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.
If my wife would of waited to 66 to start SS she would of received nothing. Healthy all her life and family all lived to ripe old age. SS is only a small part of our retirement portfolio and $600 is pocket change for me to worry about. So 4 years of retirement is better than none. For me the break even point is 77, doubt I'll make that, but I live life to the fullest.
I am sorry to hear and hope you will be well. Yes that is the one thing no one can predict. As a soldier I know. Things can happen in a blink of an eye.
if you or your spouse die you can't use the money anymore and if you or your spouse live you can use it.
it isn't often you get a payoff that is one sided like it is.
if anyone is so concerned about heirs why not just buy a small single premium policy for the amount they might get cheated out of if you die?
it will cost less then you give up .
odds are though if a couple one will certainly live long enough to have it pay off.
It really isn't the great bet and great payoff you make it sound like. It isn't a one-sided win-win game.
I seem to be one of the few proponents of taking early without doing so for reasons of paranoia.
Do the math, if all goes well you make it to your breakeven age. You do even better and make it to 95.
You've now accumulated if you're on the high end of SS maybe an additional $150K in your lifetime. Now prorate that difference over your 33 year retirement. Comes out to about $90 per week. Sounds more impressive when you use the total lump sum. Could I take SS early and hope to make up for the $150K using my own investments over 30 years? Can I simply increase my own withdrawals to make up for the $90? - If I even need it since SS early covers my expenses. Now if we die early the kids still get something, if we live to 95, they get less.
Ultimately it comes back to the 3 legged stool. 3 sources of income including SS let's us live like we want and do what we want while we're still young enough to use it and will still be there when we're older and we can then increase withdrawals if we need to. By all accounts spending decreases after 80 anyway. I don't get the appeal of spending down our investments early to get more SS when spending decreases.
But if someone is so afraid about giving up a few years social security by dying early unexpectedly by the same token shouldn't the worry be you may be giving up as much as are giving up 150-200k more with colas by living longer than you expected?
it all depends on actually how long you live and not statistics,.
many folks want to gamble on the greater payment which does them more good alive than dead.
Last edited by mathjak107; 10-06-2014 at 01:40 PM..
But if someone is so afraid about giving up a few years social security by dying early unexpectedly by the same token shouldn't the worry be you may be giving up as much as are giving up 150-200k more with colas by living longer than you expected?
it all depends on actually how long you live and not statistics,.
many folks want to gamble on the greater payment which does them more good alive than dead.
The answer might depend upon if you are married and what would happen to your spouse.
If, in your example, you are single, then, no, there is no reason to wait to collect Social Security Retirement Benefits assuming that your income will remain 100K and that inflation will not devalue that income stream below the 50K need.
If, in your example you are married, and your income stream will decrease as a result of your death (such as in the case of a pension benefit being stopped or cut) and that decrease will result in income that is less than the surviving spouse needs, then the answer would be to wait to age 70 to collect Social Security Benefits.
If, in your example, you are married and your spouse will be able to have enough income stream to cover her needs in the event of your demise, then the answer would be, no, there is no reason to wait.
The answer might depend upon if you are married and what would happen to your spouse.
If, in your example, you are single, then, no, there is no reason to wait to collect Social Security Retirement Benefits assuming that your income will remain 100K and that inflation will not devalue that income stream below the 50K need.
If, in your example you are married, and your income stream will decrease as a result of your death (such as in the case of a pension benefit being stopped or cut) and that decrease will result in income that is less than the surviving spouse needs, then the answer would be to wait to age 70 to collect Social Security Benefits.
If, in your example, you are married and your spouse will be able to have enough income stream to cover her needs in the event of your demise, then the answer would be, no, there is no reason to wait.
We are married, my wife was a stay at home mom for a while but still will collect her own SS. Her SS amounts to less than 15% of our projected income. The balance is all based on 100% survivor benefit. Plus the 401k/IRA which is significant. She would transition to survivor benefits, losing only her SS. That loss would probably be offset by the reduction in coffee and donut expenses with me gone.
My tendency has been to calculate it as if I were out of the picture. Make sure Mrs. Q44 is covered. Both scenarios early/wait she looks well taken care of. So I'm opting for the one that gives us money up front and lets our investments stay put.
^^ Here's how I look at it. Say i need 50K per year, and my income flow is 100k, do i need to delay SS in order to get 104k per year? Is it worth it?
it all depends on what you want ,not what anyone else thinks about your own situation. many times it isn't an income issue as much as someone rather not stay that heavily dependant on markets and deal with its whims and volatility.
they will endure investing heavily for the years leading up to to the larger checks from ss enduring markets for no longer than 8 years. once ss cuts in they need very little from their nest egg to live and don't have to worry about markets for possibly decades going forward.'
there are so many individual situations that arguing what is good for you or me does not mean it meets someone elses wants and needs.
the important thing is just to FULLY understand both sides before you make a decision. to many make decisions only based on the angles they see but not on the points they don't know or think about.
Last edited by mathjak107; 10-06-2014 at 05:02 PM..
We are married, my wife was a stay at home mom for a while but still will collect her own SS. Her SS amounts to less than 15% of our projected income. The balance is all based on 100% survivor benefit. Plus the 401k/IRA which is significant. She would transition to survivor benefits, losing only her SS. That loss would probably be offset by the reduction in coffee and donut expenses with me gone.
My tendency has been to calculate it as if I were out of the picture. Make sure Mrs. Q44 is covered. Both scenarios early/wait she looks well taken care of. So I'm opting for the one that gives us money up front and lets our investments stay put.
I understand your variables and thinking. Not that I would come to the same decision. My thoughts, are you absolutely comfortable with the assumptions you are making about long term variables? Also assisted living and or nursing home care. Is it possible that by waiting you could create a down the road income stream that would pay the assisted living/nursing home cost for one From your fixed income stream with no worry of it running out? Plus have money for the other spouse to live off? With the ability to pay with your fixed income steam your choices of facility would be greater and you might be able to negotiate a lower rate etc.
We are married, my wife was a stay at home mom for a while but still will collect her own SS. Her SS amounts to less than 15% of our projected income. The balance is all based on 100% survivor benefit. Plus the 401k/IRA which is significant. She would transition to survivor benefits, losing only her SS. That loss would probably be offset by the reduction in coffee and donut expenses with me gone.
My tendency has been to calculate it as if I were out of the picture. Make sure Mrs. Q44 is covered. Both scenarios early/wait she looks well taken care of. So I'm opting for the one that gives us money up front and lets our investments stay put.
I understand your variables and thinking. Not that I would come to the same decision. My thoughts, are you absolutely comfortable with the assumptions you are making about long term variables? Also assisted living and or nursing home care. Is it possible that by waiting you could create a down the road income stream that would pay the assisted living/nursing home cost for one From your fixed income stream with no worry of it running out? Plus have money for the other spouse to live off? With the ability to pay with your fixed income steam your choices of facility would be greater and you might be able to negotiate a lower rate etc. What if you are out of the way but still living in a home? How does that work?
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.
