That's not a thing. It was made up by Elon Musk because he didn't understand how the system worked apparently.
Video on not taking social security at age 65
- Thread starter GON
- Start date
I guess I am still missing your point. You mentioned some choose to retire while others continue to work, and then mentioned producers and consumers. Not saying you are wrong, just not following.
Personally, I am retired but continue to produce in numerous ways. I wonder how I had the time to work all those hours...
My production nowadays is, to a large extent, working to prepare others for the future. I am a long term planner, including for when I am pushing up daisies....
I agree with @JeffKeryk (I think)
I am still not understanding what this has to do within the context of collecting social security.
Welcome to the dark side…
Didn't read all these posts.
1. Just watch videos of how most employers don't want to hire or keep older workers.
2. Not everyone can stand (to be a walmart greeter) for hours, or be too far from a rest room at old age.
3. Old folks that actually had to work during their working life and career days, can not walk well or use their hands like when young, if you worked from an office chair your whole career time you are likely in a better situation.
4. Some can't wait till say 70 to retire, as it is just work getting out of bed, besides don't need more old people adding to the rush hour traffic mess.
1. Just watch videos of how most employers don't want to hire or keep older workers.
2. Not everyone can stand (to be a walmart greeter) for hours, or be too far from a rest room at old age.
3. Old folks that actually had to work during their working life and career days, can not walk well or use their hands like when young, if you worked from an office chair your whole career time you are likely in a better situation.
4. Some can't wait till say 70 to retire, as it is just work getting out of bed, besides don't need more old people adding to the rush hour traffic mess.
There is no social security entitlements.
US workers paid into it, though I think more should have been paid.
The entitlements go to ones that have NEVER PAID.
Its nice this is all being straightened out as we speak, finally way over due.
And to say what was said in this last part, your not listening to the correct news.
Its all very simple to understand. Social Security would be solvency fine if not for the issues finally coming to attention.
Funny that no proof of any "fraud and abuse" has been given if that's why you're talking about.
Time will tell. Its just the beginning.
I suppose that the millions of over 100 year old folks on SS, is just a nothing burger? And has nothing to do with it becoming insolvent
It's to do with people who have an unknown age in the system and the system defaults to a certain year that makes it 150 right now.Time will tell. Its just the beginning.
I suppose that the millions of over 100 year old folks on SS, is just a nothing burger? And has nothing to do with it becoming insolvent
I don't know where you are getting your news but it sounds like it's a maga leaning source. Lol
I’m hoping to make the age I take SS irrelevant and I’m not planning to retire, just work a bit less.
I enjoy my job and the work is not physically difficult— it’s brain work.
So unless and until my mental faculties dim to where no one will pay for their output, I intend to work.
I enjoy my job and the work is not physically difficult— it’s brain work.
So unless and until my mental faculties dim to where no one will pay for their output, I intend to work.
Im not so sure (nor have I analyzed it as you have) that table works exactly as described. Why then were adjustments made to the full retirement age decades ago and why does that continue? This year 2025 it increases another 2 months to 66 and 10 months.
Im not doubting your statement, I do understand the actuarial tables. I just never thought deeply into it. I just assume that the (almost) exploding retirement population (baby boomers) compared to young entering and in the work force is much lower today and why the adjustments needed. Either way, I do think we will see the min 62 get moved higher though I doubt very much after all it's a hard political move in this social media age. Not like it used to be.
This is a snapshot of what I am talking about, to repeat, I have not given much thought to it. One of those things that doest effect me and nothing I can do about it anyway.
https://www.aarp.org/social-security/faq/is-the-full-retirement-age-going-up/
another
This is pretty much the extent of my knowledge and always thought so this is why I know benefits will never be cut, rages may go up and FRA will increase and I suspect min retirement age will increase =
"The trust funds had $2.79 trillion in reserves at the end of 2023, but benefit payments going out are increasingly outstripping income, thanks to demographic and actuarial trends. While the boomers are swelling the ranks of retirees (and living longer, thus collecting benefits longer), lower birth rates in subsequent generations mean there are fewer workers paying into Social Security."
Source
https://www.aarp.org/social-security/faq/how-much-longer-will-it-be-around/
So you are saying instead of fraud, people are collecting social security and we dont know if they qualify since their age isnt in the system. If we dont know their age, how are they collecting? (think about that) Please no politics, that is an excuse. Audits are good, every financial system on earth has fraud. That includes all private and public corporations.
You have asked 2, maybe 3 questions.
First - the reason the full retirement age was raised to 67 was simple - its a ponzi scheme - if only from the standpoint that current payers are funding current collectors directly, as apposed to a pension which has a much larger fund. You need more young people paying in instead of old people collecting. The full retirement age was changed from 65 to 67 in 1983 - as I posted above. It does phase in, but only for 5 years, so if you were born in 1955 is started going up and by a birth of 1960 it becomes 1967, The reason they chose these ages was simple - in 1980 the people born after 1955 were either too young to vote, or likely did not vote - so it was easy to pass. Once we hit the 1960 birth date, the age increase ends.
The other part on the actuarial tables is the lock in period. Once you take SS your benefit in almost all cases stays the same. So if you took SS in 2010, and the actuarial table said people lived on average 10 years, then that is how that worked. However if over that 10 years the average age increases to 12 years, then there is 2 years that wasn't planned for.
There is also a minimum amount if you work enough years. For example if you work some part time job and pay in for 30 years, making $8K per year in current dollars, your minimum is over $1000 a month. So do the math, and you figure out they get back what they paid in just 2.5 years. Its progressive. Again, its like other entitlements.
Not saying its good or bad, but its not at all like a pension, which does have some nuances, but for the most part your pay out is proportional to how much you put in over your lifetime.
But it's not working correct? (just discussing as stated I have not thought about it, doesnt concern me but I do take interest)
Wow! Really?
To get ss requires 2 things. 1 is the ss card with the number, 2 is the birthdate.
And please prove what you just said about a 150 year default. Please prove it. Who has lived that long in the last 100 years to now?
You have to prove your a certain age to get ss.
Oh and SS is only 90 years old as we speak.
I get all my news by careful research no one special place.
Keep your politics out of this discussion please. Or it will be shut down we don't want that.
I was curious. Link.
This is the WIRED link.
And...
I haven't bothered to look for whatever Musk pointed--I don't do Twitter. And there's no end to the crackpots that I don't follow and/or otherwise ignore.
*
So to me, it appears to be true that people are claiming that SS is paying out to 150 year olds. And it's also true that the claim is bunk.
A year or so ago I tried my hand at some python, but I didn't love it. On one hand, being able to return multiple variables and no pointers? what's not to love! but at the same time, I made a few mistakes on typos for variable names and there's zero error checking for that.
I am a bit miffed at Microchip for depreciating its support for assembly language, I miss being about to program that RISC processor for small projects. Not everything needs C...
C is just a ripped of Pascal anyways... I loved C because my typing is so poor.
Working in business, SQL became my strength.
