The highest, average and lowest Social Security benefits.

[JDPriestly]

The maximum benefit depends on the age a worker chooses to retire. For example, for a worker retiring at age 66 in 2012, the amount is $2,513. This figure is based on earnings at the maximum taxable amount for every year after age 21.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/5/~/maximum-social-security-retirement-benefit

The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the beginning of 2012. This amount changes monthly based upon the total amount of all benefits paid and the total number of people receiving benefits.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/13/~/average-monthly-social-security-benefit-for-a-retired-worker

Minimum:

There is no minimum monthly Social Security benefit amount. For administrative reasons, we will not pay a benefit of less than $1.

http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/254/~/minimum-social-security-retirement-amount

No one is getting rich off Social Security. If you wait until you are 70 and pay the maximum tax your entire working life, you may receive more, but if you have income of over $40,000 per year, you pay a higher tax on your Social Security.

Compare these figures to the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars:

It's a running number rising every second or less. You have to see it to believe it, but it is over $1,430,342,050,000. More than that just for those two wars according to this website.

http://costofwar.com/

Do you really think that Social Security benefits should be cut? Do you think that is where the waste is?

I don't.

By the way, I don't think there are many if any people who earned the maximum subject to Social Security taxes from the age of 21 throughout their life. Especially not today. I'd like to know how many if any recipients qualify for the maximum. Maybe someone who works for a family business. But even that would be pretty impossible. Maybe certain farmers whose families owned a lot of land already when the current retiree turned 21.

[Hestia]

1. The maximum is paid out to 1%ers who, in their thinking, paid into the system and now withdrawal

from it. There has been talk of cutting people off who have X amount of liquid retirement savings. (Can't remember what that limit is now.)

[HiPointDem]

12. no, the maximum is not paid out only to '1 percenters'. and 85% of benefits are *already*

subject to taxation depending on your other income, and have been since reagan.

[hack89]

13. You just need to earn $106,000 to get the max.

that is not the 1%. Many educated professionals will earn that much by the time they get in their 60s.

[JDPriestly]

22. The maximum is paid to those who, SINCE THE AGE OF 21, earned the maximum income subject

to Social Security taxes.

1%ers do not usually pay Social Security taxes for their entire working lives.

Some never have the kind of earned income that is subject to the taxes and therefore receive no Social Security.

Some may have a lower monthly benefit because they earned some money during their lives on which they paid the taxes.

No. Cutting Social Security is aimed at cutting essential, necessary benefits for middle class and poor seniors. The 1% will not be affected by any change to Social Security.

[penndragon69]

2. It's time to stop paying SSI to the rich.

If you don't need it, then you don't deserve it either !!

[spinbaby]

4. That's a tempting thought

But as soon as you start means testing Social Security, it becomes a sort of welfare program and pretty soon they won't pay anything to anyone who has any savings at all, sort of the way they won't pay for nursing-home care until you've run out of money.

[SoCalDem]

5. The appropriate "means testing"

NO CAP on paying IN...and include INVESTMENTS profits too.

I'll gladly pay FICA on my grand dividend from Metropolitan life.. The check was a whopping $4.36

[trackfan]

38. Ha! My Met Life dividend was $5 and change.

I'm really living high off the hog.

[SoCalDem]

39. Wow..aren't YOU the fancy one

State Farm sent us almost $10.00

combine the two and add $20 and we can have a dinner out

[HiPointDem]

11. 85% of benefits are subject to taxation depending on one's other income. It's already

'means-tested' and has been since reagan.

[duffyduff]

19. That's NOT "means testing." You don't even know what it is.

It refers to getting the benefit at all, and it is subject to a person's income or assets.

Social Security retirement benefits are universal--they are NOT "means-tested."

[oldhippie]

40. My Social Security benefit is means tested ......

.... and reduced due to other pension income.

I paid into Social Security for way more than the minimum number of quarters, and at close to the cap for most of those years. Based on those earnings and payments of the payroll tax (FICA) the SS Admin calculated that my Soc Sec monthly benefit upon retirement in 2010 would have been approximately $930 per month.

BUT, because I had retirement income from other Federal employment that was not subject to Soc Sec payments, my Social Security benefit was reduced to an actual amoint of $501 per month. I call that "means testing." Because I had "other means" of receiving some retirement income, my Soc Sec benefit, that I was supposedly "entitled to", by virtue of my contributions while working, was reduced. So Soc Sec retirement benefits are NOT universal. I get less than someone who contributed the same amount under similar circumstances.

Oh yeah, I also pay Fed Income Tax on 85% of that $501 per month.

