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.
So many threads about people not waiting until it's "too late"? How about some more anecdotal in the opposite arena? Not JUST delaying SS, but even retirement in general, especially if you now find you actually COULD have retired earlier, and been okay. Still feel it was the better decision?
Obviously, we will get the usual peanut gallery of people exclaiming how happy they are that they retired early, and doing just fine, thank you very much. Don't need your input here, it's already in just about every other thread in this forum. Please restrain yourself from posting such and derailing the thread, so this may become an easy thread to peruse later.
If you look at the statistics from SS only a small percentage (about 4%) of people wait beyond FRA to collect SS.
I chose to take SS at FRA because I get the max SS benefit and I looked ahead to calculate my tax situation that would result from taking RMDs from my IRA at age 70.5 It's called the "tax torpedo". Do a search. Bottom line, by waiting to age 70 to turn on SS you may get into a situation where your money from your taxed IRA at age 70.5 can have a huge marginal tax rate.
Well, might as well have yet another thread to repeat the pros and cons of taking it FRA or not. That is essentially what this will turn into.
So why shouldn't we have another thread about it. How does your post help??
I don't understand people who have to denigrate others ideas for posts--if they don't want to read them don't read them and don't comment.
We retired 2 years ago and still have not taken social security -though we are at/past FRA. Our pensions and bonuses from husband's patents have been more than enough.
We made the decision to NOT take it at 62. Primarily to ensure my wife gets higher amount if I go first. Was $18,516 back then. Now at 64 and 9 months it's $22,884. At 70 it will be almost $33,000.
I track what our retirement income would be every month (I invest for income), so the first of every month I log onto our SS accounts and get the new total if we retire immediately. Most people don't know that if you are past 62 and not drawing, the figure gets updated every month. It's very satisfying to see the results of waiting each month.
Every month that I delay, my SS payment will increase by 50¢/day.
So, two months of delay means that I can buy a $1 menu item at McDonald's every day. (And, yes, I know about taxes.)
Current age is 67.3 and not collecting SS.
Why?
1. Parents are 94 and both alive.
2. Wife is 9 years younger. Likely to live until mid-90s.
3. Make more money per month than SS payment would be.
4. Don't need the SS money. And, where else do I get a guaranteed 8% annual return?
5. Contest with myself: can I hold out until 70? (It is what happens when you spend too much time on the Bogleheads forum.)
6. The longer that I delay, the more the kid inherits (I hope).
Last edited by davebarnes; 03-26-2016 at 12:43 PM..
the early filers are growing less and less each year
They were growing less each year until you look at the last 2-3 years of your chart, where you see the uptick occurring. As BB's retire, it will continue to climb.
They were growing less each year until you look at the last 2-3 years of your chart, where you see the uptick occurring. As BB's retire, it will continue to climb.
That chart uptick lines up with the market crash of 2007-8 and probably explains it for people who saw the value of and income from their retirement funds drop like a rock.
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.