U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
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)
Old 09-04-2016, 03:38 PM
Location: Washington State
18,781 posts, read 9,682,398 times
Reputation: 15987


Originally Posted by Perryinva View Post
^^^^ again, a logical, well thought out, VERSATILE, plan. Nothing set in stone, but a full awareness of options and outcomes. That is all anyone can really do.

Post like TTs above make no sense what so ever. Essentially he has said "Just in case something may happen that might reduce my SS checks, even though there is no indication whatsoever that is happening, I've decided to do what guarantees I get the smallest tax advantaged income possible and lock that in. That will show them"

What is the point of that? If you just WANT to take it at 62, because emotionally you can't handle the thought of never collecting from SS in case you die young....then say it. That was essentially the sole reason my wife filed at 62. The majority of people collect early because they have no choice, and the rest because of the above. There are other reasons, but they are outliers...like having kids very late in life that are still minor age for many years after you are 62. Collecting their SS minor support and yours early is likely a slam dunk, if your income is low.

But for anyone with plenty of income guaranteed for life due to pensions, large safe investment dividends, etc, it makes zero financial sense (if you assume you plan to live to 80) to take it at 62. If you die and would have collected more by taking it at 62, why would it matter. You are dead. If you are quite positive you will die before 80, and want to live significantly larger through that age, and on much less afterwards, go for it! Actuarially it makes little difference what you do, but collecting early and living longer is better for SSA overall than collecting late and living longer, so SSA may get the last laugh....
You certainly missed the gist of my post that I fear an income or wealth test in the future if I wait. In other words, I believe the promises made will be broken at some point when the pressure of fewer workers paying for the latter half of the Baby Boomers retirees and implementing some type of test to prevent me from drawing what has been promised to me my entire work life and I've maxed the ss payment the last 15 years. Therefore, better to draw some of what was promised before they change the deal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 09-04-2016, 03:49 PM
72,130 posts, read 72,094,203 times
Reputation: 49649
what's to say they don't make it retroactive as long as we are doing what if's . one thing i believe strongly is never plan around the what if's or the visions of what could be , in your head . otherwise we would all just have bullets ,beans and gold .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-04-2016, 05:37 PM
1,137 posts, read 573,376 times
Reputation: 4371
mathjak107, golfingduo-
Men- thanks for the fantastic feedback!! This thread led me to question and re-think a new retirement scenario which I had never considered due to the 'enormous' size of our savings, but it works. So, Ok, I'm slow to catch on. The result looks like it is going to make a huge difference in our retirement years.

You guys are smart- I'll let you guess what it is !!

Cheers- MG
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-04-2016, 06:18 PM
Location: Southern California
24,021 posts, read 8,381,981 times
Reputation: 15658
I lost a job at 62 that I was going to "retire" from and so took SS at 62. I needed the money, and never regretted it for me, I'm 78. No fat money account and no bullets.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-04-2016, 06:33 PM
Location: Central Massachusetts
4,800 posts, read 4,866,680 times
Reputation: 6379
Originally Posted by jaminhealth View Post
I lost a job at 62 that I was going to "retire" from and so took SS at 62. I needed the money, and never regretted it for me, I'm 78. No fat money account and no bullets.
Absolutely the right decision. Honestly everyone has a different circumstance. You grew up in a tween time where pensions were being phased out. A new way of thinking for retirement had not actually been thought out as it was happening either. Everyone thought that okay we are all covered by SS and so there was no thought further. But as things played out men and women of my parents age (just a few years older than you) were left without having really thought about what a retirement should look like. Prior generations didn't even retire in the strict sense of the word either. They became too old to work and so then depended upon family to support them. They usually had enough children that could help. An older child would take lead and the others would chip in. A family farm or business would sustain two or three children and that would be what kept the family going. Then we had an industrial age and things began to change. Better or worse it did change. It will evolve to something hopefully better for our children. Hopefully we that caught the changes at the right time will be able to enjoy and show a new path for our children in retirement.

I am glad that you have the means to make it. Let's just help the younger generation to understand and learn to prepare for an age when they can no longer work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-04-2016, 07:34 PM
Location: Exeter, NH
5,305 posts, read 4,414,370 times
Reputation: 5709
Funny how almost every media outlet and even financial advice industry "professionals" are desperately trying to convince us to delay taking SS as long as possible (at the bidding of our political elite, who set up the Ponzi Scam). But unless you are already so wealthy you have no need of more money, get your first SS check AS SOON AS POSSIBLE!

