Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
43 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Is Mittens collecting social security? (Original Post) ProfessionalLeftist Sep 2012 OP
It would be listed on the tax return awake Sep 2012 #1
Oh yea the ones he won't let anyone see ProfessionalLeftist Sep 2012 #2
Oooh! That would hurt! smirkymonkey Sep 2012 #3
Good idea! n/t ProfessionalLeftist Sep 2012 #4
I've known similar, and if it's for them, just them, it's OK. If it's RKP5637 Sep 2012 #13
Probably not yet. DURHAM D Sep 2012 #5
Either one of them collecting SS would be atrocious ProfessionalLeftist Sep 2012 #6
Mitt is probably on Medicare. DURHAM D Sep 2012 #15
She's not "retired" as she never worked. beac Sep 2012 #7
SSI has a means test, I think. nt Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #8
It does. beac Sep 2012 #11
SS does not and she is past the early retirement age (62). DURHAM D Sep 2012 #14
I was responding to a post about SSI. But she wouldn't be able to receive SS, either. Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #17
This is incorrect SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #26
She will receive SS even though she did not have earned wages. DURHAM D Sep 2012 #12
Not true. SS is means tested before the age of full retirement benefits. Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #18
Are you sure regular SS is means tested after 62? DURHAM D Sep 2012 #20
Yes. You can only earn a certain amt of income in order to get SS benefts... Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #22
You are still conflating. DURHAM D Sep 2012 #24
Ahhh. So she'll only lose for her part of Romney's earned income from Bain or whatever. Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #25
The same could be said for you SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #27
SS benefits are not means tested. DURHAM D Sep 2012 #29
You have it all confused. There is, for all beneficiaries of Social Security, an income Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #33
Good analysis SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #39
so if you have a part-time job you get dinged but if you have capital income you don't? HiPointDem Sep 2012 #37
Correct SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #38
well, if that doesn't take the cake. thanks. HiPointDem Sep 2012 #40
Yes, she will get SS through him, but not on her own. beac Sep 2012 #19
Yes - I brought it up. DURHAM D Sep 2012 #21
Even if he got it, it would go straight back to the govt because of his income... Honeycombe8 Sep 2012 #9
You are incorrect. Both before and after full retirement age, you are taxed Bluenorthwest Sep 2012 #35
She might have disability payments for her MS DonRedwood Sep 2012 #28
If you have a long life expectancy it makes sense to wait til 70 dkf Sep 2012 #31
No SmileyRose Sep 2012 #10
Born: March 12, 1947 (age 65). Probably is, have you even known a republican not RKP5637 Sep 2012 #16
Be careful. sadbear Sep 2012 #23
You are correct. It is an insurance program, not a welfare program, and that's want Dems want. nt wiggs Sep 2012 #30
+100 HiPointDem Sep 2012 #41
I remember being surprised PatSeg Sep 2012 #32
That's why I asked. You never know ProfessionalLeftist Sep 2012 #34
I have no problem with rich people collecting Social Security SickOfTheOnePct Sep 2012 #36
+100 HiPointDem Sep 2012 #42
I remember there being a discussion about McCain's Social Security PatSeg Sep 2012 #43
 

smirkymonkey

(63,221 posts)
3. Oooh! That would hurt!
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 10:46 AM
Sep 2012

Call the Obama campaign and get them on this!

I had a boss once who was richer than Rmoney who collected SS. Of course, he was a republican. It's different for them, you see.

RKP5637

(67,108 posts)
13. I've known similar, and if it's for them, just them, it's OK. If it's
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 11:16 AM
Sep 2012

for someone else, or shared, that's bad. I've also been in several large companies that went under, poor cockpit management. And the republicans were clawing their way around to make sure they could get every damn penny they could from unemployment, health benefits, severance pay, everything. They were loud in meetings, plain obnoxious.

Damn, I really really hate republicans, they keep this nation F'ed up. Where I live all it does is keep getting RW redder and more religious freaks in government, it's a lost cause here to fight for blue. The democrats have pretty much given up and the Koch Brothers have bought the state. It's going to eventually be a pit for most people and already is for many.

I have no doubt he probably is ... and will also be lining up for Medicare.



DURHAM D

(32,609 posts)
5. Probably not yet.
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 10:52 AM
Sep 2012

He has not reached his full retirement age.

Another question - has Ann applied for her SS as an early retiree.

ProfessionalLeftist

(4,982 posts)
6. Either one of them collecting SS would be atrocious
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 10:59 AM
Sep 2012

Esp if they're going to call "the 47%" who do collect it moochers, entitled, dependent, etc. The Romneys should walk their talk by refusing any and all government assistance. If the argument is "well they paid into it too!" - well so did the "47%" and in that case Romney owes them an apology.

beac

(9,992 posts)
7. She's not "retired" as she never worked.
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 11:01 AM
Sep 2012

Just sayin'.