[Live and Learn]

54. Ahh yes, the government worker penalty

I too am subject to that but alas I won't receive a penny from SS because although I paid into SS as a youth working minimum wage jobs and then again as an adult for years as a local government employee when paying SS was mandatory, they (local government leaders) decided we no longer could pay in to it (so they didn't have to match it) when the option became available to allow government employees (only) that were entitled to a government pension (love that word, "entitled", of course we were entitled since we paid for the pension fund).

And now they are after our pensions and medical benefits as well...

[Peregrine Took]

6. Wouldn't that mean less going into the Fund overall?

If they aren't drawing out they can't be paying in.

[HiPointDem]

10. Social security is *already* means-tested. Up to 85% is subject to income taxes depending

on your other income.

It's a myth that 'the rich' are getting significant benefit from SS.

[duffyduff]

18. It is NOT means-tested, at least on the retirement benefit. Means-testing refers to

the ability to get it at all and it is based on income/assets.

WELFARE programs like Section 8, food stamps, and Medicaid ARE means-tested. The ONLY part of SS that is "means-tested" is Supplemental Security Income, SSI.

That is NOT the retirement benefit.

[HiPointDem]

21. when they tax it away, you don't get it.

[hfojvt]

29. you get most of it

if, first, they only tax 85% of it, and 2nd, they only tax it at the 15% rate or even at the 25 or 28% rate (which would require income over $78,850 for a single person) Even at that rate, only 23.8% of it would be taken away by taxes, leaving about 76% of it. Well, 76% of $2,000 a month is still $18,240 a year, which is a decent chunk of change for most people.

[HiPointDem]

31. assuming this is the hypothetical 'rich' person, I'm assuming it's added on top of their other

income & taxed at the highest marginal rate, e.g.

1 million PLUS $2000 x .85 = $1700 taxable x .33 = $1439, approximately the median payment.

Plus there's plans afoot to make 100% of SS income subject to income tax.

Considering this is taxation of the income bracket that already funds more than a proportional share of SS, it IS means testing.

It doesn't matter that someone else might think $1400/month is just grand. That's irrelevant to the question of whether taxing away the benefit is means testing.

They can't have a benefit (that they've been taxed for) because they make too much money. That's means testing. It's no different than what's done when the government taxes someone to pay for welfare and says they can't receive welfare benefits because they make too much money. The only difference in this case is only part of the benefit is disallowed.

It's also antithetical to the program's original design. Taxation of benefits was a reagan innovation. Before that, benefits weren't subject to income tax.

You want a welfare program, use the income tax to fund it and tax capital too, not just labor.

[hfojvt]

33. In the example you give

they are still keeping 72% of it. As for the tax bringing them close to the median of $1,023 a month. Well, 50% of all people are still below that median, sometimes well below it. My own self, for example according to this report from 2009 will receive $592 a month when I retire at age 62. But that is probably an over-estimate since I plan to stop working at age 55, and thus will not have the seven years of tax payments that $592 is based on.

As for the rich funding more than a proportional share, well, what I figured, basing on 2009 salary, if the money that I and my employer paid in got a 5% return, by 2024, there would be $144,280.76 and that a 5% return on that is $601 a month. Thus, social security pays less than a 5% rate of return even for a low income worker (my income in 2009 was $14,482. Not only does it pay less than a 5 rate of return, but it also does NOT return the principle. Figuring even a 3% rate of return - by the time I am 62 my account would have $98,383,87.

Now, in 2006, when I worked full time, I made $22,924 a year. Based on that projected earnings, that increases my nest egg by $25,000 but only increases my FICA benefit to $656 a month. An extra $64 a month is not a good return on $25,000. Seems to me that most of the working class is paying their own way, irregardless of how much the rich pay into the system.

[HiPointDem]

36. the fact that some of their benefit is taken away because they make too much money = means

test.


your personal financial situation is irrelevant to that FACT.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

41. It's not that simple

A means test would preclude you from receiving the benefit.

Having the benefit be taxable means that some portion of it may (or may not) be paid back in taxes at the end of the year. If a couple in retirement had had medical costs (think nursing home care) their benefit might not be taxed because their total taxable income for the year could be below the filing requirement.

[HiPointDem]

45. it is, actually.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

46. I hope that riposte was intended to be witty...

Because it wasn't particularly intelligent.

[HiPointDem]

47. If a test is performed to determine whether you are eligible for a benefit on the basis of your

income a/o assets, it's a means test.

It's that simple.

[JDPriestly]

49. Another reason that Social Security is not means tested in the way that

say Medicaid or food stamps programs are is that the government wants people to save for retirement no matter what.

If you means-tested Social Security, you would make it attractive for people to give their savings to their children well before they retired and then live off Social Security -- or not save at all knowing that if they didn't even try to save they would be better off than if they did try to save.

