My DH's and mine come to about $2500 TOTAL. (Our birthdays are only a couple days apart, so it is deposited the same day, in two deposits.) Mine is about HALF of his. I think we get a raise in January!! Yippee!

I was expecting that raise, too. So I was quite disappointed to see that the new amount will actually be lower.

I see I got carried away with the underlining above. LOL

I'm working part-time just to afford medical/dental/vision/AD&D/life insurance for DH & I. It'll be years before I'm even eligible for Medicare. I'm glad it's there for us...and hope it's still there when we become eligible. Buying our insurance outright, we were quoted about $3k a month!

Don't quote me but I think I read something not long ago that said the max SS was about 2,500 or 2,600 a month. Mine, of course, is not that high but it is about 1,500/mo before deductions. I'm thinking the higher amounts are for the higher contributions (read salaries). Most of us don't get there. Just as redcurls says it takes two to come close to the 2,500 mark. Sadly.

I'm sure someone will look up the correct answer and correct me if I'm wrong. That's ok by me.

Susan, are you drawing on your own SS earnings? If so, and if your husband's were higher than yours, you can switch to his. I believe you would draw the full amount as he has passed on.

I get over $1,200. a month soc sec and I get my husband's company retirement. He signed papers giving up some of his retirement to ensure I would draw his after he died. I think social security is based on the money earned, but don't know but think it is capped at a certain amount.

I get little over $1000.

When my ex dies, SS told me to collect his as I'd get more.

Hurry hurry hurry!

the estimated average retirement benefit for retirees is only about $1,229 a month, and the survivors of workers receive an average of only $1,112 a month (2011 figures). For 2012, the maximum monthly Social Security retirement benefit for a worker retiring at the full retirement age of 66 years will be $2,513.

There are always factors that reduce a person's benefit - Alisande's situation is one; as would be opting for Medicare Part B; as would be not waiting for full retirement age.

Monica had high earnings or is drawing on her late DH's SS to get that high an amount. I don't think most of us would get that much. For most of us, $2,500 is enough to do something we wouldn't ordinarily do or buy.

Alisande, did you get a letter from SS that your medicare was going up $103?

I don't think that $2,500 figure is correct. I think it depends on what you earned.

Alisande, don't know what your circumstances are or if your birthday falls in the right time line, but if you had income in 2010 are you sure it affects your SS?

"If you were born January 2, 1943, through January 1, 1955, then your full retirement age for Social Security retirement insurance benefits is 66. If you work and are full retirement age or older, you may apply for and keep all of your benefits, no matter how much you earn."

I just looked it up and the maximum benefit paid if you retired at age 66 in 2011 would be $2366.

If you took your retirement at 62, as I did, your benefit is a lot lower than if you wait.

I am drawing on my own SS, not late DH's. I do not get 2500(the max) - I switched from DH's benefit to my own, at age 64.

There is a limit to the earned income that one has to pay SS taxes. All income over that limit(for the year), is not taxed. And anyone can collect starting at age 62 (with lifetime 70% of the benefit that would have been awarded at age 66(used to be 65).
IF a person works after age 66(and doesn't collect SS), and pays SS taxes, the lifetime benefit increases over 100% until reaching the maximum age of 72.

There are people working past age 66, and not applying for SS benefits, to get that higher monthly benefit.

We get $2200 combined..he more than me.

When I signed up for soc sec, I said I didn't know whether to wait or take it at 62. She said do the math. I did and it would take 10 years to make up for the 3 years of SS that I did not get. So I signed up at 62. A lot of people don't live long enough to get back the lost money back.

When your spouse dies and your social security goes up, it was explained to me that you still draw you own and you get enough of his to make it the same as what he was drawing.

I draw my late DH's SS, and took an cut because I had no choice but to start drawing when I turned 60yrs. old (a little over a year ago) He had jsy qualified for his disability when he died. I've heard I should have started drawing that when he died..but can't verify it!

I didn't know you could draw SS before the age of 62 unless it was your own disability.

No, when your spouse dies, you have a choice on whose benefits you want - and you probably would pick the higher .... UNLESS, you are divorced, first husband has remarried, and dies.
Then, SS will split dead spouse's benefit between the survi ving spouses,unless they have remarried) and all of your SS benefit may be higher than 1/2 of ex-spouse's. You then take your own.
Once you accept your benefit over your DH's, you can change to your own, but cannot go back to his. And if a wife remarries, she can continue to collect on prior DH, unless he has remarried.
There is an assumption that the husband earns more money (higher SS benefit) than his wife. Not true anymore. With educated working wives who have careers - the wife may earn a higher benefit on her own earnings.

SS is complicated. There are so many different variables & scenario's. I certainly don't know all the in's & out's of SS. But I do believe there are several factual errors posted in this thread. So my advice is to look up your own situation on-line & try to get some background, then call or go to your local SS office & discuss your situation & questions with qualified people who can give you definite answers.

