Cha! I'm still in the $144.60 category. I should spend more time on my investment income and less time on this site! Maybe there are others here who agree with that.
One more thing. The married and filing separately has nothing to do with sex, it has to do with relative income size. In case one spouse makes several times what the other one does.

I was referring to the exception mentioned in the footnote of the SSA notice. Technically, if one "lived apart from their spouse for the entire year," they can be treated as single. Ask any agent what that means in practice. When I asked, the agent responded,"Did you sleep with your wife even once during the year." You can put any interpretation you want on that, but most people would consider that information none of the government's business.

 

Has the matter been adjudicated by the tax court? If not, then that's one agents's opinion.

 

IRMA is a tax on Social Security benefits. Since FICA "investments" are after-tax dollars and SSA pension benefits are to a large extent taxable, IRMA is a tax on income that has already been taxed twice before.

Well, technically, IRMAA is not a tax. It is an additional premium paid in order to receive Medicare Part B or D benefits. This may be splitting hairs as the end result is the same, but still...

If you don't want to pay the IRMAA, just don't sign up for Medicare Part B or D

Sure, paying IRMA may be justified by some people from the perspective that it is a tax on a minority of the population who have a reported higher income (NB: Some deductions allowed on Federal taxes are disallowed for MAGI calculation). However, that minority generally paid a lot more into the system and their SSA benefits are virtually the same as everyone else's. Why should someone be made to pay more to remain healthy just because they planned ahead, saved, and invested more?

In a nutshell, because that's what a progressive tax system does. It requires those that can pay more to pay more.

And Medicare has never had a tiered system where the sick. or unhealthy had to pay more, in the form of premiums, than someone who is healthy.

 

Well, technically, IRMAA is not a tax. It is an additional premium paid in order to receive Medicare Part B or D benefits. This may be splitting hairs as the end result is the same, but still...

Please provide a citation to support that distinction.

It is a required deduction based on income. That is a tax. Taken together with the American market for health insurance and the requirement to get insurance (based on Obamacare and the SCOTUS decision in 2012 regarding the "individual mandate") it is disingenuous to suggest that enrollment in Medicare is optional (unless, perhaps you have the golden retirement package provides to anyone who has served in Congress).

 

Please provide a citation to support that distinction.

It is a required deduction based on income. That is a tax. Taken together with the American market for health insurance and the requirement to get insurance (based on Obamacare and the SCOTUS decision in 2012 regarding the "individual mandate") it is disingenuous to suggest that enrollment in Medicare is optional (unless, perhaps you have the golden retirement package provides to anyone who has served in Congress).

IRMA is not a tax. Just because it’s “required” and “income-based”, that isn’t sufficient to call it a tax.

The official distinction between a tax and a fee is in the distribution of funds. A tax is for general purposes of government. A fee is only for a specific purpose. In this case, the fee is for health insurance premiums.

While the distinction is blurred, it not only applies to Medicare... but other programs as well. This minor difference is used in propaganda. Don’t let yourselves be fooled.

 

Please provide a citation to support that distinction.

It is a required deduction based on income. That is a tax. Taken together with the American market for health insurance and the requirement to get insurance (based on Obamacare and the SCOTUS decision in 2012 regarding the "individual mandate") it is disingenuous to suggest that enrollment in Medicare is optional (unless, perhaps you have the golden retirement package provides to anyone who has served in Congress).

Because the SS administration calls it a premium!

It's not disingenuous. Nobody is making you sign up for Medicare. It is optional. You can not take it and self-insure. You also have the option to go ahead and try to find a plan for health care insurance on the private market if you're over 65 or 70. See how much that costs you. I guarantee it's going to be a whole lot more that Medicare Part D + the IRMAA.

 

My Brother is a Vet, he said why should I sign up for Medicare at all? He said his income cannot withstand more hits for a service he will never use. Regardless of care options.

I'm just glad I may have the chance to sell my house as well as my Fathers in Trust, the house in trust won't be counted as income because it's under 5 million. I think the increase number on my taxes would trigger the gov. to try and mess with me if I were on SS. I think it's time to seek financial assistance ahead of time to way my options.

kv

 

My Brother is a Vet, he said why should I sign up for Medicare at all? He said his income cannot withstand more hits for a service he will never use. Regardless of care options.

I think it's time to seek financial assistance ahead of time to way my options.

kv

Why does your brother think he will never use Medicare?

Your last comment is right on. If you have a financial situation more complicated than most (parent's house in a trust), financial advice is probably well worth the money. Just be sure to ask any advisor "what's in it for them"?

 

Why does your brother think he will never use Medicare?

