Eldergays On Social Security

I'm not that old, but my mother is on it and anytime there's a COLA they raise the medicare cost so it barely ends up being anything

Enjoy other people's money, elders.

Thanks to your voting patterns, Social Security will dry up long before the rest of us see a dime in benefits. Means testing? Raise the retirement age? Benefit cutbacks? Not in Boomer America, sonny! The under-50 crowd is buried under a mountain of student loan debt (thanks to the state universities you people voted to defund and taxes you no longer wanted to pay), a housing affordability crisis (thanks, NIMBYs), stunted careers (because you won't retire or die), and our own rush to save for retirement (because, again, we know you'll suck it dry). Oh, and a lot of us aren't having kids at all, because who the fuck can afford a kid these days? Also, the planet's wrecked up anyway, so it'd just be cruel to bring a kid into a dying world anyway.

If the Millennial/Gen-Z slogan is "Life is shit, and it's all your fault," then the Boomers' slogan has got to be "Fuck your wallets, your planet, and your freedoms. I got mine and it was pretty sweet!"

Yeah, my mother also can’t help talking my fucking ear off about SS. Capitalism is disgusting and having a kid is a disgusting solution to elder care. I’m planning to leave before this ever becomes a problem and I’m reduced to begging my overlords for a few more years of life. Fuck this Ponzi scheme. Burn it all.

How sad that some people believe the old GOP lies that Soc. Sec. and Medicare are almost insolvent. THEY ARE NOT!

R3 Having kids as built-in nurses isn't enough for them. They also have to draw a monthly check from the labor of people still in the workforce. They would've saved more, but they had cigarettes to buy and red meat to gulp down. Who knew they'd end up in abysmal health in old age?

It all started in the 1930s, when a generation of rural poors either didn't save at all, or put their savings in shaky banks and stocks they assumed would never fail. Then it fell apart, and they were eating dusty cat food. Then a garbage-dick millionaire wheeled his way onto the national scene and said "Make me president, and I'll hook your financial corpses up to a life support machine that will have you dancing the Charleston on a flagpole, but will bankrupt your grandkids and great-grandkids faster than you can say "Missy LeHand!" Of course the poor shit-fer-brains Americans swooned over it and gave him whatever he wanted.

You know how Donald Trump has mobilized a cult of trailer trash into doing his bidding, even as he leads them to economic and psychological ruination? The cult of FDR did the same thing nearly a century ago, and we're still wrestling with the notion that if you hold your hand out long enough in America, the state will force someone else to put coins into it.

Applies to Federal retirees under the old CSRS system as well. I will probably get another ~$750/mo. in take home. Time to find a boy toy.

R6 For sex, money, or a nurse? Or will the relationship progress through those three stages?

Good heavens! Are the trolls out to play, tonight?

[quote] The projection for the COLA increase for 2023 is 10.5%,

Of course the massive cost of living increases are 𝑛𝑜𝑤.

No matter how much they give people on a pension. It is never enough to enjoy.

I'll take it!

And I get my medical care from the VA, so as long as I don't go over the income limit (31K), I'm good to go.

Sucks to be you, R2. BWAAAAH.

[quote]Not in Boomer America, sonny! The under-50 crowd is buried under a mountain of student loan debt (thanks to the state universities you people voted to defund and taxes you no longer wanted to pay),

WRONG!. They're buried under student debt because they were too God damned stupid to chose a major/degree that is in demand and would pay them well

[quote] stunted careers (because you won't retire or die)

You're a failure at your job. If you weren't so lazy, your boss would promote you. But even the old people at your job are better at it than you are. But you're a lazy and you want to blame everyone else for your own problems.

You created your own problems. You think you deserve to have everything everyone else has and you think you should have it without having to work hard. You think everything should just fall into your lap.

If you can't afford a house, work two jobs. I did.

They should have gone to a community college or state school.

This is the CURRENT cost of tuition at the community college at which I was teaching:

Registration Fees; Tuition, Associate Fees, Baccalaureate Fees; In State Tuition, $103.06 per credit hour; Out of State Tuition, $390.96 per credit hour.

I'm so tired of the whining!

Community college is even expensive , but if you can't afford it, maybe you should pick another career path.

But before anyone narrows things down, pick a major that pays well and is in demand. It might not be fun or what you really want to do, but it will put food on the table.

Doesn't anyone ever google what their prospective major pays? Or what types of jobs you can expect to get with that major? It costs nothing to do a little research.

There are all sorts of jobs that pay well and don't require a degree or that much training. There are many vocational school options that will lead to well paying careers.

What kind of pay can I expect after I graduate with my Bachelor of Arts in Gender and Women's Studies? I'm thinking I'm entitled to $75,000 and a month of vacation time.

I'm graduating in Black Studies, which automatically means I will get a job as the Diversity and Inclusion Officer at a major corporation.

r14 We don't claim r2.

I don't pay into Social Security, I have my own retirement accounts, other investments for my old age elder care. I'm not filthy rich, but comfortable, I live very simply, not extravagantly. I don't waste money or food, waste not, want not. I don't drink or smoke, no drugs or bad habits that cost me an arm and a leg, and I don't gamble. I don't have a car, so that expense is off the table, I'm in very good health, and lead a healthy lifestyle, so no doctor bills, knock wood. Anyway, I have everything planned out, and should financially secure if I live to be 100+, but life can always throw you a curve ball, something unexpected. I have close friends, and we all plan to grow old together, take care of each other, that's important, relationships that are built on trust and honesty. It's good to have a financial cushion, and good people in your life to rely on. We'll see what the future holds... :-)

Community college and the "school of hard knocks" doesn't train people for every career. Some occupations require a college degree, or even several degrees. You can't shunt us all to strip-mall college just because YOU want a lower tax burden now that you're old and settled. You need educated young people. You need us to be your doctors, pharmacists, lawyers, stockbrokers, bridge engineers, and forensic accountants. You needed teachers in your youth, and architects and engineers to build your home/city/roads, you need lawyers when you get sued and pharmacists to churn out all the pills you take in retirement. You need doctors and nurses to keep you alive. You can't rely entirely on some minimum-wage immigrant to handle your end-of-life care. They won't even wipe your ass with a smile, considering what they're paid.

