Comment

Comment on Typical US worker has less than $1,000 saved for retirement, report finds

partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

if you earned $200,000/yr

Note, the max you need to earn to receive the top SS benefit is $176,100 in 2025 (it increases a bit in 2026). So the person earning $176,100 and the person receiving $200,000 get the same social security benefit.

you’ll get ~$4000/mo

That’s true if you retire at Full Retirement age (which is 67 years old for nearly all of us on Lemmy). If you delay taking your SS benefit until 70 years old the benefit would be $5100/month. If you take the SS benefit before Full Retirement age at 62 you would only get about $2800/month. To your point, all of these numbers are for that top earner of $176,100. Benefits are reduced for lower working year incomes.

$1500 month is poverty. Period.

$1500/month doesn’t meet the federal definition of poverty for an individual, but I agree with you in spirit. However, for a married couple thats $3k/month, thats $36,000/year. Social Security benefits are taxed, but that income would have them in the low 12% tax bracket. Rent/mortgage (largest portion of spending) doesn’t double for two people. That could provide an okay modest retirement in a LCOL area.

Social Security was never designed to be the only income in retirement. It was one of the legs of the “3 legged stool” meaning Social Security, pension, and savings. Few jobs these days have a traditional pension, but that leg is replace with the 401k/403b/IRA/TSP. Those going into retirement with just Social Security won’t die from exposure to the elements, but it will be a very basic and minimal lifestyle.

source

Sort:hotnew top

RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
I used the social security ssa.gov calculator.

I used ”~” to denote approximations.

I noted there were age ranges.

I specifically stated “assuming no other retirement funds.”

$1,500 a month is poverty, federal definitions be damned.

I appreciate the tuneup, but in no way was anything I said incorrect and pedantry was unwarranted.

source
- partial_accumen@lemmy.world ⁨10⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago
  
  I noted there were age ranges.
  
  And I gave those age ranges filling out your example, for those reading your mostly good post that care for the additional details. If you care don’t feel free to ignore them, they’re not for you, they’re for the person you’re responding to where I felt your answer was a bit incomplete, but not wrong.
  
  $1,500 a month is poverty, federal definitions be damned.
  
  And I said I agree with you in spirit.
  
  I appreciate the tuneup, but in no way was anything I said incorrect and pedantry was unwarranted.
  
  Calm down, I’m not attacking you or saying you’re wrong. I’m adding additional context and details mostly supporting your argument.
  
  source