Your last comment is right on. If you have a financial situation more complicated than most (parent's house in a trust), financial advice is probably well worth the money. Just be sure to ask any advisor "what's in it for them"?

He's been using Veterans Hospital for years, so he doesn't see the need for more Health Care, his conclusion why sign up for it if it's going to cost him more financial stress.

He couldn't continue working even though he made good money. As a Cement Finisher his shoulders wore out but he didn't plan for retirement, he would be in a better situation had he been able to wait. He told me, he took advice from dad, and dad said it would be better to take it early at 62, and over the long term he would net more money. My father was good with numbers, but didn't count on hits from the gov. or inflation. He could have used a financial analyst before he made that decision, I don't want to make the same mistake or any at all if I can. It's definitely a numbers game.

I think a tax consultant would be better than a financial consultant, my thoughts are, do I sell my house first? or sell my fathers house first? then pay off my current loan. What is seen as profit if I sell my house and put it in the bank, that's the part I don't know. If I sell my house it goes in the bank is it income? If I sell my dads house and pay off my current loan it just securing my house as an asset until I sell? I just don't see how the gov. will see it.

kv

 

He couldn't continue working even though he made good money. As a Cement Finisher his shoulders wore out but he didn't plan for retirement, he would be in a better situation had he been able to wait. He told me, he took advice from dad, and dad said it would be better to take it early at 62, and over the long term he would net more money.

kv

It all comes down to how long you (or your brother in this case) expect to live. I think the changes in SS benefits, either by taking them at less than your full retirement benefit age or by postponing them, is structured such that at age 84 any scenario nets you the same total amount of money. If you die before age 84, then it would have been in your interest, based on total dollars received, to take benefits earlier. If you live beyond age 84, then postponing benefits is better, again based sole on the total amount of money received from the government.

 

It all comes down to how long you (or your brother in this case) expect to live. I think the changes in SS benefits, either by taking them at less than your full retirement benefit age or by postponing them, is structured such that at age 84 any scenario nets you the same total amount of money. If you die before age 84, then it would have been in your interest, based on total dollars received, to take benefits earlier. If you live beyond age 84, then postponing benefits is better, again based sole on the total amount of money received from the government.

Basically, the intelligentsia structures a program to satisfy the majority of a mesh group of constituents. The problem with this approach is that a majority of those constituents don’t understand what was done for their benefit. Thence, various misinterpretations occur and false stories are promulgated and reach the level of “truth”. It is no wonder that our culture is experiencing a lash back against education.

However, such a lash back is NOT beneficial to the country. I could go on, but hope this much can be digested.

In this thread, I’ve heard people lament why should they have to pay for something they don’t need. Consider this answer. You’re not! You’ve already paid for it and you’re losing money by not accepting it. And for those who don’t want to pay for it any longer, remember that a culture is judged not by the quantity of toys their members collect, but by how they take care of their brothers in the Christian tradition as well as others. And finally my last comment, for those who complain that these programs are costing our government, remember! There is no cost! The cost is payment for a loan that our legislatures took from SS. It’s like each of you getting a mortgage or car loan and then demonstrating that banks are bad because they’re taking your money.

Just sayin’

 

Should I delay taking my pension?

Below is a simple calculation to determine the number of years it will take to be better off delaying your pension (with a worked example).

Normal Pension x (Years + Delay) = Enhanced Pension x Years
Solve for Years, where Delay is the number of years delaying the pension.

Worked example:
Normal Pension = $20k
Enhanced Pension = $30k
Delay = 5 years

So we get, $20k x (Years + 5) = $30k x Years
$20k Years + $100k = $30k Years
$10k Years = $100k
Years = 10

In the worked example you will have received equal pension money at 15 years after your normal retirement age (10 years after starting taking the delayed enhanced pension).

The above simple calculation does not take into account interest you could receive on the Normal Pension amount received in advance of the Enhanced Pension – but if the pension is indexed linked this should be close to zero.

The calculation does not consider any tax implications through taking a reduced/enhanced pension.

 

Why are so many under the illusion that it is your money? We are just carbon based production/consumption units. Whatever "wealth" you are allowed to keep, whatever "wealth" you are given are part of a maintenance plan, subject to revision at any time.

DANG!!! I thought in the U.S., the money belongs to the person who earned it in the first place. Or am I just another wage slave working for a communist state like the former Soviet Union?

 

DANG!!! I thought in the U.S., the money belongs to the person who earned it in the first place. Or am I just another wage slave working for a communist state like the former Soviet Union?

No, but I think you are stuck on the idea that you are entitled to some societal benefits, but have no obligation to bear the costs. In the 19th century life was harsher and if you got hurt on the job that was your tough luck and oh, by the way your fired for being so careless. Good luck feeding your family.