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.
Because it's mine.
I'm currently healthy, but if I kick the bucket at 66, that's 4 years of benefits that the government didn't keep for itself.
A single's situation is much different that a couple's situation.
Not everyone has a spouse to worry about. There's lots of us out here that are single. Or have a pension. Or have other back-ups. Everyone's tax situations are different.
i agree , there are situations where if no one is counting on the extra money later on take it early .
but there are more folks in the other camp who really do need that dough later on and they get over whelmed by the what if i die syndrome when they really need to be more concerned with the what if i live question ,especially for their spouse.
i agree , there are situations where if no one is counting on the extra money later on take it early .
but there are more folks in the other camp who really do need that dough later on and they get over whelmed by the what if i die syndrome when they really need to be more concerned with the what if i live question ,especially for their spouse.
It is because of being concerned about the what if I live question that paying the Medicare Surcharge isn't the worse thing that could happen. Could be sorta comforting.
My mom only lived to be 56 and my dad 80. I have no idea how old any of the grandparents were when they died since they were all gone before I was born.
I was fortunate enough to work for one company for 28 years and they contributed a huge amount to our defined benefit pension plan. I took early retirement at 55, with a 21% reduction from what I would have gotten if I was 62. What I collect was a $200.00 a year raise over what our base pay was at the time, although most everyone earned an additional 10 to 30 grand a year in overtime.
I managed just fine on about 70% of the net amount from my pension, saving the rest and opted to start ss at 62 even though I did not need the money since I am single with no kids and did not need to try and provide for a spouse when I die. It simply goes to savings and investments and paying a large additional amount on the mortgage I got when I moved cross country at age 56.
the higher payments may push you right over the edge tax wise.
your sociaL security may be taxed with the larger checks where if you filed at 62 the smaller payment may have kept you under the limit.
Let's say people have larger than expected amounts in their tax deferred retirement accounts like 401Ks and IRAs due to the good stock markets and assume the markets don't crash. Let's just use $1 million in an IRA as an example, at age 62. Assume that amount is enough "for life" for most ordinary people. Would you recommend withdrawing from the IRA from 62 to 70 so that your withdrawals are in the amounts at the lower marginal tax rates and you can get some of the money out of the IRA at relatively low tax rates, with the intention of using some of the money for immediate living expenses but also "getting extra money out" at low tax rates so you can invest or use them down the line?
I took my social security the day I turned 62. I have not worked because I have a pension and with the social security I am doing well.
Some people may want to work till they're 70+ years old, not me.
Who knows what the future will bring. My father worked until he was 69 and died at 72. Only collecting social security 3 years after working a lifetime. I hope to collect a lot longer than 3 years.
I think a lot of people take it at 62 or 66. I think for most that is a mistake. I think monthly cash flow is important. Thus wait until 70. This will be the cheapest inflation adjusted annuity you can buy. Remember the problem you are trying to solve is if you live longer than your money. Not how big an estate you can leave. For married folks look at file and suspend as you might be able to get spousal benefits at 66 and your own at 70.
Let's say people have larger than expected amounts in their tax deferred retirement accounts like 401Ks and IRAs due to the good stock markets and assume the markets don't crash. Let's just use $1 million in an IRA as an example, at age 62. Assume that amount is enough "for life" for most ordinary people. Would you recommend withdrawing from the IRA from 62 to 70 so that your withdrawals are in the amounts at the lower marginal tax rates and you can get some of the money out of the IRA at relatively low tax rates, with the intention of using some of the money for immediate living expenses but also "getting extra money out" at low tax rates so you can invest or use them down the line?
Health and need are my bottom lines.
I am very healthy, agile...my work is a joy and easy.
I will be here at 70 and beyond.
Need...I don't need it now so why take it...even if I waited 3 more
yrs or 4 or 5 it keeps increasing.
I will wait...if I die in an accident before that, I don't care.
What I don't take will help the system provide for others.
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.
