rosalynd, SS is a "pay as you go system". That means that the money taken out of your paycheck every week is spent to fund THOSE ALREADY RECEIVING SS checks every month. You seem to be operating under the misinformed belief that whatever money you are presently required to pay into the system is somehow being earmarked for YOU at a future point in time. It's not. When you retire and are eligible to collect SS benefits it will the younger working population's tax contributions that will fund your checks. And there's the rub... there is a large population "bubble" of retirees hitting 62-65 and that means a LOSS of people contributing weekly and an increase in the number of people withdrawing benefits! SS was originally set up as an INSURANCE policy against a catastrophe like the Great Deperssion; never was it ever intended to solely fund someone's retirement. But over the years, a large segement of the population has presumed just that. It was designed to be part of a "three legged stool"... SS, pensions from worker's companies, and personal SAVINGS. Additionally, the age of retirement set at the inception of the system (65, I believe) was actually beyond the average age of death of most Americans. My parents withdrew every dime they'd contributed to the system within 18 months of receiving their first check! Mum is now nearly 80, so she's been on the dole for nigh on 15 years now. Roll forward to 2006... companies are defaulting on defined pension plans, the age of retirement has been increased only a bit (is many years below the average age of death; about 15 years for me!), and the average American doesn't SAVE a dime. The IRA was introduced to stimulate retirement savings... the contribution one may make has increased from $2K at its inception to nearly $4500 now. Additionally, they've sweetened the pot for lower earners by permitting you to pay taxes "up front" (presumably when you are earning less and paying less), allowing the nut to grow and compound TAX-FREE until you decide to withdraw funds from it. In light of the loss of company pension plans this is a nice deal... but only for the disciplined. Taken in total, this is an impending disaster. The "cures" are not going to be popular, but they are necessary. Let's hope more politians find the stomach to stand up and state "the emperor isn't wearing any clothes". Payroll taxes will HAVE to go up. The retirement age MUST be raised to more closely reflect increased life spans, and (I believe) we will have to means test. The very wealthy will have to say good bye to their "cut" for the greater good. After all, that's how an INSURANCE policy works, more people with "safe" histories pay to cover the losses of unluckier policy holders. This isn't something for the courts, this is something for the voting booth.

Abby1930, In some pension systems, your contribution toward your pension is a percentage of your annual income and your pension at retirement relates to the amount that all of those years' contributions totalled out to, plus the amount of growth that all of those invested dollars produced throughout the period. I hope that you can find some source of income which will be such that you can continue to enjoy your new home. Lay-offs have become an increasingly common problem in the economy these days, where many companies feel that employees are as disposable as the machines that they use. Should we call such an approach "Kleenex staffing"? They like loyalty on the part of staff - but if it isn't a two-way street, that rather traditional loyalty situation will be eroded. In fact - it is, these days. Few employees feel as loyal to their employer as was true a generation ago. Telecoms have certainly been volatile in recent years - and increasingly so? While talking to my recently laid-off daughter (who had for several years been a counsellor to people being laid-off), she said that she'd like to have two or even three streams of income - so that she wouldn't be up the creek without a paddle if she suffered lay-off, having depended totally on one income. She's a rather independent-minded person. Who was able to carry on her recent work wherever she happened to be - all that she needed was a higher-grade connection to the internet. She used so much bandwidth that one couldn't call her and have the call go through while she was using the line for corporate-related internet work, as one can do with most internet users using high speed connection. Good wishes to you as you work through your situation in the days ahead. joyful guy P.S. to others: If you should find yourself in this situation (say, next week?) - wouldn't it ease your concerns a great deal if you knew that you had enough assets rather easily available to enable you to survive without too much upset should you, having suffered the trauma of lay-off, find yourself unable to find other work for half of or even a whole year? Personal financial advisors for many years have been recommending 3 - 6 mos. emergency fund to enable minimum survival. Such a plan is much more necessary in the employment climate, these days. Don't you think? I remember a song that was popular when I was young, ... "Wishing, will make it so, just keep on wishing, and care will go." "Dreamers tell us dreams come true, it's no mistake and wishes are the dreams we dream while we're awake". Baloney. Visioning has its place. So do dreams - and wishes. The problem is that quite a number of us allow the dreams and wishes to take the place of reality, rather than encouraging and impelling us to implement them - to change them from a figment of our imagination into a real part of our lives. Dream the dream - then make it work. ...

