ot: we have discussed Social Security before

[eddief]

and when to take it. Today I found this resource that is the best, most in-depth I have ever seen.

If you open up this url and then click on the hyperlink - "delay the start of Social Security benefits" a 52 page pdf comes up. So far, it seems like straight talk, no sales pitch, just good research, facts, common sense:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-smart-strategy-for-collecting-social-security/

Basically, live on your other assets and delay taking SS.

[GregL]

Basically, live on your other assets and delay taking SS.
Sadly, far too few Americans have any other assets to speak of. We're a nation of spenders, not savers...

[Ralph]

Yes......But......if you took your SS at 62, didn't spend any of it, and invested it until you were normal retirement age, then started drawing income from that "pot" plus the SS check, wouldn't you also be better off? of course....that would depend on investment results. And how long you will live.

I think the SS payout is actuarily correct, based on life expecticy, and you really can't beat it. If you live until the tables say you will die, it's all the same. However.....since everyone's financial situation is different, and ability to successfully invest unneeded cash flow is different, and life expectancy is different, what's best for one is not necessarily what's best for someone else.

I took mine early, age 62, and left investments alone. That way, I think I'm ahead. Most of the studies I see don't take into account opportunity costs on investment assets....the cost to you of spending down your assets and not SS.

And.....What if you die before you start collecting at a later age? And never collect from SS anything? That's why....from the SS system's point of view, it's all the same to them and same cost, no matter when you take it. I'm just an old retired stock broker (now called financial advisor), and that's how I look at it. If you're not good at saving and investing, or don't have much savings and investments, you are probably better off waiting as long as you can before taking SS. That way you will get a bigger monthly check for lifetime. And I imagine that's true for most Americans. Good article BTW.

[LouDeeter]

If you are still working at 62, no brainer, don't take it. If not, then the break even point for most people will be about 73-4, therefore, you would get more per month after that, making the delay a good decision long term. But, you could also argue that 1) You won't need as much in your 70s as in your 60s and 2) you do take the risk of not getting it at all. There is also the issue of spousal social security--not only what your spouse can get if you die, but also how much the spouse can get if the primary person dies, but how much they can get if they didn't work enough to qualify for ss themselves. There is a penalty for them to begin at 62 as well. In my case, I am retired and began SS at 62 and my wife began spousal (using my numbers as the base) at 62.

[fuzzalow]

Basically, live on your other assets and delay taking SS.

This advice is supportive of two very basic truisms in matters of money:

Time is money
The advantage in the cumulative effect of compounded returns, or in the case of SS, compounded interest. Warren Buffet has espoused this simplicity to the general investor for many years

The longer that a retiree can delay in drawing down against their investment principal, the longer that principal amount is allowed to work in generating returns in the marketplace.

[oldpotatoe]

If you are still working at 62, no brainer, don't take it. If not, then the break even point for most people will be about 73-4, therefore, you would get more per month after that, making the delay a good decision long term. But, you could also argue that 1) You won't need as much in your 70s as in your 60s and 2) you do take the risk of not getting it at all. There is also the issue of spousal social security--not only what your spouse can get if you die, but also how much the spouse can get if the primary person dies, but how much they can get if they didn't work enough to qualify for ss themselves. There is a penalty for them to begin at 62 as well. In my case, I am retired and began SS at 62 and my wife began spousal (using my numbers as the base) at 62.

I did too and hopefully this won't get locked but I'm not confident the 'next' administration wouldn't screw with the eligibility age or something else about SS and leave me and wife 'in the cold'...so I started it at 62.

[fuzzalow]

I did too and hopefully this won't get locked but I'm not confident the 'next' administration wouldn't screw with the eligibility age or something else about SS and leave me and wife 'in the cold'...so I started it at 62.

Why stoop to fear mongering and baseless speculation? My goodness, short of the unilateral authority over the military as Commander in Chief, anything approaching implementing an insidious change to SS still has to pass Congress. I have no inside track as to the slam dunk on who the 'next administration' is - do you know something we don't?

