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 04-08-2016, 02:44 PM
 
Location: Idaho
4,625 posts, read 4,466,840 times
Reputation: 9050

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vision67 View Post
The truth is that most people start SS by FRA. Only about 5% delay beyond that age.
A point of clarification. "Most" people start SS the soonest they can, (i.e., age 62). 40% of people, (averaged for sex), start at 62. Only 15% at FRA.

From the Social Security Administration:



- - -

Edit to add:

I misread your post and comprehended "by" as "at". You are absolutely correct! Almost everybody starts SS benefits on or before they reach FRA. Post and chart left in case anyone else wanted to see it. Sorry I didn't read closer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-08-2016, 02:52 PM
 
Location: MMU->ABE->ATL->ASH
9,126 posts, read 17,141,418 times
Reputation: 9980
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
they must have been exhausted from rowing . it reminds me of when i was a teenager doing europe on 10 bucks a day and a back pack .
They made BackPacks back then?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2016, 02:54 PM
 
71,559 posts, read 71,730,589 times
Reputation: 49156
a diaper tied to a stick over your shoulder
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2016, 02:58 PM
 
71,559 posts, read 71,730,589 times
Reputation: 49156
Quote:
Originally Posted by volosong View Post
A point of clarification. "Most" people start SS the soonest they can, (i.e., age 62). 40% of people, (averaged for sex), start at 62. Only 15% at FRA.

From the Social Security Administration:



- - -

Edit to add:

I misread your post and comprehended "by" as "at". You are absolutely correct! Almost everybody starts SS benefits on or before they reach FRA. Post and chart left in case anyone else wanted to see it. Sorry I didn't read closer.
one of the reasons that all the spousal perks at fra just got cut is not many americans even knew about the perks of waiting until fra or later and ended up leaving as much as 100k in benefits on the table in the past .

through the media and internet that word was reaching far and wide . the number of people that would have been waiting and taking advantage of the spousal perks was becoming larger and larger so they nipped it before it snow balled .

they predicted the numbers delaying would have grown tremendously .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2016, 04:10 PM
 
29,779 posts, read 34,867,277 times
Reputation: 11705
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
one of the reasons that all the spousal perks at fra just got cut is not many americans even knew about the perks of waiting until fra or later and ended up leaving as much as 100k in benefits on the table in the past .

through the media and internet that word was reaching far and wide . the number of people that would have been waiting and taking advantage of the spousal perks was becoming larger and larger so they nipped it before it snow balled .

they predicted the numbers delaying would have grown tremendously .
Thats why waiting til 70 may soon be on the chopping block.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2016, 04:28 PM
 
71,559 posts, read 71,730,589 times
Reputation: 49156
already they dampened it by killing the biggest benefit part the spousal
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2016, 04:30 PM
 
13,909 posts, read 7,405,593 times
Reputation: 25389
Quote:
Originally Posted by TuborgP View Post
Thats why waiting til 70 may soon be on the chopping block.
I don't think so. The numbers are actuarially sound. If they weren't, it wouldn't be the endless debate about it. You also need to be quite affluent to be able to delay until 70 but retiring before that. If you're still working up until age 70, you're still contributing to the Social Security system and likely don't increase your age 70 benefit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2016, 04:42 PM
 
Location: RVA
2,165 posts, read 1,266,382 times
Reputation: 4456
Why are so many people saying they'd rather have a more modest longer retirement than a short great one as part of a discussion on delaying because of LONGEVITY!!! If you plan to run out of money when die at 78, well then, great that you got that right! Oops, still alive 10 years later, trying to scrape by. How did that happen?

Anyone that doesn't consider where and what their income will come from, in case they inconveniently die at 92 or later, is only fooling themselves. I will retire at the same time, with the same income whether I Collect at 62 or 70. Makes zero difference. As it does for a lot on here. As Tuborg said, the problem will be deciding what to do with the money in untouched savings if markets take off. And every thing else actually goes your way. Nice low stress problem to have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2016, 05:15 PM
 
13,909 posts, read 7,405,593 times
Reputation: 25389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perryinva View Post
Why are so many people saying they'd rather have a more modest longer retirement than a short great one as part of a discussion on delaying because of LONGEVITY!!! If you plan to run out of money when die at 78, well then, great that you got that right! Oops, still alive 10 years later, trying to scrape by. How did that happen?

Anyone that doesn't consider where and what their income will come from, in case they inconveniently die at 92 or later, is only fooling themselves. I will retire at the same time, with the same income whether I Collect at 62 or 70. Makes zero difference. As it does for a lot on here. As Tuborg said, the problem will be deciding what to do with the money in untouched savings if markets take off. And every thing else actually goes your way. Nice low stress problem to have.
Why? Because most people don't have the savings to bother worrying about it. They look at the numbers at age 62 and conclude that they're rather live on that Social Security check than continue working for more years and get a somewhat bigger Social Security check. They're low income so they qualify for Medicaid for the first 3 years until they're Medicare-eligible. They get in the queue for subsidized elderly housing. If they wait until age 70 working the whole time, they probably don't qualify for all the free stuff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2016, 06:58 PM
Q44
 
Location: Hudson Valley, NY
895 posts, read 765,904 times
Reputation: 1761
I haven't posted in a very long time but this topic has come up so often recently that I've started rereading all of my retirement and social security guides. A lot of people make a lot of really good arguments for delaying and many of the arguments for taking early tend to fall back on "what if I die" or "I want what's owed me now". I keep hoping for a reason to draw early based on a good financial argument.

So here goes - I'm 57 and planning on retiring in 4 years at 61. As much as I'd rather not get too detailed I'll use numbers very close to the actual and would like to see if there's any reason I should delay. Our SS at 62 should be over $38k per year(I'm a max). Combined pensions are $32k per year for a husband and wife total of 70k. Pensions have no COLA but are full survivor adjusted. FireCalc has our expenses at $50k a year. Then there's the 800 pound gorilla, the 401k is closing in on the $1M mark. We figured we could draw 30k per year to add to our discretionary income and still stay in a lower tax bracket.

I've done calculations using the Kitces scenario and if we delay till 70 and FRA (wife), (using an inflation adjusted amount), and we both make it to 92 . . . Yeah we could end losing money depending on returns and inflation. When I prorate that amount over a possible 30 year retirement it doesn't scream "delay!" to me. I see my nest egg being used for discretionary spending till the point inflation raises our expenses to equal our SS and pensions. For 30 plus years I've tried to build the ideal three-legged stool where we're not more dependent on any one part.

So if you had a starting off point of $70k per year and a sizeable nest egg what would you choose, 62 or delay?
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