Wasn't the idea of the tax on SS in fact to tax the "rich"? If I recall the argument, many well-off people with large retirement incomes were (as usual) using loopholes to avoid taxes. Wasn't it the idea that people with lower retirement incomes would not hit the tax threshold for SS but people with the larger incomes would?

@Old_Joe, I don't remember the argument, but what you say about the actual tax computation is true. With lower income, much less of SS income is taxed; 2018 was a low income year for me, and ~ 15% is taxable, versus the usual ~ 85%.
Haven't heard this argument in a while, but I recall that in the past, at least, it was suggested that SS should be means tested ... and it is, via the income tax.
P.S., off topic: do you still have the place in the Russian R. valley? Another flood year there, I'm reading.

@davidmoran Inadequate to meet basic needs in retirement and for that reason it needs to be supplemented by personal funds.
But, given most people are way behind in their savings for retirement (or their current income is not actually sufficient to save substantially), SS will be their main income for them in retirement.
In reality many of them will not want to retire but will be forced to retire at some point either they will fall behind the recent technology a health event or an economical event such as another recession will force them out. Once out for a while, it is harder to come back.

"The fee is calculated as 0.15% of a mutual-fund company’s industrywide assets, not just on the dollar amount of assets held by Fidelity customers buying shares on the platform, the document says."
This is the kicker -- .15% of a hosted fund company's ENTIRE industrywide assets? So if they are offering XYZ's S&P 500 fund only, XYZ is paying Fido a fee that's based on not only the AUM of that fund but also the AUM of every other fund XYZ sells, even if it's not available on the Fido platform? And does that include retirement plans, SEP accounts, or other managed accounts? Wow .. that's chutzpah!
This sounds like an end-run around declaring a 12(b)-1 fee -- or a 12(b)-1 that's higher than the average for services that are supposed to be paid for from a stated 12(b)-1 fee. TL;DR Typical greed/sleaze move!!

In 2017, the COLA was a scant 0.3% — or a meager $4 a month for the average beneficiary.

So in 2017, the average monthy SS benefit is 1333 (working the number backwards $4 / 0.003)
For 2019 the average is $1461 according to this article (not sure if before or after COLA)
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/102814/what-maximum-i-can-receive-my-social-security-retirement-benefit.asp
That decent 2.8% increase will deliver $40 or $41 (depending on 2019 figure is before or after COLA adjustment).
Social security is woefully inadequate and most people are not aware of it. They will be shocked one day when they go to collect their check.

Wasn't the idea of the tax on SS in fact to tax the "rich"? If I recall the argument, many well-off people with large retirement incomes were (as usual) using loopholes to avoid taxes. Wasn't it the idea that people with lower retirement incomes would not hit the tax threshold for SS but people with the larger incomes would?

@ MFO Members: Based on State Farm's decisions in 2017, I wouldn't be surprised they will soon exit the mutual fund business.
If you have any investments with State Farm, you should probably move them. As of April 2017 their 12,000 agents stopped offering funds and other retirement investment products to their customers.
M* State Farm Family Of Funds:
http://quicktake.morningstar.com/fundfamily/state-farm/0C00001YTU/fund-list.aspx

FYI: Whenever I do a town hall about Social Security, one issue invariably rises to the top: cost-of-living adjustments (or COLAs).
Retirees across America consistently tell us that their annual COLAs simply are not adequate. And they have a reason to be concerned. Though the 2019 COLA is a decent 2.8%, these adjustments historically have not kept pace with seniors’ rising expenses. In fact, for three of the past 10 years there were no cost-of-living increases — zero. In 2017, the COLA was a scant 0.3% — or a meager $4 a month for the average beneficiary.
Simply put, retirees need a COLA that accurately reflects the effects of inflation on their cost of living. The current index, the CPI-W, is pegged to urban wage earners’ living expenses, and tends to underestimate what seniors spend on big ticket items like housing and medical care. By the same token, retirees purchase less gasoline than working-age Americans, even though the cost of gas figures prominently into the current inflation index. As the Center for Retirement Security explains, “In 2016, retirees received no COLA specifically because the cost of oil plummeted. The low cost of gasoline offset [actual inflation] in other areas.”
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/improved-social-security-cola-would-help-seniors-stay-ahead-of-inflation-2019-02-28/print

msf: You said; "
Why aren't Investor class shares simply disappearing then? Because funds like Vanguard Target Retirement 2025 (VTTVX) will still own them. The Vanguard funds of funds own investor class shares so that they can claim they're not adding any expenses on top of the underlying funds"
If Admiral shares have a lower ER , then the cost would be less ? Only thing I see it's likely the 3 K $$'s hasn't been put into 2025 fund. What Is it that I'm missing/
Derf

If you are a retail investor in one of the funds above, your shares will be automatically converted into Admiral shares. It's a tax-free exchange.
At the same time, Admiral shares will have their minimums dropped to $3K, same as Investor class shares.
At the end of the day, you will have Admiral class shares (with Admiral class ERs) and a $3K min. Investor class shares will still exist, but they'll be pointless for you to buy (since they have higher ERs), and you won't be allowed to anyway.
Why aren't Investor class shares simply disappearing then? Because funds like Vanguard Target Retirement 2025 (VTTVX) will still own them. The Vanguard funds of funds own investor class shares so that they can claim they're not adding any expenses on top of the underlying funds.
It would be more honest (or at least more transparent) if the funds owned Admiral (or even better, Institutional) class shares of the underlying funds and simply added on a small management fee, say 0.08% like FFNOX does.

