Thread regarding Chevron Corp. layoffs

Is -7dhx still not hospitalized and isolated from society?

In this Mad Max dystopia, what role does Gollum the mindless dysfunctional pederast hitler troll play? He should get a role which will occupy his life so that he does not have to troll on websites for the layoff topics of companies that he has noting to do with. Please someone give this simpleton dweeb something to do.

Why demented arguments? If you run any business, do you look into your balance sheets? Look at the USA, what is combined debt, including all different types starting from household debts and up to sovereign debt of 19 trillions. How are you going to pay those? Or, you think you never pay them? All your high living standards are because you "borrowed" from foreign countries and also from future generations. You either must pay these debts or you need to collapse the whole system. Most likely the second option, and you will be buried . That is so clear!!!

@7de - Precisely. If you believe that the US is headed for a Mad Max dystopia in a couple of years then it makes no difference whether you take SS at 62, 66, 70 or whatever, so it's not relevant to the decision process. If you want to discuss your theories on a coming apocalypse, and what you should do about it, then start a new thread and see if anyone bites. Better yet, go somewhere else where's it's relevant and leave this site alone.

It is exactly on topic! Does it make sense to discuss SS and make all those calculations if the SS system cease this or next year?

Hey 7yyu, stay on topic or take your demented arguments to another website like InfoWars.

Why you don't want to see that fact that the USA is a bankrupt? After the crisis of the 80's the USA was saved by the collapse of the Soviet Union, when a lot of Soviet resources and money, as well as those of the socialist countries were stolen and robbed by the West. But now there is no other victim to rob, except sweet piece Russia, but you can do nothing with the Russian bear, which is now laughing at you how you go to the cliff.

I'm sure if politicians really put their collective effort into ending government waste and fraud, we won't be having this conversation about the future of our Social Security. The program will be well funded and able to pay its obligations for generations to come.

"As you know, the Social Security System is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Over the next five years, the Social Security trust fund could encounter deficits of up to $111 billion, and in the decades ahead its unfunded obligations could run well into the trillions. Unless we in government are willing to act, a sword of Damocles will soon hang over the welfare of millions of our citizens."

President Ronald Reagan, Letter to Congressional Leaders, May 21, 1981

For as long as I can remember, people have been saying that the demise of SS is imminent. From an historical perspective, SS is really not in that bad shape right now, certainly nowhere near the trouble it was in in the early 80s. Yes, the government can renege on it's promise and change it radically, but it can also do other things like cap the amount you can have in your 401K and IRAs and force you to withdraw the excess at a higher tax rate, in which case you'd have been better off using up that money first and delaying taking SS. It's kind of fruitless to follow a strategy assuming you can anticipate what the politicians will do. We can only be sure of the best strategy in hindsight.

I hear you, 6zgr. I think where the conversation was going, is the angst people have about the amount of the SS benefit they are expecting to receive come retirement (based on what's estimated in their social security statement) vs what might it might become, given the ramped up talk in government about cutting future SS benefits. Sorry, but I and everyone I know won't chock this one up to a "it's just life" thing. I hold my government to a higher standard, where a promise made is a promise kept. I also know, that sadly, there are a growing number in government who seem or I to forget that. That's called a lack of integrity.

-6gxb, No that's not a realistic assessment because although a $million may not seem like a lot to the average well-paid O&G professional, you are not the average retiree(or future retiree). The average retiree only has $100k-200k or so in savings and not much else, I forgot the actual figure. So you need to look at it like that. And then if it effects the $1MM net worth people, it would only be the top slice. In 2013 it was about the top 8% not including home. They need to make a change which makes a difference. If they cut it too small then they will get nothing by doing it. They could also do it based on income, like Obummerdon'tcare.(ACA) subsidies do. That would allow you to work around it, somewhat. Don't forget, SS is designed to benefit the poorest people the most, it says so on their site which is why the difference in benefits decreases the closer you get to the max taxable income(contributions). You get the most (90%) for the first 10%?? or so of the max taxable. So in many ways, it's like FIT. The top 10% carry most of the load and financial burden, yet they get the smallest portion of it back compared to what they put it. That's just life. You guys have been selected to pull the wagon. Hillary voters are here for the ride. And to get solar subsidies and bitch and complain about YOU who pull the wagon.

I don't have faith in our government to honor their promises. As sound as anyone may formulate their financial plans involving the use of their social security promise, all bets are off when assuming the government is the stable element in the equation. Our politicians know that touching SS is a hot potato, so the changes they make will be phased in over time. A few will be grandfathered to have not changes affect them. All others will be means tested to have benefits reduced. Who knows where the line is drawn, but you can be assured the groups who are affected will be kept into buckets that won't tilt the balance of power the politicians want to keep over us all. My thought is the end result they will aim for after all the phased-in changes are made, is the vast majority of SS recipients will all be receiving the same benefit. No matter if you contributed more than others did over your lifetime to SS, you and most everyone else will get a very similar amount from SSA. It will be another example of how our government has been screwing the taxpayer for decades. That's my reason for taking my SS benefit at 62. I have no faith in the government to honor their promises.

