actors over 65

[disneykid52]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? any US state.
This isnt about SSD or SSI but regular social security. Hollywood actors over age 65 still work in the movies and some get big buck salaries for their work. Can they still collect social security every month along with their big time salaries?

 

[FlyingRon]

Same as everybody else, once you get to 67 you can get your ss retirement benefits that are independent from any other income you have.
Before that time, there is a reduction for earnings.

 

[Eekamouse]

Gonna report one of your imaginary movie star friends?

 

[justalayman]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? any US state.
This isnt about SSD or SSI but regular social security. Hollywood actors over age 65 still work in the movies and some get big buck salaries for their work. Can they still collect social security every month along with their big time salaries?

I recall quite a few years ago somebody made a huge deal about a famous and presumably well to do actress (I believe it was Phyllis Diller) collecting SS benefits.

Personally, given the purpose of the fund I would support an asset limit to qualify but as it stands, there is no such limit.

 

[Zigner]

I recall quite a few years ago somebody made a huge deal about a famous and presumably well to do actress (I believe it was Phyllis Diller) collecting SS benefits.

Personally, given the purpose of the fund I would support an asset limit to qualify but as it stands, there is no such limit.

I have a friend that has owned his own business for 50+ years. His income is well in to the 6 figure range (approaching 7 figures). He collects social security. Yes, an asset limit would make sense.

 

[cbg]

They paid into the SS system. Why should they be restricted from receiving benefits based on what they paid?

 

[justalayman]

They paid into the SS system. Why should they be restricted from receiving benefits based on what they paid?

because the original purpose was to provide some assistance to assist those that otherwise would not have adequate income to live after retirement. It was enacted prior to the heyday of decent pension and other post retirement benefits.

Those of adequate means have no need for SS and given its orignal purpose, should not be allowed to draw from it, at least in my opinion

 

[cbg]

And originally, social security payments were made in one lump sum. It's not 1935 any more.

 

[justalayman]

And originally, social security payments were made in one lump sum. It's not 1935 any more.

and pensions that allowed the SS payments to be superfluous to their overall lifestyle for many people are also on the way out.

It was a means to assist those of lesser means. People with large fortunes simply do not need the money and especially since the system is so troubled, I would think a qualification based on personal wealth would be in the best interest of the country,

 

[cbg]

I don't have a problem with that, actually, nor do I have strong feelings on the matter either way. But I was answering the brat...pardon me, OP's question.

Yes, until such time as a law as described elsewhere in the thread is passed, high income earners who paid into the system and who otherwise qualify are entitled to collect SS benefits.

Any other ridiculous questions?

 

[LdiJ]

because the original purpose was to provide some assistance to assist those that otherwise would not have adequate income to live after retirement. It was enacted prior to the heyday of decent pension and other post retirement benefits.

Those of adequate means have no need for SS and given its orignal purpose, should not be allowed to draw from it, at least in my opinion

I disagree...at least based on the law. Its a forced retirement contribution. The taxes that are paid into the system are specifically earmarked as retirement benefits and people have no choice at all as to whether or not to contribute to the forced system. I would agree with you if people simply paid federal taxes based on a calculated system and those who had lower incomes were entitled to retirement benefits from the system, but that is not how its set up.

Plus, if you look at how federal taxes actually work, its clear that lower income people get serious credits into the social security system even when they pay no tax at all...due to their refundable credits, not even social security taxes.

Between EIC and the additional child tax credit lower income people with children get social security credits even though when they file their tax returns they get back more money than they ever paid in withholding taxes...including social security and medicare taxes...yet they still get the credits.

On top of that retirees who have more than certain levels of income (and those levels are quite low) pay tax on up to 85% their social security benefits which is double taxation, since they previously paid tax on that same income.

So, under the current system a humongous number of people who never paid an actual penny into social security will receive retirement benefits...and a humongous number or people who DID pay into social security will pay tax on 85% of the income they ALREADY paid tax on.

Yes, there is some scuttlebutt that eventually social security will become means tested...however that will be patently unfair...because the current system already is unfair.

 

[FlyingRon]

I've pretty much paid the full FICA contribution for the past 25 years (and lesser amounts before that). I'm supposed to be also penalized because I saved money for my retirement as opposed to someone who paid less into SS and decided not to save?

