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.
This is a sad story, but I don't understand where you say the lesson to be learned in not to rely on the Federal Govt to secure your retirement needs. The OP was using an example of how is brother, with no debt probably could have retired earlier and might have enjoyed it for a few years. Yet the brother listened to his "financial advisors" (who were probably more worried about their commissions) and stayed at a job he hated, with more stress and died shortly after retiring. Social Security had NOTHING to do with it other than he'd just started collecting. But it's the guvmints fault!
I recently retired from a job I liked, with a good pension at 62. I gave up a few dollars, but the job had changed since 2008 and management just kept trying to squeeze more out of you. It got so I dreaded going into work. I talk to a few people that still work there and they tell me about the latest bs and I'm just happy I'm no longer there. I'll find something p/t to do to get me out of the house, for a few extra bucks, but I have enough with pension and s/s that I don't have to work, and NO stress.
You tell em! SS had nothing to do with it, just the person's insecurity.
Interesting, I went to a retirement seminar (mandatory by employer) when I was 55. We were all told retire as soon as you can, collect SS at 62. Get out now and enjoy life. I retired at 58 when I had enough time in and collected SS at 62. No regrets.
Interesting, I went to a retirement seminar (mandatory by employer) when I was 55. We were all told retire as soon as you can, collect SS at 62. Get out now and enjoy life. I retired at 58 when I had enough time in and collected SS at 62. No regrets.
Condolences to the loss of your brother.
One could also say it was a good way to get rid of older employees and reduce cost without risk of being accused of age discrimination. Did they offer any incentives or were they able to accomplish it with minimal cost?
I was once told by someone to start paying attention to how many people that I personally know who began to collect social security, then watch to see how long they live after their benefits begin and notice how many die not long afterwards. This person claimed that there was some sort of conspiracy that caused people who began collecting Social Security to die shortly after because the system didn't want to pay out the money.
I laughed it off as being unfounded and nutty... that was until my father retied and began collecting his social security and 5 months later he died. The social security had recently sent him his payment but there is a clause in Social Security that says if the person dies within 8-10 days? after receiving their last SS payment that the payment must be returned to the government. Of course even if the individual paid into SS their entire life once they die their benefits (their money) cannot be given or transferred to their heirs, the government keeps it all.
It wasn't a few months later I then noticed another person I knew begin to collect SS and they too died soon after. Then a year later the same thing with my uncle, he began collecting SS and within 5-6 months he died too.
And I know 50 people that retired and collected SS for 20-25 years. Some into their 90s. It's all a roll of the dice. Sounds like you have bad genes more than anything.
I'm not advocating taking the benefits right away or delaying, but this post has the BS klaxons wailing.
How can you possible know what every single financial advisor has told their client? The amount of the increase isn't necessarily negligible, here is for someone who average $50k salary:
I don't know about you, but to me having a fixed income of $31k or $41k is a completely different lifestyle than having $23k. Negligible? Come on.
Can you provide a source for this? Not only are terms like "active and healthy" nebulous and impossible to quantify, "very few" is equally useless as a measure. You might be right (I have no idea) but I'd be curious of the source of your claim.
There are funding issues with social security, but that doesn't support an argument that benefits will be cut.
Social security isn't a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is an investment scam that promises returns is deceptive in that it doesn't actually invest in anything and isn't sustainable because it will run out of investors. Social security isn't an investment promising certain returns, it is a tax and benefit. Social security isn't deceptive it is quite transparent they issue very detailed reports on the state of the program and finances, and it sure won't run out of people entering the program until we stop having babies.
Again... proof? If someone has $500k saved up how exactly does that qualify them from social security benefits if they have worked the min years?
Of course inflation erosion would impact future benefits but this statement isn't true, the government acknowledges inflation exists. It just isn't very high.
It is a decision that varies from person to person, and shouldn't be influenced by a serial exaggerator implying everyone ends up in convalescent care and everyone who works hates their life.
Again, source? You seem to have your fingers on the pulse of the retirement community where do you get these "facts" you keep throwing about?
Good post. Clearly a lot of people don't know what they are talking about. Waiting is nowhere near "negligible". It's like an 8% gain per year increase...... better than most investments. There is no need to wait if your are truly struggling, but if you aren't, it sure makes sense to wait.
Don't wait to retire. Enjoy life. No one knows when they will die. 67 is a goal to increase your benefits. If you have saved for retirement during your working years, retire at 62 or younger.
Good post. Clearly a lot of people don't know what they are talking about. Waiting is nowhere near "negligible". It's like an 8% gain per year increase...... better than most investments. There is no need to wait if your are truly struggling, but if you aren't, it sure makes sense to wait.
it is a 6-8% increase but it is not the same as 6-8% return since you are giving up checks and spousal benefits as well as possibly spending down invested assets in exchange for that increase . on a return basis it can be a lot less unless you live to 90 or your spouse does . it can take 22 years just to get to zero return .
Good post. Clearly a lot of people don't know what they are talking about. Waiting is nowhere near "negligible". It's like an 8% gain per year increase...... better than most investments. There is no need to wait if your are truly struggling, but if you aren't, it sure makes sense to wait.
This thread like so many other financial threads before it gives us insight into the finances of posters. Many don't realize they are giving insight but especially in their aggregated posts they are. I know little about you but this posts has me leaning to the thought that you are probably above average income with a sense of the power of compounding. I say that because you suggest the 8% gain per year is NOT negligible. I would agree fully. However it is easier to see that if you are waiting to 70 and a high income owner with a top tier SS benefit. That 8 percent applied and compounded is a chunk of change. The maximum benefit at age 70 is now about 41K. Start hitting the 30K mark and that 8 percent compounded adds up. On the other hand if you have a $1,000 benefit and not fully appreciating compounding that 8 isn't as great. Also if you have a spouse retiring on their own benefit you can at FRA file for spousal and that minimizes what you are giving up by waiting. Yes it is being phased out be hey if you are at the been there done that point it is still part of your calculus. I once commented in here to a poster that I had a good idea of their finances. They told me no I didn't and I was clueless. I sent them a private with message with an apology and specifics of what I had gotten an impression they were. They responded that I was right on target and they didn't remember revealing it and I shared it wasn't one post but many and doing a little reverse math. If you say in one post you are doing a 4% draw down and in another are expecting 40K in investments on top of your pension or SS you are basically telling us you have 1 million are so invested. So a thread like this says a lot about people and probably more than they care to share. At 30 K waiting to age 70 that 8% is $2,400 per year and not bad. at $12,000 benefit per year that 8% is $960 and perhaps not as sweet.
Good post. Clearly a lot of people don't know what they are talking about. Waiting is nowhere near "negligible". It's like an 8% gain per year increase...... better than most investments. There is no need to wait if your are truly struggling, but if you aren't, it sure makes sense to wait.
It really all depends on what you want in your retirement. Do you want to have a little less and not have to work another 3-8 years? Even if you have 15 to 20 years left to live, do you want to spend almost half of that working at a job you don't like, is stressful and maybe even physically very hard on you?
Personally, I can live with less if that means not going to work every day and having more years doing what I like to do.
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.
