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 04-05-2016, 08:45 AM
 
Location: On the road
5,947 posts, read 2,895,036 times
Reputation: 11392

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog View Post
Good thing you know for a fact that you'll be healthy enough to enjoy your SS check, no matter how old you become.
Interesting post coming from someone who seems to know for a fact we'll all be immobile senile zombies dripping into drool cups by our 70th birthday.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-05-2016, 02:51 PM
Status: "Re-edit status" (set 19 days ago)
 
Location: Was Midvalley Oregon; Now Eastside Seattle area
4,177 posts, read 1,901,069 times
Reputation: 3206
We took SS and pension at first opportunity @62 and 64 (RIF). We needed the cashflow. We also know that the life expectancy is a "mean" and we didn't like the odds to be on the right side of the mean. Parents on boths sides were 90+ on their passing. We also had other investments and retirement plans.

YMMV.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2016, 03:58 PM
 
Location: South Jersey
69 posts, read 52,231 times
Reputation: 347
I'm taking it in Nov. when I turn 65... since I gotta start Medicare, seems simplest that way so part-b premiums are automatically deducted. Also, DW is already on SS, I was the higher earner, so she can begin getting spousal benefit. I will use the SS payments to pay the taxes on Roth conversions from age 65-70.

I feel this strategy preserves my tIRA savings.. I will get a pension which, combined with SS and RMDs will push me into a higher tax bracket anyways.. so why delay taking the SS ??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2016, 04:39 PM
 
Location: RVA
2,167 posts, read 1,266,787 times
Reputation: 4460
It depends on what is more important to you. Preserving the maximum tIRA savings or a higher income, with lower taxes. If you can replace 10k a year of tIRA withdrawals with 10k a year of lower taxed higher SS then you come out with a higher income, that is taxed at a lower rate, is COLA adjusted, and gives your spouse a higher SS if you pass first. If you will have no tIRA, (cause it will all be ROTH) or reduction in taxable income from savings, then yup, no point at all in delaying
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2016, 04:59 PM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,871,258 times
Reputation: 11705
There is another data point in all of this to be considered. What will your income be at age 70 with each of the options and will it be way more than you need or leave you close to break even. What about age 75. What will your investments if any be at age 70, 75, 80 etc. Use FireCalc and play with the variables. If you will find your self living on 75% of your income and your investments untouched after age 70 perhaps one or both of you could take early. If on the other hand if at age 70 taking it early leaves you living on 95% of your income with little in the bank you might want to delay. There are many outcome variables depending on your decisions so weight them all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2016, 06:04 AM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,841 posts, read 7,331,482 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by NHartphotog View Post
Good thing you know for a fact that you'll be healthy enough to enjoy your SS check, no matter how old you become. Vampire, or merely wandered off of Mt. Olympus?

Assume I make it to old age with only gradual age-related decline. Getting $10,000 a year when I'm 65 is worth MUCH more to me than getting $1million a year at age 80. The $10,000 I get at age 65 would go to financing the Bucket List experiences I never had time to do--like travel around the nation in an RV.

Alternately, the $1 million I get when I'm 80 won't be benefitting my Bucket List in the least. Most likely my spouse will be dead or highly dependent on the same pills and required doctor visits I'll be saddled with. Energy levels aren't exactly high in old age, the urge to travel and see new things is usually dampened, and pretty much everyone will have compromised eyesight that precludes driving at night (or at all), or even getting through a crowded airport.

Having a lot of money at the point in life where you cannot enjoy the experiences it can buy certainly helps Big Pharma and Big Health, but really doesn't help you one iota. You'll get exactly the same care that the guy who never saved a penny gets, because that's the way the system works.
Well, that's nice, except that that's not an even remotely realistic or pertinent scenario. The scenario with SS is if you take SS at 62, then you lose 25% (or more in the future) of the benefit you would get at FRA; if you wait until age 70, you'll get about 33% more than the FRA age benefit. So, waiting until FRA gives you about a third more SS benefit than you get at 62, and you'd get a 75+% increase in your benefit if you wait until age 70: $7,500 at 62, $10,000 at FRA, $13,300 at 70.