 

[commentator]

As someone who has worked with both types of programs, I am of the opinion that as soon as Social Security retirement becomes "means tested" we will be on our way, in an even bigger way than we can imagine, to serfdom and slavery and the peer/peasant society. It's the same reason I do NOT approve of members of congress not being paid salaries. It clearly sets up a situation of "I need it" or "I don't need it."

In the first place, enforcement and certification of people for Social Security benefits will become a complete nightmare. There will be thousands and thousands of critics lining up to say, "What? They're receiving Social Security? What business do they have with two cars? A new bedspread? Expensive medical procedures? " The classic example is those who wish we had "food stamp police" to stand in the groceries and forbid people who are receiving "our tax dollars" from buying junk food. Not realizing that to enforce such silliness would cost far more than the whole program in general.

Verification will give the government certifiers huge amounts of access to private accounts and information. We will have to set up punishments for those who falsify and try to cheat the system. There'll be a few of those.

There will be a large number of older people who will try to starve and get by, without accepting this "welfare." It will become a point of pride and people will be able to feel superior if they're too rich to have to get Social Security. It'll be another way to judge, belittle and feel superior for those who are born lucky.

Means testing for Social Security is pretty much another way we could jump in here and make our country totally crappy, another way to allow the haves to lord over the have nots economically, and make them feel virtuous about doing it. I think the whole concept of Social Security retirement for anyone who's paid into the system, regardless of means, is an excellent idea, and has gone a long way toward making the program the most popular in our government's history.

I believe that taking social security out of more and more of a person's earnings, not just the first so many thousand, might be a way to go. After all, we do have in this country a lot of people who are making out like crazy, and are raking in the money obscenely. I'd like to see us put more of that money into the general Social Security pot. But never do I want to see "needing it" as a criteria for Social Security retirement.

 

[justalayman]

That is all part of what we have accepted in a civilized society. Those that "have" contribute to systems that aid those that "don't have".

@ Ron:

It isn't a matter of being penalized any more than you also are not able to obtain welfare benefits due to your income and assets. Just because the tax is specifically for the SS system doesn't make it any less a tax than one that contributes to the various welfare systems. Would you feel better if the specific contribution was removed and it all lumped into a general tax withholding?


@ commentator

we don't qualify people for myriad systems currently? Why would such a system be any more onerous than what is currently in place?

Verification will give the government certifiers huge amounts of access to private accounts and information

really? While I am not a conspiracy theorist, do you really think there is anything truly hidden from the gov at this point? Two simple words that allow an almost unfettered investigation into anything about anybody: Patriot Act. If they want to know, they already are give such leeway they can "legally" discover the info.

But never do I want to see "needing it" as a criteria for Social Security retirement.

Yet, if it had not been for those that "needed it", it would never have been enacted. As with any welfare system (yes, it is a welfare system as it was created because of the "have not's" and their needs), if there is no need, it will not be created.

I don't totally disagree with removing or raising the cap on paying into the system as we have now but hey, who is willing to pay more, especially when those paying more are also those that would benefit the least, if at all from the increased contribution?

 

[FlyingRon]

That is all part of what we have accepted in a civilized society. Those that "have" contribute to systems that aid those that "don't have".

@ Ron:

It isn't a matter of being penalized any more than you also are not able to obtain welfare benefits due to your income and assets. Just because the tax is specifically for the SS system doesn't make it any less a tax than one that contributes to the various welfare systems. Would you feel better if the specific contribution was removed and it all lumped into a general tax withholding?

It is being penalized. I am (possibly) OK with an income test. If you're working perhaps you're not retired (though I can make arguements as to why that may be bad public policy as well). However, what's the difference between someone who makes $100,000 for 30 years and buys a new car every other year and someone who driives clunkers for 30 years to save for his retirement. Why do I lose my benefits based on his irresponsibility?

As for "would you feel better if they was pushed out the winder little girl" argument, if it was sold that way to me over the years, perhaps. But in 45 years of paying into SS, it was never the issue that making savings would be counted against you at retirement.
Should we take back everybody's pensions or other retirement benefits just because they were smart enough to do the math and realized SS and many pension plans would NOT be sufficient at age 67?

Most of the whiners here seem to be people who haven't bothered to save (or perhaps even work) but still want their benefits.