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.
I see nobody piped up about the timing of FRA...see this chart. Depending on when one was born, the actual time for FRA varies. https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/retirechart.html
This explains why some had to wait some months after 66- hope this makes it clearer.
Except that no one that falls into the "age 66 + some months" category have reached age 66 yet.
The 66 + groups start with birthdates in 1955 to 1960. 2016-1955=61. So no one in the after 1955 groups has turned 66 yet.
Possibly the "stories" came for folks applying way before their FRA, but expecting full FRA benefits.
Possibly the "stories" came for folks applying way before their FRA, but expecting full FRA benefits.
Stories could have been from people born between 1938 and 1942, they had to deal with the 65 + so many months issue.. I can see where it could be confusing.
Year of Birth * Full Retirement Age
1937 or earlier- 65
1938 - 65 and 2 months
1939 - 65 and 4 months
1940 - 65 and 6 months
1941 - 65 and 8 months
1942 - 65 and 10 months
1943/1954 - 66
1955 - 66 and 2 months
1956 - 66 and 4 months
1957 - 66 and 6 months
1958 - 66 and 8 months
1959 - 66 and 10 months
1960 -and later - 67
it is a little known fact that how you get compensated for your delayed credits change after fra .
up to fra when you file you get paid for every month up to that point in your first check .
but from fra to 69 it does not work like that . social security updates your amount to include previous delayed credits in january each year .
so what happens is if you file mid-year you get the older january date amount and do not get compensated for the extra 6 months you delayed . comes january of the following year you get increased to the 66-1/2 amount but you never recover the retroactive money you didn't get for those 6 months you delayed .
the only way to ever get all that is do you is to file so your first check is in january of the following year .
so remember after your fra , if you file mid-year you get the old rate without the 6 months credit . you get bumped to the higher rate the following january going forward , but you never see the retro for the 6 months you got the lower rate
But in this scenario, you lose 6 months of checks. Is it worth it to wait another half a year, how long does it take to make that 6 months up? Realize that is different for everybody, but in our case, DH doesn't break even with waiting till he's something like 82; what age would it be if he added another 6 months' wait to that? He turns 70 the end of June...
yes it can be worth it to wait the 6 months or even longer because your benefit is still growing in 6 months by another 4% or so plus colas . for most who delay it isn't about break even . it is all about being able to spend more early on because ss has no sequence risk . you do not have to keep as much powder dry for down years .
you can spend more up front and refill later with an up to 70% bigger check plus colas .
you are also that much less dependent on markets and rates . so growing your benefit can be well worth it . especially if a couple where odds are one of you is going on well past breakeven .
I see nobody piped up about the timing of FRA...see this chart. Depending on when one was born, the actual time for FRA varies. https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/retirechart.html
This explains why some had to wait some months after 66- hope this makes it clearer.
Yikes, time flies! Some of the people affected by the increase in FRA beyond age 66 will be retiring in the next few years. I used to think of it as FRA being 66 for those of us posting in this Retirement Forum, with the age rising to 67 for the "younger people". Well now the "younger people" are already among the "older people". Yikes again.
You are also NOT always told the correct info. I sat down with a rep and spoke on phone to 2 other reps with questions and got 3 different answers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heidi60
I'm also not sure you get correct information from online chat either.
When it comes to Social Security issues ( and Medicare, and IRS) you should never rely on any one source of information. Research as many sources as you can, and then make your own decision on which information to act on.
there are excellent sites like social security solutions that for a fee can do extensive work ups and are very knowledgeable
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.
