Democrat says we're going bankrupt...
in [Design]
|
From: JosephKK on 25 Jul 2010 03:00 On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:41:44 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden <wrongaddress(a)att.net> wrote: >On Jul 23, 9:29�pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:44:29 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Jul 23, 3:27�pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >> ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:42:25 -0500, Jim Yanik <jya...(a)abuse.gov> wrote: >> >> >Robert Baer <robertb...(a)localnet.com> wrote in >> >> >news:Y_KdnfKH0b5L3dTRnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d(a)posted.localnet: >> <SNIP> > >First thing to consider is LOST benefits from waiting past age 62 to >age 66 or 48K at 1K per month. Next question is how long do you need >to live to get that back at increased rates? Do some math and it's >about age 88. By the way Bill, it is not always about absolute dollars, but instead about cashflow. If it takes X dollars per month to keep your head above water, you may defer retirement past age 72 to get maximum monthly income instead. > >And full retirement is anything from age 62 to 70, it's all on a >scale, so every month you wait adds a little more, and costs you a >thousand dollars. Hope you live to 88. I expect to see 90+ myself. Nor do i find it unlikely to hit triple digits. > >http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10070.html > >"You delay your retirement past your full retirement age. Social >Security benefits are increased by a certain percentage (depending on >your date of birth) if you delay receiving benefits until past your >full retirement age. If you do so, your benefit amount will be >increased until you start taking benefits or you reach age 70." > >-Bill
From: Jim Thompson on 25 Jul 2010 12:55 On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 00:00:29 -0700, "JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:41:44 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden ><wrongaddress(a)att.net> wrote: > >>On Jul 23, 9:29�pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:44:29 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >On Jul 23, 3:27�pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>> ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>> >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:42:25 -0500, Jim Yanik <jya...(a)abuse.gov> wrote: >>> >> >Robert Baer <robertb...(a)localnet.com> wrote in >>> >> >news:Y_KdnfKH0b5L3dTRnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d(a)posted.localnet: >>> ><SNIP> >> >>First thing to consider is LOST benefits from waiting past age 62 to >>age 66 or 48K at 1K per month. Next question is how long do you need >>to live to get that back at increased rates? Do some math and it's >>about age 88. > >By the way Bill, it is not always about absolute dollars, but instead >about cashflow. If it takes X dollars per month to keep your head >above water, you may defer retirement past age 72 to get maximum >monthly income instead. >> >>And full retirement is anything from age 62 to 70, it's all on a >>scale, so every month you wait adds a little more, and costs you a >>thousand dollars. Hope you live to 88. > >I expect to see 90+ myself. Nor do i find it unlikely to hit triple >digits. >> >>http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10070.html >> >>"You delay your retirement past your full retirement age. Social >>Security benefits are increased by a certain percentage (depending on >>your date of birth) if you delay receiving benefits until past your >>full retirement age. If you do so, your benefit amount will be >>increased until you start taking benefits or you reach age 70." >> >>-Bill Run the actual numbers. I did. As I approached 65 I looked at the Social Security payout versus retire now or delay to 70. Retiring at 70 took *8* years to catch up to the total take if I retired at 65. Who know if you'll really live that long? You never know when that big event will reach out and get you. For example, Friday night, in my office (organized as piles of paper and boxes on the floor :) I stepped over a pile onto a piece of paper, slipping, folding up my left leg like it's never been folded before, and, as my wife observed, my head missing my solid oak desk by a fraction of an inch as I hit the floor :-( I'm in pain, but think I'm OK. Remember my father fell off a pickup truck while trying to unload a snow blower by himself, but lived quite a few years after that ;-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Spice is like a sports car... Only as good as the person behind the wheel.
