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 06-17-2014, 06:34 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,747,361 times
Reputation: 32309

Advertisements

In the business section of the Sunday, June 15, 2014 Los Angeles Times, financial advice columnist Liz Weston, whom I have always found to be accurate, reliable, and well informed, made the following point in one of her responses. I quote the two relevant sentences:

"Starting benefits early locks you into lower payments for life and will result in significantly smaller lifetime benefits for most people.That's in part because Social Security hasn't adjusted its payment formulas even as life expectancies have expanded, so most people will live beyond the "break-even" point where delayed benefits exceed the amounts they could have received had they started earlier." (Emphasis mine).

I had always thought, perhaps ignorantly, that it was a statistical wash for Social Security whether people took their benefits early or late - and apparently that was the case at one time. Now, if the L.A. Times columnist is correct, it seems we are better off in the aggregate waiting until full retirement age or beyond because "life expectancies have expanded".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-17-2014, 07:26 PM
 
48,516 posts, read 83,966,925 times
Reputation: 18050
Nothing new and the various options and how they can or can't turn out has been discussed here many times. Everyone is different; no general rule or thinking on subject.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2014, 08:10 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,747,361 times
Reputation: 32309
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav View Post
Nothing new and the various options and how they can or can't turn out has been discussed here many times. Everyone is different; no general rule or thinking on subject.
Well, it's certainly true that the subject of when to take Social Security has been discussed here ad nauseum. But there now is a general rule, even if the rule only applies in the aggregate, and that rule is that greater longevity has now made it a better bet to delay taking Social Security, being that the SS formulas date from an era of lesser longevity. You do not appear to have understood the point of the newspaper columnist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2014, 08:39 PM
 
5,429 posts, read 3,454,205 times
Reputation: 13714
I find it interesting and worthwhile to know! I started receiving Social Security at age 62, but I still like being informed of new information. So thanks Escort Rider.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2014, 08:55 PM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,880,403 times
Reputation: 11705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Escort Rider View Post
Well, it's certainly true that the subject of when to take Social Security has been discussed here ad nauseum. But there now is a general rule, even if the rule only applies in the aggregate, and that rule is that greater longevity has now made it a better bet to delay taking Social Security, being that the SS formulas date from an era of lesser longevity. You do not appear to have understood the point of the newspaper columnist.
Your link is very important because it suggests the break even point isn't as presented by SS. The age remains the same but the statistical probability of reaching it increases. Also discussed if not here is the fact that different demographic groups have different life expectancies with a statistically different probability of reaching and passing that point. That is significant for everyone and perhaps more so for couples.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2014, 09:09 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,747,361 times
Reputation: 32309
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Your link is very important because it suggests the break even point isn't as presented by SS. Also discussed if not here is the fact that different demographic groups have different life expectancies with a statistically different break even point.
Yes. The L.A. Times article I referenced was not an attempt to present an extended, complete discussion and analysis of longevity trends in the United States. But given the respect in which I hold the particular writer, I would assume it is correct that on the whole - in the aggregate - we are now living longer. That is, I would have to assume that although some demographic groups may not share the gains, the gains (overall) outweigh the declines and the static groups.

I think we all know that education level and socio-economic status make a difference in longevity. The rates of smoking, for example, vary enormously by those factors. But smoking rates overall are also down significantly in the last 50 years, and I believe that's one factor in the increased longevity.

Whether the trend in greater longevity will continue is open to question; there has been some thinking that rising obesity rates will reverse the trend in greater longevity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2014, 09:24 PM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,880,403 times
Reputation: 11705
ER, I was thinking ethnic groups which is a major blowback to raising the retirement age
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2014, 12:52 AM
 
Location: Wisconsin
21,541 posts, read 44,039,638 times
Reputation: 15150
Socio-economic status (and genetics) is a pretty big determinant of life expectancy. I'm guessing even the wealthier in the disadvantaged ethnic groups tend to enjoy longer life expectancy on average than their less affluent and educated peers.

Even the better educated and wealthier will die young if their health is impaired. Two come to mind - Mark Haines of CNBC - who I still miss every single morning when I watch Squawk - and Tim Russert. Both looked unfit to my eye, even though Tim did exercise. Mark to me looked ill a lot of the time - but he loved his burgers - and he smoked, a lot. Mark died of congestive heart failure one night after dinner at age 65. Russert, even though he exercised, was overweight and probably worked too much. I wasn't surprised at that death, either. Although 58 is pretty young.

We've got a number of people on CD taking SS early, or no later than FRA, because they believe they will have a shorter life span.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2014, 05:22 AM
 
Location: Central Massachusetts
4,800 posts, read 4,851,516 times
Reputation: 6379
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariadne22 View Post
Socio-economic status (and genetics) is a pretty big determinant of life expectancy. I'm guessing even the wealthier in the disadvantaged ethnic groups tend to enjoy longer life expectancy on average than their less affluent and educated peers.

Even the better educated and wealthier will die young if their health is impaired. Two come to mind - Mark Haines of CNBC - who I still miss every single morning when I watch Squawk - and Tim Russert. Both looked unfit to my eye, even though Tim did exercise. Mark to me looked ill a lot of the time - but he loved his burgers - and he smoked, a lot. Mark died of congestive heart failure one night after dinner at age 65. Russert, even though he exercised, was overweight and probably worked too much. I wasn't surprised at that death, either. Although 58 is pretty young.

We've got a number of people on CD taking SS early, or no later than FRA, because they believe they will have a shorter life span.

Ariadne excellent points and examples. I would like to offer another reason some are taking it no later then FRA and that is additional income. One of my personal favorite posters here and a very popular one for most mathjak posted this answer with an accomanying article by Michael Kitces and
Quote:
The Taxation Of Social Security Benefits As A Marginal Tax Rate Increase?
The "Marginal Rate" some people might experience should they have additional income might make it more practical to take it before they reach a threshold that would put them over the top. An example I will use is myself. I know this doesnt apply to everyone. I will have pension income that added together with my 401k tax advantaged savings could put me into that bracket. Even more so if my savings significantly grows over the next few years. I might be able to change those circumstances by doing Roth conversions but doing that too quickly could trigger high taxes and take away much of my gains at a point where I might not be able to recover those should there be a market correction.

Here is the article link for those who did not see it. The Taxation Of Social Security Benefits As A Marginal Tax Rate Increase? | Kitces.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2014, 06:32 AM
 
Location: Whereever we have our RV parked
8,797 posts, read 7,712,915 times
Reputation: 15087
I don't doubt the accuracy of the article, based on the data that is available today. However, IMHO, the average life span of American's will decline some. Why? Increasing rates of obesity. 2. The older generation tended to be more physically active. AS the generations come and go, it seems physical activity is decreasing. They tend to be more sedentary. That doesn't help longevity. 3. And the final cause will be decreasing quality and amount of health care available to those on Medicare.
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top