For somebody with other income, that extra income from delaying might not be important. For somebody depending mostly or entirely on SS, it might be crucial in determining how well he or she can live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2016, 06:05 AM
 
Location: RVA
2,167 posts, read 1,266,787 times
Reputation: 4460
It also seems rather obvious to me that maintaining a large savings, so that it produces income for possibly 30 or more years, without some type of crash affecting it, dealing with tax consequences etc, will become a lot more onerous and time consuming as you age. If you have a million and lose 40% in a major correction, you've lost 400k. Now until that ŕnd recovers, if you want to maintain you income, you will be reducing principal more than before. If you spent down to increase your income so you are less dependent on the savings, and only now have $700k, a 40% reduction is only $280k, and since you are not as dependent, if at all on that savings, you are not reducing principal to get by and it can recover far easier. You just have to be able to accept you are in a spend down stage of life, not a savings stage as you were the previous 40 or more years, and can't worry about breaking even if you die younger.

You also can't just look at percentages in Linda's example the difference in dollars between 62 and 70 is just under $6000, or the 4% rule of a $150k savings, which for someone just living on SS is a ton, but for someone where SS is a small part of their income it may be small potatoes and they'd rather have the cash now to invest. In a max SS case the difference between 62 and 70, while the same percentage, is over $21k a year. Now we are talking about real income difference, and equal to over $500k saved. Same percentages, monster difference. I'd much rather have the extra $21k income, which costs me less than $200k in savings than have to come up and maintain an additional 300k so I had the same income e, with today's market performance.

For a long time, it looked likeep if you had say 700k saved, then earning an additional 300k on earnings alone in 6 years was pretty reasonable. Not so much anymore!

Last edited by Perryinva; 04-06-2016 at 06:28 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2016, 07:25 AM
 
Location: NC Piedmont
3,911 posts, read 2,879,340 times
Reputation: 6291
Half the threads end up with this same discussion...

After a number of these, I have come to the conclusion that if you have a choice then delaying is usually the best decision.

But the parameters of whether you have a choice or not are not really all that simple. How far down should you spend savings before hanging on the rest as a cushion? Your credit rating might play into the answer to that question (might not be able to finance that retirement condo that you could have bought outright). A lot of us look at this question from the POV of having decent savings that we likely won't spend half of by delaying. Would you look at the decision differently if you might spend more than half your savings if you delay?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2016, 08:17 AM
 
6,884 posts, read 7,284,046 times
Reputation: 9786
Quote:
But the parameters of whether you have a choice or not are not really all that simple. How far down should you spend savings before hanging on the rest as a cushion? Your credit rating might play into the answer to that question (might not be able to finance that retirement condo that you could have bought outright). A lot of us look at this question from the POV of having decent savings that we likely won't spend half of by delaying. Would you look at the decision differently if you might spend more than half your savings if you delay?
Of course you're correct…because that's the bottom line of the decision and that won't' change. I can't tell you how many times this same. old. topic. comes up. Sometimes I think if people would just search and read some older threads before they post they'd find their answer. Because lord knows it's probably already been asked AND answered..

Take So Sec. early or rake it later….until there's a rule change or something like that….what else is even left to say or debate about it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-06-2016, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,745 posts, read 4,218,356 times
Reputation: 6866
Quote:
Originally Posted by selhars View Post
Of course you're correct…because that's the bottom line of the decision and that won't' change. I can't tell you how many times this same. old. topic. comes up. Sometimes I think if people would just search and read some older threads before they post they'd find their answer. Because lord knows it's probably already been asked AND answered..

Take So Sec. early or rake it later….until there's a rule change or something like that….what else is even left to say or debate about it?
We already know that most folks on this forum have the resources to delay taking Social Security and we know that there are some people who have no choice but to take the benefits early. But NO ONE seems to have a suggestion for those who will be squeaking by drawing an average Soc Sec benefit AND withdrawing the (often recommended) 4 percent of their retirement account. And for heaven's sake, no Pension. I'm guessing it's because no one on this board has a well reasoned suggestion OR figures it doesn't really matter because someone in that category is poor but just doesn't know it.
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