http://www.wsj.com/articles/christi...ting-benefit-for-some-seniors-1429018212

Typical liberal. Take from those who've earned it and give to those who haven't.

It's called "means testing", and it's the only way that .gov can keep the Ponzi scheme going a little longer.

ok, so now that Chris Christie has shown he can't win the presidency, who's next?

well in effect they are already doing it, since the gooverment has "borrowed" the money out of social security, tax on half of social security above certain income levels, and hugely different medicare premiums based upon levels of income.
it's a ponzi scheme of the worst kind.
the cola increases are a joke, with inflation numbers jerked to keep that percentage increase down.

Question, at 66 my taxable income may go up, a lot up. Can I just stop my SS? Tell them to just keep it?

I don't think saying just keep it is the right expression. You can delay the benefit until later, nothing says you have to take it at normal retirement age.
You need to google fu taxes on social security, look at levels of income and see how it effects you.
It's different for each person. And keep in mind if you die before you get your money back that was paid in, your estate doesn't get it.
The one good thing is after normal retirement date, you can earn what you want, and they don't reduce the benefit, which is what happens if you take early, and earn over the proscribed amounts.
I could tell you my horror stories about this, and it was a real pain in the butt. I don't think they have it straight yet.

Thanks Ron. I took early at 62 and will be 66,my full retirement age in about three weeks. Income may soon go way high. A lot more than I need. Would not need SS.

Just Crispie showing his true nature but hey those that pay attention already new that years ago.

what do y'all expect out of Christie? Have you forgotten that he is a yankee, and a government employee?

If I were in charge, I'd raise the minimum age - no question people are living longer and 60 is the new 40.

But that money is yours. Once you hit retirement age, I don't even understand why the government cares if you keep working or how much you make - you paid into a system for benefits to come back out. It would be easier to let seniors keep working AND get their SS checks. Might help them address those medicare minimums they keep trying to raise.


Changing the rules mid stream is a [bleep] move. I understand why they would try given they can't keep it going but that is something congress should have looked at 30 years ago.

Crispy has no chance.

That should be Krispy, like Krispy Kreme. I'm fat, but he's FAT!

No surprise here. He's just a liberal that decided to show a little financial restraint.

You may remember that in 2008, Nancy Pelosi tried to cash in on peoples' fear of losing their retirement savings by proposing that the Feds take over all the 401ks and then send people checks every month. She said, "We can use that money!".

I can well imagine.

Christy wouldn't be the first porker president. John Adams, #2, was so fat that his nickname was 'His Rotundity'.

Taft was a very big boy, too.

He has a better chance of winning the democrat nomination than the republican one.

It's yours. You paid into the account. Why wouldn't you take it?

RINO is not just a political description, especially in his case.

Cack sucker is a better Description.

regardless of how you feel about government pensions, Christie reduced or eliminated state Pensions in New Jersey because previous governors chose to siphon money intended to fund pensions to other projects and New Jersey just didn't have the money to pay.

Christie was asked "but those people were made a promise" and his response was something along the lines of "I didn't promise them"

can you imagine him taking that tact with Social Security?

There's nothing wrong with a company or government providing a fair pension to it's employees. That's only right. The big problem with the public ones is that they don't fund them. They don't put any money away for them but depend on future taxes to pay them. That's what's bankrupting local governments all over the country. The bills are coming due.

I understand it is mine, I was just wondering.

exactly and it's why I don't dare figure in SS benefits into our retirement

self employed have been sending in 15% of salary for the last 30 odd years for me and the missus both.

now tell me how I'm seeking an "entitlement"

thieving cocksuckas called politicians steal more from you than a guy with a ski mask and a .38 ever dreamed of!

i would say to check with social security for sure, but i think you can just tell them to stop benefits until you are 70.
it seems with my imperfect memory it was an option i was considering taking a few years ago.