I got an education to be a teacher, and then got a master's in civil engineering and now work for a major city's water department, making sure your drinking water is safe and your toilet doesn't shoot sludge the same way your mouth does. In my state/country, you need an education and a license to be a teacher and to be a civil engineer. School of Hard Knocks won't cut it. I'm in public service, which is especially thankless these days when some entitled jerk-off tells me to "get a real job!" As a teacher, I dealt with rage-filled, illiterate parents who never attended a parent-teacher conference but loved to send cunty emails about how their child's stunted learning and temper problems were everyone else's problem. As an engineer, I deal with airhead Boomer politicians who can't read a budget or a project plan, yet still insist on weighing in and padding the projects with their cronyism. I'm also surrounded by senior workers who earn more than a heart surgeon, but never do more than four hours of work in a given week. I know how to count to 40 hours, which is more than I can say for these near-retirement shit-heels.

What do YOU do for a living, dad? I can only imagine the sort of career that would warp a person's brain so much that they look down the ladder behind them and say "Nah, you're all failures!"

[[quote]Thanks to your voting patterns, Social Security will dry up long before the rest of us see a dime in benefits.

Naturally, none of that is true, you hag.

Social Security ran a surplus for the first seventy-two years of its existence and of course, billions are deducted every pay period today. Worst case scenario, which will never happen, is seniors receive only 75% of their amount owed. Yes, voting GOP makes everything worse, but even if this were to happen it would serve seniors right as they are the Republicans best supporters. Still, it will never happen.

Of course, by the time Social Security dries up, those of you who are bitching will be the ones who are old and voting Republican.

Psh, we won't still have elections by then. Trump and DeSantis will have turned us into a one-party dictatorship, or a series of smoky, radioactive craters.

r21 Learn to code.

This is a good article that explains a lot about the inner workings of Soc. Security.

Until the dems get a solid majority in both houses of Congress don't expect much to change with the program.

Who pays attention to 'The Motley Fool'?

I wish I could remember what thread it was in, but about a week ago I said that Repugs were still complaining about FDR, and at least 2 people insisted that this wasn't true and I was insane. I'd love to show them r5.

Maybe the more radical conservatives really do want to gut it. But it is somewhat comforting that old people are keeping it alive. Of course, I don’t even think I would be surprised if even the poorest post-boomer conservatives start trying to kill it, just to spite minorities.

I plan to spend mine on weed and ice cream.

SSA has a basic calculator you can use to estimate your expected SS benefit when you retire. According to my figures, if I wait until 67 to retire and reap a full benefit, it would be approximately 40% of my current net income. Now, this assumes there won't be benefit cuts or insolvency in the next 30+ years, but even still, that's not a lot of money. And this figure is before Uncle Sam takes out a big chunk for Medicare premiums.

Social Security is meant to SUPPLEMENT your retirement. Not fund it entirely. But for too many desperate Americans, it's all they have. They radically shrink their lifestyle in order to afford the half-a-pittance they collect from this, their only "nest egg."

r31 has prepared small portions of gruel for the deserving among us!

I’m fat, so I don’t hate the thought of starving. I just wish the government would at least give me a small closet to sleep in.

R33 How small?

There's also the bill by Bernie Sanders & Peter DeFazio to give SS recipients an additional $200/mo. I wonder where that stands. Not that I give it much chance at getting through both houses of Congress.

They also raised the Medicare monthly premium a huge amount - something like 30% - which will eat up any income increase for many.

Medicare premiums did not go up 30% in 2022. They went up 14.5%, from $148.50 to $170.10.

For those of you who are, or will soon be, calculating when to claim Social Security, this is one of the best tools available and it's free.

R35 DeFazio is retiring in five months, and Bernie Sanders can barely get a post office renamed in 30 years. Don't count on these two getting it done.

[quote] Medicare premiums did not go up 30% in 2022. They went up 14.5%, from $148.50 to $170.10.

And HALF of that increase was to cover the projected $56k/yr cost of ONE new Alzheimer’s treatment. The price was quickly reduced to $28k after the ensuing hue and cry over whether the drug was even effective, and how it got FDA approval in the first place. It’s still an experimental drug, and may not pan out.

R21, I have a degree in Biology and a PhD in pharmacy. I also did my residency at Cornell Medical Center and Rockefeller Hospital.

[quote]Community college and the "school of hard knocks" doesn't train people for every career. Some occupations require a college degree, or even several degrees.

No one is forcing anyone to get college degrees with a major that pays very little and/or has very few job prospects? People that can't pick a good college major are probably going to be failures no matter what they do. I knew this shit when I was 8 years old and we played the game called LIFE. I noticed the lawyer made $50,000. While everyone else was picking the other stupid careers, I ALWAYS picked the lawyer. Because I knew $50,000 was awesome

Why in the fuck would anyone get a college degree in a stupid major? I don't care if some really isn't interested X, Y, Z majors (that pay well) or college won't be fun if they pick a major they don't love. A lifetime of living in poverty isn't fun either

Pharmacy school wasn't fun. All that studying on weekends in order to get into pharmacy school wasn't fun. Working through every spring break and every holiday for 8 years wasn't fun either.