I don't think, considering their wealth, that she could qualify for Disability or Supplemental Security Income but I would hope even if she could, the money-grubbing Rmoneys wouldn't be so craven as to try that one!

beac

(9,992 posts)
11. It does.
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 11:08 AM
Sep 2012

I was being a bit snarky, but I'd bet the Rmoneys WOULD take that "savings" if they thought they could get away with it.


*edited to remove DOH apsotophe. Brain needs more coffee.*

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
17. I was responding to a post about SSI. But she wouldn't be able to receive SS, either.
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 12:16 PM
Sep 2012

Before you reach full retirement age, your SS benefit is also means tested. They deduct from your SS benefits for every dollar you receive in income, and the rest of SS is taxed. The result for her would be that the govt would end up getting back every dime it sent her in the small SS benefit check, if any.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
26. This is incorrect
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:43 PM
Sep 2012

There is not a dollar for dollar loss of SS benefits for those that take early retirement. There is an income threshold, over which there is a $1 loss of benefits for every $2 of earned income. Since Ann doesn't have a job, she doesn't have earned income.

DURHAM D

(32,609 posts)
12. She will receive SS even though she did not have earned wages.
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 11:14 AM
Sep 2012

Stay at home spouses receive SS. She will receive 1/2 the amount of Mitt's SS check. His will probably be the max = $2,500. Her amount will be $1,250. Total household SS income will be $3,750.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
18. Not true. SS is means tested before the age of full retirement benefits.
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 12:18 PM
Sep 2012

Your SS check gets cut for every dollar of income, and if any is left over, the rest of SS is taxed. When you're as wealthy as she is, the govt would end up getting back every dime of any SS benefit she sought.

Once you reach full retirement age, you get that full SS benefit check, not means tested.

DURHAM D

(32,609 posts)
20. Are you sure regular SS is means tested after 62?
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 12:49 PM
Sep 2012

Edit: It seems that you are conflating a couple of issues re: taxes vs. benefits

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
22. Yes. You can only earn a certain amt of income in order to get SS benefts...
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 10:24 PM
Sep 2012

before you reach the full retirement age.

If you earn $50K a year, and you decided to take your SS benefits at age 62, you don't get those benefits in full (I'm talking about the reduced benefits you would get at age 62, distinguished from the full retirement age benefits). Anyway, your age 62 benefits will be cut $1 for every $2 in income you earn (or something like that), up to a certain amount of the SS benefits. Then the rest are taxed.

There is a maximum SS benefit. The most anyone can get from SS at age 62 is less than $24k, I'm pretty sure. I assume the Romneys would get that maximum. So she'd probably get SOMETHING after being dinged for her income, and then taxed, but not much.

The Romneys don't need SS, so they will just wait to get the full retirement age benefits.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
25. Ahhh. So she'll only lose for her part of Romney's earned income from Bain or whatever.
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:38 PM
Sep 2012

I am assuming that she is credited with half of his earned income, but I don't know how that works.

In a ny case...they don't need SS. They'll just wait for full retirement age, which is just a year away, I think.

Still, what i was saying was essentially correct...THERE IS A MEANS TEST FOR SS BENEFITS before full retirement age. Give it up. You lose the argument, though why you were insisting on arguing about something you don't know much about, I'm not sure.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
27. The same could be said for you
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:45 PM
Sep 2012

If Ann Romney doesn't have earned income, she is not subject to losing SS benefits at early retirement.

DURHAM D

(32,609 posts)
29. SS benefits are not means tested.
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:53 PM
Sep 2012

You are simply wrong but have chosen to double down and get nasty.

Done

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
33. You have it all confused. There is, for all beneficiaries of Social Security, an income
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 01:09 PM
Sep 2012

threshold at which a portion of your Social Security becomes subject to Fed income tax. It is not a 'dollar for dollar' situation, and it is not a means test at all. You simply pay more tax on that portion of your income when you have other income that excedes that threshold. The formula used to figure how much of a person's SS income is subject to tax is a convoluted thing, but in short, when you make other money, you will pay tax on SS, the more you make the more of it is taxed. If one has a large enough income, the benefit becomes just not worth the figures, it will never all vanish, although 100% of the benefit can become subject to taxation, and for many people it is right out of the gate.
People who retire early get the same reduction in benefits, no matter what their income is, at different ages you get a different hit, the hit is the same if you make millions or if you make peanuts, the same percentage of reduction applies. It is not means tested at all.
People who make money- and for some income continues without work, taxable income, the more they make, the more taxes they pay and less of the benefit amount is protected from taxation, more of it is counted as taxable income.
In absolutely no way is anyone's Social Security benefit amount determined by means testing, it is determined by your contributions and your retirement age, PERIOD.
Also, after 65 we are all still taxed on income. That never stops.
If your "provisional income" (which is your adjusted gross income -- including 401(k) withdrawals and half of your Social Security benefits, plus any tax-exempt interest from mutual bonds) exceeds $25,000 ($32,000 on a joint return), then up to half of your Social Security benefits can be taxable.

