Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
nah, we shoot a few less tomahawks and smart bombs and the ss deficit is covered.
As a soldier I vote we don't do anything. Leave that place alone. If the rest of the world don't care then we should not so anything more than what we have done already. The administration has done enough calling for the world to step in with us. If they don't then we just keep up the verbal pressure. Leave the carrier groups in place and wait.
Your benefit amount grows at about 5% between age 62 and 66, and 8% between 66 and 70. Those annual rates are hard to beat in today's world...
If you don't need the money, and you don't think you'll die early, there is really no need to take it - therefore, don't take it until age 68 to 70...or at least wait until age 66.
Is this true? I thought it was 8% from 62 on. I also need it explained to me how this is the same as realizing a 5 (or 8)% actual gain. I've heard AARP say the same think, you wont' get a better rate of return. So obviously I'm missing something.. If you delay your benefits will increase by the percent above. But you are not actually getting a 5% fain when you account for all the money lost between 62 and 66 and 9 months. Those monthly payments will add up to tens of thousands of dollars, money that you can put to work earning say 6%
If it's really only a 5% gain I's strongly have to consider filing at 62 even if I am still working.
Your benefit amount grows at about 5% between age 62 and 66, and 8% between 66 and 70. Those annual rates are hard to beat in today's world...
If you don't need the money, and you don't think you'll die early, there is really no need to take it - therefore, don't take it until age 68 to 70...or at least wait until age 66.
Is this true? I thought it was 8% from 62 on. I also need it explained to me how this is the same as realizing a 5 (or 8)% actual gain. I've heard AARP say the same., you won't get a better rate of return. So clearly I am not understanding. If you delay filing your benefits will increase by the percent above. But you are not actually getting a 5% fain when you account for all the money lost between 62 and 66 and 9 months, money that you could put to work earning 5% on your own while retaining the principal.
If it's really only a 5% gain I'd strongly have to consider filing at 62 even if I am still working.
it is more like buying an annuity than an actual gain comparison to investing , as yes you are getting money that could be invested at 62.
you need to look at the difference in ss as an annuity or longevity insurance as opposed to an investment return comparison. they are not the same thing.
for one thing you can't find any annuity that will pay that sum of money to you and your spouse with colas for even a fraction of what you give up from 62 to 70.
you can think of it as buying longevity insurance with the cost being whatever you did not take from ss from 62 to 66 or 70. . if you and your spouse make it to 70 you can refill all the money you layed out over those years and once one of you reaches breakeven it is all gravey.
just think of it as the fact paying into ss all those years let you spend a whole lot more between 62 and 70 then you would on your own even with ss at 62 since would you not spend more than your planning allows . however if you won the lottery knowing your winnings kicked in at age 70 you sure would spend a whole lot more early on than your origonal plan allowed .
Last edited by mathjak107; 09-08-2013 at 07:10 AM..
What are our other options? We are 16 Trillion in debt and climbing. Are we going to just continue to print money endlessly?
Currently SS is not coming from the general fund but contributing to it. The shortage is at a point down the road. If you want to cut the current deficit you will need to focus on social spending, defense spending or the scope of the federal government. If you are concerned about the long term cost of SS as the trust fund runs low may I offer you the following. Every suggestion to have people pay in and get nothing back is one more powerful argument for privatization. Is that your ultimate goal?
What are our other options? We are 16 Trillion in debt and climbing. Are we going to just continue to print money endlessly?
What we really need is an honest discussion about the role of wealth transfer in our society. No sugar coating and PC if we really want to get a true handle on. We can either kid our selves by printing more money to pay for social programs or continue to do as you suggest and redistribute it from someone else.
it is more like buying an annuity than an actual gain comparison to investing , as yes you are getting money that could be invested at 62.
you need to look at the difference in ss as an annuity or longevity insurance as opposed to an investment return comparison. they are not the same thing.
for one thing you can't find any annuity that will pay that sum of money to you and your spouse with colas for even a fraction of what you give up from 62 to 70.
you can think of it as buying longevity insurance with the cost being whatever you did not take from ss from 62 to 66 or 70. . if you and your spouse make it to 70 you can refill all the money you layed out over those years and once one of you reaches breakeven it is all gravey.
just think of it as the fact paying into ss all those years let you spend a whole lot more between 62 and 70 then you would on your own even with ss at 62 since would you not spend more than your planning allows . however if you won the lottery knowing your winnings kicked in at age 70 you sure would spend a whole lot more early on than your origonal plan allowed .
Thanks for the explanation. I totally get that it is insurance for living a long life. I did a quick calculation and even without investment returns I think the tipping point is around 74. If I worked a job that I know I'll have at 66 that would be one thing. But unfortunately I'm not in that situation. It's good to know that filing at 62 IMO is not a desperate move that will killing you financial, say like cashing in a 401 early and paying the penalties.
i never consider break even in any planning. dead is dead who cares so i eliminate that from all equations.
i then work with the numbers to see what gives me the biggest bang for the buck and the most i can spend while young and healthy.
in our case the numbers always come back the same.
lay out the money up front , spend even more than we could then if we took ss at 62 and refill later on what we over spent with those almost 2x larger payments.
for us it gives us the biggest budget for spending when we are younger if we wait to collect.
after all life should be about living not dying.
Last edited by mathjak107; 09-08-2013 at 11:16 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.