I'm perplexed as comments like this are most unlike you.

[oldpotatoe]

Why stoop to fear mongering and baseless speculation? My goodness, short of the unilateral authority over the military as Commander in Chief, anything approaching implementing an insidious change to SS still has to pass Congress. I have no inside track as to the slam dunk on who the 'next administration' is - do you know something we don't?

I'm perplexed as comments like this are most unlike you.

Huh??

MY choice and a comment on a bicycle forum..fear mongering? I'll leave that to congress.

Republican Congress and Republican POTUS and who knows what Chris or Rand or Ted might do??

It would be 'simple' to raise the eligibility to say 67 at the stroke of a pen..save $zillion$ instantly, at least that's what the Chamber of Commerce says..

of course there may be some 'unintended conscequences' but hey, it would keep the tea party goin' strong..

[SlackMan]

Huh??

MY choice and a comment on a bicycle forum..fear mongering? I'll leave that to congress.

Republican Congress and Republican POTUS and who knows what Chris or Rand or Ted might do??

It would be 'simple' to raise the eligibility to say 67 at the stroke of a pen..save $zillion$ instantly, at least that's what the Chamber of Commerce says..

of course there may be some 'unintended conscequences' but hey, it would keep the tea party goin' strong..

I'm not sure it matters which party is in power in the future or what the idealogy of future politicians might be. The basic math of Social Security implies that future benefits will have to be much lower in inflation adjusted terms than they are now. And forecasts such as this were done before so many people dropped out of the workforce (see recent employment reports). With fewer people working, there will be less funds paid into the system to support payments for those on Social Security. Or, those working will face an extremely high Social Security tax, which I suspect will cause more to drop out of the workforce or reduce working hours.

As for me, not quite at retirement age, I use a forecast of $0 for Social Security when I do my retirement planning. Any money I do get from Social Security will be a pleasant surprise.

[fuzzalow]

Huh??

MY choice and a comment on a bicycle forum..fear mongering? I'll leave that to congress.

I was not criticizing your choice, I was questioning the reasoning and rationale that brought you to decide on the actions that you took. If your responded emphasis in boldface is indicative of indignation at my comment, with all respect, you had misconstrued.

Republican Congress and Republican POTUS and who knows what Chris or Rand or Ted might do??

The mid-term of 2014 and presidential of 2016 elections haven't happened yet. Those persons, and their agendas, are not foregone conclusions.

It would be 'simple' to raise the eligibility to say 67 at the stroke of a pen..save $zillion$ instantly, at least that's what the Chamber of Commerce says..

of course there may be some 'unintended conscequences' but hey, it would keep the tea party goin' strong..

Well, to speak brass tacks for a moment: The one voting block that will not get screwed is the senior citizen and the major government entitlements that most impact them: Medicare and Social Security. Because senior citizens VOTE. Every other voting age demographic, it seems, is disaffected or can't be bothered to VOTE. So I do not believe that it is possible to screw over and railroad payout structures of SS or Medicare over the backs od Seniors by the simple stroke of a pen. Because at time of election or re-election, there indeed will be consequences.

The Chamber of Commerce is a lobbying group. I don't know or stay current with any of their views, writings or agendas.

[zap]

Yes......But......if you took your SS at 62, didn't spend any of it, and invested it until you were normal retirement age, then started drawing income from that "pot" plus the SS check, wouldn't you also be better off? ? le BTW.

Doubtful that you would be better off versus delaying unless you are a better investor than Warren Buffet. This of course assumes you live into your 80's.

What you can do is collect SS then pay it back to get a nice bump up in monthly payments.

[oldpotatoe]

I'm not sure it matters which party is in power in the future or what the idealogy of future politicians might be. The basic math of Social Security implies that future benefits will have to be much lower in inflation adjusted terms than they are now. And forecasts such as this were done before so many people dropped out of the workforce (see recent employment reports). With fewer people working, there will be less funds paid into the system to support payments for those on Social Security. Or, those working will face an extremely high Social Security tax, which I suspect will cause more to drop out of the workforce or reduce working hours.

