Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-08-2013, 04:40 AM
 
105,698 posts, read 107,682,511 times
Reputation: 79329

Advertisements

i guess the trick is marry a woman way way way younger than you. that way if you die she can just move back home with her parents ha ha ha ha
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-08-2013, 10:23 AM
 
31,672 posts, read 40,893,182 times
Reputation: 14418
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
i guess the trick is marry a woman way way way younger than you. that way if you die she can just move back home with her parents ha ha ha ha
really the same age is ideal. The reduction in benefits is much greater if the spouse is younger. Older the reduction if more than x years is less but it makes SS more difficult. Everything for us was nice neat and clean. As I have shared before we had income streams staggered to kick in over a ten year plus period from 59 to 70. Creates a nice income pop at the following ages after retirement at 59 with that as a base. It also meant cutting back on the need to use the nest egg til eventually it is not needed at all as pensions and SS cover it all. I was very happy to calculate everything with us being so close in age.

62
66
70
70.5
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2013, 10:33 AM
 
Location: Upstate NY 🇺🇸
36,754 posts, read 14,714,499 times
Reputation: 35577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Thanks for posting that article, Newred5. It provides an interesting perspective from an extremely knowledgeable writer, and I believe the perspective is valid. Some people agonize so much about technical stuff that they forget there is a philosophical outlook to consider as well. Only if one is worried about not having enough to live on after age 80 is it important to agonize about maximizing Social Security, because the "break-even" age is somewhere around that age for most of us. For example at age 62 we are young enough to travel and to enjoy the traveling. But at age 70 will that still be the case? Well for some people it will be and for others it may not be. Carpe diem!

ITA. Clearly, when to receive SS is a very personal decision with many strategies and considerations, but I believe in taking it as soon as possible. Sure, SS would love for most beneficiaries to delay, as it's good for them. Interesting how we're eligible for whatever benefit we choose (at 62, FRA, etc.) when we're that age the entire month, and then we get the first payment the month after that. You think they're not hoping we die in the interim?

There is a reason the SSA removed their break-even calculator from their website. Thankfully, most people can do the math on their own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2013, 11:11 AM
 
Location: High Cotton
6,125 posts, read 7,445,536 times
Reputation: 3657
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delahanty View Post
ITA. Clearly, when to receive SS is a very personal decision with many strategies and considerations, but I believe in taking it as soon as possible. Sure, SS would love for most beneficiaries to delay, as it's good for them. Interesting how we're eligible for whatever benefit we choose (at 62, FRA, etc.) when we're that age the entire month, and then we get the first payment the month after that. You think they're not hoping we die in the interim?

There is a reason the SSA removed their break-even calculator from their website. Thankfully, most people can do the math on their own.
The ONLY reason it is "good for them" is because it buys them TIME. Buying of 'TIME' in which the government does not have to payout benefits...and time in which hopefully Congress can incorporate a fix...a fix that would affect FRA for people currently under age 50 and children that haven't even started working yet. 'Buying time' is no different than a shopper that cannot really afford to buy something buys it anyway using their credit card, knowing that payment is not due until next month.

It's pretty much a 99.9999999% certainty that SS benefits will NOT be changed for anyone over age 50 because it would be POLITICAL DEATH for that political party that agrees to such a change. Anyone age 50 or older has already paid into the fund for a significant period of their employed life, and thus any changes would negatively affect those people's financial expectations and plans, which would be fought with tremendous outrage.

The list of reasons why SS benefits will not be changed for people over age 50 are numerous...but mostly based on one thing - POLITICAL VOTES! Taking 'promised' and 'expected' money from seniors (yes - age 50 is considered 'senior' by most, including AARP) that have been and are counting on receiving it will NEVER EVER go over. Seniors represent a huge portion of the voting population. Taking MONEY from seniors is a no-no!

And lastly:
If you think you'll die before the break-even age, then take SS benefits early.
If you truly need the money (not just 'want' the money), then take SS benefits early.
If you can earn more than 6%-8% annually after-tax, then take SS benefits early.

Otherwise, wait to start taking SS benefits until at least FRA and preferably wait until age 70.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2013, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Central Ohio
10,802 posts, read 14,861,526 times
Reputation: 16460
Quote:
Originally Posted by highcotton View Post

And lastly:
If you think you'll die before the break-even age, then take SS benefits early.
If you truly need the money (not just 'want' the money), then take SS benefits early.
If you can earn more than 6%-8% annually after-tax, then take SS benefits early.

Otherwise, wait to start taking SS benefits until at least FRA and preferably wait until age 70.
If I was single I could have easily retired two years ago but being married my plan is to continue working for as long as I can and hopefully make it another 4 1/2 years to age 70

In less than one year I will be FRA and what social security tells me I can expect my benefit to be around $2,250 but if I wait just four more years my benefit would be around $2,970. With my wife receiving 50% of my FRA benefit together we can expect a social security benefit of $3,645 if I retire at 67 1/2 when my wife turns 66. Add to this an additional $1,250/month in pensions at $4,896/month my wife and I should be pretty comfortable seeing how much of this is not taxed and that's without having to touch our retirement account.

But I have a problem.

$900 of that pension income dies when I do which means my wife's income would be reduced to a total of $2,820 while if my wife died my retirement income would be reduced to $3,720. Frankly speaking I would do fine on $3,720 but I worry about my wife's comfort which is why I will work to 70 if at all possible. If I work to 70 she would get my higher benefit ending up with a monthly retirement income of $3,270 which is a lot better than $2,820.

