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 04-01-2016, 12:53 PM
 
71,517 posts, read 71,694,121 times
Reputation: 49095

Advertisements

well now you did . we need something to live on while we delay for those years .

we have two years cash in withdrawals but after that it comes from our assets .

so those who delay that you know all have pensions that cover their expenses ? other wise they need as much as 8 years of income from their investments .

not investing dividends and interest is spending down invested assets . with every spend dividend payment your balance for future compounding is less at the ring of the bell each quarter then prior to the dividend so all future compounding is on the reduced amount .

so yes they are spending down assets ..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-02-2016, 11:17 AM
 
Location: RVA
2,164 posts, read 1,265,616 times
Reputation: 4451
I will never say it is overwhelming smarter to delay. That is patently false. (And I know you're not picking on me in particular). I only want to point out that IF you live longer, it is much less about making it to "breaking even", and more about making it with a higher longer income over your life regardless of age VS maintaining a larger savings, which has its own issues as Matt points out as well. Volatility, spousal management, swindles, theft etc, are far less likely with a simply higher SS check. When I run the predicted incomes based in delaying vs not, I Have a higher income throughout my whole life, regardless of age with less volatility. If I Collect early, and die at 75, I'm living at a lower income (because I'm not taking the chance on a higher income that would deplete my savings IF I were to live longer, So I HAVE to have that extra 200k invested, incase I live and need it, right?) for that whole time but my heirs come out ahead thanks to that fat savings. I'd much rather have a higher income for longer and a smaller savings for maybe 10 years, than a lower income and always a higher savings. Kiney is fungible, and I care not where it comes from, if the after tax income, that I actually live off, is higher. With a smaller savings, less of my money goes to pay taxes as RMDs, when I don't need it, and is swapped for income taxed at only 85%.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2016, 12:15 PM
 
2,754 posts, read 992,710 times
Reputation: 3207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perryinva View Post
I will never say it is overwhelming smarter to delay. That is patently false. (And I know you're not picking on me in particular). I only want to point out that IF you live longer, it is much less about making it to "breaking even", and more about making it with a higher longer income over your life regardless of age VS maintaining a larger savings, which has its own issues as Matt points out as well. Volatility, spousal management, swindles, theft etc, are far less likely with a simply higher SS check. When I run the predicted incomes based in delaying vs not, I Have a higher income throughout my whole life, regardless of age with less volatility. If I Collect early, and die at 75, I'm living at a lower income (because I'm not taking the chance on a higher income that would deplete my savings IF I were to live longer, So I HAVE to have that extra 200k invested, incase I live and need it, right?) for that whole time but my heirs come out ahead thanks to that fat savings. I'd much rather have a higher income for longer and a smaller savings for maybe 10 years, than a lower income and always a higher savings. Kiney is fungible, and I care not where it comes from, if the after tax income, that I actually live off, is higher. With a smaller savings, less of my money goes to pay taxes as RMDs, when I don't need it, and is swapped for income taxed at only 85%.
Well said and that's the reason that I will use some of my investments to reach FRA. But it's something everyone needs to decide on their own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2016, 01:22 PM
 
71,517 posts, read 71,694,121 times
Reputation: 49095
if you have a fidelity account you can run some pretty cool different scenarios taking not only ss at different ages but it can add in automatically some of the annuity products fidelity offers to see the effects on your numbers , draw rate and dollars left under worst and average case scenario's .

i wouldn't go by the exact amounts but you can get a good idea of the effect of different options and where things change .

there were no scenario's i could run where taking the ss earlier allowed a higher income day 1 . mostly because of sequence risk . you need to keep more powder dry and in reserve when dealing with markets vs social security which has no sequence risk . that allows more spendable dollars vs having to keep more in reserve for poor sequencing
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2016, 03:05 PM
 
8,195 posts, read 11,908,623 times
Reputation: 17969
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineman View Post
Cost of living increases are based on figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. They exclude food and fuel. If, as many seniors have, your home is paid for and you have no commute or job expenses, then food and fuel are major parts of your expenses. There have been no COLAs for a few years now. This does not apply to members of Congress.
I was about to write that many people are misinformed on the CPI and COLAs in general, but that you had doubled-down on the ridiculousness. But in actuality, you triple-downed on them, lol. It's pretty difficult to be so misinformed on a single subject, but you managed to do it.

Well done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2016, 06:40 PM
 
Location: Grove City, Ohio
10,133 posts, read 12,381,010 times
Reputation: 13956
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perryinva View Post
I believe the SSA prediction assumes a certain inflation amount, which may adjust occasionally. But I'm not absolutely positive. Anyone?
I really started watching mine about 8 years ago when I turned 60.

When I was 62 the amount of money they said I would get at FRA was $80 less than what I would actually have received at 66 if I had taken it and I made exactly the same amount of money.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2016, 07:21 PM
 
Location: RVA
2,164 posts, read 1,265,616 times
Reputation: 4451
Thats pretty darn good to be that close 4 years away. Plus it erred in your favor. So there must be some type of inflation number used. But wait! The number they gave you for 66 at 62, was in age 62 dollars, not future dollars, so it SHOULD have been lower than the actual amount at 66 in age 66 dollars. So likely, even closer!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2016, 12:28 AM
 
6,439 posts, read 3,069,385 times
Reputation: 5853
Per the woman at social security that I talked to their estimate does not include future COLA's.


When you start collecting, you will get whatever COLA's have been given since you got the estimate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2016, 10:46 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,732,288 times
Reputation: 32304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondy View Post
Per the woman at social security that I talked to their estimate does not include future COLA's.


When you start collecting, you will get whatever COLA's have been given since you got the estimate.
That makes sense because the Social Security Administration doesn't know what the future COLA's will be or even if there will be one every year.
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