General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsawake
(3,226 posts)ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)Of course.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)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.
ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)RKP5637
(67,108 posts)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)He has not reached his full retirement age.
Another question - has Ann applied for her SS as an early retiree.
ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)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.
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)That would not show up on his taxes.
beac
(9,992 posts)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!
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)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.*
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)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)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)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)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)Edit: It seems that you are conflating a couple of issues re: taxes vs. benefits
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)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.
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)BTW - only earned wages (not other sources of income) factor into this.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)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)If Ann Romney doesn't have earned income, she is not subject to losing SS benefits at early retirement.
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)You are simply wrong but have chosen to double down and get nasty.
Done
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)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)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.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)But only if the earnings from the part time work are above the earnings threshold.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)beac
(9,992 posts)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.
DURHAM D
(32,609 posts)Somehow the conversation went off track to disability income.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)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)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)If it is bad enough for a $73,000 horse therapy (annually?) it is probably bad enough for disability.
dkf
(37,305 posts)SmileyRose
(4,854 posts)Willard's 2011 1040 at the link
RKP5637
(67,108 posts)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)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)PatSeg
(47,430 posts)that John McCain collected Social Security, even though his wife was very wealthy. I found it very strange.
ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)...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)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.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)PatSeg
(47,430 posts)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.