As for me, not quite at retirement age, I use a forecast of $0 for Social Security when I do my retirement planning. Any money I do get from Social Security will be a pleasant surprise.

Me too. SS is gravy to me.

Everybody has their own reasons when it comes to SS. But benefits will have to be reduced if the system is to survive. I just wanted to be grandfathered up front. No telling what's gonna happen in 2014 and 2016... Got an idea but we'll see. I am not optimistic about 2014 through 2020....

[redir]

I'm not sure it matters which party is in power in the future or what the idealogy of future politicians might be. The basic math of Social Security implies that future benefits will have to be much lower in inflation adjusted terms than they are now. And forecasts such as this were done before so many people dropped out of the workforce (see recent employment reports). With fewer people working, there will be less funds paid into the system to support payments for those on Social Security. Or, those working will face an extremely high Social Security tax, which I suspect will cause more to drop out of the workforce or reduce working hours.

As for me, not quite at retirement age, I use a forecast of $0 for Social Security when I do my retirement planning. Any money I do get from Social Security will be a pleasant surprise.

But a lot of the Boomers will be on their way out too so that leaves a bit of a void. I agree with your last statement. No doubt about it, it will just be bonus money.

[Ralph]

Doubtful that you would be better off versus delaying unless you are a better investor than Warren Buffet. This of course assumes you live into your 80's.

What you can do is collect SS then pay it back to get a nice bump up in monthly payments.

Well....if you took, say, about $1700/month at age 62, and invested that until about age 67. that would be a little over $100,000 plus what you made on it over a 120 month time frame. Then with drew around $400-500 per month from that pot, plus your SS check, you would be better off a long long time, probably forever.... increasing income over time, VS waiting and taking a bigger SS check. And what if you die without ever collecting anything while waiting? In this example, you would have something to leave to heirs. And BTW.....You can give the money to Buffet to invest for you. Just buy some of his shares. I own some....the B shares. Great long term return. But like I said above....without the investing effect, the SS system has it figured out so it doesn't matter to them spread out over millions of people how you do it.

And sure.....you can take the check at 62 for a few years, then pay SS back, and get a bump up in check size. But that has a cost also. In above example you w/b giving up, after collecting for 5 years, $100,000 or so, plus the income on $100,000 or so.... forever. Just to get a bigger monthly check until death. How does that make sense, and yet I hear about doing that all the time.

[jlyon]

And sure.....you can take the check at 62 for a few years, then pay SS back, and get a bump up in check size.


They have already closed this loophole.

[Mr. Pink]

But benefits will have to be reduced if the system is to survive.

You've been hoodwinked into believing that. SS is fine. OK, it will get a bit overloaded as the Boomers start using it for the next few decades, but, even then, things will heal around 2035-40. Maybe a tweak or two will help things, especially raising the income ceiling from around 110,000, where it is now. That figure has become quite antiquated in these days of the mega rich. Medicare is the problem. Ever rising medical and drug costs are making for a pretty scary future there. SS costs are fixed. They're pretty simple, and we're pretty well prepared for it. Don't lump the two together.

I'm going to collect at 62, which is a seven months away. I will also stop working, because it's almost impossible to collect early (pre 66 for me) without having to suspend SS payments while working. After that, it really becomes gravy, due to no income restrictions. If I make no money as an employee, I will have made 80,000 in those four years. If I don't collect, I will have to make it to 73 to break even on that sum with the higher payment. I'll take the money now. And, if I do decide to work, or open a business (both real possibilities), I will be prorated those years I had to suspend payments for the higher rate at 66. Pretty much a no brainer, to me.

