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)
 
Old 02-28-2017, 12:05 PM
 
Location: Grove City, Ohio
10,129 posts, read 12,378,690 times
Reputation: 13947

Advertisements

I've had these graphics for a few years now and when looked at you can see why we have the number of financially stressed out retirees we do have.



Nearly half the population elects to take benefits age 62 and over half are taking benefits at age 63 and given the following it appears to be exactly the people who shouldn't be collecting early benefits that are collecting early. I may not be the sharpest tool in the box but I do know enough to follow those who are sharper than I am which is exactly why I am delaying drawing benefits to age 70.



It isn't surprising the average combined benefit to a married couple is but $2,260 with nearly half the population taking benefits at the earliest time possible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-28-2017, 12:13 PM
 
519 posts, read 430,543 times
Reputation: 981
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
I may not be the sharpest tool in the box but I do know enough to follow those who are sharper than I am which is exactly why I am delaying drawing benefits to age 70.
All well and good if you can defer to FRA or beyond; however, there is a very simple reason why most do not: necessity. And that is because the vast majority do not have sufficient financial resources to postpone SS beyond 62.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2017, 12:41 PM
 
Location: Western PA
3,585 posts, read 4,930,062 times
Reputation: 2839
I have a question about the 62 vs. taking SS later. Do the benefits still increase each year even if you stopped working at 62 but may not take Social Security? Say a person stops working at 62 or 65 and lives off investments until age 70. Would they still receive the hefty increase, even though they were not contributing to Social Security for those eight years? Or is the figure I'm seeing on my statement based on working until age 70?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2017, 01:01 PM
 
Location: Grove City, Ohio
10,129 posts, read 12,378,690 times
Reputation: 13947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geeo View Post
I have a question about the 62 vs. taking SS later. Do the benefits still increase each year even if you stopped working at 62 but may not take Social Security? Say a person stops working at 62 or 65 and lives off investments until age 70. Would they still receive the hefty increase, even though they were not contributing to Social Security for those eight years? Or is the figure I'm seeing on my statement based on working until age 70?
As I understand it you will lose some but the amount is nearly insignificant. What matters most is you had 35 years working.

I remember turning 68 and celebrating because we had just enough in savings to where if I could not work we could have stretched things out for two years which is exactly what I would have done even if it did mean burning through every last penny we had.

The difference? For me the difference between 68 and 70 was $400/month for the rest of my life and, even more importantly to me, $400/month more for the rest of my wife's life if she outlived me. $400 is not insignificant as it could be the food budget or paying all utilities which are two items retired people sometimes struggle with.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2017, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Gilbert, AZ
3,178 posts, read 1,956,881 times
Reputation: 3315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geeo View Post
I have a question about the 62 vs. taking SS later. Do the benefits still increase each year even if you stopped working at 62 but may not take Social Security? Say a person stops working at 62 or 65 and lives off investments until age 70. Would they still receive the hefty increase, even though they were not contributing to Social Security for those eight years? Or is the figure I'm seeing on my statement based on working until age 70?

Yes, you will see an increased benefit just by delaying the checks, even if you're not working. It may not end up being quite as much as what's on your statement, which assumes you continue working until 70, but the difference may be very small if you have a long enough work history.


There are online estimators at ssa.gov, and also a calculator you can download.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2017, 01:48 PM
 
71,500 posts, read 71,674,131 times
Reputation: 49074
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicet4 View Post
As I understand it you will lose some but the amount is nearly insignificant. What matters most is you had 35 years working.

I remember turning 68 and celebrating because we had just enough in savings to where if I could not work we could have stretched things out for two years which is exactly what I would have done even if it did mean burning through every last penny we had.

The difference? For me the difference between 68 and 70 was $400/month for the rest of my life and, even more importantly to me, $400/month more for the rest of my wife's life if she outlived me. $400 is not insignificant as it could be the food budget or paying all utilities which are two items retired people sometimes struggle with.
it is 400 a month plus colas which can be pretty nice if inflation picks up .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2017, 02:17 PM
 
Location: Western PA
3,585 posts, read 4,930,062 times
Reputation: 2839
Thanks for the info on the difference in benefits between 62 and 70 while not working past 62. I'm just reaching the 35 year mark this year and i just reviewed my statement. There is a nice bump from last year on the benefits estimate, which I assume is because my first year of working has been replaced by my last year of working, which is much higher.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2017, 02:19 PM
 
Location: Grove City, Ohio
10,129 posts, read 12,378,690 times
Reputation: 13947
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
it is 400 a month plus colas which can be pretty nice if inflation picks up .
and it is flat our guaranteed for as long as either of us lives.

We sold the house in December and in a few weeks we will be closing on a condo back in Ohio so we can be with family. Yes, I am one of those that will retire and move 800 miles north to a much colder climate but to my wife and I family is everything.

The HOA takes care of everything exterior. If we need a new roof the association handles that as they handle all yard work, snow removal and shoveling of sidewalks. While it is not limited to older folks we have discovered most living there are retired or getting up in years.

But moving to a condo is definitely more money than what we spend down south. My real estate taxes went from $85/month (not kidding) to $243/month so it darn near tripled and on top of that we have the HOA fee of $239/month something we've never had before.

By my working the extra four years between 66 and 70 we will get $800/month additional which will cover the increase in taxes along with the HOA fees and best we can figure all utilities which is gas and electric. Water, sewer and garbage pick up is covered in the HOA fee so it really isn't all that high.

We are really looking forward to being around family again as long as I never have to deal with yard work or snow. Oh how I hate the snow!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2017, 02:30 PM
 
Location: Northern panhandle WV
3,007 posts, read 2,169,240 times
Reputation: 6691
question for MathJack,
Regarding the medicare part B premium increase. We are in that boat , retired Dec of 2015 salary that year was about 170K and about 22K severance plus about 20K unemployment. income this year 2017 is 2250 SS for husband and 1034 spousal for me. So, 34.908 for this year. They have hit us with a big increase in medicare part B premium. the paper said you had 60 days to appeal, we missed that, what do we need to do to appeal and are we to late will it make any difference?. We have to do it twice too because I don't start part B or part A for that matter until June So while he needs to appeal now, they will do the same thing to me in June when I start Medicare and I will have to appeal and wait then to.

what form do we need and where do we find it? Any other thoughts on how to proceed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2017, 02:37 PM
 
71,500 posts, read 71,674,131 times
Reputation: 49074
just tell them you mailed in the form . we were late too but we called and when we finally got through they gave us a date to come in to appeal .
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
Similar Threads
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