[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

I've been at maximum IRMAA for 8 years and for 40 years, been self-employed and paying DOUBLE FICA.

Please don't make assumptions based on your perceived "moral superiority" or assumed financial superiority.

Good for you and I mean it!

I merely made a general statement, not any assumptions about any particular individual.

[Rainger99]

If you were worth $53,000 in 1926, it would be equivalent to a net worth of $1,000,000 today.

In 1926, the average non-agricultural worker earned just $1,428 a year ($27 a week) and about 60% of the population lived near or below the poverty line, making less than $2,000 annually. The Upper-Middle Class (families earning between $3,500 and $7,000 a year) were considered highly comfortable.


$53,000 in 1926 → $1,008,916.38 today | Inflation Calculator

[Fastskiguy]

Originally Posted by Road-Runner

Depending on the regime in power in D.C. at the time, I would not be surprised at all if they instituted income-based adjustments / qualifications in the name of equity and fairness.

If we're gonna get out of this mess, it'll have to be part of the solution. Cutting spending a little, raising taxes a little, trying to cut the fat (good luck with that though) and we have a chance.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

Good for you and I mean it!

I merely made a general statement, not any assumptions about any particular individual.

Some people just like to argue.

[Teemotay]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Some people just like to argue.

AMEN to that and on nearly every subject!!

[oneclickplus]

Originally Posted by MrFlorida

A cut in SS would be political suicide for all that voted for it , never going to happen.

There is no vote. The cut is already baked into law and will be automatic. Plans and votes are needed to avoid it.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

Good for you and I mean it!

I merely made a general statement, not any assumptions about any particular individual.

Thank you. Get off TOTV, posters aren't suppose to acknowledge such things

[DAVES]

Originally Posted by Michael G.

If the doom and gloom is correct and Social Security is in trouble will be cut
by 2032, could you afford to stay in the Villages with a 20% cut in benefits?

Some people NEED something to worry about. Articles. All you need to know is when you will die, what will kill you. rate of inflation till you die, return on your investments till you die Fill in all the blanks and safe bet your answer is wrong

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by oneclickplus

There is no vote. The cut is already baked into law and will be automatic. Plans and votes are needed to avoid it.

That is correct, for those who don't believe it.

The law says that OAS is not allowed borrow money, if the reserves run out ... currently projected to be 2032. The currently calculated reduction is about 22%. There are some nuances to the language, so in my opinion, it's not as cut & dried as that may sound.

I don't think a reduction will ever happen. No elected official in Congress would get to keep their job, if they voted to cut Social Security.

[DAVES]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Some people just like to argue.

AGREED but WE are reading and posting-oops

[justjim]

Originally Posted by elle123

Household Income Distribution in The Villages according to Census.

• Under $50,000: ~30% of households
• $50,000 – $100,000: ~32% of households
• $100,000 – $200,000: ~28% of households
• Over $200,000: ~9% of households
(Note: Because The Villages is a master-planned active adult retirement community, a large portion of residents live on fixed incomes, pensions, Social Security, or retirement investments rather than traditional active-labor wages.)

More than 30% of The Villages population would be destitute if there was a 20% SS reduction.

Thanks for posting this as I thought to look up the census data a couple of times. The data pretty much validates what we already know. Yes, The Villages, according to the latest census, is a “relative” prosperous retirement community. I would guess it did not start that way in the 80’s (maybe it did) but as they said “there is something for everyone in The Villages.”

[rustyp]

Originally Posted by elle123

Household Income Distribution in The Villages according to Census.

• Under $50,000: ~30% of households
• $50,000 – $100,000: ~32% of households
• $100,000 – $200,000: ~28% of households
• Over $200,000: ~9% of households
(Note: Because The Villages is a master-planned active adult retirement community, a large portion of residents live on fixed incomes, pensions, Social Security, or retirement investments rather than traditional active-labor wages.)

More than 30% of The Villages population would be destitute if there was a 20% SS reduction.

What are these numbers? Are they straight no deduction income or are they AGI reported on federal income tax? If AGI a $50000 household of married filing joint is well over $85000 actual income, Now subtract $8000 for an approximate social security cut of 20% at $40000 joint benefit and $8000 is 9.4% total income reduction. Getting less scary. On top of this simple example one would probably have a further reduction in taxes due to the way SS is calculated and there could be a chance the reduction would push one down to a lower tax bracket.

I agree with others never going to happen at least not those presently collecting. Proof - isn't this the same scenario we through each year with budget reconciliation?

[Caymus]

Originally Posted by justjim

Thanks for posting this as I thought to look up the census data a couple of times. The data pretty much validates what we already know. Yes, The Villages, according to the latest census, is a “relative” prosperous retirement community. I would guess it did not start that way in the 80’s (maybe it did) but as they said “there is something for everyone in The Villages.”

Many probably have high financial assets that could be turned into income if desired.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by elle123

Household Income Distribution in The Villages according to Census.

• Under $50,000: ~30% of households
• $50,000 – $100,000: ~32% of households
• $100,000 – $200,000: ~28% of households
• Over $200,000: ~9% of households
(Note: Because The Villages is a master-planned active adult retirement community, a large portion of residents live on fixed incomes, pensions, Social Security, or retirement investments rather than traditional active-labor wages.)

More than 30% of The Villages population would be destitute if there was a 20% SS reduction.

Originally Posted by Caymus

Many probably have high financial assets that could be turned into income if desired.

I agree, income isn't nearly as relevant as NET WORTH.

[Pugchief]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

Some people just like to argue.

Isn't that the whole point of online message boards?