This issue came up in the WSJ a week or two ago (as it does often in financial periodicals). I'm too lazy to search. I loved a response in the comment section. The fellow basically said, hey, I'm happy I took the money early, and traveled the world, and then went on to list the places he visited. Now that he was 72, and really slowing down and hurting, he knew that he couldn't be as active from then on. That's my philosophy. The most valuable asset I have is time, and, sad to say, there is only so much I have left. I will enjoy biking in Europe and skiing in the Rockies now, because I very well may not be doing that much at 75. or even earlier. My right knee is failing, slowly.

I watched a very good friend die at 63 of complications from colon cancer last year after four miserable years. He was still working. I biked to the top of Mt. Evans with him in '03. I am not going to work all my life and then die before I bike Tuscany and travel in Europe.

[redir]

You've been hoodwinked into believing that. SS is fine. OK, it will get a bit overloaded as the Boomers start using it for the next few decades, but, even then, things will heal around 2035-40. Maybe a tweak or two will help things, especially raising the income ceiling from around 110,000, where it is now. That figure has become quite antiquated in these days of the mega rich. Medicare is the problem. Ever rising medical and drug costs are making for a pretty scary future there. SS costs are fixed. They're pretty simple, and we're pretty well prepared for it. Don't lump the two together.

I'm going to collect at 62, which is a seven months away. I will also stop working, because it's almost impossible to collect early (pre 66 for me) without having to suspend SS payments while working. After that, it really becomes gravy, due to no income restrictions. If I make no money as an employee, I will have made 80,000 in those four years. If I don't collect, I will have to make it to 73 to break even on that sum with the higher payment. I'll take the money now. And, if I do decide to work, or open a business (both real possibilities), I will be prorated those years I had to suspend payments for the higher rate at 66. Pretty much a no brainer, to me.

This issue came up in the WSJ a week or two ago (as it does often in financial periodicals). I'm too lazy to search. I loved a response in the comment section. The fellow basically said, hey, I'm happy I took the money early, and traveled the world, and then went on to list the places he visited. Now that he was 72, and really slowing down and hurting, he knew that he couldn't be as active from then on. That's my philosophy. The most valuable asset I have is time, and, sad to say, there is only so much I have left. I will enjoy biking in Europe and skiing in the Rockies now, because I very well may not be doing that much at 75. or even earlier. My right knee is failing, slowly.

I watched a very good friend die at 63 of complications from colon cancer last year after four miserable years. He was still working. I biked to the top of Mt. Evans with him in '03. I am not going to work all my life and then die before I bike Tuscany and travel in Europe.

Old Blue Grass song that goes, "You can have all the money in this old world but ya can't take it to your grave."

[SlackMan]

You've been hoodwinked into believing that. SS is fine.

Perhaps someone is being hoodwinked, but it seems there is a pretty strong case for future insolvency and/or the need for much higher future taxes that will have the effect of making some stop working or work less:

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/solvency/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ed-lorenzen/five-facts-you-should-kno_b_4567735.html

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/05/another-way-to-do-the-math-for-social-security-reform/

[Mr. Pink]

There are an awful lot of people who have talked down SS from day one, when FDR passed it through congress, on simple ideological grounds. They want to convince most that it is an entitlement program, when it is actually a massive publicly funded annuity. Sure, there are issues, but hardly enough to support the doomsayers. Like I said, raise some income limits, maybe add half point to the contribution, and fool around with the CPI numbers that the COLA is based on. Really, not much of a problem.

I'm trying not to make this a political thread, but, that's hard. There are some of our fearless leaders who despise the notion of SS or any other so called entitlement, and are cynically trying to convince the public that we need to "reform" the program, even telling them that present oldsters will not have their benefits affected, therefore turning the oldest voting bloc, who vote a lot, against the just younger and beyond voters. It's unpleasant to watch, because it exposes the ignorance of most who vote, and, anyway, most Boomers will be living on SS as a primary source of income. Half as the ONLY source of income. Some say we should actually raise benefits. I agree, means tested. There is going to be a lot of old, poor people in this country soon.

[redir]

Well said Mr. Pink.