Think of it this way, if you have any medical issues requiring pharmacy you are going to easily end up spending $400 or better every month by the time you add Part B, the supplements and co-pays on pharmacy and then there is the dental which will happen.

Then, if the time every does get here, there's the possibility of assisted living and these places can be heaven or hell depending on what you can afford. I visit a lot of these in the course of my work and for $2,000/month you don't get a whole lot but if you can afford $4,000/month you can spend your remaining years very much in comfort. In fact there are a couple close to me where it is very, very nice... you would never guess it was assisted living.

I owe my wife everything which is why I will continue to work. It isn't about me.


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2013, 12:50 PM
 
Location: High Cotton
6,125 posts, read 7,445,536 times
Reputation: 3657
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
really the same age is ideal. The reduction in benefits is much greater if the spouse is younger. Older the reduction if more than x years is less but it makes SS more difficult. Everything for us was nice neat and clean. As I have shared before we had income streams staggered to kick in over a ten year plus period from 59 to 70. Creates a nice income pop at the following ages after retirement at 59 with that as a base. It also meant cutting back on the need to use the nest egg til eventually it is not needed at all as pensions and SS cover it all. I was very happy to calculate everything with us being so close in age.

62
66
70
70.5
It sounds like you have a well thought out plan, but how 'bout beginning at age 70.5.

Have you really given much thought [yet] to what you will do starting at age 70.5 when you are required to pull more money than you really want or need from RMDs? Do you think you'll invest the excess money you don't need (likely with gains or interest that is taxable)? Will you give it to your children/family members? Or maybe increase the amount you already donate, or choose additional charities?

It's a n nice problem to have...but in many cases it is something that needs some thought and planning before RMD age. If you are like me, in all likelihood planning now and trying to look into the future for what is likely to come at RMD age (which no-doubt becomes less easy to predict as we age) will probably affect what you do with gifting, transferring and donating your assets well before RMD age. I find that trying to figure out when it is best to really start helping out deserving family members with considerable gifts/transfers of money, at a time that will help and benefit them at a reasonable early age (instead of them waiting to inherit), can be some of the most difficult decisions I will make.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2013, 01:00 PM
 
31,672 posts, read 40,893,182 times
Reputation: 14418
Quote:
Originally Posted by highcotton View Post
It sounds like you have a well thought out plan, but how 'bout beginning at age 70.5.

Have you really given much thought [yet] to what you will do starting at age 70.5 when you are required to pull more money than you really want or need from RMDs? Do you think you'll invest the excess money you don't need (likely with gains or interest that is taxable)? Will you give it to your children/family members? Or maybe increase the amount you already donate, or choose additional charities?

It's a n nice problem to have...but in many cases it is something that needs some thought and planning before RMD age. If you are like me, in all likelihood planning now and trying to look into the future for what is likely to come at RMD age (which no-doubt becomes less easy to predict as we age) will probably affect what you do with gifting, transferring and donating your assets well before RMD age. I find that trying to figure out when it is best to really start helping out deserving family members with considerable gifts/transfers of money, at a time that will help and benefit them at a reasonable early age (instead of them waiting to inherit), can be some of the most difficult decisions I will make.
As I have commented in previous postings we are well aware of and dealing with. We are already in the permanent accumulation stage and working to minimize the tax hit. We have long te health care taken care of probably all out of pocket for each. Doing 62/70 was part of
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2013, 01:04 PM
 
Location: Alaska
5,356 posts, read 18,486,808 times
Reputation: 4071
Quote:
Originally Posted by highcotton View Post
It's pretty much a 99.9999999% certainty that SS benefits will NOT be changed for anyone over age 50 because it would be POLITICAL DEATH for that political party that agrees to such a change. Anyone age 50 or older has already paid into the fund for a significant period of their employed life, and thus any changes would negatively affect those people's financial expectations and plans, which would be fought with tremendous outrage.

The list of reasons why SS benefits will not be changed for people over age 50 are numerous...but mostly based on one thing - POLITICAL VOTES! Taking 'promised' and 'expected' money from seniors (yes - age 50 is considered 'senior' by most, including AARP) that have been and are counting on receiving it will NEVER EVER go over. Seniors represent a huge portion of the voting population. Taking MONEY from seniors is a no-no!
That's been my reasoning in my retirement plan. I didn't include SS until after I was 50. Once that age was past, I threw my estimate in. My only reservation is that future benefits may be cut but not eliminated if they run out of funds, but that won't be until 2025(?), at the earliest.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2013, 01:42 PM
 
Location: High Cotton
6,125 posts, read 7,445,536 times
Reputation: 3657
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
As I have commented in previous postings we are well aware of and dealing with. We are already in the permanent accumulation stage and working to minimize the tax hit. We have long te health care taken care of probably all out of pocket for each. Doing 62/70 was part of
While I'm still in the accumulation stage, I've also been in a planned distribution phase for some time that increases every year with larger gifting/donations. My plan is for the break-even time period to happen when I'm around age 68 or so where the current continued growth flips and becomes the beginning of a purposeful reduction of assets due to increasingly larger and larger gifting/donations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-08-2013, 01:45 PM
 
Location: High Cotton
6,125 posts, read 7,445,536 times
Reputation: 3657
Quote:
Originally Posted by akck View Post
That's been my reasoning in my retirement plan. I didn't include SS until after I was 50. Once that age was past, I threw my estimate in. My only reservation is that future benefits may be cut but not eliminated if they run out of funds, but that won't be until 2025(?), at the earliest.
Agree!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top