Problems even arise when people get the "correct answers" but then misstate them when telling others, or try to apply their situation to others. Some also misunderstand the written word, or misstate it.

Do you think SS will be around in 35-40 years? I heard it's going to go bankrupt in a couple decades. It's maddening that you aren't given a choice whether to contribute or not while not getting any sort of guarantee that it'll last till you need it.

I think it should be voluntary, though I understand why it isn't. Most younger people would fund their own personal retirements instead because there's no reason to believe the government won't pull an "oops, sorry, we ran out of money" in a few years.

My mother was around when it first started. She went down to protest them taking money that she needed to care for her kids and she said she would save for her own retirement. The told her yes you can but if one of your kids get sick and you need the savings to care for that child your savings is gone, or if you husband takes it or whatever happens. My mother was a very smart women, she didn't complain any more.

It seems with the government we don't know what to believe anymore. I read an article that stated the SS has never been in danger of going under. It said SS was used as a scare tactic to elect certain politicians or promote a special cause. I do not think it will go under unless the whole country does.

The biggest problem with SS is that the government puts SS taxes into the general fund, by buying Treasury bonds.
Also, over the years, SSI has widened the number of people who collect SS benefits, and have never paid in.
That's why reform is needed, and that's why the "retirement" age has been gradually growing. it has gone from age 65 to 66, and will keep stretching.

Some have advocated making SS benefits income dependent...those who have saved for retirement may someday get less or no benefit for SS, even if they have made the maximum contribution for decades - turning SS into a federal Welfare benefit. Taking away from the workers who saved and giving it to those who didn't.

I know what you're going through. My story: My husband sold his business in 2009. I applied for Medicare when turning 65, in 2010. Because of the increase ( a one time bulk sum)in income, Medicare has been charging me $350.00 a month! Before signing up for Medicare, my BC insurance premium, was $345.00 a month! Granted there was a deductible involved, but still. Now, if things go according to reason, with no increase in income in 2010, my Medicare payment should go down, right? I sure hope so.
In other words, Medicare wants their piece of any increase in income.

The worst part is that the vast majority of those making these decisions will never have to worry about having enough money to live on at any age. Millions in personal wealth, cushy pensions, excellent benefits for life...drives me nuts. Not all but most of the elected officials are quite wealthy.

I think you should get back what you pay into it. Nothing more, nothing less. With exceptions being true disability or inability to work and much tougher qualifications necessary to meet that threshold. People who choose not to work, for whatever reason ranging from parenting to living on welfare, don't get anything back because they didn't pay anything.

And I think it's ridiculous to penalize people who save for retirement. I put in 10% of my net income every single paycheck and it does hurt but it's important.

Alisande, did you get a letter from SS that your medicare was going up $103?

They said my Medicare contribution was being increased by $99, and my SS check would be decreased by $103. I don't know how the extra $4 fits into this.

Morz8, Foggyj hit the nail on the head. SS isn't penalizing me for the property I sold; Medicare is. I paid a huge tax bill on that sale, and now this. Between Medicare and the supplemental plan, I've been paying more for health insurance than I did before I turned 65. Now I'll be paying a lot more.

Petra, I'm drawing on my husband's earnings. I was a SAHM most of the time, and when I worked, it was as an independent contractor. So my earnings were pretty dismal. I don't know why my husband wasn't entitled to more, but I suspect it's because he was self-employed for some years.

Some might say I'm getting what I deserve, and no more, and I should shut up about it. And they might be right. But when things like this come up I remember the people, some of whom I know, who owe the government huge amounts of money in back taxes, etc., and with whom the government is happy to negotiate. Some of them get enormous breaks. As usual, the middle-class individual, the widow who is a good citizen and always pays her taxes on time, gets none.

And that is the end of my pity party. LOL

Alisande....I think the math looks awry because of the COLA increase next year and the Medicare increase. The COLA increase in SS benefit is a percentage of 2011 benefit amount, while the Medicare increase is a static increase.

My Medicare premium for 2011 is $115.40. In 2012, it will go down to $106.60. This supposedly because of a larger pool of higher earning Medicare beneficiaries.

The COLA increase in SS benefit is about 3.5%, which means I should get a net gain in my SS monthly deposit.

However, anyone paying a higher Medicare premium this year and a lower SS benefit check could see a net loss in the total monthly SS benefit.

Here is a link that might be useful: Source

I have been trying to apply for SS benefits, online, for two days now. I got the form all finished, ready to submit. A pop-up says, "sorry, we are unable to process at this time, try again later". Is it because they are sooooo busy trying to process all us boomers, and they can't handle the influx? I guess I'll go to my local SS office and do it face to face. Dang computers!

Try again, sometime mid-week.

If you're my age (52) and you're planning on having social security payments being around at retirement, I think you're going to be in for a RUDE awakening.

The system is bankrupt. The government is bankrupt.