Do you think I wanted to work that hard? I didn't. I HATED college. But you know what is fun? Making $165 an hour. It's MAGICAL

Marge: Where'd you get all the money? Grampa Simpson: The government. I didn't earn it, I don't need it, but if they miss one payment I'll raise hell.

[quote]They also raised the Medicare monthly premium a huge amount - something like 30% - which will eat up any income increase for many

[quote]No matter how much they give people on a pension. It is never enough to enjoy.

Sweet fucking hell, Cost of Living Adjustments are not meant to enjoy, they are meant to keep a recipient's head above water or rather at a constant level. If inflation is 10%, then COLA is 10% or something akin to it, not to give you a raise for work well done, but in recognition that the value of your benefits have lost 10% of their buying power.

And all my life I've heard nothing but that Social Security is not meant to keep someone in great style or replace their full working income, it's to continue some part of their previous income on a regular basis through their retirement years. If you ever thought SS was going to provide you with more money than you earned working, you were stupidly mistaken - for decades.

r42 Lol.

[quote]But you know what is fun? Making $165 an hour. It's MAGICAL

So ... not as much as a whore, then?

R45 Whores also have more fun than this cunt.

If the average increase of the COLA is like $175 with this big increase, and even if they raise the Medicare like last time around $20, that's still a $155 increase, so I wish they'd stop using that argument. Also, the Medicare B might not rise or might even decrease since an expensive Alzheimer's drug which they anticipated being widely prescribed was built into the last increase, but has not been widely prescribed as they thought.

Does this increase apply to all social security beneficiaries? My bf is disabled and gets social security. He's 25 tho.

R43 is quite correct,

SS is meant to replace about 1/3 to 1/4 of pre-retirement income. It was never designed to be sole source of retirement income, but part of a "three legged stool" with savings/investments, and pension rounding things out.

During "stagflation" 1970's when media latched onto claims seniors were eating pet food because they couldn't afford better (due to then SS adjustments not keeping pace with inflation), a new formula was devised.

Keep in mind for much of past one or two decades due to inflation being nearly nil COLA SS adjustments have been low to zero as well. As such every time a democrat or republican administration signed off on goodies, seniors on SS got something. We saw this last with all the covid money including those stimulus checks. Seniors on SS received checks regardless of income. If checks went to deceased persons by honest error (say to a widow or widower), they didn't have to return it or pay back.

People hating on this recent SS COLA "windfall" or whatever don't have a clue. Government long ago changed how it measures inflation (use of CPI) so numbers do not truly reflect what average American household purchases. Seniors in particular are hard hit by this because CPI strips out things like food, healthcare/medicine, and housing to name a few things.

For those whose SS checks make up most if not sole source of income this COLA adjustment doesn't begin to go very far.

Its not enough money to live, petiod. There are millions of people that have paid in all their lives and because they didnt have a high paid cushy job are getting the shaft from the goverment,while billions went to ukraine. Make that make sense.

And another billion of weapons to Ukraine.

Separately Monday, the Treasury Department said it was sending $3 billion more in direct 𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑜𝑚𝑖𝑐 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 to Ukraine. ( wink wink )

Husband and I are close to retirement, our combined SS income will be around 6200.00 per month. We have our house paid for and no debt, and we live pretty modestly. I see no reason why we wouldn't be able to live on 6k, without drawing much off savings or 401k. I think it's critical to go into retirement mostly debt free if possible. We really didn't have our shit together debt wise until maybe 10 years ago, never too late.

At what age will you and your husband start to draw SS, r52?

and don't forget the Ukrainians R2 who got $55 billion of our tax dollars, and they never contributed a cent to our government.

[quote]Its not enough money to live, petiod. There are millions of people that have paid in all their lives and because they didnt have a high paid cushy job are getting the shaft from the goverment,while billions went to ukraine. Make that make sense.

No one ever said it was enough to live off of. Maybe your parents told you that social security takes care of you when you retire and you grew up with that silly assumption.

You seem to be under some weird impression that the money that was given to Ukraine was money that would have been spent on people on social security. It wouldn't have gone to them. It would have gone elsewhere, but never to social security recipients. Biden probably gave SS recipients more than the republicans would have given them

So you are complaining about $150 raise. I don't know anyone who has ever gotten a $150 a month raise. I don't know anyone that even got a cost of living raise in the past 2 years.

R52

So you and your partner contributed enough to draw maximum (or close enough) SS benefits. You and your husband are doing alright for yourselves, but that hardly goes across the board.

Not everyone qualifies for max SS benefit, has IRA/retirement plans/savings, owns their home free and clear, etc.....

And before anyone goes there not everyone's life runs according to plans.

Even if I die in squalor in a few years, at least I will not have created another human for the government to fuck.

At least that’s what I’ll tell myself as I’m knawing on my own elbow or whatever.

[quote]knawing

I beg your pardon?

The U.S. government barely provides for education; leaves its citizens to figure out their own goddamn healthcare, forcing any but the richest to work longer than they should have to do for fear that they will have a gap in hideously expensive health insurance, then provides a paltry program of Medicare but only for the really old or seriously disabled; provides barely fuck all if you require end of life care in a nursing home or similar facility; and yet somehow old people run their poor mouths about what a shame it is that their Social Security is paltry.

It was never meant to be anything but paltry. Indeed, ''not everyone's life runs according to plans,' but we know that from every stage of life and many people even support this, but they get fucking bent out of shape that the government isn't interested in the very old. They were not interested in investing in you when you were young and could have contributed more toward the economy, toward your nest egg for later in life, what makes you think they should suddenly care when you're old and cranky and suddenly disappointed that the Social Security you knew your whole life was going to be only enough to offset SOME expenses isn't enough to cover ALL of your expenses.

