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 adding 8% a year to my SS 'annuity' by waiting until 70 to file. If I could find an investment that guaranteed that rate of return, I'd consider filing now.
Since I don't currently need the income and have no family history or current health problems to make me think I'll expire prematurely, I'm better off waiting. I don't worry much about the future but I have a healthy respect for the ravages of inflation and hope the 32% increase from delaying SS will offset it somewhat.
Everyone's needs and wants are different. I've never known anyone to start taking SS early and invest the income. Not saying it's a bad idea, just saying it doesn't happen. If any posters here are doing so, more power to you.
In reality yes for us and others especially with pensions and doing 62/70 etc. We are still investing in retirement and have been so. my wife's age 62 benefit was part of the pool of income that enabled us to do that and other things. Not to beat a dead horse but my wife didn't take it at 62 for any conspiracy fears but as part of our overall intended plan as is the case of many others. As indicated I am delaying until 70 for the same reasons as you.
One of the basic decisions couples make in deciding when to take SS or whether to elect survivor pension benefits is how much they value the well being of the surviving spouse. That is usually a cold hard reality that doesn't usually get discussed in public discussions.
Just want to say that that 8% increase is only for the years between FRA and age 70. Another thing is that for those that are going to wait till age 70 or try to, your best bet is still to file and suspend at FRA, because if you do and something happens before you turn 70 and you need money, you can unsuspend and request all that cash, [at FRA rate, no extra credits] but you can get all the cash from the time you suspended. If you do not suspend but just wait, then need money you can start your benefits with whatever credits you earned to date but no pile of back pay. Though in some cases they can go back 6 months.
Another point, if you use the SS adminstrations calculator to see how much you will get, understand that it is low-balling you. Many see over a 10% + when they actually file. If you can afford to wait, have reasonable good health, etc., it makes sense to file and suspend till age 70.
It is nice to have charts to look at but very deceiving in my mind.
Not only are we guessing our life spans but also tax policies, investment returns, and individual life needs. I contend that no one has a crystal ball good enough to pick them all then project what is best going into the future.
Each household should evaluate their situation and make a decision... and they may well be different even if the chart is the same. We have chosen to delay until 70.
It is nice to have charts to look at but very deceiving in my mind.
Not only are we guessing our life spans but also tax policies, investment returns, and individual life needs. I contend that no one has a crystal ball good enough to pick them all then project what is best going into the future.
Each household should evaluate their situation and make a decision... and they may well be different even if the chart is the same. We have chosen to delay until 70.
I concur, good choice for you two and good points in your post. Good luck!
So if one takes SS at 62, in order to invest, they better have some other income going on. There is that penalty on SS if you have earnings and are not yet 66.
As for me, I will wait until 67. I think one's monthly income has more of an immediate effect on lifestyle than what one's total lifetime benefit received. Month to month is what counts in my book.
I also add that if you don't spend all your SS, you could invest it and extend the points A and B further to the right... I never understood why the media seems so aggressive in convincing people to take SS so late... Maybe they are trying to save a system by helping you to die off early and not collect a dime....
Not only all of that (), but I find it interesting that the SSA removed its "break even" calculator from its website. The calculation can still be done manually, however. Aside from the usual spousal schemes, many people would come out ahead if the benefit were taken as early as possible, especially those who retired early and whose contributions to SS have been "zeroes" since they were 55.
You're right about the dying gamble, too. SS has all kinds of rules--you have to be 62 (or FRA, or whatever age you'll collect at) the entire month before you're eligible. Then, you collect the month after that. Anyone who thinks that they don't hope you'll die in the interim in smoking the wacky weed. I even read where the COLA for state pensioners in some midwestern state was "suspended" for 13 years. As if they're not counting on many of the beneficiaries dying.
Investing the money is especially helpful, and you'll end up even further ahead using that strategy. Add to that, the "extra" Part B premium that you should sock away for three years before it's deducted from your benefit, and you can amass your own fund from which you can withdraw an even bigger check than what you'll get from delaying SS. That is, unless you die first and get nothing, or it "runs dry" as they continue to blame seniors when, in fact, they need to fund Social Security disability, survivors' benefits, and a passel of illegals, none of which were part of SS's original plan.
And, as an aside, BTW, it looks like 2015 will be yet another "no Social Security COLA" year for seniors, who're continuing to take it on the chin for this administration.
Something I did not know until my visit to the SS office is that the increased-benefit-if-delayed factor only applies to your own SS benefits (claimed under your own SS#). It does not apply to the survivor's benefit.
So for instance if John and Mary are the same age and both have a full retirement age of 66, and John dies at age 60, Mary would not get an increased benefit by waiting to collect her widow's benefit until age 70. But depending on how much her benefit might increase, she might want to start with John's at age 66 and then see if her own (delayed) benefit may one day be larger than John's.
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.
