Official Gramps' Memorial Eternal OT Thread

#35,077
#35,077
NorthDallas40 said:
I got a question for some of you old farts. Especially you @1972 Grad . Does the Social Security family maximum apply to a married couple whom has earned their own benefits payout to trim in the maximum payout to the couple or is an individuals payout unaffected by marital status? Not talking beneficiaries here that’s a separate topic and I know the answer on that one. TIA

Edit: well I think this answers it but I’d like to make sure you guys agree.

Will Marriage Affect My Social Security Benefits?
Click to expand...
You rang? Doesn't affect mine. My wife won't be drawing for several years. My understanding is that each person's benefits are determined without regard to marital status.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40 and Y9 Vol
#35,078
#35,078
For anybody at or near SS age, remember that the younger spouse can elect to draw his or her own SS at a later date with increased payments. AND that person can also immediately draw SS based on a percentage of the spouse's SS when the younger one hits the SS retirement age - can't remember if it's the early retirement or the full retirement age. That's the way my wife is doing it right now - think what she gets monthly is half what I get. It is fully legal - just not well advertised. I forgot to have her do it, so when she started they even gave her a back distribution - but it can only go back for a few months, so stay on top of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40
#35,079
#35,079
AM64 said:
For anybody at or near SS age, remember that the younger spouse can elect to draw his or her own SS at a later date with increased payments. AND that person can also immediately draw SS based on a percentage of the spouse's SS when the younger one hits the SS retirement age - can't remember if it's the early retirement or the full retirement age. That's the way my wife is doing it right now - think what she gets monthly is half what I get. It is fully legal - just not well advertised. I forgot to have her do it, so when she started they even gave her a back distribution - but it can only go back for a few months, so stay on top of it.
Click to expand...

delaying distribution past 65 increases what anyone gets doesn't it?
 
#35,080
#35,080
Y9 Vol said:
delaying distribution past 65 increases what anyone gets doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Monthly, yes. I think it's supposed to be one of those actuarial things where the lifetime distribution supposedly equals out, but drawing based on what the other spouse gets and delaying the "SS retirement date" tips the scales for the recipient.
 
#35,081
#35,081
AM64 said:
Monthly, yes. I think it's supposed to be one of those actuarial things where the lifetime distribution supposedly equals out, but drawing based on what the other spouse gets and delaying the "SS retirement date" tips the scales for the recipient.
Click to expand...

I always heard that if you let them "use" your money from 65 to 68, or beyond, the total monthly and total overall payout is increased. I know I will leave it in as long as it is growing as I will not need at 65.
 
#35,082
#35,082
Y9 Vol said:
delaying distribution past 65 increases what anyone gets doesn't it?
Click to expand...
Most people's retirement age now is probably 66 or so. If you start at 62, your benefits are decreased for every year below full retirement that you start. If you wait until as late as 70, your benefits increase every year from 67 to 70. From what I was able to figure out lifetime benefits, it equalizes about age 80 or 81. If you die before about 81, you will get less money returned to you by waiting past age 62. If you live past 81, you will have higher lifetime benefits by waiting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols, AM64, NorthDallas40 and 1 other person
#35,088
#35,088
1972 Grad said:
Just checked the local paper's website and the local radio station website, and no mention of it.
Click to expand...
It was on the radio this afternoon on XSM. I thought it was in your neck of the woods. I was afraid you'd come on the HB thread and say something you'd regret later if you got rattled to hard. HA
Edit: guess it was yesterday
1603240117029.png
 

Attachments

  • 1603240089434.png
    1603240089434.png
    971.4 KB · Views: 3
#35,089
#35,089
GordonC said:
It was on the radio this afternoon on XSM. I thought it was in your neck of the woods. I was afraid you'd come on the HB thread and say something you'd regret later if you got rattled to hard. HA
Click to expand...
Was it Greene County Tennessee? Just saw your map. It's news to me. Must not have made much of an impact here.
 
#35,098
#35,098
1972 Grad said:
You rang? Doesn't affect mine. My wife won't be drawing for several years. My understanding is that each person's benefits are determined without regard to marital status.
Click to expand...
Only thing marital status affects is the ability for your spouse to receive your benefit at a reduced rate when you kick the bucket. That is typically a good deal for boomers if the wife didn't have as much work experience but it will be full Ponzi scheme as more and more double income couples age into SS and the gov't gets to cut half of it off when one of them dies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#35,099
#35,099
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Back in the 1990's I always wanted a Dodge Viper but didn't want to spend an arm & a leg + the house for one. You don't see these cars on the road anymore ....... but I know they've got to be out there somewhere....

View attachment 316077
Click to expand...


I loved them too...was the 1st muscle car in the 90s to have a V10. Crazy thing is, aside from all the safety issues listed above, a bone stock mustang or camaro V8 makes more HP than those vipers do now...450 ish...whereas back then a Ford 5.0 made 240 iirc in the stang, and the 350s in the 90s camaros only made 275...up from about 250? In the 80s. America made some really weak V8s back then with low compression, pushrods, 2 valves per cylinder etc....I had 2 dodge rams with 318s in them. Super reliable, put over 200k on both... but it made 240hp from a 5.3 liter V8. Good grief. Exact same time period, Honda and Porsche both had naturally aspirated engines making 120HP per liter....if the big 3 did that well, a 5.0 mustang would have had 600HP...30 years later they STILL don't even pull 100HP per liter without adding turbos on American cars.

Did yall know that F1 cars now have 2.4 liter V6 engines that make over 1000hp ...and redline at higher RPM than racing motorcycles? Crazy stuff. They just keep getting smaller and less cylinders, but the 1000HP stays the same. They also have electric motors worth about 80HP powered by heat and braking energy that store juice until a little "boost" is needed above the 1000HP....new engines coming again in 2026 iirc...
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood and AM64
#35,100
#35,100
marcusluvsvols said:
I loved them too...was the 1st muscle car in the 90s to have a V10. Crazy thing is, aside from all the safety issues listed above, a bone stock mustang or camaro V8 makes more HP than those vipers do now...450 ish...whereas back then a Ford 5.0 made 240 iirc in the stang, and the 350s in the 90s camaros only made 275...up from about 250? In the 80s. America made some really weak V8s back then with low compression, pushrods, 2 valves per cylinder etc....I had 2 dodge rams with 318s in them. Super reliable, put over 200k on both... but it made 240hp from a 5.3 liter V8. Good grief. Exact same time period, Honda and Porsche both had naturally aspirated engines making 120HP per liter....if the big 3 did that well, a 5.0 mustang would have had 600HP...30 years later they STILL don't even pull 100HP per liter without adding turbos on American cars.

Did yall know that F1 cars now have 2.4 liter V6 engines that make over 1000hp ...and redline at higher RPM than racing motorcycles? Crazy stuff. They just keep getting smaller and less cylinders, but the 1000HP stays the same. They also have electric motors worth about 80HP powered by heat and braking energy that store juice until a little "boost" is needed above the 1000HP....new engines coming again in 2026 iirc...
Click to expand...
While the first Vipers had ONLY 400 horsepower, the 5th generation Vipers (2013-2017) had a 511 cubic inch engine with 640 hp and 600 ft/lbs torque, all at a weight of 3285 pounds. Probably 500 pounds lighter than a V8 Mustang and 180 more horsepower and 180 more ft/lbs of torque. That is the standard V8 Mustang specs. Obviously, they have had models (Shelby, etc.) with more than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and marcusluvsvols
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top