[Pete Mckeon]

Gets SS taxed in many ways. If You were lucky to get pensions from large companies(which is Income on 1040 and affects monthly Medicare payments from what I saw in last years taxes)

AND / or also have money coming out of IRA and or 401K
These are all taxable Income additionally that affect taxabillity and Medicare also


Additionally in your 1098 SSA. Line 1 is your SS annual gross amount, line two is deductions from SS FOR mandatory Medicare at 65

And line on bottom Is net SS you get x12 for monthly payments--but you are listed as gross amt for income tax purpose.if you are 65 (so they get some funds back on your SS and also tax it again and also up your Medicare costs


AND they ( President team) has floated a change in how CPI is calculated(again) to save more future $$. For amount does not go up as fast and thus cost to GVT IS LESS.

Many countries have wanted to play with age to limit their cost

Summary- If you are very poor or very rich these changes affect you less because of formulas. Bet you a bottle of red wine that this is not going to get more generous in the next 10 years.


I do not want a battle among us. Hope you never experience a negative in benefits, but Fed is always in need of more money

Each year you wait to start SS it grows about 8% per year
-----------------------------------------------------

Additionally, Last published year figures that were in press shows USA population is comprised of about 50%!do not pay taxes and of that 50%! Almost half of them get $$ from GVT.

Take that and add what corporations are trying to pay less taxes.... we are going to have some "quite exciting" times








I was not criticizing your choice, I was questioning the reasoning and rationale that brought you to decide on the actions that you took. If your responded emphasis in boldface is indicative of indignation at my comment, with all respect, you had misconstrued.



The mid-term of 2014 and presidential of 2016 elections haven't happened yet. Those persons, and their agendas, are not foregone conclusions.



Well, to speak brass tacks for a moment: The one voting block that will not get screwed is the senior citizen and the major government entitlements that most impact them: Medicare and Social Security. Because senior citizens VOTE. Every other voting age demographic, it seems, is disaffected or can't be bothered to VOTE. So I do not believe that it is possible to screw over and railroad payout structures of SS or Medicare over the backs od Seniors by the simple stroke of a pen. Because at time of election or re-election, there indeed will be consequences.

The Chamber of Commerce is a lobbying group. I don't know or stay current with any of their views, writings or agendas.

[LesMiner]

So many financial debacles over the last 50 years. Late 60's into the 70's it was run away inflation. It was to become so bad that a phone call from a pay phone would cost a month's average salary! So that did not happen, we don't have pay phones any more.

Stagflation going into the 80's meant no matter what you do you will never get ahead and all the bad stuff about SS and Medicare began. How did anyone survive that? We did anyway.

Regeanomics was going to fix everything. Rasied the national speed limit to 70 mph. Boy did that feel good. Supply side economics was the big new theory to save us all. But oops a stock market crash in 1987.

The good old boys were going to take of us, "kinder and gentler". Another oops, the good old boys gave free money to each other and crashed the savings and loan banks. FDIC bailout, whew!

Remember Japan Inc? Iacocca says Japan does not play fair. The Japanese Prime Minister responds with "I am so sorry that you have low productivity and poor quality". So where has the Japanese economy been since then? One big long recession.

How about the downsizing fever in the 90's? One CEO to another "hey when are you going downsize. You can make a bundle of money instantly just cut the payroll in half, everyone is doing it, its OK" That is where a lot of retirement savings went. But before the end of the decade people made big returns on the stock market, even little investors.

The new millennia comes and the dotcoms fall all over. They become worthless over night. Most notable is Enron. Enron employees have all their retirement savings in Enron stock that becomes worhtless. Doom and gloom over SS and Medicare is out there.

In the 2000's people see their 401K gains go to losses. Most people lose 15% or more because of the dotcoms. They do not see any catch up until 2010 when the stimulus takes hold. So they basically lost 10 years worth of returns on their retirement investments. Underwater mortgages, kids in college, job loss, etc. takes its toll on retirement savings. So now everyone fears they will out live their retirement saviings.