If means testing is really implemented, what dollar net worth would be the cut off ?

A million dollar net worth sounds like a lot, but in this low rate environment , it is really not much, especially if you live in California

I would think if it happens , the net worth where folks would get impacted should be at least 5 million dollars

I'm planning on waiting until I'm 70. Here's my reasoning:

My 401K plus lump sum is more than enough for me to live on for quite a while. The main risk I see is if a live to 100 and there is high inflation and/or terrible investment returns. One way to mitigate this risk is to buy longevity insurance (aka a deferred annuity). This is an annuity that only starts to pay if/when you reach a certain age, e.g. 85. Another way is to consider the extra money you get by deferring SS until you are 70 to be a form of cheap longevity insurance. This is because SS is the one income you have in retirement that is both guaranteed and inflation adjusted. By waiting until I am 70 to collect a larger SS I can plan my spending without being obsessed with what might happen in the low probability event I live to be 100, as I know that I'll have a reasonable income even if investment returns are low and inflation is high. Of course, there is some risk that SS will be changed radically during that time, but I feel that it unlikely that the government will drastically cut benefits for those at or near retirement, as it would be political suicide and perceived as unfair. Means testing would be the most likely thing, but if I have enough resources to be affected by means testing, then I'm probably OK. Of course, if during my 60's I get diagnosed with a serious illness or something else happens that makes me think that my life expectancy is shorter than expected, I'll probably file right away.

I don't need to take SS at 62, but plan to do so in two years. I'm only 60 years old and recently left Chevron. My financial picture is such that I can live off my Chevron annuity alone, not a King's life, but adequate. In two years, the early SS income will supplement my annuity income and my wife and I will be able to travel more and enjoy life more fully. I'm factoring in my wife's 50% SS spousal benefit based on my own SS benefit. My plan for the 401k is to leave it alone until I'm required to take minimum distributions at age 70. If an emergency pops up, I may be required to dip into the 401k piggy bank, but otherwise, it will remain there until Uncle Sam obligates me to start drawing it down. Any monies remaining after my wife and I die, will be willed to my heirs.

6ysi, you obviously don't need to take social at 62, but you are still doing it, correct ?

When do you plan to start tapping your 401K ? , if is not till 70, your RMD will incur a higher tax rate

Correct, 6grq. At age 70, everyone must start taking Minimum Required Distributions from their IRA and 401k retirement accounts. I for one am not yet 62, but am drawing my Chevron pension as an annuity, so I already have a guaranteed income stream. My 401k balance is over $1MM, but no need to touch it. My mortgage is paid off and I'm debt free. SS at 62 will work fine for me.

At the age of 70 aren't you required to start tapping into your IRA? I was told that because the government wants the taxes owed. this would be another source of offset in taking at 62,

Good article at Schwab, 6gxr. Thanks for posting. As stated in the article, strategies for married couples to maximize their social security benefits, like the file-and-suspend, and restricted application have been eliminated. As also stated, social security is a "moving target". Theoretically, taking SS at 62, FRA, or 70 is supposed to work out the same if you live to the "average age expectancy". Since we don't know when we'll die (natural or not), it's difficult to apply logic to the math. One can only wish to live to be 100. But as I noted at the beginning of my post, the government has started shutting off the spigot. It's only a short matter of time they begin to start cutting everyone's SS benefit or eliminate SS to start another pipe dream. I'm taking mine at 62.

You might want to check out this article from Schwab. It does a pretty good job of covering many of the issues around when to file for social security.

http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/When-Should-You-Take-Social-Security

Wow , would never believe that such sick idiot even exist!

@6ods, You've described yourself better than I could. Thanks for saving me the time.

The terms little hitler, fascist, sadist,idiot, rotflmaobao, "no prospects, no future, no job, no woman" are exclusively taken by idiotic fascistic bioorganism with programmed electronic device instead of brain who is spending most of his life on layoff losers forums. Beware of that organic creature with no moral, he has strange sexual fantasies and wants to kill and eliminate everybody, resembling human being

If the US economy was strong enough and corporations weren't so eager to get rid of employees in their mid to late 50's, there wouldn't be a need for so many to be forced into a decision to take social security at 62.

It's well documented that most Americans, for whatever their reasons are, take SS at 62. Most say they don't trust the government and want what they can get now.