It is already a little that way. If you are indigent and quite elderly and disabled, you may be eligible for subsidized household help or meals. If you have saved, you will not qualify for a free housecleaning or certain subsidized meals. Those benefits are not related to Social Security, but supplement it for the very poor.

Social Security is really a great program. It works extremely well and has the right balance. It provides security for the elderly without removing the incentive to save. It should not be changed.

[HiPointDem]

50. Social Security *is* means-tested. And no one is going to give their assets to their children

in order to get Social Security, because the means-testing is such that you can't get anymore by giving up assets than you could by keeping them.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

55. That's not what happens

There is no a priori test to determine if you're eligible. Regardless of your income (Warren Buffett or Warren Buffett's secretary), you'll get the amount as determined by the income calculation.

After the fact, and depending on your total taxable income, you may (or may not) end up paying taxes on a portion of your benefit. BUT YOU RECEIVE THE ENTIRE BENEFIT.

[HiPointDem]

57. AND PART OF IT IS TAKEN AWAY BECAUSE YOU MAKE TOO MUCH MONEY.

[JDPriestly]

48. Really, really rich people do not take their income in a form that is subject

to Social Security taxes and therefore do not become eligible for social Security.

It is not a problem. I know someone who worked all her life. She put money into Social Security but doesn't get much back because of the way that her husband's income and her own income based on her husband's money management result in decreased Social Security benefits for her. I don't know how it works precisely, but that is her explanation for it.

In addition, if you have a teachers' pension in California, you either do not get your Social Security or you don't get all of it. I'm not sure how that works.

Means testing would not save Social Security much money. Too many of the recipients really, really need it.

[trof]

16. Who's gonna say what 'rich' is and decide that you don't 'need' it?

It should be, and originally was, more of a retirement income insurance contract.
You pay whatever amount in premiums over a working life and you draw "X" benefits when you retire, proportional to what you paid in.

[duffyduff]

17. You "means test" it, you kill it

Social Security is not a welfare program, which is means-tested by definition.

SS needs to be universal.

[JDPriestly]

23. SSI only goes to the rich if they worked for a wage or salary or other income that

was subject to Social Security taxes.

The truly rich (which are not known to or seen by most Americans), the top 1%, the trust-fund bums, do not pay Social Security taxes on their dividends and other such income. You get Social Security benefits only if you pay into the system.

If you get rich at a job where you earn wages or a salary, then you might get Social Security benefits, but you will pay taxes on those benefits, and they probably don't mean much to you.

[HiPointDem]

37. ssi = Supplemental security income, a welfare-type program funded out of general revenues,

not social security taxes.

it's administered by the social security administration, but it's not social security.

[aquart]

52. NO!

What a poorly thought out statement.

Not to mention exactly what the Republicans want. Why do you?

[HiPointDem]

53. I doubt the rich are getting any SSI, since it's a welfare program funded by income taxes.

Supplemental Security Income = SSI.

The program is administered by the Social Security Administration, but it's not Social Security.

And if 'the rich' don't get any benefit from Social Security, how long do you think they'll want to pay into it?

One more step toward private accounts. Which have been a failure everywhere they've been used.

Except, of course for the upper middle class & 'the rich'.

The participation & support of 'the rich' is crucial for the financing of the program.

[abelenkpe]

3. K&R nt

[bornskeptic]

20. Social Security benefits are based on the highest 35 years of earnings,

so a person beginning to collect benefits at 66 who had reached the maximum every year since he or she was 31 could qualify for the maximum benefit. It's not necessary that the person would have reached the maximum every year since age 21 to collect the maximum.

[JDPriestly]

25. That statement about 21 and over is from the government's Social Security

website. Please note the link.

[greiner3]

7. As a life long;

Bipolar and Major Depression mentally ill person, I've had my 'ups and downs' concerning my work history.

While I have worked some or all of 38 out of my 56 years, this includes paper routes starting at the age of 11.

I have owned my own Domino's Pizza franchise, been 'technically' homeless and so many degrees of in between.

I am on SSDI and receive $1,700/month.

I owed some from a past 'stint' of SSDI (I got a bit better) and with the Part A and B premiums, see $1,550/month.

I do well enough as I made do with a LOT less for some years and learned to manage pennies.

It was a strange road and now that I am better I am trying to build a legacy for my children/grandchildren.

[JDPriestly]

26. Your benefits are much higher than the average.

Good for you.

[nineteen50]

8. The Empire

has no money for those beyond military utility.

[HiPointDem]

9. The median benefit is $13K.

http://www.pensionrights.org/publications/statistic/income-social-security

[JDPriestly]

27. Sadly, the baby boomers are far less likely to have work-related pensions

than their parents, and yet, now, as those work-related pensions that supplemented Social Security for older generations are phasing out, Obama and the Republicans are threatening to lower Social Security benefits.

