Dr pafau - delaying ss,wow what an investment

[mathjak107]

Originally Posted by lenora

Aargghh. Try examining this from the perspective of a single person with children with an average Social Security benefit and sufficient funds to provide basic living expenses for an average life expectancy. Her goal is to leave a small inheritance to her children. This individual clearly has a choice.

She needs to decide, given her goal, whether she should begin living off of her retirement funds and delay claiming her Social Security benefits. She needs to consider that the withdrawal of the funds are fully taxable whereas the Social Security benefit is not. She needs to consider whether she should begin accelerating the depletion of her nest egg and hope that she will live the "average" life expectancy in order to recapture the lost funds through the delayed credits. She should also consider that their are proposals to change the formula used to calculate Social Security benefits that would effectively boost the monthly benefit to low wage earners while reducing the benefit to average - high wage earners. Most importantly, she needs to consider whether delaying her benefit will adversely impact other areas of concern such as Medicare premiums, Medical Assistance for Long Term Care, property taxes, etc.

I'm not saying the average retiree should choose to accept earlier benefits, but there are many factors that should be considered and one should not assume that it is always in the retirees' best interest to delay claiming their benefit.

which is why i say people need a lot more guidance and information then most think they do as these decisions are some of the biggest financial decisions most make in their life,.

they are far more complex and unique to each one of our own situations and those minimum wage workers at ss with scripts are of little use.

thankfully there are website companies where for a fee you can find out all your options and the best option for your situation.

break even is the smallest thing to worry about as dead as dead.

income vs legacy are exactly opposite each other. the two are like oil and water . many of us try to find a balance. perhaps hold off a year or 2 collecting so you can get the income higher if you need it. if you do not need it well that is a different situation.

your example tries to give a scenerio of someone trying to burn the candle at both ends on their limited resources. the reality is they can't , they have to either live on less income or leave a smaller legacy or no legacy . they have to decide based on their own situation which route to go and how much they can delay if income is important..

that is the things folks don't realize. income level vs legacy do not get along .

do something to increase income and it comes at the expense of the legacy balance.

it all boils down to what your own priorities and needs are. if you are just getting by on early ss you certainly may be better sacrificing a little of the legacy for the higher guaranteed lifetime income you may need to live on..

[WoodyWW]

Originally Posted by TuborgP

You need to pay attention to the Ryan/Republican budget. That SS reform cutoff age has been moved from 54 to 55. It would appear that for each year not implemented the age cut off will move up a year so the math still works. You appear to be right on the cusp. Depending on 2016 election results you could be impacted.

Ayn Rand would be so proud of Paul Ryan! But I think one of the few advantages of being "old" (60+) in the US is that Republicans probably won't be able to meaningfully impact our medicare, or SS.

As far as when to take SS--I have no clue (I'm 63 & haven't taken mine yet). But mine does go way up if I wait 'til 70--from $316 at age 62, to $439 at age 66, to $604 at age 70. (And giving up what I'd get every month by taking it earlier of course)..........

[HappyTexan]

I follow what goes on in Congress outside of the "headline" news.

Over the past 4-5 years there have been talks regarding retirement money, both public (SS) and private (401K/IRA) and what the government can/should do.

Not only is SS being discussed but your private retirement funds as well.

[augiedogie]

My job makes it easier to work longer. I work out of my home as an office. As an ordained minister, I visit folks regularly, travel to the church at least a couple of days a week, which is a 40 minute trip. But its not like I slave 8-10 hours a day, have to put up with the corporate world, and a daily commute in rush hour traffic. I quite free to work my schedule the way I want, unless there's a wedding, funeral or someone is sick in the hospital. I'm seriously considering lengthening my work years. My wife can retire in a couple of years, and then we would be much freer during the week to do some of the things we've wanted to do, but couldn't because of being tied at work.