My mother worked this angle for 25 years and it wasn't charming from her either. A government that says fuck you to people who need insulin, who would reward greedy fucks with patent renewals for drugs they did not invent and which should have been allowed to expire and the price reduced years before; a government that wants to save fetuses but begrudges the hungry mouths that they become...doesn't give a shit about your miserable little SS monthly payment. Acting surprised at 67 that one leg doesn't support a stool or a chair asks for a magic cloak of stupidity.

We needs Social Security

If you REALLY want to have a shit fit, read about the Medicare "Direct Contracting Program" that's being tested by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). This scheme would essentially privatize original Medicare (i.e., Parts A and B) by putting it in the control of investment companies. The program uses "capitation," like Medicare Advantage Plans, in which providers are paid a flat-fee per patient basis, rather than the fee-for-service basis that is a hallmark of Original Medicare. This can lead to lower reimbursements to providers, greater out-of-pocket expenses for patients, and greater profits for investors in the companies.

Recently, it's come to light that some people on Original Medicare have been shifted to the Direct Contracting Model test without their knowledge, but the patients discover it when they contact CMS about why they didn't get coverage for something that Original Medicare pays for. As described in the linked article, this has finally started pushback against Direct Contracting Program. But the fact that the government has been testing this model suggests where it's trying to go, one way or the other.

In terms of Social Security, it wouldn't surprise me if the government eventually privatizes it by turning it over to insurance companies that will substitute income annuities for Social Security. That would transfer the longevity risk from the government to insurance companies and their investors. Based on history however, it's doubtful any insurance company could pay COLAs as high as Social Security pays.

[quote] Does this increase apply to all social security beneficiaries? My bf is disabled and gets social security. He's 25 tho.

Yes, he would get the increase just like everyone else. If he stays on disability all the way until he's 66 his disability benefit will simply change over to regular Soc. Sec benefits at the same payment.

Way back at r20… how do you not pay into Social Security? It sounds like you choose to fund your retirement accounts rather than SS, but that’s not possible, everyone pays into it whether they want to or not. Unless you work for the federal government, in which case, you get a pension, which is similar to SS.

Quick question on SS COLA… I plan to retire in January and start collecting Social Security then. I went on the SS website and know what I’m getting in January. When does SS add the COLA? (If at all?)

Most of us who are working stop paying into Social Security each year in September or October. All the federal government has to do is remove the cap. There's no reason to have a cap. And Social Security is totally solvent. It is only shakey when unemployment is high. Oh, of course it would be helpful if wages weren't stagnant too. But the point is the Republicans want to privatize SS. So they will sabotage any efforts that keeps it stable and solvent.

[quote] When does SS add the COLA? (If at all?)

The COLA is calculated in September or October of each year. The increase (if there is one) starts on your January check of the following year.

Thanks r66–so if I go online in November, I should see an increase in my estimate? Or does COLA not get implemented in estimates? Again, I plan on collecting starting January 2023.

[quote] Most of us who are working stop paying into Social Security each year in September or October.

No one stops paying the SS tax in Sept. or Oct.. The SS tax only stops once you reach 147k in income, no matter when that happens. And that certainly would not factor in for "most" people. I dare say the percentage of people in this country who pass that level of income during the year is quite small. The median income in the US is under 75k per year.

R67 I don't really know how (or if) they factor in the COLA vis a vis the projected SS benefit you get from their calculator. You may need to call your local SS office to get an answer on that one.

But you could just take whatever the calculator says your benefit would be if you looked it up today, and then add in the COLA. Don't count on 10.5%. I'd say add maybe 9% to it. At least that way if the increase is more you'll get a nice surprise.

They will just up the amount you have to pay for health insurance , they are going to f us over , as always.

I know I was a whiny little prick earlier in the thread, but I'm glad to see Datalounge being used for something realistic and constructive, instead of just a jillion threads about Meghan Markle.

These are the people who don't pay SS taxes.

Self-employed workers who make less than $400 annually

Most foreign students, scholars, teachers, and researchers are exempt if they are non-immigrant and non-resident aliens.

Foreign citizens who work in the U.S. for a foreign government (for example, as diplomats or consular officials), also do not need to pay.

State and local government employees covered under a public retirement plan do not need to pay twice by paying into Social Security.

Members of certain religious groups may be exempt from Social Security taxes. To become exempt, they must waive their rights to benefits, including hospital insurance benefits. They must also be a member of a religious sect that is conscientiously opposed to receiving private death and retirement benefits and provides food, shelter, and medical care for its members.

For the 23rd time, people who were born after 1960 experienced a vastly different set of economic and cultural conditions than those born before 1960. Late Boomers and Gen X'ers have had no real economic stability in their working lives.

The people who vote for horrid politicians and policies have been in each of these generations and there are even some millennials that vote this way and there will be more in the future. Look at all the tech millionaires and billionaires who are Libertarians.

Maybe R20 works for a government entity and has a government pension plan.

How has a 25 yo worked enough time to get social security disability? Doesn't seem possible...are you sure he isn't getting SSI?

From the SSA website

[quote] The number of work credits you need to qualify for disability benefits depends on your age when your disability begins. Generally, you need 40 credits, 20 of which were earned in the last 10 years ending with the year your disability begins. However, younger workers may qualify with fewer credits.

R76 Mother is in that boat. She left the workforce years ago when she married Husband #5. Now he's old and fading but not dead, and she is too young to retire but old enough now to have debilitating chronic illnesses. She would qualify for disability, but she hasn't earned enough work credits in recent years to qualify. So she's stuck with sugar daddy's money until he finally kicks, and she can become a Merry Widow with the insurance check.

If you want to know what you would get at different ages or if youvecome disabled, access your information at SSA.org.

It also has a lot of good information explained very simply.

I'll say something no one wants to hear; we are entering a period where vast numbers of persons are hitting retirement age with very little to live upon.