From: JosephKK on 26 Jul 2010 01:12 On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 09:55:43 -0700, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon(a)On-My-Web-Site.com> wrote: >On Sun, 25 Jul 2010 00:00:29 -0700, >"JosephKK"<quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 23:41:44 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden >><wrongaddress(a)att.net> wrote: >> >>>On Jul 23, 9:29�pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 20:44:29 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >On Jul 23, 3:27�pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >>>> ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >>>> >> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:42:25 -0500, Jim Yanik <jya...(a)abuse.gov> wrote: >>>> >> >Robert Baer <robertb...(a)localnet.com> wrote in >>>> >> >news:Y_KdnfKH0b5L3dTRnZ2dnUVZ_hSdnZ2d(a)posted.localnet: >>>> >><SNIP> >>> >>>First thing to consider is LOST benefits from waiting past age 62 to >>>age 66 or 48K at 1K per month. Next question is how long do you need >>>to live to get that back at increased rates? Do some math and it's >>>about age 88. >> >>By the way Bill, it is not always about absolute dollars, but instead >>about cashflow. If it takes X dollars per month to keep your head >>above water, you may defer retirement past age 72 to get maximum >>monthly income instead. >>> >>>And full retirement is anything from age 62 to 70, it's all on a >>>scale, so every month you wait adds a little more, and costs you a >>>thousand dollars. Hope you live to 88. >> >>I expect to see 90+ myself. Nor do i find it unlikely to hit triple >>digits. >>> >>>http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10070.html >>> >>>"You delay your retirement past your full retirement age. Social >>>Security benefits are increased by a certain percentage (depending on >>>your date of birth) if you delay receiving benefits until past your >>>full retirement age. If you do so, your benefit amount will be >>>increased until you start taking benefits or you reach age 70." >>> >>>-Bill > >Run the actual numbers. I did. As I approached 65 I looked at the >Social Security payout versus retire now or delay to 70. Retiring at >70 took *8* years to catch up to the total take if I retired at 65. >Who know if you'll really live that long? > >You never know when that big event will reach out and get you. > >For example, Friday night, in my office (organized as piles of paper >and boxes on the floor :) I stepped over a pile onto a piece of paper, >slipping, folding up my left leg like it's never been folded before, >and, as my wife observed, my head missing my solid oak desk by a >fraction of an inch as I hit the floor :-( > >I'm in pain, but think I'm OK. Remember my father fell off a pickup >truck while trying to unload a snow blower by himself, but lived quite >a few years after that ;-) > > ...Jim Thompson What a coincidence. I have been updating my retiremement spreadsheet these past few days. With SSI and Medicare in disarray and the difficulties of quantifying Ombummercare correctly it is distinctly messy.
From: Greegor on 26 Jul 2010 21:44 On Jul 26, 7:26 pm, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> wrote: > Yes, but it doesn't define what full retirement age means. In other > words, what is the advantage of taking benefits at say age 65.5 verses > age 64.5? > > I wrote a little basic calculator to illustrate the time needed to > recover lost benefits from postponing retirement past age 62 to age > 70. My statement says I would get about 82% more at age 70 verses 62, > so it works out to about 12 years at 5% investment rates. But there > are other variables such as COLA increases, and additional payments > into the system from working to age 70. It's not a simple problem, so > it might take 20 years to break even considering all details. I don't > know of any source that will factor the details. I don't think the > Feds want us to know. If you request one they will send out a letter that says how much you get at various points. That printout would help a bit with planning. > cls > Principal=1 > Age62 = 1000 : Rem early retirement payment > Age70 = 1830 : Rem 83% increased payment at age 70 > Rate = .05 > For Year=1 to 8 > For Month=1 to 12 > Principal = Principal + Age62 + ((Principal*Rate)/12) > Next Month > Next Year > Difference = Age70-Age62 > RecoveryYears = (Principal/Difference)/12 > Print "Years to break even is"; RecoveryYears > > Rem 11.82 years to break even at age 82 assuming 5% investment return. > > -Bill
From: Jim Thompson on 26 Jul 2010 21:57
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:44:10 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greegor47(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 26, 7:26�pm, Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> wrote: >> Yes, but it doesn't define what full retirement age means. In other >> words, what is the advantage of taking benefits at say age 65.5 verses >> age 64.5? >> >> I wrote a little basic calculator to illustrate the time needed to >> recover lost benefits from postponing retirement past age 62 to age >> 70. My statement says I would get about 82% more at age 70 verses 62, >> so it works out to about 12 years at 5% investment rates. But there >> are other variables such as COLA increases, and additional payments >> into the system from working to age 70. It's not a simple problem, so >> it might take 20 years to break even considering all details. I don't >> know of any source that will factor the details. I don't think the >> Feds want us to know. > >If you request one they will send out a letter that says >how much you get at various points. >That printout would help a bit with planning. > >> cls >> Principal=1 >> Age62 = 1000 �: Rem early retirement payment >> Age70 = 1830 �: Rem 83% increased payment at age 70 >> Rate = .05 >> For Year=1 to 8 >> For Month=1 to 12 >> Principal = Principal + Age62 + ((Principal*Rate)/12) >> Next Month >> Next Year >> Difference = Age70-Age62 >> RecoveryYears = (Principal/Difference)/12 >> Print "Years to break even is"; RecoveryYears >> >> Rem 11.82 years to break even at age 82 assuming 5% investment return. >> >> -Bill Make no assumptions when it comes to SS. They do funny guv'ment math. From their very own tables 70 vs 65 gave more per annum, but it took ~8 years to break even with what you would receive starting at 65. Unless you live at Mayo clinic, predicting your longevity is pretty iffy :-) ...Jim Thompson -- | James E.Thompson, CTO | mens | | Analog Innovations, Inc. | et | | Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus | | Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | | | Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat | | E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 | Spice is like a sports car... Performance only as good as the person behind the wheel. |