That's exactly what I thought, kudzu. You refuse to accept the math simply because you don't trust the government. That's fine if it makes you feel good because, you think, you've managed to outsmart those sneaky old federal bureaucrats. I sincerely hope you're enjoying your retirement and the SS checks you've been receiving for these past years . What bothers me is that you're misleading others with bad advice about something that's very important for their futures. For example, you claim that the math is so complicated that neither you nor I can figure it out and that the breakeven point may somehow really be later than 78 because of "the time value of money" -- the fact that a dollar today is worth more than a dollar some years down the road. That's certainly true but a deferred SS benefit grows at the guaranteed rate of 7% interest each year for four years -- the rate is 8% for those who hold off four more years until they're 70 -- PLUS whatever rate the COLA is for that year. COLAS have averaged 2.5% for the last 10 years, BTW. Since the deferred benefits is larger each year, the COLA on the growing benefit will also be larger than the COLA for the static early benefit. Considering that, the real breakeven point is probably somewhat less than 78 years not more. The real truth is that the government knows that, no matter what it tells people about waiting to take SS, most (about two-thirds) will take it as soon as they can. Many of them have no choice because they truly need the money. Others may have serious medical problems that are likely to shorten their lives. But many just can't wait to finally get something back from SS after paying in for so many years. Or they're afraid SS will run out of money. Or, like you, they refuse to believe that the government's advice to wait could possibly be true. Of course, each one of the 66% who start taking at 62 costs the government less in lifetime benefits than any and all of those who hold off. The relatively few who hold off until 66 will cost it more and the even fewer (like me) who hold off until 70 will cost it the most. That's why the breakeven point can be set at a lower age than actual life expectancy. The majority who take early collectively create a large enough surplus to fund those of us who hold off taking until later. So I thank you for the contribution, however tiny, you will likely make to help fund the later stages of my retirement.

Jakkam said, "It should be noted that Lindsay's experience with CA state pensions is only relevant between her employer and her specific union. Different unions/employer agencies negotiate contracts that are usually similar, but NOT identical." Gee, my very first comment was, "In California State Service, the terms of the retirement pension can vary according to which bargaining unit covers your position, when you were hired, and what "Tier" you are in." (emphasis added) Did you somehow miss that? Jak went on to say, "Union workers should be aware that at least in CA, CalPERS does not fund any health benefits. All retiree healthcare is funded directly by the agency involved. If your employer has not bothered to set up a separate funding for retiree healthcare, you should contact your union rep and make this an issue - a BIG issue." Incorrect, or at the very least, incomplete. The funds for State employee and CSU employee retiree health care benefits come from the State's General Fund, as allocated by the Governor's Budget each year. Perhaps you are thinking of other public agencies such as city and county government agencies and School employees. In fact, the CalPERS site for Health Plans & Rates for retirees says on the link for Public Agency and School Retirees, "Contributions vary by employer. Contact your employer's personnel office to find out how much they contribute toward your health premium." Click on the link for State & CSU Retirees and you will see the following: "The state employer contribution amounts for 2017 are: "One-Party: $707 "Two-Party: $1,349 "Family: $1,727 " The only difference in the amount that State retirees receive towards their health insurance costs is governed by the length of time of their service. Different "hired by" dates have different vesting requirements to receive the full amount of the State's contribution: (1) If you were hired before January 1, 1985, you are entitled to 100% of the State's contribution; (2) If you were hired between January 1, 1985, and January 1, 1989, there is a 10-year vesting requirement. If you have 10 years of service when you retire, you will receive 100% of the State's health care contribution. For less than 10 years of service, the State's contribution is reduced by approximately 10% for each year of service less than the required 10; and (3) If you were hired after January 1, 1989, the length of time of your service determines what percentage you will receive of the State's contribution. Less than 10 years, you get 0%; at 10 years, you will receive 50%; with 11-19 years of service you will receive 50% of the State's contribution plus an additional 5% for each year over 10 years. If you have at least 20 years of service when you retire, you will receive 100% of the State's contribution. Four (4) bargaining units (6, 9. 10, and 12) now have a 25-year vesting requirement, with different hire dates. My husband and I both had well over the required number of years of service when we retired, so we do receive the full benefit. The amount is more than enough to cover our Medicare Plan B premiums, Medicare Plan B IRMAA premiums, and our PERSCare Blue Cross PPO Medicare Supplement Plan premiums. There is more than enough left over to also cover the cost of our Medicare Plan D IRMAA premiums (our Medicare Plan D is included in the PERSCare Medicare Supplement Plan), but California law does not provide for the reimbursement of Medicare Plan D IRMAA premiums. But the $26.60 per month is the only health care cost we have.