Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

@5fbg, I did the same thing. I figured the my breakeven point is 79 years of age, if I started taking my SS benefits at 62. It's not worth it for me to wait after age 62. Each year I postpone starting SS, it's wasted time that only prolongs the breakeven point. The small gain in benefits for waiting additional years is not worth the return (for me). My wife, of the same age, will be able to file at the same time. Her benefit will be 50% of what mine is. Combining our SS income makes the reason for us collecting at 62 an easier one to make.

That would be nice, @5rbl, but I doubt that's ever going to happen. Chevron has never been overly generous to retirees, although they are upfront about all of the options at retirement time. That's one of the compelling reasons to take a lump sump and get a good financial advisor to invest it so it grows. When to take SS is a much harder decision. Seems like a gamble to wait until 70. Not only could the Feds change the rules at any time BUT who knows how long anyone will live? Your parents' lifespans are the best indication anyone has. When I look at the numbers, it will take me to age 79 to recover all of the money I would have taken at Age 62 if I wait. I am inclined to file for SS when I am 62. If live longer than Age 79, then good for me. By that time, I will have sold my longtime home and will have another lump sum to invest and spend when I need it. Everyone should have a financial advisor to help them work through all of this, especially if you are not financially inclined.

The fair and just thing for Chevton to do (and hopefully the government will mandate) is to coorect your pension by adjusting the SS offset amount initially used. So, if your actual SS PIA is reduced by 25%, then Chevron would have to also reduce the offset figure they used by 25% and increase their payout to you. Chevron's Retirement Plan seems to anticipate this possible scenario and stipulates it would not make adjustments. For me, Congress should be reminded and strongly urged to overturn any such language if they exist in a private pension plan. Fair is fair.

That's a good point that you made about the SS offset. However, Since it's a private pension and those rules/calculations have always been like that, I wouldn't expect them to change. And if they did do some sort of adjustment, the math would be rather complex. For everyone the calculation is different. It would be nice if they did, though. For instance, if you have the max SS (many CVX employees) you would have that offset decreased by 25% as SS is decreased by 25%. I don't think that it is a 1:1 relationship but it would increase your pension proportionally with the decrease in SS. For everyone the calc would be unique to his/her offset, which is what makes it less likely that they would want to entertain that concept. I'm sure that the Plan administrators would prefer to leave it as is and just consider the future retirees as unfortunate(or your favorite word). I think that could very well be grounds for legal action of some type, though. You could probably get some lawyers to bite if that ever happens. After all, the pension calculation is based on your actual SS benefit. And what about the option where you equalize benefits(take more Pension first, then less after SS and your income is constant) - that would be affected also. I am not sure if CVX gets that option. I can't remember.

Do you know when Chevron figures your pension, it deducts an amount called the Social Security Offset? This is the estimated benefit it expects you to receive from the SSA at 65 years of age. How would you feel if a few years into your retirement, our government cut your anticipated or current SS benefit? Chevron states in the Retirement Plan rules that once you take your pension, it would not be recalculated even if changes in the law occur. I would hope our representatives in Congress realize if they eventually cut our SS benefits (current or future), they better include provisions requiring retirement and pension plan administrators to make the necessary adjustments to make their retirees whole.

Iam going to take it at 66, kind of a compromise between 62 and 70

@HUBsWB1-4wip, You keep repeating yourself. It's obvious that you're fighting inner demons.

Think logically about what you just said, child, as if your job depended on your certainty of your comment. For the politicians to eliminate SS altogether in a few years is pure fantasy. If they did that, they will be declaring a powerful uprising in this country. They won't only be surrendering their jobs, but their own lives as well. At best, they will try to dissolve SS over a period of 30 years, little by little, until the benefit is insignificant.

There will be no SS in a couple of years, child.

@4lmi, I understand what you're saying about SS and the confusion of the term; "entitlement". Politicians and other change agents are responsible for the twisting of the word's meaning. Back to Social Security... It's accepted by (most) all of us that we should expect to get back everything we contributed to the program, nor can we opt for a lump sum payout. Even though politicians have bastardized the program since its inception to allow non-contributors to feed at the trough, does not, in my book, allow the government to diminish my promised benefit. I will not accept getting screwed out of my entitlement (in the correct use of the word). No one should allow being ripped off without a fight.