Why? Because it is an immutable law of nature that you WILL decline in energy and fitness as you get older, even if you don't die or become incapacitated in the immediate future. Nobody retiring now is going to recoup ALL their SS taxes, but at least get SOME of it back before disease or the infirmities of old age prevent you from enjoying anything (or before the inevitable SS cuts begin in earnest). Travel, buy some luxuries, hire some help around the house, etc.--anything is better than leaving the money with Big Government while they scheme more ways to delay until you die, or cut your benefits since you saved for retirement and therefore others need your money more than you do.

Forget the statistical scam about people "living longer"--the gal in the nursing home bed next to you (on Medicaid) gets exactly the same care you do, as you watch your hard-earned life savings flow to Big Health and Big Pharma. And BTW, the government's Drug War will make sure you don't get painkillers for your cancer, since they are now valuable enough for the staff to risk firing and/or imprisonment.

I don't know anyone who worked until age 67 and still had time to enjoy life with their slightly-larger SS check (the vast majority died before hitting 67). Those who are enjoying long lives all retired at 62, and no doubt getting off the ultra-stressful treadmill of wage slavery early earned them far more than just 3 years of enjoying life.

The powers-that-be want you to delay getting any of your tens of thousands of SS taxes back, because: (1) you may die before getting a penny back (thus saving the current politicians stress as the system continues to survive another day), and (2) the longer you wait, the more of your money will go to Big Health and Big Pharma (while those who spent every penny as soon as they got it are funded by Big Government).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-05-2016, 03:35 AM
72,130 posts, read 72,094,203 times
Reputation: 49649
except if you read the threads that logic is flawed because delaying is only for those who have the assets and choice to delay . if it takes more than 25% -33% of your assets you can't afford to delay and it should be off the table .

but if you can have that choice the math says you can enjoy more money each year right from day 1 of retirement by delaying because you can spend down more from savings and refill later on with a 69% bigger check plus colas on that difference .

our budget by delaying is greater right now today , not when we collect down the road . we get to spend more while younger and healthier by delaying than we could taking ss earlier and being more dependent on markets and rates . once you increase sequence risk you need to keep more money unspent to compensate for the fact the worst case scenario's may be right around the corner from happening . because social security has zero sequence risk the larger the check the less powder has to be kept dry like when you invest on your own .

it is almost like the words jumbo shrimp , pretty ugly or happily married when you use the words delaying social security when you have limited assets . it makes no sense since it shouldn't and can't be a choice that would make any sense . .

delaying can be the worlds best annuity you can buy but you need choices to take advantage and most americans have little choices in retirement since most do not have the assets to retire at 62 and delay unless they have a pension or other income . in which case the paycheck never really stopped and they are in a different boat than those trying to make it on their own via their own assets and investing . . .

Last edited by mathjak107; 09-05-2016 at 04:23 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-05-2016, 05:09 AM
Location: Mount Airy, Maryland
10,502 posts, read 5,965,165 times
Reputation: 16272
I wish we could stop with the "you could die" or "the Government will change the rules" what ifs and just discuss the math. And for most of us we don't have millions and we don't have 90 grand. So for those of us in between that can not afford to tap our retirement and delay until 70 we are evaluating the math of filing early vs tapping retirement and delaying a few years but not all the way to age 70.

The issues I see:

The 8% increase is not the figure to use here. As the link provided shows at 62 to 63 the increase is 5%. It goes up from there but does not reach 8% until FRA. So the thought that market returns have trouble matching the increase is a bit off until you reach FRA

There are tax ramifications as SS in most states is tax free so a larger check means a tax break as you will be withdrawing less from your taxable 401. But what about the tax ramifications of withdrawing so much from your retirement funds as you delay filing?

I still go back to the math that says it will take me over 13 years to break even just by delaying a single year, and again that does not even factor in the lost investment returns and tax bill that year represents.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that delaying is wrong. I'm just trying to figure out what the best way to go is for myself and others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-05-2016, 05:14 AM
72,130 posts, read 72,094,203 times
Reputation: 49649
those increases in ss are not comparable to returns on investments at all . even if you got a 6 or 8% increase , you gave up a check to do it so these are not returns of 6 or 8% with ss , they are merely increases before subtracting out checks and spousal benefits you gave up to get that increase as well as the loss of compounding on your money spent down while delaying .

you can see the actual returns of delaying are all over the place depending how you want to look at them . but don't think of your increase in ss as a yearly return , it is not a true rate of return , it is only an increase that has subtractions not removed yet . ss increases are not compounded either . they are always off a base amount .

figuring spending down a balanced fund to delay , break even is 22 years . but by age 90 you can see a nice 5% real return delaying which is after inflation , which will beat that balanced fund easily and is guaranteed .

Last edited by mathjak107; 09-05-2016 at 05:26 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 09-05-2016, 05:24 AM
Location: Mount Airy, Maryland
10,502 posts, read 5,965,165 times
Reputation: 16272
How long of a delay do those graphs represent?
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.

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

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