A good percentage of Boomers (for various reasons) don't have much in way of savings/assets, no pension, and their SS checks aren't going to be huge amounts like R52.

Good part of this demographic will be women (single/never married, divorced, widowed), but right behind them will be a not small number of men, especially gay men who for various reasons will find themselves in same economic boat.

Predictions are "Golden Girl" type living arrangements are going to grow exponentially. A few or several persons not related or married setting up housekeeping together in order to survive economically.

Affordable housing for seniors is in short supply now. As waves of Boomers hit retirement age and find themselves unable to cope with costs of housing, what do people think will happen? Unless family or friends step in, these people likely will become homeless.

As it relates to us on DL affordable and or supportive housing for LGBT seniors is in *VERY* short supply. If anyone believes nursing homes or other senior housing automatically is a welcoming place for LGBT, think on...

[quote]Good part of this demographic will be women (single/never married, divorced, widowed), but right behind them will be a not small number of men, especially gay men who for various reasons will find themselves in same economic boat.

Excellent points, R79.

Data Lounge fools us now and then with the gay man age 65 with $6M in the bank and $3M in real estate (owned, not mortgaged) and a partner who has much greater assets. To err on the side of caution, he plans to work those two remaining years to full retirement age...just to rub it in, the bastard. But among the shorter posts in those same threads there are usually more than a few posters who throw their hands up and say they have no idea about retirement because their financial situation requires that they will have to work for as long as they are able, beyond retirement age, with no stockpile of assets, no rich partner, no long awaited inheritance to fall back on.

Research more than 20 by Lee Badgett and others showed the "Pink Dollar" to be, on whole, a myth. For every story of a high-living successful gay man or lesbian with an empire of choice Mid-Century Modern real estate in Montecito and the better neighborhoods of L.A., there's an iceberg of untold stories of gays and lesbians not living so grandly, not buying tables at A-list fundraising dinners, not funding a research chair in gay and lesbian studies at a top university.

The women you mention and the gay men "who for various reasons" are without retirement resources, without a valuable owned home to fall back on will be in a bad place. Not least because of what ha happened to real estate prices. A few years ago one might have gone off the beaten path a bit and set up his or her own Golden Girls situation in some big Edwardian in some little town upstate or in a flyover state for $100,000...those days are gone, those bargain houses are now beyond the of people without substantial savings or resources. The median listing price for a Wilton Manors house is now $750,000 -- you get a pool, maybe, but the house won't approach Golden Girl comforts (or 4 bedrooms.)

[quote]Predictions are "Golden Girl" type living arrangements are going to grow exponentially. A few or several persons not related or married setting up housekeeping together in order to survive economically.

[quote]Affordable housing for seniors is in short supply now. As waves of Boomers hit retirement age and find themselves unable to cope with costs of housing, what do people think will happen? Unless family or friends step in, these people likely will become homeless.

It's not a good picture for gays of a certain age, particularly those who parted ways with families to move to away and lead open lives but who never made much money, never jumped on the real estate ladder at just the right point, who have maybe a couple moths salary in the bank, no pension, a miniscule 401K started too late and contributed to irregularly, and nothing to cash in except a slim monthly SS check starting at 67.

Just a few weeks ago....

It's GenX that will be in deep trouble. Only about half of GenXers have significant retirement savings, and GenXers won't be getting any pensions like the Boomers.

All I wanna say is if you are approaching 50, save every fucking dime you can. Figure out how much you will need to live on each month. Let's say you currently need $5,000 a month to live. So figure that in the future you will need a minimum of $5500 - $6,000. a month. If you have a savings account or a retirement fund, figure out how long it will last if you are withdrawoing $6,000 a month for 25-30 years.

R83 That advice is equally valid if you're only 15.

Save every fucking dime you can.

If you're 50 or above unless you're set financially in retirement age, get yourself out of debt *NOW*.

Pay down credit cards and don't run them up. If you're still paying off student loans, well there isn't much that can be done unless Biden/democrats come up with something more than what they've been doing.

Look over your health and dental care options. If you are employed and have decent enough plans get things done that are covered (especially dental work).

Even for middle to moderate income gays you still should follow above advice, plus (for everyone) as poster above stated; start looking at your financial picture overall.

If you are a renter, and not in a regulated unit housing costs will be unpredictable. How much of your "retirement" budget can you afford to put towards rent each month? What will happen if rents exceed that amount? Where will you go and can you find something cheaper?

Good number of gays tend to be self-employed/own a business. If that's *you* work out projections as to what income you'll need at 60, 70, etc.. and will you be physically able to keep things going that long.

I moved to East Jessieville in order to be able to retire. While I didn't love the idea I do love having very love housing expenses. Life can still be very cheap if you leave the coasts.

Where exactly is Arkansas anyway?

I'll just continue being a DataLounge elder whore working hard for cash money till I can't turn a trick no more, and depend on the kindness of strangers into my twilight years...

If you are able, you can walk small or medium sized dogs for a living to supplement. Tax free. Do the math. It could work out well for you.

[quote]I'm not that old, but my mother is on it and anytime there's a COLA they raise the medicare cost so it barely ends up being anything

My mom has around $170 deducted from SS every month, so any SS raises are immediately taken out for Medicare. My mom also has to pay for her own private insurance.

Of course, the wealthy have already put their assets in a trusts, the wealthy do this so when they need full time nursing home care or apply to a managed at-home aide home program, they won't pay a single dime. These rich people are already on Medicaid! This is a fact.

When my mom was briefly at a nursing home, I spoke to several wealthy elderly people. One woman was permanently there, the other was there for temporary physical therapy.