If Obama wants to have a legacy with which he can live and not end up like George W. Bush sitting in shame in a Texas suburb, he had best leave Social Security and Medicare alone.

Cutting Social Security for a generation that has already been double-crossed by their employers would be a terrible thing.

Congress and the President need to focus on jobs and ending trade agreements that have cost Americans too many jobs. That's the only way our economy can improve.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

14. Please note women are supposed to be "stay at home moms" in the equation.

[valerief]

15. But, but RICH people get RICHER from wars. That's the most important thing in the world! nt

[cliffordu]

24. I get about seven fitty.

mebbe a little more mebbe a little less.

Weird variations from month to month.

Couple of bucks. don't know why.

[DotGone]

28. I'll be getting $662/month when (if) I retire in 25 years

That'd buy me a loaf of bread and a can of beans

[JDPriestly]

30. It will be less if they use the chained CPI.

And on what you are probably earning, it is next to impossible to save anything.

We really need to raise the cap and never cut Social Security benefits.

If there were lots of jobs for seniors . . . . but there aren't.

[HiPointDem]

32. with 25 years of work life left to go you have no idea what you'll be getting. it depends on

how the rest of your career goes.

[DotGone]

34. What career?

I've spent 40% of my adult life unemployed. If you think the unemployment rate was bad during the height of the recession, look up the unemployment rate for people with Asperger's. Employers do not want people like me.

[HiPointDem]

35. your working career, however defined. regardless of aspergers, you don't know what your SS

benefit will be with 25 years of work life left to go.

[forestpath]

42. K&R

[hobbit709]

43. I get a whopping $938/mo. If it wasn't for my VA medical I'd be dead since my meds would be $800/mo

[ieoeja]

44. Just tried setting up a login at ssa.gov to see my benefits statement.

They have to verify my information with Experian.

What complete nonsense. Social Security Administration has to verify my information with a Credit Reporting Agency? I am pretty certain that CRAs verify their information with SSA, not the other way around!

Of course, I know why they do this. I helped create a loan collection system back in the mid 80s. The 2nd to last step was to report them to a CRA. The last step was to garnish their federal income tax returns. The thing is, once you report someone to a CRA the CRA receives 50% of all collections, even if the CRA had nothing to do with the collection. So the Veterans Administration would have had to turn over 50% of those garnished taxes to the CRA.

Naturally, I asked why we would do something that stupid. The reply: the same reason the VA had unused data processing centers in Pennsylvania and Texas, Congress mandated it. Nobody at the VA wanted to do this. But someone in Congress (or perhaps the White House) wanted to divert taxpayer funds to the CRA. And that was that.

Except that I could not figure out the documentation I got from the CRA. So I had to skip that step. And I just feel terrible about that.


On edit: and I could not setup an account because I could not answer all the verification questions. The only way I could do that is by, you guessed it, getting my copy of the credit report from the CRA. So they get paid when SSA asks them for verification. And they get paid again when I ask them for a copy of my credit report.

Before someone says, "but they have to give you one free one each year," ... how much you willing to bet they do that for free and are not, instead, paid by the federal government to provide us one report each year?

[HiPointDem]

51. they also do it to further the surveillance state and extract more money from the proles.

[dmallind]

56. I much prefer investing in SS than wars, but this is disingenuous rhetoric at best

We can argue merits of this choice easily enough with honest comparisons.

One person's SS benefits for a month is not a dollar figure that should be compared to the entire cost of two decade-plus wars. Why not compare it to an E-2's monthly pay, as that's the most direct comparison? Why not use the total cost of the SSI and SSDI since 2001, since that directly compares to the cost of war?

The answer of course is obvious, but a cheap rhetorical device that a middle schooler should be reluctant to use in a debate.

OASI alone spent $603,000,000,000 (using all digits is another trick of course) in 2011. All parts of SSA over $1,250,000,000,000. In one year!

And that's ok. It's more than ok. Because unlike the wars, that huge number didn't kill thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of others. It didn't engender hate for the US in multiple generations of radicalized Muslims. Instead it provided shelter and warmth and food for 40 million Americans, at least a third of whom have no other means of support. In other words it prevented more than the entire population of NYC from starving to death on the streets, and kept more than the entire population of California living in much better conditions than they otherwise would.

We shouldn't, we don't, need to pretend that that enormous good takes only a pittance. It costs many billions because it has to. It's a really, really big number, just like war. It's just a really really big number spent much, much more wisely.

[HiPointDem]

58. That $603 B was funded entirely by workers, taken directly out of their paychecks. It's not

federal money to decide where it should go.