Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 07-15-2016, 12:06 AM
 
Location: RVA
2,782 posts, read 2,082,385 times
Reputation: 6650

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
I don't see why. I would have to spend a lot of money every year to defer SS. For example, my SS is about $17k now and would be about $20k if I started getting it at age 66. So I think I would have to spend about $35k of my savings to increase my SS by $3k a year.
But yet your own plan has you plunking down $200k, all at once, gone forever, for a non inflation indexed $13,200 a year. 200/35 =5.714. 5.714 x $3k a year = 17,142/yr. ALL YOUR own numbers. So you think it makes more sense to spend $200k all at once for a fixed $13,200 instead of the same amount gradually over 6 years (if you delayed to 70) for an income of $17,142 inflation adjusted??? I don't understand your logic.

Why do so many people that know they have less financial training and experience, think they understand more about this than all the financial gurus that all say the same thing over and over. (And I don't mean anyone on this forum) If you can afford to delay and live off your savings to delay taking SS, it is ALWAYS the more financially sound choice. Regardless of if you don't understand it, it is. Do you tell the team of surgeons that say you need an organ transplant to live, "No, I feel fine at the moment, so I'd rather wait"?? Same thing.

Last edited by Perryinva; 07-15-2016 at 12:17 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-15-2016, 10:09 AM
 
21,884 posts, read 12,970,292 times
Reputation: 36895
I don't play the stock market. Give me REAL PROPERTY. Either that or dollar bills sewn into my mattress.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2016, 10:21 AM
 
Location: Florida -
10,213 posts, read 14,834,115 times
Reputation: 21848
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark bridge View Post
Agreed.

Also, it would help if you gave us your age (or did I miss it?).
?? Not sure what my age has to do with it, but, I'm 69.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2016, 11:20 AM
 
Location: Victory Mansions, Airstrip One
6,753 posts, read 5,056,845 times
Reputation: 9209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perryinva View Post
But yet your own plan has you plunking down $200k, all at once, gone forever, for a non inflation indexed $13,200 a year. 200/35 =5.714. 5.714 x $3k a year = 17,142/yr. ALL YOUR own numbers. So you think it makes more sense to spend $200k all at once for a fixed $13,200 instead of the same amount gradually over 6 years (if you delayed to 70) for an income of $17,142 inflation adjusted??? I don't understand your logic.
There are not many absolutes in the realm of retirement planning, but I believe this is one example. No person should ever, ever, ever buy an SPIA until they have first delayed SS benefits as long as possible (until age 70). I cannot think of a single instance where this advice would not be sound.

It is not difficult to make the comparison, which you have done above. Any person with at least a 5th grade education should be able to illustrate this trade off for their own situation.

Last edited by hikernut; 07-15-2016 at 11:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2016, 12:28 PM
 
8,226 posts, read 3,422,044 times
Reputation: 6094
Most people do not wait until age 70 to start getting SS. Maybe we don't feel confident that SS won't be decreased? And we might feel that all the money we get by collecting earlier offsets the increases later.

Buying a fixed immediate annuity is like buying a pension. Pensions don't usually grow with inflation, afaik.

I think I would feel better not taking anything out of my savings (except to buy annuities), and having a definite income for life.

I think that $100k has to be annuitized, because it's in a TIAA account. Maybe as a compromise I would buy another $50k annuity from a different company.

I had definitely planned on buying FI annuities, and have read a lot about them, that they are a pretty good deal.

Yes I have also read that everyone should delay SS until age 70, but the fact is almost no one follows that advice. Maybe the numbers are better if you wait, but most people seem to feel safer getting it earlier.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2016, 12:34 PM
 
8,226 posts, read 3,422,044 times
Reputation: 6094
Here is what I just calculated:

The amount I would not get from SS by waiting until age 70 (and would have to take from my savings):

$78,000

How much extra I would get by waiting, assuming about $7,000 more per year, assuming I live to 85:

$105,000

The difference:

$27,000

So, if I did this more or less correctly, I only lose about $27,000 by not waiting. And have a little more peace of mind, I think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2016, 01:15 PM
 
2,189 posts, read 2,605,871 times
Reputation: 3736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Listener2307 View Post
You want simple?

Figure that you will live to be 100, and die on your 100th birthday.
Your 550K goes into a money market at 1% (we're just rounding things out, here)

You will live 35 years.
550K/35 = 15,700. But if you get 1%, you can actually draw 17,500 the first year and give yourself a 1000 raise every year until you die.
17K from Social Security; $17,500 of your own money = $34,500 with an annual raise of $1000.......About the same as you figured, but with zero risk. Zero. Unless you live to be 110 years old.

Now, with all the figuring and planning and allotting done by all those financial planners, why is their plan so superior to yours?

The only difference as far as I can see is that with their plan they get fees from now to eternity.
Oh, and someone gets to fight over your money. That's gonna happen anyway because very few people live to be 100. But you never know.
What a great simple post that puts every single dollar in the OP's pocket instead of $3k right off the top into someone else's pocket plus a thousand here and few hundred there and everywhere for other fees and expenses.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2016, 01:57 PM
 
8,226 posts, read 3,422,044 times
Reputation: 6094
Quote:
Originally Posted by fumbling View Post
What a great simple post that puts every single dollar in the OP's pocket instead of $3k right off the top into someone else's pocket plus a thousand here and few hundred there and everywhere for other fees and expenses.
True. If I didn't mind spending my savings, maybe I would do it. And it goes to show it doesn't always make sense to trust the experts. They often recommend something complicated and expensive, that is no better than good old common sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2016, 02:07 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,458,643 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by otterhere View Post
I don't play the stock market. Give me REAL PROPERTY. Either that or dollar bills sewn into my mattress.

Or you could make money the old-fashioned way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-15-2016, 02:24 PM
 
Location: NE Mississippi
25,573 posts, read 17,286,360 times
Reputation: 37320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good4Nothin View Post
..........I don't want to take anything from the principle, at least until 10 years from now. With my plan, I don't think I have to.

Also, he allocated $5,000 every year for medical expenses, but that seems like too much.
I hear what you are saying about principle. I really do. That's what everyone says.

But, why not? It's your money. You should use it to your best advantage to relieve yourself from stress. I have seen people (with my own eyes) do without necessities and comfort in order to save the principle.
Spend some time thinking about it.

5000 for medical expenses could be right, but it sounds high.

They will take Medicare right out of your Social Security check. Part B is about 105/month.
Buy a supplement to make sure out-of-pocket expenses are kept low - that'll cost you about 150/month.
Prescription medications can get expensive. I don't know anything about that, though, since I don't have to take anything.

So, yeah. With Medicare and insurance it comes to 250/month, or $3,000/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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:33 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top