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)
 
Old 08-11-2014, 05:29 PM
 
Location: North of South, South of North
8,706 posts, read 8,823,909 times
Reputation: 5073

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Pinellas_Guy View Post
Wow, lots of interesting thoughts. Here is my scenario. I am married and I became disabled at age 50 and could no longer work. I am not on any disability and I am 51 now. I know how much I would have received in SS benefits, if I worked until retirement age of 67. But I believe that was based on if I continued at my current income the entire time, which I did not. So I "assume" that every year I do not work will in effect lower how much I actually would receive. If that is correct, does it make sense to grab SS as soon as I become eligible in 11 years, at age 62?
Any thoughts on the situation above ^ ?

Thx much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-11-2014, 05:43 PM
 
2,825 posts, read 1,005,259 times
Reputation: 3266
Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Pinellas_Guy View Post
Wow, lots of interesting thoughts. Here is my scenario. I am married and I became disabled at age 50 and could no longer work. I am not on any disability and I am 51 now. I know how much I would have received in SS benefits, if I worked until retirement age of 67. But I believe that was based on if I continued at my current income the entire time, which I did not. So I "assume" that every year I do not work will in effect lower how much I actually would receive. If that is correct, does it make sense to grab SS as soon as I become eligible in 11 years, at age 62?
Go to the social security page. They have a calculator that allows you to input your yearly taxable income and tells you what your benefits would be. That way you can put zero for those years you mention and see if it changes your amount.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2014, 06:24 PM
 
Location: Durham NC
1,190 posts, read 1,298,171 times
Reputation: 926
Only your top 35 earning years are counted. If you don't have 35 they still grab the highest. I assume you made more at 45 than you did at 25. See what I mean?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2014, 06:42 PM
 
Location: North of South, South of North
8,706 posts, read 8,823,909 times
Reputation: 5073
Quote:
Originally Posted by lancers View Post
Only your top 35 earning years are counted. If you don't have 35 they still grab the highest. I assume you made more at 45 than you did at 25. See what I mean?
I have 34 years in, with about 12 being very good for me and 3 out of the last 6 of those were the best. A couple years at the end got messed up due to moving from one state to another.....leaving one job and looking for another.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2014, 07:34 PM
 
10,818 posts, read 8,069,111 times
Reputation: 17029
Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Pinellas_Guy View Post
I have 34 years in, with about 12 being very good for me and 3 out of the last 6 of those were the best. A couple years at the end got messed up due to moving from one state to another.....leaving one job and looking for another.
So you have 34 years with earnings plus + one "zero" year of no earnings. That's what your benefit amount will based upon.

You asked
Quote:
So I "assume" that every year I do not work will in effect lower how much I actually would receive. If that is correct, does it make sense to grab SS as soon as I become eligible in 11 years, at age 62?
That is not correct. Your benefit will not be lowered by your not working in future years. It would be raised marginally if you work even one year, since that would replace your zero year. But it will never be lowered. If your goal is to maximize your monthly SS benefit, the worst thing to do would be to take it at 62.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2014, 08:35 PM
 
Location: North of South, South of North
8,706 posts, read 8,823,909 times
Reputation: 5073
Quote:
Originally Posted by biscuitmom View Post
So you have 34 years with earnings plus + one "zero" year of no earnings. That's what your benefit amount will based upon.

You asked

That is not correct. Your benefit will not be lowered by your not working in future years. It would be raised marginally if you work even one year, since that would replace your zero year. But it will never be lowered. If your goal is to maximize your monthly SS benefit, the worst thing to do would be to take it at 62.
I have two recent years of partial yearly income, due to quitting a job in one state in October 2012, then moving to another state and starting to work in April, then becoming unable to work at all starting in August of 2013.

My SS statement says I would have an estimated $2,000 monthly income if I retire at 67 and it is based on maitaining my current income at the time. As my income went from $55,000/yr to $0/yr and will stay that way until I choose to file for SS, it would appear that I may not keep the $2,000 estimate when I get there, as I did not maintain the income.

Please clarify my error, if any. Much appreciated. Thx.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2014, 10:17 PM
 
10,818 posts, read 8,069,111 times
Reputation: 17029
Quote:
Originally Posted by North_Pinellas_Guy View Post
My SS statement says I would have an estimated $2,000 monthly income if I retire at 67 and it is based on maitaining my current income at the time. As my income went from $55,000/yr to $0/yr and will stay that way until I choose to file for SS, it would appear that I may not keep the $2,000 estimate when I get there, as I did not maintain the income.

Please clarify my error, if any. Much appreciated. Thx.
Not really an error, I think you're on the right track, and it's just a matter of the terminology we're using. The $2000 estimate isn't something that can be kept or lowered, it's just a number that you disregard because it's based upon false assumptions.

As a previous poster said, go to the SS calculator and enter $0 for all the years between now and when you plan to draw benefits, and you'll get a number you can use to plan with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2014, 06:23 PM
 
Location: Florida
4,368 posts, read 3,706,500 times
Reputation: 4111
Will take at 70. I can use other resources to cover my needs so I look at the Increase in SS payments as the purchase of an inflation adjusted annuity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-12-2014, 06:44 PM
 
Location: High Cotton
6,131 posts, read 6,445,243 times
Reputation: 3657
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjm1cc View Post
Will take at 70. I can use other resources to cover my needs so I look at the Increase in SS payments as the purchase of an inflation adjusted annuity.
Wise choice...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2014, 04:06 AM
 
2,042 posts, read 1,950,134 times
Reputation: 3454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beach Sportsfan View Post
I will be retiring at 62 and after much consideration will be taking SS at the same time. While I realize that I will be getting a smaller portion it makes more sense to me to take it and not touch my 401k than draw on that one and wait on SS.
Thankfully at 62 between my pension and SS I won't have to touch my 401k unless I want extra spending cash or emergency costs.
I keep hearing about the fact that we live longer but have seen too many hold off and then die younger than they thought.
I used to think that way but after reading posters here I have come to lean towards holding off on SS until 67 or 70 and instead from 59 to 67 or 70, take the amount from my 401k that just keeps me in the 15% or even near 0% tax bracket for marrid couples. However I realize it depends on everyones individual circumstances what they want to do. For me, if me and my wife take early SS at 62 and not touch the 401k until 70 then anything we take from the 401k is likely to be taxed at 25% or higher rates which kind of defeats the purpose of the tax-advantaged intentof the 401k.
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