@-4dss - That would nice- if things were fair to the tax-payers and FICA/OASDI payers. But it is not. You don't actually get back a figure based on what you put in, although your monthly benefits are calculated based on that in a "roundabout way". If that was the case, you could opt for a lump sum, etc, so you would actually get a legitimate return on what you put in. Just like there are many people eligible for SS who did not contribute at all (spouses, children, disabled, etc.) it is more akin to federal income tax and it's related benefits distribution(Welfare, Foodstamps, Medicaid) in it's execution. It is an entitlement, like any other, just that the requirements are more stringent (don't be afraid of the actual dictionary definition of the term "entitlement" please). It is not based on fairness and return for your contributions. I understand that the term "entitlement" has been misused lately as a political buzz-word meaning only the alternate definition of something you did not earn or something derogatory(roughly). That is not the only definition and it has only been used that way recently (~last decade or so?). It really screws up English when politics takes over the meaning of a word.

It doesn't matter what method they would use for Means Testing. In my book, taking away any amount from what was earned and promised is synonymous with bait and switch. It would an aggregeous act. Change the rules if they must, but the change should take effect with anyone now entering the workforce for the first time.

If they are really bring in means testing. , I hope it is based on income ( which as a retiree we have some control over) rather than your net worth . What is in a high Net Worth in Texas is not even close in California, so an arbitrary net worth figure just does not make sense

Politicians don't get Social Security, they get a sweetheart pension that's even better than that. Surely, these bastards and bitches will find a way to screw us all out of a promise made by previous politicians. Nothing new in that, but when it comes to Social Security, I expect to get everything out of it. After all, I had no say in having SS taxes taken out of my paychecks.

Who knows what will happen, 3cih. Things could play out just as you explained. Politicians are somewhat predicable in what they do. They talk a good game, but in the final analysis, whatever does them the least damage politically, is usually the route they end up taking. Changes to Social Security is imminent, and the politicians will make changes right away for certain people and other changes for another class if people later. There will be phased-in changes and immediate changes. All will be carefully calculated to avoid as much backlash on them, the politicians. All-in-all, taking your SS at the earliest possible age of 62 might work out to be everyone's best choice.

As inefficient as Congress and the Federal Govt. Programs generally are, they do not do things at random based on past SS changes. It is generally based upon age. For instance, When they raised the FRA it applied to all people born after - 1958?(approx). When they removed the file and suspend provision, you could still file and suspend if you were born before a certain age and take full advantage of that provision. For those reasons, I would not expect delaying benefits as having an effect on your PiA as a result of future reductions, Unless part of the reduction is removing the ~24% increase - unlikely, because that would mean penalizing random people. I would expect all benefits to be reduced at a certain date (for all) or all benefits reduced for people born later than a certain date, as they do with the other changes. In the case of all benefits reduced across the board, it is a legitimate strategy to take your benefits early if you plan on gambling that it will happen. It is unreasonable to think that they would "back reduce" anyone. I suppose you could estimate that the people delaying would get roughly the typical 62 year old(reduced) benefits and the people who took reduced benefits get another 25% cut. either way, everyone takes a cut. You could show mathematically that the people taking it early have a slight advantage, not having to endure the 25% cut for a few years. A lot of people believe that they will take one of the many other routes, means testing, tapping into other resources, raising taxes, etc. They could effectively reduce benefits somewhat over the years by simply freezing the payouts, i.e. COL increase = 0. I understand that I'm just guessing. No one really knows. Any thoughts?

