventing it.
What prevents it is the Constitution.

Agencies in the executive branch can and must enforce the laws enacted by Congress and ONLY those laws. They can't just unilaterally decide to do: if there is no law giving them authority to issue IOUs then they can't issue IOUs.
"Far more money has been lost by investors preparing for corrections than has been lost in corrections themselves." ~~ Peter Lynch
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 66350
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Social security. Take it at 62 [Motley Fool article]

Post by LadyGeek »

This thread has run its course and is locked (topic exhausted - derailed). See: Locked Topics
Moderators or site admins may lock a topic (set it so no more replies may be added) when a violation of posting policy has occurred. Occasionally, even if there are no overt violations of posting policy, a topic (or thread) will reach a point where the information content of the discussion has been essentially exhausted and further replies are much more likely to cause distress to the community than add anything of value.
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
Locked