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 10-02-2014, 03:13 PM
 
71,643 posts, read 71,777,271 times
Reputation: 49235

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burkmere View Post
There is also the argument that if you "can" afford to wait to take ss, then take it early as there's a good chance it will be "means" tested down the road. And if you really can't afford to wait, then keep working and take it later.

I'm not sure I agree that if you don't have enough saved to go the three, four, or five more years, then you shouldn't retire now. If you have a defined benefit plan and that plan along with your ss payment at 62 if plenty to fund your retirement, then I think the argument can be made for taking the payment at 62...why wait 4,5,6 years to enjoy retirement while you are young enough to do it.

Now, if you have a wad saved, I can see your point. Spend it down in the early years and take ss later when you will get more. However, that "wad" can still earn investment returns so your argument still isn't necessarily the only way to to in my opinion.
one thing i want to mention about your hypothetical couple where they can retire fully funded on a pension and early ss.

think about this real life scenario.

if they can retire on the pension and need the ss money early because their savings are so thin they have no money to lay out to delay what happens in the event the spouse with the higher ss dies?

can the surviving spouse survive on one less ss check, a reduced benefit check at that ? if she isn't of full retirement age she has that one check slashed even more if she files for survivor benefits early.

perhaps even in that scenario they are really underfunded for an early retirement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-02-2014, 04:34 PM
 
71,643 posts, read 71,777,271 times
Reputation: 49235
Which makes sense in your case since you do have the money to lay out and your spouse is provided for no matter what choice you made.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2014, 05:51 PM
 
2,296 posts, read 1,562,467 times
Reputation: 2737
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
But they will still be high income retirees.
True, a good problem to have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2014, 05:53 PM
 
2,296 posts, read 1,562,467 times
Reputation: 2737
[quote=TuborgP;36724970]It is awesome being 66 and knowing we get a biggggg income jump in 3 1/2 tears at age 70.[/quote

But less than the average return of the S&P or equivalent index over the last 70 years or so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2014, 05:54 PM
 
2,296 posts, read 1,562,467 times
Reputation: 2737
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
one thing i want to mention about your hypothetical couple where they can retire fully funded on a pension and early ss.

think about this real life scenario.

if they can retire on the pension and need the ss money early because their savings are so thin they have no money to lay out to delay what happens in the event the spouse with the higher ss dies?

can the surviving spouse survive on one less ss check, a reduced benefit check at that ? if she isn't of full retirement age she has that one check slashed even more if she files for survivor benefits early.

perhaps even in that scenario they are really underfunded for an early retirement.
\

I'm not a hypothetical couple. I'm single.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2014, 06:02 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,744,100 times
Reputation: 32304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burkmere View Post
Yes, but it could (and most likely will imo) get worse for higher wage earners. In fact two financial planners who I highly respect advise high earners to take it at 62...but the lower earners to keep working and take it later because they are convinced that there will be means testing (maybe more taxes, less benefits, etc.) for the higher earners in the not to distant future.....
Your two financial planners could certainly turn out to be right, but the truth is they are speculating about something which is very, very uncertain, namely what will happen in the national legislative arena. What will Congress do in two years? Four years? Six years? Eight years? No one has an answer to that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2014, 06:04 PM
 
71,643 posts, read 71,777,271 times
Reputation: 49235
[quote=Burkmere;36727469]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
It is awesome being 66 and knowing we get a biggggg income jump in 3 1/2 tears at age 70.[/quote

But less than the average return of the S&P or equivalent index over the last 70 years or so.
But many times more than the last 15 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2014, 06:29 PM
 
2,296 posts, read 1,562,467 times
Reputation: 2737
[quote=mathjak107;36727581]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burkmere View Post

But many times more than the last 15 years.
And much less the past 8.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2014, 06:32 PM
 
2,296 posts, read 1,562,467 times
Reputation: 2737
[quote=mathjak107;36727581]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burkmere View Post

But many times more than the last 15 years.
Actually not much more at l the past 15 yrs and less the past 10. And wayyyyyy less the past 8.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2014, 06:53 PM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,876,173 times
Reputation: 11705
[quote=Burkmere;36727469]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
It is awesome being 66 and knowing we get a biggggg income jump in 3 1/2 tears at age 70.[/quote

But less than the average return of the S&P or equivalent index over the last 70 years or so.
True but it is a fixed income stream for me and while my wife currently has her own SS and me spousal on hers she would get mine if I pass first. What you may not know is that we also have a sizable portfolio that because of our fixed income stream enables us to still be long term more aggressive. A lower fixed stream might require some dependency on a drawdown of our investments and a lower risk tolerance. Because of the now high fixed stream we are able to be in a permanent accumulation phase. We also have pensions with survivor rights.
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