If your provisional income exceeds $34,000 ($44,000 on a joint return) up to 85% of your benefits are taxable.


SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
39. Good analysis
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 01:28 PM
Sep 2012

Only incorrect thing I saw was in your title. Once a beneficiary reaches full retirement age for their birth year group, there is no tax penalty against SS benefits for earnings.

beac

(9,992 posts)
19. Yes, she will get SS through him, but not on her own.
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 12:25 PM
Sep 2012

I think that's what the person who brought this up was asking.

I would LOVE to know if they dare to actually file for benefits.

Honeycombe8

(37,648 posts)
9. Even if he got it, it would go straight back to the govt because of his income...
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 11:06 AM
Sep 2012

until he reaches full retirement age. Before full retirement age, your SS is offset by your income. Needless to say, his income would offset ALL of his SS benefits.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
35. You are incorrect. Both before and after full retirement age, you are taxed
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 01:17 PM
Sep 2012

according to your full income, your benefit is never, ever reduced do to your income. Ever. Like all income, the more there is the more gets taxed. Those of high income get their full benefit, there is no 'offset' and they will pay taxes on that both before and after age 65. Here are the rules for 65:

If your "provisional income" (which is your adjusted gross income -- including 401(k) withdrawals and half of your Social Security benefits, plus any tax-exempt interest from mutual bonds) exceeds $25,000 ($32,000 on a joint return), then up to half of your Social Security benefits can be taxable.

If your provisional income exceeds $34,000 ($44,000 on a joint return) up to 85% of your benefits are taxable.

So those of more income will continue to pay more tax on all of their income, yet in no way is anyone's benefit ever, ever subjected to 'means testing' and in fact the government has no way to check one's 'means' at all when one applies. They do not even ask. Remember 'means' is way, way more than 'income I am currently getting from work'. They do not means test anyone on Social Security at any point in the process, at any age. No benefit is decreased due to one's 'means' in that program. And at no age does anyone lose their tax burden from any income. There is no 'too old to tax' in the US.

DonRedwood

(4,359 posts)
28. She might have disability payments for her MS
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:48 PM
Sep 2012

If it is bad enough for a $73,000 horse therapy (annually?) it is probably bad enough for disability.

RKP5637

(67,108 posts)
16. Born: March 12, 1947 (age 65). Probably is, have you even known a republican not
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 11:26 AM
Sep 2012

to grab every penny they can, I haven't, not one. I'm sure they exist, maybe the old time republicans, but the new breed, all they are is a bunch of users and con-artists. I think of them today as ones that if you were laying in the street suddenly ill, they would pick your wallet for cash and walk away leaving you there. Two people I don't trust in life. Republicans and really religious people.


sadbear

(4,340 posts)
23. Be careful.
Sat Sep 22, 2012, 10:28 PM
Sep 2012

He paid into it. He's the perfect guy to suggest that it should be means tested. I'm definitely against that. Am I on the wrong side now?

wiggs

(7,813 posts)
30. You are correct. It is an insurance program, not a welfare program, and that's want Dems want. nt
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 12:55 PM
Sep 2012

PatSeg

(47,430 posts)
32. I remember being surprised
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 01:08 PM
Sep 2012

that John McCain collected Social Security, even though his wife was very wealthy. I found it very strange.

ProfessionalLeftist

(4,982 posts)
34. That's why I asked. You never know
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 01:16 PM
Sep 2012

...and these Parasites - even though they don't need it - would no doubt collect it if they could get away with it somehow. Their greed is obviously boundless.

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
36. I have no problem with rich people collecting Social Security
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 01:18 PM
Sep 2012

because they paid into it.

I have a problem with them collecting it while trying to end it for everyone, including those that rely on it.

PatSeg

(47,430 posts)
43. I remember there being a discussion about McCain's Social Security
Sun Sep 23, 2012, 02:26 PM
Sep 2012

here in 2008. Some people commented as the poster after you that he paid into it, so he had the right to collect it. For me though, it still was odd that someone with that kind of wealth would go to the trouble to fill out the paperwork for such a small sum of money. How much money is enough for these people?

Now we have a man who wants to be the president of the United States who makes every effort to not pay a penny more in taxes than absolutely necessary AND he brags about it. He really is more of a caricature of a rich guy than a real person.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Is Mittens collecting soc...