repaying social security

Now that our assets are down 50% and nothing but doom & gloom predicted on the horizon, I am considering re-entering the job market at the age of 62. I'm currently retired & collecting social security. If General Motors goes bankrupt, there will be more bloodshed for us (hubby& I), so things don't look good for our future. I have contacted SS and have found out that I can repay what I've collected so far (4 months) so that I won't have to pay the penalty of $1 for every $2 earned above $14160 (that is, if I go back to work and earn more). It would not be worth it for my hubby to re-enter the job market since he is older and would have to pay back far too much SS. Has anyone out there done this and at what point is it worth it to repay SS? Assuming that I am LUCKY enough to find a part-time job at my ripe age, earning $20,000 for example, I would have to payback SS $2920 (half of the amount above 14160) if I didn't repay the SS that I have gotten so far. Then again, if I repaid SS what I have collected thus far, when I finally do reapply, I will be getting more SS per month. Darn, I hate this dilemma. We saved all our lives and thought our retirement was secure. Now we are walking on eggshells. Sandy

Reply to
sandybeth
Loading thread data ...

I'd get the job first. Then look at what how much I'd be earning. If I were returning much of my SS, I'd withdraw the application and repay them my benefits so far. -- Doug

Reply to
Douglas Johnson

I believe the government pension guarantee covers up to 50k a year (I don't know if you already counted that).

Not to change your plans, but if it makes your day any brighter, it is people like you and your hubby that will pull this country and economy back out of the mess. I had a secure retirement, too, but zero interest rates and dividend cutting are putting a lot of retirees at risk. This massive sell-off in the market is becoming increasingly insane, as is the flight to T-Bills - perhaps that's a silver lining.

Reply to
dapperdobbs

I guess you would have to know how long you will live to answer this question. Thumper

Reply to
Thumper

Here is the pension insurance table maximums. Its is based on the age you retire.

formatting link
I have some relatives who retired from GM and been watching this too. The insurance punishes those who took early retirement, e.g. airline pilots who were forced to retire at age 60 until recently.

Reply to
rick++

I find this interesting: "The Corporation reported a year-end deficit of $11.2 billion. PBGC's mean projection indicated a

combined $26.3 billion deficit in ten years, with a

26 percent chance of reaching full funding in

that period."

Yet they claim:

The agency receives no funds from general tax revenues. Operations are financed largely by insurance premiums paid by companies that sponsor pension plans and investment returns.

If they were $11.2 billion in the red I wonder where they got the money to meet their obligations. Somehow I think they are getting taxpayer dollars.

Reply to
Alvin

formatting link
Some details of the pension plans of GM and their status is available here. There were negotiations with UAW and ammendments that make it a little difficult to sort out. As I read the balance sheet, their funded "Pensions" Liability increased from $11,381 billion at the end of 2007 to $25,178 billion at the end of 2008 (I'm assuming the $25 billion is the amount owed to the pensions at the end of the year). As I read the "Change in benefit obligations" (Note 16) the fair value of plan assets falls short of the obligations of $98,135 billion by $13,590. At the end of 2007 there was a surplus. The decline in funded assets appears relatively modest, given the extent of the financial market turmoil.

It strikes me as indicative of the relative size of assets and pension obligations, that GM's total revenue in 2008 was $147,732 billion, and their total assets $91,047 billion. If I'm reading this correctly, the company is more a defined benefit pension plan payor than an automobile manufacturer. In any case, I'm fairly certain the various fund(s) are segregated, so benefits are not entirely dependent on GM's survival.

I hadn't looked at their 10k previously, so the above is sketchy.

Reply to
dapperdobbs

If you pull the report

formatting link
00&context=key_workplace and jump right to page 2 of the report (the 5th PDF page), you find assets of $63B and liabilities of $74B, but benefits paid were 'only' about 4.3B, so the net negative includes future obligations. In 2008 their net actually improved from $14B red. It was a great year for them!

Joe

Reply to
JoeTaxpayer

I think they have obligations that are $11.2b more than their assets. But so far the money coming in has been enough to pay the current payments that are due. But their obligations are only going to grow, and their income is only going to fall, because there are lots of underfunded defined benefit plans out there, but very few new plans being put into place, so the premiums collected aren't likely to rise.

======================================= MODERATOR'S COMMENT: Please trim the post to which you respond. "Trim" means that except for a line or two of the previous post to add context, the previous post is deleted. Thank you.

Reply to
TheMightyAtlas

It's not based on the age you retire. It's based on your age when the bakruptcy occures. From the PBGC website:

"Your maximum guaranteed amount is based, in part, on your age on the plan termination date (or the date the sponsor entered bankruptcy, if applicable) or, if you were not in pay status on that date, the date you begin receiving benefits from PBGC."

Reply to
Charlie K

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.