per a prior post, the normal retirement age is now staggered, it use to be 65, not anymore, depends on when you were born.
Some decide to take social security at age 62, early, which means you are subject to income limitations. If you go past those they start cutting the checks, or in fact suspending them for a period. This creates a living H*ll. As in one hand not knowning what the other is doing. I was in that situation. I ended up writing them a check for what they said were overpayments based on my other income. It took them almost two years to send me a check for the amount they ordered me.
if you delay payment until later past normal retirement age, your eventual payment gets bigger, offset by the fact you are closer to death.
One has to do some forward thinking based upon medical history, needs analysis, and so on.
In my case my wife was ten years older than me and getting a small check. When i hit 62 her amount was increased to half of mine, almost a threefold increase. I, unfortunately have continued to work and that made them want to take it back from both of us, which they did. Until my normal retirement at 66.
Now i can make whatever i want without reduction, but still subject to tax on my benefit. Wonderful system isn't it? I just hope to live long enough to get all i have paid in. I was talking to a friend of mine today, he paid into social 15k last year. He is kind of jerked at christy, as the odds are pretty good he is going to be means tested at some point.

I am 67, wife 68. We are not in our late 40's. Whoever thinks 60 is the new 40 ain't tried it yet. Slight cataracts, hearing going, arthritis, and on. I still work, pay in, and draw less than those ads on TV say I would have if I had just put my "pocket change" in whatever accounts. The employers sure as heck figured SS into what they paid me, and what benefits they think I need for retirement.

Yeah. 60 don't feel anything like the 40 I remember!

The US Treasury accepts donations.

Yes they do. I guess I will not worry about it as the increase will be after I turn 66 and may not show up until the end of the year.

We are bidding a nice job, 54 month rebuild of the San Diego border crossing. Bidding and getting are two different things.

Sweet! Solid 30 ft tall brick wall with 220VAC wires running across the top, I hope!

Ed

Three phase demolition and rebuild. We are bidding phase 2 for the project management. It the service connected disabled vet cert comes through there is an excellent chance we will get the job. It will require we give some good folks a job.

But you will pay, if you income is enough, income tax on it, so you still don't get the full amount. I should restate that, you get it but don't get to keep it. I am paying over 20% of mine and my wife's back as income tax. It varies a little from year to year but always over 20%. Now I paid income tax on this money when I earned it the first time, and it is not in an account bearing interest, it is not earned money, so I am confused as to why it is taxable. miles

I know of one man that did not deem that he needed it, so it is given to a worthwhile charity. I will not give his name, but he is a good man. miles

Our money is just entries on a computer.

What could possibly go wrong?

I think Christie is just being honest about it. You huff and puff all you want about how much you paid in to and how it owed to you but it doesn't matter because the money was taken and spent on other things by the government. Changes need to be make to make it actuarially sound but I don't think the political will is there. I think the government will take the easy way out and just continue to print massive amounts of money and devalue the currency. You'll still get the benefit you were "promised" but it only worth a fraction of what you thought it was going to be because of inflation and a rigged COLA calculation.

probably true, but given our government has known this day was coming and has had multiple opportunities to correct it, I want the whole thing to crash down as opposed to some means testing.

People could have invested that money in their retirement, not the retirement of others before them.

The SS payout is already heavily progressive. The amount you get back based upon the first dollars you put in VS what you get back from the last dollars for high earners is disgusting.

The lowest earnings quintile will receive on average a benefit nearly 200% of what they put into the fund, for the highest quintile its around 60%. So for poor folks it ain't that bad, but its already nearly just a tax on high earners (for SS purposes high earner just means folks making 85K+, so its not bill gates we are talking about)

While I hate Christie's suggestions something has to be done to fix the income/payout of the system to make it sustainable. The only thing worse than folks who suggest crappy solutions are the politicos who don't even have the balls to address the issue.

Frankly the shortfall shouldn't be considered just a SS issue, its part of a greater budget issue. Whether benefits are paid from a SS lock box that doesn't exist, or from the general fund its really doesn't matter.

The SS shortfall is predicted to peak at around 330B in 2033 and while that sounds like a lot of money at the current rate of growth in federal spending and borrowing we would have a federal spend of roughly 12.8T in 2033 and a deficit of ~3T, so the 330B for SS is a drop in the bucket. We should "fix" SS of course but if we don't fix the bigger issues it won't matter.

Our Politico's have gotten good at hiding stuff and playing with funny money but I doubt even with all the tricks we won't make it to 2030.