FYI: Retirement planners can relax on one point, according to IRA specialist Ed Slott: The Roth IRA is not going away.
Slott, an IRA consultant and president of Ed Slott and Company, told advisors at his 2019 Instant IRA Success workshop in Las Vegas on Saturday that he often hears investor concern about whether Roth accounts, where funds are contributed on an after-tax basis and are allowed to grow and be distributed tax-free, will lose their tax-advantaged status.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/ed-slott--why-roth-iras-are-probably-here-to-stay-43488.html?print

@MikeW. Here it is, It was also posted in MFO.
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4142997-retirement-dollar-cost-averaging-lump-sum-investment

@MW,
not that I can see, really, unless you dwell on that one given period where it outperforms (barely)
you can always do both just to get the workings of two different minds in approach to LCG; it's not like they're indexes
or add FCNTX and get the workings of three different minds, although surely w lots of overlap, and FCNTX has not done as well recently
I used to chase this kind of catchall OCD, and many here still do, but in retirement I have shed a lot of that impulse toward some of this / some of that / some of the other, and have pared and simplified majorly, or so I claim

Interesting question @Soupkitchen.
I've contemplated it-retirement, but at 65 I haven't pulled the trigger yet. But I have given plenty of thought to when I do. My thought for setting up withdrawals for when I do retire would be to have a cash bucket (MM, CD, maybe a short term bond fund) that held maybe 3 years of expenses needed. The rest of the pot would just be distributed in an overall risk-tolerant portfolio bucket. I've even thought about simplifying everything and just sticking the entire 'investment' bucket in a 60:40 robo (1/2 my savings are in one now and I've been satisfied so far). If done that way, the 2 bucket system, I would be more concerned about total return and not dividend income. But in saying that, it would probably be a good idea to have any income generated from the investment bucket not reinvested but go directly to that cash bucket to lessen the need for replenishment. In my case, the 3 year cash bucket would still need to be replenished periodically when markets are up. Investment income alone would not be enough to keep the cash bucket full.
Thanks for posting the question. I look forward to others responses.

@Soupkitchen: Regarding your portfolio retirement distribution question. I take all my fund distributions in cash and let them settle in the cash area of my portfolio. When I need a distribution I take it form this pool of money with the excess being held for new investment opportunity. My portfolio's income generation is such that I do not have to sell shares to meet retirement withdrawal needs. I ran my parent's portfolios this way and it worked well for them through their lifetimes. Since, I have been retired, for better than five years, this has also worked well, thus far, for me.
My rule of thumb is that I generally take no more than one half of what my five year average annual total return has equalled in dollars. In this way, principal grows over time. And, as my principal grows so does my distribution.

When you retire and start to draw down your portfolio, regarding income producing securities, whether it be bonds or stocks, do you reinvest the dividends, and then sell shares, or do you take the dividends in cash, and sell less shares, or no shares at all?

(1) Value investing had a poor year in ‘18, following a long period of underperformance. Beginning to look as though that may have been the “blow off” stage of the value cycle as they’re hot so far this year. To some extent in ‘18 you were better off putting on a blindfold and buying indexes than in evaluating companies. To the extent Price favors a value approach and does a lot of due diligence, having done their homework may have hurt their numbers in ‘18.
(2) Another factor - Price tends to be more aggressive with their significant number of allocation funds than others. RPSIX, for example, can hold around 10% in PRFDX (a stock fund). If you compare RPSIX to less aggressive “income” funds during a down year for equities it will lag. Their retirement funds are also known for having glide slopes that keep investors in equities further out than many others. More equities in a down year spells lower return.
(3) Price includes a bit of PRAFX (real assets) in many allocation funds. In fact, PRAFX was first developed for in-house use in their allocation funds and than later offered to the public. Commodities, energy, & real estate were poor places to be in ‘18. However, if this year’s trend continues it will pay investors in real assets for their patience.
At first I couldn’t see commenting on this one. A single year says very little about the quality of a firm. Since some have found it worthwhile, I wanted to add my 2-cents. All that being said, I do like to diversify management risk. As now stands, Price has about 50% with the other 50% divided up among Dodge & Cox, Oppenheimer, and Permenant Portfolio. I’m much more accustomed to fending off criticism of the latter two (especially PRPFX) than I am of T. Rowe. Some day I may have 100% with Price for ease of managing my assets and because of their great customer service.

