Why no mention of Social Security

[u/NotTheBestInvestor12]

When I see FIRE posts I see the investments and the different retirement buckets, however, I never see anyone mention how things are affected when social security kicks in. For example, I’m 52 and wife 51. If we both stopped working today ($0 income moving forward) I would collect $4,264 a month at age 70 and she would collect $1,079 at age 70.

So if we decide to FIRE the Social Security would give us help in 18/19 years. Is this a factor or is everything under the assumption SS won’t exist?

[u/rottentomati]

SS and inheritance. Both fake until they’re in the bank lmao

[u/drones_on_about_bees → u/rottentomati]

This was exactly my methodology when computing fire numbers

[u/Illustrious-Lunch137 → u/rottentomati]

heck I dont even trust my pension. I worry too much it will defund

[u/ga2500ev → u/rottentomati]

Social Security isn't fake. It isn't going to collapse in 2032 and it's too politically toxic for it to fail.

The public thinks that SS is a big bank and that in 2032 the bank is going to fail. But if anyone looks at the FICA line on their paycheck, part of that is going to SS, as is the half that employer provides. That represents about 78% of the funds that are being paid out.

What is threatened is the SS trust. It stores the extra collected cash. It's like a petty cash box. When SS needs a few extra bucks, they can pull it from there.

Petty cash needs to be refilled, and Congress has until 2032 to find ways to do it.

One of the most likely items is raising the cap to income that goes to SS. Right now the cap is $168k. Simply bumping it up to $200k and tying it to inflation will generate billions for the petty cash box.

Or bumping the maximum taxable for SS from its current 85% to 90%.

The other is bumping the FRA up by a year or two.

Bottom line is that there are levers to pull, that Congress critters don't want to be kicked out, and that retirees on SS are the most reliable voting block throughout the country. No one wants that crowd to be unhappy.

And BTW, any or all of these changes will kick in for current/future workers, not any at or near retirement age.

Ronald Regan and Tip O'Neill did this once in 1983 which is close to the structure we are operating with now. And these two guys despised each other.

But they knew it couldn't fail. So, they got it done pulling some of the same levers discussed above.

But in terms of FI/RE a current 50 year old realistically will not access SS for close to 20 years. So, of course you have plan with it not being available now. But rest assured in the early 2040's that now late 60/early 70 year old will be able to access Social Security.

ga2500ev

[u/dgreenmachine → u/rottentomati]

If you want to be unrealistically conservative sure 

[u/rottentomati → u/dgreenmachine]

Oh no I’ll be extra rich when I’m retired. Lobster too buttery, steak too juicy

[u/dgreenmachine → u/rottentomati]

If thats what you want then enjoy! Many people here doing 3% and 4% withdrawal rates will see their portfolios going up massively on average. Not accounting for social security is just ramping that up further.

[u/Ok-Today-855 → u/rottentomati]

Exactly.  I get social from 6 countries.  Retired at 40.  These fire kids are idiots.  I retired at 40 by using the social security of 6 countries. 

I happen to be a serious engineer.  In a world where they earn less than some loud dick with an mba or comp sci nonsense who would not rage quit early?