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.
I'm not sure this article was much help. I got the feeling he was using his and his wife's SS check to do extras and buy new cars ie, he had other pension funds and investments to pay his med. food, utilities and other expenses. That is to say, this article is not helpful to those who will depend on SS as the major source of income after retirement.
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!
The dilema has seldom been "What if I die"....it's usually been "What if I live"?
That's valid too, of course, and it is an often-repeated point of Mathjak (who has done a lot of deep thinking about these matters). You and he are right, I believe, if we are talking only about money. That is, Mathjak would say, "Dead is dead, so why worry about what you didn't draw if you die young; you should worry about providing for yourself if you live to a ripe old age."
But there is another angle to consider - an angle which is different from totaling up the sum of a given pile of money. The whole point of the article is what we might be able to enjoy while we are still young enough to enjoy it. Of course I don't want to be destitute at age 85 - no one does and that would be pretty horrible! But I would rather live modestly at, say, 80 or 85 because there is a pretty good likelihood I won't be able to really do anything vigorous at that age anyway. At 69 I can still jump in my car and take road trips of 5,000 miles or more. I can still hike down into the Grand Canyon. If taking SS early helps one do those things, then it may be worth it. (That is the point of the article as I interpret it).
Escort rider ...the taking the SS early to enjoy things and maybe not worry all about maximizing benefits down to the last dollar is what I take the article to be as well .. As said here many times, it's all an individual choice based on where we are all at ....
I can understand what the author is saying. The 62/70 can for some provide a balance that kicks up the spending at 62 and helps preserve the age 70 cushion. As previous noted pensions make a difference and any introduction of means testing will cause some folks to take it earlier to help stay under thresholds.
Tom Margenau wrote an article responding to the WSJ's story on software programs that help you to maximize your Social Security. Mr. Margenau ran his own analysis using the WSJ's examples and Mr. Margenau concluded that there isn't that much of a difference in life-time benefits between taking the Social Security at 62 and waiting until 70. Is the Maximizing Social Security Game Worth It? by Tom Margenau on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
The way I look at it is if you don't need the money to live on now, and you won't need the money to live on in the future, and the Social Security benefit is strictly for extras, then it is probably a good idea to take the money at 62 and enjoy it.
If you have enough money to live now, but you will be on a tight budget in the future due to inflation, or if you are married and your spouse will be on a tight budget after you die, then I would wait to take the money at age 70.
You need to look at the expense side of life. At 80 you may not be well enough to travel, but you may be ill enough to need a lot of long-term care. It is the long-term care which Medicare doesn't cover that is extremely expensive.
Tom Margenau and has a regular weekly article on SS related subjects which I subscribe to. He is very knowledgeble on the subject. It comes out every Wednesday. Also check out his past articles.
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.
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.
