Social Security Benefits

[+ not2rowdy]

Is that once you qualify for the minimum amount of quarters paid in, per the original post?

 

Kevin Slater

 

Maybe an expert will chime in. My understanding it's an "all or nothing" requirement. You must have a minimum of 40 quarterly credits - assuming non-disability.

 

Even a "quarter's worth of credit" can be confusing. A "quarters minimum earning" originally had to be earned during each 3 month (quarter) period. That has changed and now the required amount can be earned at any point during the year.

 

This might be a little out of date but 1 quarter of required earning = $1130. You have to earn 4 quarters ($4520) during the course of the year to to meet the minimum requirements. However, that $4520 can be earned at any point during the year. That was a change made to account for seasonal workers.

 

If I've been successful in causing total confusion this link might help:

http://wealthpilgrim.com/social-security-benefits-eligibility/

 

 

Discussing Social Security without regard to its future is like booking a trip to Paris in December based on today's weather.

 

Kevin Slater

 

Yeah, I understand, but I am concerned opening it up to speculation would quickly evolve into politics and get this thread moved to the Political Forum or locked down. And the target audience wouldn't even see it. Thanks everyone for your inputs so far.

[JT Brooklyn]

Social Security and 20 Somethings or even 30 somethings making 200 or more an Hour with No Taxes Paid and the subject of SocSec?

Most in this Age Group will probably have to wait well over 65 to Collect..for those who make it to the Age Required. How many Thousands never do....

 

I really don't think it's high on their list of things to think about? The SMART ones have day jobs to take care of Old Age. Only AGED Clients have SocSec thoughts being in the 60 or older Age Group. "Working It" has a very short Shelf Life to begin with!

[Bart]

One of the decisions many people started making say 30 years ago was that they should retire at 62 and start taking money sooner and over a lifetime collect more. That is not true on average any more. While retiring at 62 may sound great, unless you have an active life style planned and other solid retirement funds, you have a greater risk of dying earlier and you will probably run out of money. Social Security should be the supplement to your retirement. The bulk of it should be from other sources. For siginificant percentage of us who are still working 66 is the first date people should consider for retirement. If you can hang in there until 70 even better you will maximize the amount you can make out of social security. Retiring early also precludes your spouse and hopefully soon your partner to reduced benefits as well. So even though you may not be in the best of health, it may be better for the partnership if you do work as long as you can.

 

One small little viewpoint so please forgive me. One of the key components here is that early retirment age, simply raising that to 63 and eventually phasing it out would save billions in the system. Just my 2 cents sorry. Now back to the real facts. As Kevin stated earlier, maxing out what you put in your IRA and 401k's is the key to a monetarily speaking non-worrisome retirment. And dont go borrowing and taking money out to buy a car or a home, it is there for your retirement. If you want a home and car than open a damn savings account. 401k's are not savings accounts.

 

To Seaboy, I doubt all what a company pays to Social Security if it was less would be used for such wonderful ideas That is why if there was a phase out of Social Security companies should still be required to put 6.2% into a 401k or IRA or someother saving vehicle and should not be eligible for withdrawal or borrowing against.

[rickp]

Yes.

 

Is that once you qualify for the minimum amount of quarters paid in, per the original post?

 

Kevin Slater