Keep reading ... on down and through ... to you come to the part on ETF Wrap.
Breaking Down Wrap Fee
Wrap fees are generally set up to be a percentage of the assets under management and can cover both retirement and non-retirement assets. The wrap fee is intended to provide payment for all the direct services the customer receives, as well as cover the administrative costs incurred by the investment firm, which tend to be a full-service brokerage or affiliated or unaffiliated broker/dealer firms. One advantage of a wrap fee is that a customer can be assured that a broker isn't trying to excessively churn trades to generate commissions. Wrap fee accounts are expected to more than double to $1.1 trillion in the next five years, according to Tiburon Strategic Advisors.
Wrap Fee Criticisms
Wrap fees can be expensive. They can range from around 0.75% to as high as 3%. And certain actions could incur other fees, such as if a broker for a wrap fee client were to purchase a mutual fund that charges an expense ratio. Such high fees can quickly erode returns. Accordingly, wrap fee arrangements have attracted a greater level of scrutiny from regulators as of late.
Wrap fee programs can have a variety of names, such as asset allocation programs, investment management programs, asset management programs, separately managed accounts and mini-accounts. Whatever the name, such an account can be subject to additional disclosure under Rule 204-3(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. That rule defines a wrap fee as a “program under which any client is charged a specified fee or fees not based directly on transactions in a client’s account for investment advisory services (which may include portfolio management or advice concerning the selection of other advisers) and execution of client transactions.” In December 2017, the Securities and Exchange Commission released an Investor Bulletin that provides basic information about wrap fee programs and some questions to consider asking an investment advisor before choosing to open an account in a wrap fee program.
Who Is A Wrap Fee Right For?
Paying a wrap fee can be advantageous for investors who intend to utilize their broker's full line of services. For anyone else, it might be cheaper to pay an investment professional for individual services in an unbundled arrangement.
Compare Popular Online Brokers
Provider
Name
Description
Advertiser Disclosure
Related Terms
ETF Wrap
An ETF wrap is an investment portfolio in which an investor, with or without the aid of an investment advisor, invests solely in exchange-traded funds. more
Fulcrum Fee
A fulcrum fee is a performance-based fee that adjusts up or down based on outperforming or underperforming a benchmark. more
Agency Cross
An agency cross is a transaction in which an investment adviser acts as the broker for both his client and the other party to the transaction. more
Performance Fee
A performance fee is a payment made to an investment manager for generating positive returns. more
Double Dipping
Double dipping is when a broker puts commissioned products into a fee-based account thereby unethically earning money from both sources. more
Soft Commissions
A soft commission, or soft dollars, is a transaction-based payment made by an asset manager to a broker-dealer that is not paid in actual dollars. more

X-Ray at M* tells me I'm down to 3.55% of portf. in EM, worldwide. In retirement-mode, I don't need the extra volatility. A while ago, I thought about PRIJX but never pulled the trigger. Just as well. Today, I see it's up, YTD by 8.37..... My PRWCX is up by 8.86. I know the EM can run hot and cold, in streaks. The whole portf. is now just 34% in equities. PRWCX is my biggest chunk, at 32% of portf. And 5% cash, 2% "other."
PRIDX gives me almost all of my international & EM exposure.
X-Ray says:
full portf. carries Asia EM 2.47 of total.
...And what about "Australasia?" Is that Oz plus NZ plus out of the way places like The Maldives and the Solomons and the Marshall Islands, or what? (0.62% there.)
Africa/M.E =0.19%
Europe EM = 0.
LatAm =0.89%.
Ethical filters as well as portf. protection will keep me much more Stateside, from now on, though I still want just one finger in the EM pie.
...Although, judging from the ones in the seats of power these days, "ethics" is a thing they are unaware of. But what are ya gonna do. Untrammeled capitalism is the only game in town. Until Leadership grows or re-grows a conscience. ("Can you say, 'con-science,' boys and girls? I KNEW you COULD," said Mr. Rogers, in his trademark creepy voice, from the grave.)
BONDS are in PTIAX and the lion's share is in PRSNX. ALL bonds in portf. these days = 59% of total.

I am retiring in May. Can you give your opinion on my portfolio. I am trying for a 3% yield. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Ken
Vanguard Balanced Index Adm VBIAX 7.75
Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF VIG 34.02
Vanguard LifeStrategy Moderate Gr Inv VSMGX 7.36
Vanguard Prime Money Market Investor VMMXX 7.54
Vanguard Short-Term Bond Index Adm VBIRX 6.72
Vanguard Shrt-Term Infl-Prot Sec Idx Adm VTAPX 5.96
Vanguard Total Bond Market Index Adm VBTLX 6.59
Vanguard Wellesley® Income Admiral™ VWIAX 24.06

FYI: When Michelle Brownstein started a summer job at an apparel retailer in the late 1990s, her father made the then-teenager a deal: If she agreed to save a portion of her earnings in a Roth IRA, he would match her contributions.
In doing so, Brownstein’s dad explained, she would be able to stash away savings at a very low tax rate; benefit from decades of compounding; and, eventually, withdraw the money free and clear.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/roth-ira-for-teenagers-51550247933?mod=djem_b_Weekly barrons_daily_newsletter