How sustainable is this program, when the average retiree recoups *EVERY DOLLAR* he/she paid into it within 24 months of retirement?

When you get a SS check, you're getting the money that the rest of us are paying in. It's the world's biggest ponzi scheme.

It's a mess, and it can't endure forever. The first wave of babyboomers hit 65 this year.

A freind ours granddaughter gets ssi and she has never worked a day in her life and yet she draws more in ssi then dh does on ss and he's worked since he was 14. go figure. Her dh works at a factory making $10 an hour and at tax time they always get at least $5000 or more back. They don't own a house (lives with her parents) is on medicaid so they can't have a bunch of deductables but never in the last five yrs. have they got less then the 5000.

Canadian rules are basic retirement at 65, on full C P P, amount depending on how much you'd contributed.

Lose 1% each 2 mos. that one retires early, soon to be somewhat more, and has been 1% additional for each 2 mos. delay, till 70, soon to be substantial increase.

If one needs the money, one more or less needs to take the benefit early and if one doesn't need the money and can invest it, common idea earlier was that if one died before early 80s ... one died with a smile on one's face.

If. however, one can achieve a higher rate of income/growth on the asset ... or arrange a lower than usual tax rate ... the break-even point could go somewhat higher.

At 70, I figured that I should arrange funding till age 100 ... it being preferable to run out of days before one runs out of money.

Now, at about 80, cognizant of the fact that the most quickly expanding age group recently is of those over 100 ... I figure that I should figure to fund my retirement to 110 ... same reason as mentioned above.

Have a great retirement, folks.

ole joyful

Alisande, I just wanted to say I feel bad for you. I had no idea they could do that! That stinks! Sure makes it hard to get ahead in life.

My husband died when he was 35 yrs old. When I turned 60 I received widows benefits. SS told me when I turned 70 to use my own SS as it would be higher than what I'm getting on his.

Another thing I don't understand about Survivor Benefits. Girl I know, about 30yrs. old and was on her 2nd? 3rd? marriage. She has a little girl in 1st grade and gets child support from the girl's Dad. Her last husband (29 years old)was on disability. HE got about $400.00 extra a month claiming the kid.(that he never adopted). The kids Mom & him were married around 2 years..and he died with a heart attack a couple of months ago. Now the kid AND her Mom will be drawing will be drawing about $700.00 EACH a month! How the h3ll is that possible? The guy probably worked 10 years out of his whole life!!

Just one of those things that makes me SMDH!

For childrens benefits, there are many kind of "children"- natural, adopted,step, illegitimate, even grandchildren can qualify. But for a grandchild to apply on a grandparents's account, both parents must be dead or disabled themselves.

I understand that Jannie, but it just blows my mind that she is also collecting "child support" from the kids DAD, and that SHE is drawing off a man she was only man she was married to about 2 years! Guess she's the kids "caregiver", even though the kid is in school and with anyone that will watch her most of the time!

I think Social Security will be bankrupt pretty soon. As Rosemary pointed out, most people are collecting far more than they ever put in and it can't be sustained. But you also can't shut people off because for a vast majority of seniors, it's their only income.

I suspect there will be reform in the future. Not because the government actually cares about grandma and grandpa but because there's a huge portion of the electoral base who will be pretty angry if they lose their benefits or are told there's nothing left. THAT will be the only thing that dictates a change - fear of losing an election.

As a disclosure I'll say I'm not talking about anyone in this thread and I'm not angry at people who receive SS. It's the plan and it's unfairness that bothers me. Just general annoyance at having money stolen from me every paycheck under the promise that it will support me in 40 years when I need it. Yeah right. And yes, I do consider it stealing because it's mandatory and there is NO guarantee that it will be available when you're due to collect.

The irony is that if it were a private company running this instead of the government, I don't think it would be legal! Imagine the electric company deciding to collect $100 extra from everyone every month. This is a mandatory charge but they say that in another 20 years, you will never have to pay another electric bill. However, there's small print saying that you will only get free electric if there is any money left to cover it, and if the money is gone, you will have to keep paying for your own electric and all of the previous tens of thousands that was collected from you will not be returned. Can you say lawsuit? lol

I was so surprised, about 20 years ago, when my BIL stated that SS would support him when he was retired.
When SS was created, Social Security was NOT meant to be full-support for retirees who contributed to it. It WAS meant to SUPPLEMENT retirees in their old age.
However, many people ignore this, and don't save any money.

Yes, the money has also been mismanaged by the federal government(thanks to Pres Johnson and his party), and the socialists in our government have decreed that it be used to help support those who did/could not support themselves.

I paid the max yearly SS taxes for many of my working years, and the last 10, as a self employed person, paid the employers share of my SS also(about 15%). I am not alone in this.

Much money is never paid into SS by those who work for cash, and pay no taxes. By those who under re-port income, and thus pay less SS tax also.