I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if I am making a point someone else has already made. But, the only way Social Security remains viable is if everyone retains the belief that someday, no matter what, they'll get what they paid into it back to a degree. Yes, we know it might go bankrupt. Yes, we know they might raise the age. Yes, we would all rather have our money now and do other things with it. But, if you remove the idea that it is for everyone and is just for those too poor to have anything else, THEN [bleep] YOU.

It is bad enough that you are going to take my fricking money my whole life. And you know, it used to be that if you made a decent living, it would cap out. But now, it is all the way up to $117k this year before it caps out. So, most people are paying it on all their incomes. But anyway, you are going to take my money from me my whole life and deny me the opportunity to really prepare well for retirement. But, if I do manage to prepare a little so that I am not in penury in my old age, you are going to penalize me for that and steal my money? [bleep] you.

I don't care if it goes bankrupt. If you are going to turn it into nothing else but another welfare program, you can go frick yourself and I'll keep my money.

Simply put, If I ain't getting it, I don't care if anyone else gets it either. And no, I don't feel one damned bit guilty about it.

That attitude will become more and more prevalent as it becomes clear that we most certainly ARE NOT all in this together.

Puck that Fat piece of chit...

And of course, an unintended side effect of means testing would be the removal of a whole lot of capital from our society as old people scaled back on what they earned to get under the means testing so that they could draw their SS.

Take it Scott I started mine at 60 ,up here , its a good buffer and if you sock away what you don't use now there will come a rainy day when you will need it . trust me on that if you don't need it one of your kids or wifie will, you earned it utilize it

norm

as I said, it shouldn't event be means testing.

once I retire, if I want to work and have the ability to do so, it should have no bearing on my rights to access money I paid into a mandatory retirement plan.

Spanker came through?

Did you miss my rant? I completely agree. Frick Christy. I don't give a schit if it fails or not. I paid my money, at least pretend to pay it back to me.

There will be a revolt in this country eventually as the productive class gets tired of being used like a cart horse for everyone else and the political class.

SS keeps going because .gov keeps forcing folks to pay to play.

there is a man talking that sees reality.

A simple two things would completely change the balance of power with the federal government FOREVER. If there ever is an Article 5 convention these two things need to be at the top of the list:

1) Make income tax withholding illegal. All taxes will be paid quarterly or on the first Monday in November, every year; and

2) No taxes will be paid directly to the federal government. All taxes will be paid to the states and the states shall then remit the money to the Feds.

Boom, the federal government is emasculated instantly.

There will be a revolt in this country when the workers cant afford to pay enough to keep the jerkers, or until .gov shuts off welfare and food stamps in order to cause a revolt.

another man dealing with reality. I am 67, wife 77. Morning conversation starts with what hurts today. Have had cataracts, hearing is shot, arthritis, who doesn't have it. And the so on. My mother used to say old age isn't for the sissies. She was right.

no I understand - we are on the same page

miles, i don't think you paid tax on it the first time. Social security payments when working are pretax. But your point is still valid, you get X amount of benefit, but based upon other income being added in, you have to pay tax on it which ultimately reduces the benefit.
It's an income leveler by design, you shouldn't be living too well. One is well advised to look at the breakpoints on when you start paying tax on the social security, and try to rearrange other income so you fall below those trigger points.

another winner, seeing it for what it is.

i heard a new one the other day. A fellow that qualifies for a canadian pension plus social security here. So his social security payment here is adjusted downward due to the canadian payment. Wonderful system isn't it?

I don't have an old W-2 handy, but I don't think so. I know for a fact that my retirement was not. miles

You do not have to take it until you are 70.

I think there should be a 200% tax on donuts and pasta in New Jersey and a $100 per pound overweight tax for fatasses in Jersey.

A while back during baby Bush's reign, the GAO ran some #'s and determined S.S. could remain solvent and continue payouts IF the minimum age were raised by 6 months every 3 to 4 yrs.

Come on you guys! I remember Coulter at CPAC: If we don’t run Chris Christie, Romney will be the nominee — and he’ll lose.....

Is Christy your best shot in 2016?

By the way...I am stirring the pot!

**** that fat ****!

My sis (CPA) tells me I can collect and come out ahead when I'm 70 - unless I quit working, and sell the ranch.