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 03-06-2016, 09:13 PM
 
Location: Amongst the AZ Cactus
7,074 posts, read 4,918,871 times
Reputation: 7700

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
I was always going to play it by ear . If markets really tanked i would take it earlier. But the more i worked with the numbers the more i liked delaying and not being held hostage as much by the markets
I think in the end, based on the math, taking ssn at 70 vs 62 is just as much a gamble as what the markets are going to do/not do as now we are betting on the highly variable/unknowable...how long will one live? Waiting to take ssn at 70, based on the numbers/analysis I've seen, one reaches break-even point at 82 yo vs taking ssn at 62. And given the average lifespan of a man is 77.4 yo and a woman is 82.2 yo, it's a bit of a long shot actually for most men to come out ahead delaying ssn. With that said, I hope you beat those odds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-07-2016, 02:45 AM
 
71,467 posts, read 71,652,652 times
Reputation: 49027
you average life expectancy is well off for 65 year old's . average life expectancy is very different when you calculate from birth rather then from older ages as well as different if a couple with two bets in the race .. a 90 year old couple still has a 47% chance one of them will still be alive . that is very different then looking at singles from birth . we have been adding 1 more year of life every 4 years since 2000.

an 85 year old woman has a 54% chance of being alive , an 85 year old man 42% and an 85 year old couple a whopping 73% chance one of them will be alive since you have two horses in the race and either can out live the other . don't forget that average life expectancy only means that is the 50% point where you stand as much chance dying as living and going on .

there is an excellent chance if a couple one of you will go on to enjoy that extra money at age 85 . in fact we don't see a drop below the 50% point for a couple until age 90 today where there is a 47% chance one of you will be alive . .



as far as both being the same risk , they both carry risk but different risk .

you either are betting on markets and rates taking financial risk or betting on your longevity . take your pick , which one are you more comfortable betting on ?

i am more comfortable with the odds one of us will be alive to enjoy a 70% bigger ss check and be less market dependent vs betting the ranch on the markets or rates .


Last edited by mathjak107; 03-07-2016 at 03:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2016, 04:51 AM
 
Location: Mount Airy, Maryland
10,459 posts, read 5,920,270 times
Reputation: 16141
I think that make a lot of sense to delay. From 62-FRA your return is somewhere north of 5%, from FRA to 70 the return is 8%. You can't expect those guaranteed returns in the market. The problem is there are many people in my shoes, where living entirely off my savings for that length of time will bring the balances to uncomfortably low figures.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2016, 04:52 AM
 
71,467 posts, read 71,652,652 times
Reputation: 49027
Until breakeven those 6% gains are not actual gains since you are giving up checks. They would only be true gains if you were not giving up those checks in exchange for the growth in ss . You typically need 22-24 years to reach zero return when you figure lost checks and spending invested assets. but once you reach that point the 69% bigger check plus additional colas does create a bigger return fairly quick.

by age 90 you are seeing an actual 5% real return . that is after inflation and is on par with a balanced portfolio return historically, only it is guaranteed in the form of ss. in fact odds are you will not see a 5% real return from a balanced portfolio for quite a while .

that can be an incredible deal . .

Last edited by mathjak107; 03-07-2016 at 05:06 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2016, 05:04 AM
 
Location: Central Massachusetts
4,800 posts, read 4,843,254 times
Reputation: 6377
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveinMtAiry View Post
I think that make a lot of sense to delay. From 62-FRA your return is somewhere north of 5%, from FRA to 70 the return is 8%. You can't expect those guaranteed returns in the market. The problem is there are many people in my shoes, where living entirely off my savings for that length of time will bring the balances to uncomfortably low figures.

True so maybe a point somewhere in between. Let's say at FRA the probability gives you the best chance to enjoy without undue stress and complete control of ones finances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
Until breakeven though those 6% gains are not actual gains since you are giving up checks


That is something each of us has to decide. It is a hard decision but one that has to be made by the individuals. I am not sure exactly when I plan on taking SS but I know it will not be at 62 even though I will not be working. I am fairly sure it will not be at 70 either. For us I am thinking somewhere in between. It maybe at FRA or just before or after it. I tell people that only they can decide when to do that when they ask me my opinion but I let them know they have choices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2016, 05:08 AM
 
71,467 posts, read 71,652,652 times
Reputation: 49027
not many folks have the resources to delay to 70 without running dangerously low on their own savings if they have no other income .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2016, 05:10 AM
 
71,467 posts, read 71,652,652 times
Reputation: 49027
Quote:
Originally Posted by golfingduo View Post
True so maybe a point somewhere in between. Let's say at FRA the probability gives you the best chance to enjoy without undue stress and complete control of ones finances.





That is something each of us has to decide. It is a hard decision but one that has to be made by the individuals. I am not sure exactly when I plan on taking SS but I know it will not be at 62 even though I will not be working. I am fairly sure it will not be at 70 either. For us I am thinking somewhere in between. It maybe at FRA or just before or after it. I tell people that only they can decide when to do that when they ask me my opinion but I let them know they have choices.
with a pension you are not as dependent on the whims of markets so you have the luxury of taking it earlier or delaying and everything in between . it is a good place to be where you have a guaranteed income stream in place and do not need to be 100% dependent on yourself for generating that income .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2016, 06:03 AM
 
Location: RVA
2,164 posts, read 1,264,598 times
Reputation: 4451
All true. And until I'm there at 65, and really know where my saved balance is going and what are real expenses are after a few years of retirement, I just won't know when I'll file until then. On paper,maccording to the calculators, I can go to 70. It SHOULD be plenty, and a no brainer, but at 58, that seems like a very long time to wait!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2016, 06:44 AM
 
Location: Mount Airy, Maryland
10,459 posts, read 5,920,270 times
Reputation: 16141
I'm not sure when I'll take mine either, it may not be up to me with my job situation. My ideal movie is to get to 65, Medicare eligible, and then see where we are. If I were to guess somewhere between 65 and FRA is when I'll file. There is something very enticing about a guaranteed higher check for life without even going into the possible tax ramifications of a smaller check and income needed to subsidize the shortfall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2016, 07:25 AM
 
29,764 posts, read 34,851,819 times
Reputation: 11675
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
with a pension you are not as dependent on the whims of markets so you have the luxury of taking it earlier or delaying and everything in between . it is a good place to be where you have a guaranteed income stream in place and do not need to be 100% dependent on yourself for generating that income .
Bada Bing!
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