Not long ago US business could get to low Chinese labor fast enough. They all went after it as fast as possible stumbling over each other in the process. Did not take long for Chinese labor to go up. US business realizes that there is no real savings in the total cost. Buying all that product then shipping it at the lowest rate to make it affordable only results in owning inventory in a shipment for 6 weeks or more. Demand chages faster so then what? A loss because they have the wrong product to meet the demand. Now an amazing revelation, manufacturing in the US with much higher productivity! Amazing isn't it?

Maybe the all bad SS and Medicare stuff will happen or maybe not. The only thing you can count on is change, whatever is going on will change. Life will always find a way.

[eddief]

person went to jail 2008-2014. Oh my gosh, there's not enough money to take care of SS. Where did it all go? Maybe means testing of some sort is a reasonable place to start.

So many financial debacles over the last 50 years. Late 60's into the 70's it was run away inflation. It was to become so bad that a phone call from a pay phone would cost a month's average salary! So that did not happen, we don't have pay phones any more.

Stagflation going into the 80's meant no matter what you do you will never get ahead and all the bad stuff about SS and Medicare began. How did anyone survive that? We did anyway.

Regeanomics was going to fix everything. Rasied the national speed limit to 70 mph. Boy did that feel good. Supply side economics was the big new theory to save us all. But oops a stock market crash in 1987.

The good old boys were going to take of us, "kinder and gentler". Another oops, the good old boys gave free money to each other and crashed the savings and loan banks. FDIC bailout, whew!

Remember Japan Inc? Iacocca says Japan does not play fair. The Japanese Prime Minister responds with "I am so sorry that you have low productivity and poor quality". So where has the Japanese economy been since then? One big long recession.

How about the downsizing fever in the 90's? One CEO to another "hey when are you going downsize. You can make a bundle of money instantly just cut the payroll in half, everyone is doing it, its OK" That is where a lot of retirement savings went. But before the end of the decade people made big returns on the stock market, even little investors.

The new millennia comes and the dotcoms fall all over. They become worthless over night. Most notable is Enron. Enron employees have all their retirement savings in Enron stock that becomes worhtless. Doom and gloom over SS and Medicare is out there.

In the 2000's people see their 401K gains go to losses. Most people lose 15% or more because of the dotcoms. They do not see any catch up until 2010 when the stimulus takes hold. So they basically lost 10 years worth of returns on their retirement investments. Underwater mortgages, kids in college, job loss, etc. takes its toll on retirement savings. So now everyone fears they will out live their retirement saviings.

Not long ago US business could get to low Chinese labor fast enough. They all went after it as fast as possible stumbling over each other in the process. Did not take long for Chinese labor to go up. US business realizes that there is no real savings in the total cost. Buying all that product then shipping it at the lowest rate to make it affordable only results in owning inventory in a shipment for 6 weeks or more. Demand chages faster so then what? A loss because they have the wrong product to meet the demand. Now an amazing revelation, manufacturing in the US with much higher productivity! Amazing isn't it?

Maybe the all bad SS and Medicare stuff will happen or maybe not. The only thing you can count on is change, whatever is going on will change. Life will always find a way.

[Ralph]

For people in the accumulation phase of their lives, the extreme stock market corrections of the past were a blessing. Those who understand how investing works continued to fund their retirement plans, but were buying investments at half price, or getting twice as much, for their money. Now those same markets are all time highs, and those investments purchased in winter of 08-09, etc, are way up. Those who don't understand investing, stopped, and now are beginning to invest again....at the top. Doomed to lose again.

The people who got hurt in the past investment collapses were us retired folks, who had to continue spending, sometimes principal, from assets at low prices. We are in the distribution phase of our assets, (no real way to make the money back) a totally different thing from being in the accumulation phase like some of you young guys.

Remember, investment volatility is your friend in the accumulation phase of your lives. Dollar cost averaging works for you, not against you like it does us retired folks. And please turn Fox news off. Go get some accurate info.