One woman owned several apartment buildings, she was on full Medicaid, she told me she had long moved her assets years before, to her son, she did this because she anticipated needing care as she aged and she sure didn't want to give up her assets to a nursing home. Most people are not aware that these trusts situations are 100% legal. At least in my state they are.

[quote]Most of us who are working stop paying into Social Security each year in September or October.

I can't even imagine the gold-plated bubble someone like you lives in.

[quote]My mom has around $170 deducted from SS every month, so any SS raises are immediately taken out for Medicare.

Math isn't your friend, is it? Even if she's only getting $1000 a month, she'll be getting about an extra $100 a month with the 10% increase. So, unless you belive that Medicare is going to go up to $270 a month all of a sudden (which will never happen), her raises are not immediately taken out for Medicare.

OP good news. Most of us will eventually be on SS and the more $$$ the better for taxpayers. Concerning is how our tax 💲💲💲are spent and on whom

NYC tax 💲💲💲for bilingual teachers

Can I just say...I hate the fucking hall monitors around DL always telling us how dumb or dishonest or stupid we are. Yes we get stuff wrong. But we're just ordinary people having a conversation. If what we are talking about is inaccurate or just wrong, then yes, correct us. I appreciate that . But don't do it in such a belittling accusatory tone... Jeeez

R82 Gee poor babies. Maybe they should've thought twice instead of kissing old Republican Boomer ass

Look. If unemployment is high, then SS has a problem. But if Unemployment is low...which it is, than SS has no problem. And anything wrong can be easily fixed by removing the earnings cap. Now. If the GOP succeeds in phasing out Medicare and SS in the next 5 years, t hen they economy will take a major hit, and individuals will also get screwed. Because when the elderly stop getting that income, when the fucking government cuts off a revenue stream, everyone is fucked. And who do you think is going to foot the bill? The elderly aren't going to disappear. Just remember Someone Always Pays. There will be a domino effect. GOP has NEVER done anything to grow a strong healthy economy.

If the situation continues as it is, Social Security starting in 2034 will pay out only 77% of what would be paid out if the system was fully solvent. Similarly, Medicare Part A starting in 2028 will pay out only 90% of what it pays now. Unless we have quite a few years of large majorities of Democrats in the House and Senate, and a Democrat president all at the same time, I think it's unlikely the situation will get better.

All they have to do is remove the contribution cap and make rich people pay the same exact percentage as the rest of us and SS and Medicare are solvent forever with surplus.

All they have to do is create JOBS that pay a living wage and SS will be good in perpetuity. Remember, people are now paying int ss at 10, 15 dollars an hour...40 years ago they were paying into SS at 20, 30+ dollars an hour...instead of continuing to give breaks to billion dollar corporations and the rich, we need to tax them and use that money to create jobs HERE AT HOME...even if its just to reinstate the Federal Jobs Program which employed 15 million people and improved our communities.

R98 and r99 are both right.

R98 Agreed, but that's easier said than done in the current political situation, particularly because even Democrats get large amounts of campaign contributions from very wealthy people (aided and abetted by the SCOTUS in 2010 with their Citizens United ruling). Also, to my knowledge there's no income cap on the Medicare payroll tax; in fact, wealthier people pay more Medicare tax because of the 3.8% net investment income tax (NIIT) and the income-related monthly adjustment amount (IRMAA).

Most Medicare recipients pay about $2k annually for Part B coverage. If your income is over $750,000 in retirement after age 65, your annual premium is a bit less than $7,000 a year. Part A is a bit more than $2000/yr and a good supplemental plan costs at least $6000 a year. So fifteen grand a year if you're rich for good medical coverage. It's still a pittance to pay if you make that much money.

[quote] You do not pay for Part A if you or your spouse worked and paid Medicare taxes for at least 10 years.

R102 What's your source for stating that someone with $750,000 in income pays $2,000/year for Medicare Part A?

Removing contribution cap on earnings for SS won't do nearly much as some people keep babbling about.

First and foremost it would give lie to oft quoted lie that SS beneficiaries "earn" their payments. This simply is not true on several fronts.

Single workers subsidize married couples.

Married persons (either currently, surviving spouse, divorced) receive more in benefits than single persons.

And so it goes...

Already in number of instances those with higher income records subsidize those with lower. Remove earnings cap on SS that inequality only grows. This will give more ammunition those who claim SS is what it is; another government welfare program designed to execute income redistribution.

Next consider higher income individuals do not always receive all or even most of their compensation in wages. Rather good part of their compensation comes in form of stock options and other non earned income, those are *NOT* subject to SS tax.

Nearly every other major industrialized western nation has some sort of income cap on their state pension schemes. To be fair most do have other revenue streams that also pay into fund so they aren't strictly "pay as you go".

R104, such is the price of living in a society with other people. I weep for the poor rich people. I really do. Fuck off.

Furthermore if cap were raised on earnings subject to SS taxation, then benefit payments would also increase. This may or may not be offset by increased revenue, but that would depend upon how things are done.

Next there is well known economic fact taxes can act to either increase or decrease an activity. Broadly speaking when a government wants less of certain behaviors it will raise taxes to point it influences consumer activity. Taxes on tobacco, smoking and booze are an example.

Faced with paying higher SS taxes (remember employers pay half of said tax), employers may shift to offering more compensation in form of non-earned income such as stocks, or various retirement schemes which are tax deductible.

[quote]Furthermore if cap were raised on earnings subject to SS taxation, then benefit payments would also increase.

That's not how SS works. You have no idea what you are talking about and it's very, very obvious.

R107

Oh yes it is; even IRS own publications say so.