@3tjg, You make a very sensible point. In a perfect world, I'd be inclined to think like that. But there's the "wild card" called Congress. We all know Social Security is both the 3rd rail in politics, but it's also the elephant in the room that's getting harder to ignore. Sooner rather than later, something has to give. I strongly think our promised benefits in SS will be cut back. Maybe by a basis of 25% for everyone, and a little more for others like us with pensions and larger than average 401k balances (aka, Means Testing). So, I'm all in at 62. Chances are better they will grandfather me in for no changes if already collecting my SS. For those still not collecting, the changes will impact them. Grab the brass ring before it passes you, is my motto.

There are many states, including Texas, that do not tax social security income.

if you are going to live till 100, better to take it at 70. Also, don't forget the impact of Taxes

That was my plan from the very beginning, 3gub.

Take it early before congress starts cutting benefits. Also, the federalies want you to die as early as possible after you start collecting. It saves them alot of money that they can spend on more worthy things like refugee resettlement and illegal immigrant benefits. Take it early and live to be 100. Make those bastards pay.

There will not be any 401k in a couple of years, child.

Hey guys, lonely people usually go to a chat room to chat. This is a forum for specific topics/threads. Scram.

Don't go to such places anymore, they are dangerous, heard about Orlando, I guess?

No problem, just want to help you save your useless life

Yes I have been there many times. I am gay. Do you have a problem with that?

How do you know? Have you been there many times?

To the guy obsessed with eating gay ass There's a f----t tush buffet in Montrose every Friday and Saturday night.

There will not be any 401k in a couple of years, child.

Good luck with your plan, 3pfc. It sounds like a well thought out plan, but you underestimate our Federal Government and their sneaky ways. It's 8 long years to get from 62 to 70. Meanwhile all those early payments and any annual COLA increases are yours for 8 years. I'd rather take a sure thing as early as possible rather than risk losing it all together. I'll live off the SS benefits starting at 62 and touch as little of my invested 401k. Keeping my 401k balance for later in life will provide me a safety net and what ever remains after I die, will go to my heirs. That's my plan. I wish you the best in your plan.

It is the strategic question of the USA Social and Country Security to save gays population

To the bigoted person below who seems obsessed with gays, what does that have to do with Social Security , the topic of this thread? I don't give a rats_ass about your obsession with eating gays. Take it to another forum.

It will be very hard to be gay in difficult times, they will be first to be eliminated (eaten). They will go first, as they are less prepared for the war and they are the weakest members of society.

I will wait until I am 70. I will spend down my savings in prior to that. The SS is more consistent. The worse that we will get is a 25% blow which will most likely affect everyone across the board. Big woop. If I am 70 I don't think I will give a hoot about that. I would rather have a consistent greater income later than less sooner. Past a certain age it averages out to be the same. The entire time that you are taking those reduced distributions, you may regret not holding out for more. That goes on for years. When a person dies do you think he/she regrets the fact that he didn't take SS sooner? No. He/she is dead. But when you are still alive - you DO look forward with comfort the day when you can take those increased benefits. Every day that you are alive you get to look forward with comfort and anticipation for that. And if you have enough savings, your life is unchanged regardless.

@-3ucm, Yes you will indeed, and you have your gay lover to keep your hard asscompany!! We're not here to judge. It fits your profile perfectly. There's nothing to be ashamed of, sweetie!

That's true, 2hqa. But I'll long outlive your soft ass

@HUBsWB1-2lmx, Hope you have enough for yourself pal, because with that attitude no one's helping you. When you run out - You die. Good luck!!

I'm taking mine at 62 and not a day later. Get it while you can. Both Repubs and Dems want to screw all hard working Americans out of the promise to get what the government promised you and forcefully took from your pay checks since your first job. They've been using that "lockbox" for years as a piggy bank to buy votes, and soon they'll just start shutting off the spigot little by little.

Don't come a-knockin'. You won't get any help here. Prepare yourself for surviving or fend off the savages on your own. If you have something to trade, I'll have the stockpiles of booze, cigarettes and bullets. Come empty handed and you won't leave to try again.

@-2lfz, So you and your fellow savages will be out hunting people down with your stockpiles of guns, ammo and gold so that you can pilfer more gold, I suppose. Sounds lovely!! Put the desperado magazines down, fella. Take a few deep breaths.