Democrat says we're going bankrupt...
in [Design]
|
From: dagmargoodboat on 26 Jul 2010 22:19 On Jul 26, 8:57 pm, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...(a)On-My- Web-Site.com> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:44:10 -0700 (PDT), Greegor > > > > <greego...(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 :-) This chart reveals the secret to living to 100-- http://www.claimspages.com/documents/docs/4026D.pdf --first live to 99, then you've got two years and change. -- Cheers, James Arthur
From: krw on 27 Jul 2010 18:26 On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden <wrongaddress(a)att.net> wrote: >On Jul 26, 5:41�pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:26:38 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Jul 26, 3:05�pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >> ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: <snip> >> >> BTW, if you go to the social security web site and search on "full retirement >> >> age", you'll find this: >> >> >>http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/14 >> >> >> ...which *clearly* indicates what the SSA thinks is the "full retirement age". >> >> >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? >> >> Can't you *READ*? Obviously not. >> >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. >> >> Are you just trying to hide your idiotic statements with more? > >So, why don't you just tell us the details, since you know so much. I >don't think you can troubleshoot your way out of a wet paper bag, let >alone ss benefits.. The details of your mental problems? There isn't even enough time to repeat what you've said, so far.
From: Bill Bowden on 28 Jul 2010 00:56 On Jul 27, 3:26 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" <k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> > wrote: > > >On Jul 26, 5:41 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > >> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:26:38 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> > >> wrote: > > >> >On Jul 26, 3:05 pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" > >> ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: > > <snip> > > >> >> BTW, if you go to the social security web site and search on "full retirement > >> >> age", you'll find this: > > >> >>http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/14 > > >> >> ...which *clearly* indicates what the SSA thinks is the "full retirement age". > > >> >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? > > >> Can't you *READ*? > > Obviously not. > > >> >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. > > >> Are you just trying to hide your idiotic statements with more? > > >So, why don't you just tell us the details, since you know so much. I > >don't think you can troubleshoot your way out of a wet paper bag, let > >alone ss benefits.. > > The details of your mental problems? There isn't even enough time to repeat > what you've said, so far. My full retirement age is 62, yours may be different. Here's a calculator you might like; http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/quickcalc/early_late.html
From: krw on 28 Jul 2010 18:51 On Tue, 27 Jul 2010 21:56:24 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden <wrongaddress(a)att.net> wrote: >On Jul 27, 3:26�pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:23:39 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> >> wrote: >> >> >On Jul 26, 5:41�pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >> ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:26:38 -0700 (PDT), Bill Bowden <wrongaddr...(a)att.net> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >On Jul 26, 3:05�pm, "k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz" >> >> ><k...(a)att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >> >> >> BTW, if you go to the social security web site and search on "full retirement >> >> >> age", you'll find this: >> >> >> >>http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/14 >> >> >> >> ...which *clearly* indicates what the SSA thinks is the "full retirement age". >> >> >> >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? >> >> >> Can't you *READ*? >> >> Obviously not. >> >> >> >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. >> >> >> Are you just trying to hide your idiotic statements with more? >> >> >So, why don't you just tell us the details, since you know so much. I >> >don't think you can troubleshoot your way out of a wet paper bag, let >> >alone ss benefits.. >> >> The details of your mental problems? �There isn't even enough time to repeat >> what you've said, so far. > >My full retirement age is 62, yours may be different. No, the age *you* retire may be 62. That is *not* what the SSA defines as "full retirement". I "retired" at 54, however the SSA doesn't much care. >Here's a calculator you might like; You don't need a calculator. You need a dictionary, and a brain.
First
|
Prev
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 Prev: Beware the heat Next: MAKE UPTO $5000 MONTHLY! $2000 INYOUR FIRST 30 DAYS! |