"Among Individuals in Higher-Earning Households, Benefit Levels Would Increase on Average under the No Max Plus Benefits and Max 90 Plus Benefits Options"

"The no max plus benefits and the max 90 plus benefits options would both increase benefits because the new taxable amounts also would be credited for benefit calculations (Table 2). Under the no max plus benefits option, the median percentage change in annual benefits for individuals aged 62 or older in 2070 in the highest shared-earnings quintile is projected to be 7.5 percent. For the max 90 plus benefits option, the comparable benefit increase for the same group is projected to be 6.3 percent. Benefit increases would be concentrated among households representing the highest fifth of earners because individuals in this group would have a higher number of years with wages above the current-law tax max."

R108, you are now being completely disingenuous. Read your own link because I don't think you even bothered to do that. That outcome is presented as part of one of four possibilities if the maximum is removed, only two of which involve raising the benefit in proportion. You picked the one part of the article in your link that projects something that could happen if they changed the current way SS works. So, again, you are wrong. That is not how social security works and it will never work that way because as stupid as the government might be, they aren't that fucking stupid.

So go ahead then, enlighten us all how "SS works".

R110, there is a maximum monthly amount you can collect no matter what you put in over your lifetime. It's pretty fucking simple.

Don't know if you're just daft, or being deliberately obtuse.

Max SS benefits are determined by lifetime earnings. Maximum-taxable earnings currently is $147k.

If Congress changes MBE or removes caps all together then a decision would have to be made as to what also happens with how benefits are calculated.

If cap is removed or whatever what are you going to do with someone who earns an average of $200k to 300k for thirty-five years?

"Social Security's Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program limits the amount of earnings subject to taxation for a given year. The same annual limit also applies when those earnings are used in a benefit computation. This limit changes each year with changes in the national average wage index. We call this annual limit the contribution and benefit base. This amount is also commonly referred to as the taxable maximum. For earnings in 2022, this base is $147,000.

The OASDI tax rate for wages paid in 2022 is set by statute at 6.2 percent for employees and employers, each. Thus, an individual with wages equal to or larger than $147,000 would contribute $9,114.00 to the OASDI program in 2022, and his or her employer would contribute the same amount. The OASDI tax rate for self-employment income in 2022 is 12.4 percent."

"For Medicare's Hospital Insurance (HI) program, the taxable maximum was the same as that for the OASDI program for 1966-1990. Separate HI taxable maximums of $125,000, $130,200, and $135,000 were applicable in 1991-93, respectively. After 1993, there has been no limitation on HI-taxable earnings. Tax rates under the HI program are 1.45 percent for employees and employers, each, and 2.90 percent for self-employed persons."

See also

SS indexing formula.

People like yourself along with other socialist democrats keep going on about how wonderful raising or eliminating caps on earned income subject to SS taxes would be for system. What you won't say is how those who are high earners are to be treated under any such scheme.

[quote]If Congress changes MBE or removes caps all together then a decision would have to be made as to what also happens with how benefits are calculated.

[quote]If cap is removed or whatever what are you going to do with someone who earns an average of $200k to 300k for thirty-five years?

FFS, man, more difficult decisions have been made in the halls of Congress. As SS has never been considered more than one leg in the three-legged stool metaphor (together with private pensions and savings/investments), removing the cap means that some high earners will contribute unequally, just as the childless might do in their income taxes, just as art-haters or pacifists may hate funding museums or weapons technologies.

And if the rich balk at that, they are welcome to give up their salaries and live of the fat of welfare and see how well that pays their mortgages and car loans and student loans and Carnival Cruises. As you note, they have plenty of opportunity to hide income from the clutches of SS via stock options, etc.

[quote]People like yourself along with other socialist democrats keep going on about how wonderful raising or eliminating caps on earned income subject to SS taxes would be for system. What you won't say is how those who are high earners are to be treated under any such scheme.

I fucking weep tears of blood that "those who are high earners" might be treated more harshly under this scheme.

R112, you loon, go back and read your own fucking link where they describe the various ways it could work. They would just keep the fucking maximums in benefits. They are not going to send Jeff Bezos a million dollar social security check every month. Idiot.

So in other words you want people to put more into something and get less to nil back for their efforts?

That sounds like welfare IMHO. It certainly flies if face of what democrats have framed SS as all these years; that people get back what they paid into scheme.

Democrats have never said people get back what they paid because most people take out way more than they put in. And, I don't have any children but, oh look, there's tax money of mine going to the school and park district. Should people who don't own cars not have to pay taxes toward road construction? I'm against the military/industrial complex but they keep sending my money to the Defense Department. Can I get that back?

You truly are fucking stupid, R118, and you have an obvious agenda, which is also stupid. But, to answer your question, "Yes, the rich fucks should pay in waaaaaay more than they get back." We can all form a national weeping day for their great loss.

So assuming you're going to be living on let's say $60,000 with SS, your savings, and maybe a pension. How much will Medicare parts B,C,D.....X,Y,Z actually cost per month?

the future of SS is questionable. Where will the revenue come from?

And who wants to listen to Laura Fucking Ingraham, R121, and your rabid Republican tropes about faltering work ethics and how anyone a rung down on the ladder is wastrel scum and how anyone a rung or two up from you isn't stepping on your hand and cause you to lose your grip and fall, he's trying to raise you up to his level.

R122 I think that's her actual middle name, too

Have you been to a store recently or a restaurant? and have you been laid recently btw?

Plenty of office space for lease in NYC

One of the reasons cited was difficulty in finding workers

R122 types basement dwelling INCEL. Maybe she should focus on getting rid of the stench of crotch rot in her basement.

Hotels, restaurants and airlines

10 million openings left unfilled

Fuck me running! It's really going to suck to get old!

based on your rants up thread, it sounds like your life sucks now R130

is there a lot of 💲💲💲in the misery business?

Generation 💤

Beyond help

As a poor girl from a poor family, the first time my income went over the cap I was so confused. I called up the gentleman I reported to at the time and asked him if I had gotten a raise I didn’t know about. He laughed and laughed. And then he explained.