That $87200 is tax free in many states. Also, you can earn, I think, $15120 in adjusted income up to age 66 and not lose any benefit. The adjusted income increases at 66 and is unlimited at 70. Up until about 10 years ago, taking social security at 62 was generally highly discouraged, but with increasing uncertainty about social security solvency, the trend to recommend early payments is increasing. Face it, the odds of anyone getting back into the oil industry who has been laid off and over 60 is about zero. My mother is still living and when she passes, I will have about 1/2 million or more inheritance. Personally, I find the thought of profiting from her death very uncomfortable and morbid, but life is what it is.

Wrong @6vyn, that term is reserved for the fool known as "ROTFLMAOBOAY" that comes on this site from time to time posting insults and immaturities. He's the one and only deserving of being told he has No Woman, No Prospects, No Job, No Future.

@-6ujx, your basic math is correct but the conclusion is slightly off because you did not allow the payments to converge. (two different ages, two different totals) It's simpler to take the first 4 year total ($87200) and divide it by the payment difference ($686) to determine months to "catch up" then add that to FRA. It will be roughly 76.6.

And you, little hitler-fascist have no prospects, no job, no woman.

And Gollum, (-5bfi)the Evil one, crept up and slipped away with a post.

Gollum is a lonely troll. He has no life.

Stupid kids, having a lot of time and nothing to do. Go and do something useful for your family and country!

@5suk: If you start your SS at Full Retirement Age (66 and 2 months), you will lose $87,200 of income that you would have received had you started drawing at 62 ($1744/month for 50 months). At $686/month, your breakeven point is Age 73+. In other words, if you commence your SS at FRA earning $2430/month, you will be 73 and 8 months before you earn $218,700 total. If you commence your SS at 62 earning $1744 /month, you will be 72.5 when you earn $219,744 total. So, if you live longer than 73 years and 8 months, it will make sense to wait until FRA.

Very stupid and useless calculations, unless you just want to do some math exercises like high school students. It is absolutely clear that you won't have any pension soon, maybe some food stamps from transition government or humanitarian help from the United Nations, it is already decided that world community is not going to provide any resources to the us, nobody is going to feed you, nobody is going to buy the us treasuries anymore, you are bankrupts anyway. You will get very soon interest rates increase, which is inevitable, and after that total collapse, where all your pensions and savings will be burned. Look at all your debt. You think you will never pay them back. NO. You will pay for everything. All debts are always paid, this is life fundamental truth. And you are not exceptional.

@5zyv, that's why everyone needs to consider very carefully when they should start taking their social security. There are many variables to consider. Your health and life expectancy should be foremost your first concern. Your other financial sources should be second, and the uncertainty of SS reductions should be the last. In the end though, it's each person's decision to make. Good discussion here on this thread. Thanks.

In this ultra low rate environment, I think unless you need it or have health issues, it is worth it to wait till 70 and get the 8 % guaranteed return from 62 to 70. Yes, there is some risk of the Congress messing with Social Security, but that is risk Iam willing to take

@HUBsWB1-5suk, I believe that you are doing the math wrong. It's more like age 76 for you. The break even point that most people speak of is the point in time where both options would accumulate the same lump sum total. The most simplistic way, ignoring potential investment returns and Cola increases (they apply to both), would be take the 83k figure divided by the 686 figure, then how many years does it take to earn back those first four years with the higher benefit amount after age 66. You forget, you are also getting the smaller amount (+cola) until you die. however, I am an advocate of the save it for later for comfort philosophy. It's actually more reliable than the stock market returns of an investment portfolio, believe it or not. If you take less, you make regret it the entire time. If you die early - no regretting possible for a dead person(you're dead), unless you have heirs, who are not your spouse who need to be spoiled brats and are not going to learn to be independent so you think giving them a huge chunk of inheritance for them to waste at once will teach them to be independent. That's only an option if you can afford it.

@5suk I think that should be $83712/$686 = 10.169 years to catch up by taking SS at 66 rather than 62.

@5suk, you are figuring things correctly if basing it on the assumptions taken from your Social Security statement. The forecast figures shown on your SS statement for age 62, FRA, and 70 assume your future years income will be the same as last year's. I'm already retired and my income levels are not increasing or staying the same. Surely, your analysis has validity, as the longer one waits to collect their SS benefit, the higher it will go. The 8% and increase is correct, but I think that's only from your FRA age to 70 only. Either way, my comment on taking it early at 62 was solely based on me being retired and not working anymore. Thanks for making your point, though.

Here are my calculations. I get $1744/month at 62 and $2430/month at 66. Four years at $1744 equals $83712. The monthly difference from age 62 to 66 is $686/month. Four years at $686/month difference equals $32928 in total benefit loss. $83712÷$2430=34.449 months, or 2.87 years. So, if I wait until age 66, will my break even be 66+2.87 which be almost age 69? Just want to make sure that I am doing this correctly.

I fully understand your thinking, but waiting till 70 is not a small gain, it is pretty significant, about 8 percent a year or somewhere in that range