Is there any distinction between if you’re receiving wages/salary and being self-employed? Some material I read implied that if you were self-employed, there were some qualifications on whether you could be considered “retired.”
I reach my full retirement age (66) in September of next year. I haven’t taken Social Security yet because of the reduction in benefits based on how much you earn. However, it’s my understanding that if I take Social Security starting in the calendar year I turn 66, my benefits won’t be reduced as long as I don’t earn over a certain limit before my birthday. Do you know anything about this?
So do I , but I think that Really Not All That Bright’s point is there are few , if any non-government jobs where you would run into the pension offset as nearly all other employment requires SS contributions.
You reach full retirement age in September next year. If you defer collecting your SS, your benefits will increase 5/9 of 1% for each month of deferral. (Likewise, if you take early retirement, your benefits are reduced by 5/9 of 1% for each month of early retirement – not 8% a year as previously posted. That would have come to a 20% reduction if you retired at age 62 - the earliest - when full retirement age was 65.) Once you reach full retirement age, you can earn as much as you want without penalty, and that includes self-employment.
To correct a previous post, if you receive benefits because of disability it means that you are unable to engage in substantial gainful activity. However, you are entitled to a trial work period in which there is no limit to earnings. IIRC, this twp is 9 months, but is unavailable if you had a prior period of disability.
Actually Social Security was running a cashflow surplus (that is revenues exceeded payouts) until 2010. So some of that money was saved for her in the Social Security Trust Fund.
I don’t know at what point SS stopped running a surplus on an accrual basis with revenues exceeding the present value of future payments. I’m not sure that it ever did, but I suspect so as the tax was collected for a few years before the first benefits were ever paid.
Was Jinx’s money saved? Not really. The part needed for social security payouts was spent immediately. The rest, the so-called SS surplus, was immediately spent on something else like roads or military or … and an IOU substituted for the money. But in one half-assed sense you’re right it was “saved.”
Was Jinx’s money saved for Jinx specifically? No, not even a tiny smidgen. Not ever.
Everyone’s money goes into a giant pot and everyone’s checks come out of a giant pot. In no sense are you getting “your” money back. You’re not getting your money plus interest either.
Recipients receive other people’s money according to a formula in a law. Meanwhile taxpayers pay towards those other people according to a different formula in a different law.
It’s nice when the two laws and the demographics fit together properly so there’s enough for everyone over time. But there’s no guarantee that’ll be true and in fact it isn’t. We’re still in the era when it still works, but the problem is looming. Very soon something must change. We can change a little bit soon, wait and make bigger changes later, or we can close our eyes and go straight ahead until we hit the iceberg head on at full speed.
This is known as the “Windfall Elimination Provision.”
What used to happen is that workers who earned a pension from a job that was exempt from Social Security would retire and take a part time job (or take a second part time job while working their main job) and earn the bare minimum amount at the second job to qualify for Social Security benefits. Social Security benefit amounts are skewed towards low-income earners, so they would appear to be low-income earners and receive a nice second pension for very little effort.
The Windfall Elimination Provision is meant to adjust for the fact that they were actually not low-income earners, just that their wages from jobs covered by Social Security were low.
they take out 1 dollar for every 3 you earned over 15 k and it goes up from there
until you are 66
My aunt is involved with the California ihss program and thats that they were taking out of hers and they will do it until the exact day you retire … but with her the rules have changed since the courts say if you live with the relative you take care of its not an official job … she dosent even have ot file taxes anymore …
Do you have a checking account? Because most of that money is gone too, and they keep just enough of everyone’s money around to pay the ones who want some of it today.
A Ponzi scheme is fraudulent to the extent that the underlying business case for investments is purported to be the source of profits, but does not actually exist, instead relying on new investors to pay big returns to early investors.
The business case for Social Security is freely available for everyone to read, so there is no misrepresentation. Nobody is promised big returns, which is in fact a criticism of the system by some. And Social Security, with some tweaks in the past, has and is expected to remain solvent for about a century (from its inception to a couple decades from now), and with some further tweaks would remain solvent for decades more.
I really urge you to consider whether insurance policies are a Ponzi scheme - your car insurance, home insurance, life insurance, whatever. They really do operate on the same principles.
It really comes down to how you define what you do. If you get a W2 you’re sure going to trigger it. A 1099 may or may not depending on how your accountant sets up your return.
Prior to full retirement age (FRA): for 2016 you can earn $15,720 without penalty. After that you lose 1 in SS for every $2 you earn above the cap.
During your FRA year it’s $41,880 with a penalty of $1 for every $3 above the cap.
At and beyond FRA there’s no limit and no penalty.
If you retire mid-year of your FRA and are above the limit you may have the ability to use a monthly calculation to avoid penalty. But that’s not locked in stone.
No. Net self-employment income is treated identically to wages or salary from an employer for the purposes of SS benefit reduction. I defer to JC on how earnings in your retirement year affect your benefits.
The 14th Amendment does not apply here. Uncle Sam can write as many IOU notes saying “I owe Uncle Sam one billion dollars, signed Uncle Sam.” and it is complete financial malarkey. A note from an entity to itself is just a worthless piece of paper. It is not an asset, it is not a debt. It’s just political shenanigans. It is astonishing how many people fall for this stupid trick.
That is incorrect. The paper issued is a debt of the United States. Those are constitutionally guaranteed. The 14th Amendment doesn’t make an exception for one arm of the government holding lawfully issued debt to another arm of the government.
It isn’t a stupid trick, it’s the law. And it is pretty straightforward.