It’s funny to watch people who CLEARLY have never made over the cap and have no idea how it works, run to defend the every hypothetical penny of the wealthy, whom they will clearly never be amongst. While I still pay SS to the contribution cap every year, the amount of my projected benefits (minus COLA adjustment) haven’t changed in at least a decade. I have already reached the lifetime cap of contributions (even when averaged over 35 years) for the maximum benefit. And you know what? I’m fine with that. And you know what else? The contribution cap is bull shit. Keep the benefits cap, get rid of the contribution cap, give our seniors a raise and protect the future of SS. Maybe Peter Thiel and his ilk don’t care if American seniors who worked hard at low paying jobs, but I do.

Also crack down on the scam of State institutions not paying into SS for their part-time employees who aren’t eligible for the State institution pensions. If I were a lawyer that’s a class action I’d like to argue.

^ missing a “starve”

"...the future of SS is questionable. Where will the revenue come from?)

Congress and POTUS regardless of party affiliation will do what they've always done; wait until nearly or last minute when something must be done or else; then rush something through.

Many will groan and moan about the thing, but Congress and WH will say (again) what they always have; backs were up against the wall and they had no other choice.

There are many issues with SS that need to be addressed.

Changes in demographics is going to present difficult choices ahead as plans are made to shore up SS.

I think the living longer problem issue may no longer be an issue. My understanding is that average life expectancy is declining at the moment.

It is ElderLez… probably because of Covid. Our shitty medical system (not the one for those who can afford the Mercedes’ of doctors) might be contributing too.

Cut funding to conservative red states is start. Loads of saving there.

Yes R140 and opioids

Life expectancy in the US stopped increasing eight years ago and is likely to decline further.

If you wait to start collecting Social Security until you are 70, you will get the maximum monthly amout that you qualify for. But this is not practical for many people. When to start collecting is a decision that depends on many personal factors unique to your situation and your finances.

Are we to assume that the Social Security haters in this thread will not be claiming their Social Security benefit? On principle? Or are they hypocrites who will quietly collect it anyway, after castigating it publicly?

Opiate overdose deaths, rising suicide rates (especially among the young), rising rates of alcohol abuse, gun violence, obesity and resulting diabetes (40% of women in US are obese, men it is just slightly lower) - all contribute to the lowered life expectancy in the US.

People can learn a good trade instead of going to college. College isn't for everyone. These trades...electricians, plumbers, carpentry and building, for example....can pay more than a job you would get on a college education. That's been crammed down everyones' throats that it is a must to get ahead in life.

They always do, R144, just like their idol, Ayn "Bootstraps" Rand.

Excuse me, I had 144 blocked, the Rand comment was for R143.

R102, a Med Supp plan does not cost anywhere close to $6,000 a year (or it shouldn't if you are shopping around). It depends on your age, gender, and location, of course, but my 65 year-old spouse was able to get Plan G (which is the best one you can get now that Plan F is retired for new enrollees...although Plan G was usually a better financial deal than F anyway) for $108 a month. Plan G is Plan G is Plan G regardless of the insurer. Go to your state's Insurance Department website and they will probably have a listing of all insurers licensed to sell Med Supp in your state and you can easily compare premiums. There is a huge variation across sellers. Everyone can switch companies during open enrollment every year which comes up later in the fall.

Good point, R145: A good friend of mine does this. He's a finish carpenter for a big-bucks contractor who does high-end renovations. Stan does stuff like making the kitchen cabinets ordered from the UK fit the appliances ordered from Italy or fitting the pieces of paneling and shelves together in the project's library. He's an independent contractor, so there are no benefits and he has to pay his own taxes, but his base salary is north of $150,000 a year. Because of the kind of carpentry he does, his work is largely inside so days like this (90F, 60% humidity.) Great guy, good dad, HS graduate, no college debt and he's home nights at 5.

[quote]The United States is the only developed country whose life expectancy stopped increasing after 2010. By 2014, life expectancy began to actually go down [Salon article at R142]

That's what I used to tell my community college students, R145. I worked as an adjunct while looking/hoping for a FT CC teaching position and when my students found out how little I made ($1470 per course section, Florida, 2011 -- now it's up to 2K), and they gasped aloud, I told them, "Go be a plumber! You'll make more money than I ever will!"

BTW, I never did manage to get a tenure-track position. My students really loved me, but because I was out (and the sociology prof gf of my female department chair told me that directly), I was never offered one. In another FL CC, when I speculated that our new provost was a lesbian when asked my opinion by my colleagues, my year-to-year teaching contract was not renewed. That was the one that broke my heart.

Now tell me again how much easier lesbians have it than gay men.

You should have taken your own advice R151

They are now saying Medicare premiums may not go up in 2023. Indeed, they may come down. The premiums went up the highest in the history of Medicare for 2022 to factor in the costs of a new very expensive Alzheimer drug. The actual cost of that drug has now been shown to be about half of what they originally projected and that may mean a decrease in 2023 Medicare premiums.

(^.^) good news for Biden

r154 I think he can afford it either way.

Good number of cannot wait until FRA. They've been beaten down by job loss mixed with age discrimination and are just that tired of trying to find employment. Many have been through one, two or more recessions that lead to job loss and simply are fed up.

SS is the one income they can depend upon so are or will file soon as able, FRA be dammed.

Between SS payments and whatever else they have either in savings or can earn from some sort of work (on or off books), they will be able to hopefully live out their lives with some sort of decency.

Age discrimination is a huge issue with US employers, and they get away with murder on that scale. If government wants people to delay taking SS until FRA then it needs to work much harder in preventing employers from getting shot of older workers.

Years time amount