[93legendti]

Lots of funny stuff here...:D

[Web1111a]

The issue with ss is that the money that is in collected from payroll taxes is not actually in your personal account

Also the real returns are very low.

[Fatty]

Yes......But......if you took your SS at 62, didn't spend any of it, and invested it until you were normal retirement age, then started drawing income from that "pot" plus the SS check, wouldn't you also be better off? of course....that would depend on investment results. And how long you will live.

I think the SS payout is actuarily correct, based on life expecticy, and you really can't beat it. If you live until the tables say you will die, it's all the same. However.....since everyone's financial situation is different, and ability to successfully invest unneeded cash flow is different, and life expectancy is different, what's best for one is not necessarily what's best for someone else.

I took mine early, age 62, and left investments alone. That way, I think I'm ahead. Most of the studies I see don't take into account opportunity costs on investment assets....the cost to you of spending down your assets and not SS.

And.....What if you die before you start collecting at a later age? And never collect from SS anything? That's why....from the SS system's point of view, it's all the same to them and same cost, no matter when you take it. I'm just an old retired stock broker (now called financial advisor), and that's how I look at it. If you're not good at saving and investing, or don't have much savings and investments, you are probably better off waiting as long as you can before taking SS. That way you will get a bigger monthly check for lifetime. And I imagine that's true for most Americans. Good article BTW.

That sums it up, for me anyway. Everyones situation is different, but you better believe I will be drawing my SS at 62. If I can. By then I would not be suprised to see the minimum age raised up a couple three years. I think it was Mark Twain who said " No mans money is safe while congress is in session.

[shovelhd]

Lots of funny stuff here...:D

Lots of liberal agenda here. Why is this always allowed to continue? As soon as someone mentions Fox News the thread should be locked. It's going nowhere once the soapbox comes out.

[gasman]

Let's keep it non-political. There is some good info in the OP link. We don't know what is going to happen to SS just like we don't know who will win the Giro but we all have our opinions. Maybe we should just keep them to ourselves unless there are constructive comments.

[zmudshark]

Lots of liberal agenda here. Why is this always allowed to continue? As soon as someone mentions Fox News the thread should be locked. It's going nowhere once the soapbox comes out.
Lot's of reality based thoughts here.

I, like many others here, opted to take my SS at 62. Because I invested wisely, and have dividend paying stocks, and worked hard all my life and have a small pension, much of that income is taxable.
I'm not a rich man, but I don't worry too much about paying bills. We clip coupons, shop frugally (all my clothes are pre-owned, except socks and undies, and a pair of Costco jeans).

I also ride a road bike a fair amount. I may live to be 100, or some texting twink could kill me tomorrow (I swerved out of her privileged way today).

If I didn't take my SS at 62, I'm pretty sure my wife couldn't get it until she was eligible (don't know, I'm not a smart man), but now she could get survivor's benefits if I met an early demise.

Everyone has different situations, and to say some are 'liberal' like it's a dirty word, or 'conservative', like it's a dirtier word is ridiculous. If I knew I was going to live to be 100, like my grandfather, I would have waited to collect. Unfortunately, I don't know, and I ride a bicycle almost daily on roads that put me at a serious disadvantage, so I took mine at age 62.

I could be wrong, but I'm getting used to being wrong, so it doesn't really bother me. Paying taxes doesn't bother me, either. I like what they give me, though in the last 10 years I think my return on investment has diminished a bit. It's almost like something/someone has rigged the game to make me a sucker for paying my fair share of the burden. Tax the rich more, and give the poor more would be my solution, but that might stay too far in politics for some.

Just to make sure this thread gets locked, screw that Clive Bundy moocher and his insurrectionists.

On a positive note, I had a great ride today with some friends, and even set a PR on the top of an easy climb. I was 10 years+ older than any of them, on my trust De Rosa Primato, and left them all gasping. Also a tip of the hat to the really rich people of Paradise Valley, AZ, who somehow get their already great roads repaved every few years. Thank you for that. That's what I call a ROI.

[/rant]

[gasman]

And we're done.