So, I did the calculation for retirement at 62...... (moving, grandmother, payments)

[NewbieHere]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

facts are facts and opinions are just that- opinions .

then there are personal choices not based on fact and that is okay .. whether someone decides to file early or delay is a personal choice . but that does not change the math or facts . there is nothing wrong with whatever choice is made as long as you understand the ramifications of a choice.

the problems are when folks think they understand something but they really have a very narrow view of the way things work, but little understanding in realty as to all the details or the ramifications of the other aspects and interactions they are not aware of . because then they are making a choice on half a head of information .

our brains can only rationalize with what we think we know . but all the things we don't know are never entered in to the equation .

that is why i hang with the enemy a lot of times . i want to know the other side of things . hanging with those who support your view or know what you know do not increase your knowledge at all about the other side .

if you look at my posts from years ago my views on things have changed totally opposite as i learned more of what i didn't know . it is likely they will change again as new srtudy's and research show there are better ways .

You are brave, especially the part that you hang with your enemy a lot of times. I decide to ignore them instead.

[NewbieHere]

Originally Posted by hackwriter

This, this, and this. I am still working at 62 only because I need health insurance and I have a GREAT plan through my job. As a widow, I could be getting $1639/month in survivor benefits and let my own SS accumulate until I am 70 at which point it would be over $3400/month. I have sufficient assets.

BUT.

I have a pre-existing condition (thyroid) so without ACA I am uninsurable, plus I am over 60. Even under ACA, I live in a non-Medicaid-expansion state, so there is ONE provider, and premiums range between $900-$1400/month plus deductibles of $6000-$7500/year plus additional out-of-pocket max. By working, I not only continue to get paid, and put more money away for retirement, but I am paying $49/paycheck for premiums ($1274/YEAR) with a $1600 deductible. Between uncertainty and the low cost of my current coverage, I'd be stupid to retire now.

Lots of people I know choose to retire in their 70s at least. Like my brother might qualify for Medicare but his wife who is 5 years younger can't. So instead of retire at 65, he will retire at 70.

[HappyDogToday]

Wonderful! So happy for you!

[ChessieMom]

Originally Posted by beer belly

I am just bouncing the numbers around with the wife as I'd like to retire early if the numbers are close enough to make very little difference.....my numbers for SS would be $133 less per month at 62.....not enough to keep me working in my eyes, as long as everything else comes together. Just doing the math.......5 years goes very fast

The diff for me, at least by the current calculations, is $700 (between 62 and 66.2). I'm waiting.

[mathjak107]

Originally Posted by NewbieHere

You are brave, especially the part that you hang with your enemy a lot of times. I decide to ignore them instead.

the biggest factor to making poor decisions is the fact that most people do just that . they ignore the enemy
they never really learn the other side of things . you see it all the time right here in our economic forums .

those who have strong beliefs that things are a certain way high five , support , only read and parrot the views that are like their own .

they never really get in to the head of the other side to learn it from their view .

so they make their decisions based on believing their own bull .

many have been left quite poorer for it as they predict their doom and gloom .

so i have learned that if you want to really make a valid choice you need to learn the other side well enough that you can effectively argue for it as much as against it with good strong facts .

when you sleep with the enemy it should kind of leave you questioning your own views ..

[mathjak107]

Originally Posted by Q44

Think I'm aware of both sides of poor and well off. Born to a single teen mother on welfare and was on the free lunch program in NYC. Thankfully I rose above that life but my mom started collecting SS at 62 because she had no choice. I've helped her out on numerous occasions over the years.

My response to your post had absolutely nothing, zero to do with the financial decision people have to make. It was in response to your assertion that people that are delaying collecting SS are missing out on retirement. That in your words are busy trying to get every last penny and are not free. Not living their lives. That was the overall gist of your post.

I'm not telling anyone what to do. In my opinion you can do whatever you want, whatever is best for your situation. I'm going to do what's right for me and my wife. All I wanted to do was reply to your post and say that you can retire at a reasonable age and live your life and "be free" and still delay social security. Provided you have accumulated the resources to do so.

yep , that was my take too on what he said . it wasn't about the choice to take ss early or late , i took issue with the fact he assumed people who delay ss take a reduced income waiting 8 years for the ship to come in .

that is not what good financial planning dictates nor how it is generally done .

those who delay don't wait to enjoy the money . the withdrawal plan allows you to take more day 1 of retirement than you would collecting at 62 because less powder needs to be kept dry for poor market outcomes as ss has no sequence or inflation risk .

the 69% bigger check cutting in later plus colas acts as a giant annuity that just refills what was laid out .

if you live long enough it will leave you with a bigger balance than taking it at 62 would as a by product as well . but even if you don't live that long ,delaying did the reverse , it let you enjoy your money even more because you could safely spend more of it up front than taking those checks early on allows . .


what if i die , should never be the issue , what if i or my spouse live is all that matters as dead is dead .

if we delay it is not because of the payments being bigger , it is because we want to be able to reduce our dependency on markets ,rates and inflation down the road as much as we can sensibly do . we want to diversify some market risk with longevity risk .

we have two horses in the race with one bet as a couple . odds are a coin toss one of us will still be here at 90 as well as overwhelming odds one of us will still be here at 85 so longevity seems like good diversification in the plan .

someone with a smaller asset pool can use ss as a form of longevity insurance too if they are content on their lifestyle without ss being taken .

they simply plan not until 90 -95 as modern day retirement planning dictates but plan until 80-85 instead . you can draw a lot more money planning shorter , then when ss kicks in , if you live that long it acts as longevity insurance picking up where your reduced savings left off .


there are so many angles to look at, from survivor benefits and the fact that if you die your spouse not only loses an ss check but now has rmd's as a single tax filer leaving them with even less money .

rmd's are taxed on 100% of the money too . social security may not be taxed at all or if it is only 85% of it is counted . you can be better off tax wise spending down future rmd money and delay ss instead .


here are some of the reasons to delaying that are side benefits that are overlooked when you delay taking more income early on .


1. It’s cheap longevity insurance.
2. Don’t need the money now.
3. Good health and family history of longevity.
4. Increase survivor benefit for lower benefit spouse.
5. Take advantage of spousal claiming strategies if still available.
6. Spend or convert to Roth tax deferred savings before RMD’s start.
7. Convert to Roth to leave heirs tax free income.
8. Allow more money to convert to Roth within marginal tax rate.
9. Avoid increase in ACA premiums.
10. Catastrophic market loss insurance.
11. Working part time and making above 15K.

there are so many ways to plan if you just stop having the myopic view of what if i die and gain additional knowledge so you fully understand the ramifications of your choices in life . knowledge can give you choices you never realized.

while my plan is to delay , i will be 65 , i may not delay until 70 depending on how markets do . so it is important to strike a balance weighing all the facts .

the good thing is you can file anytime you like when you have choices .



,

[Nightengale212]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

they simply plan not until 90 -95 as modern day retirement planning dictates but plan until 80-85 instead . you can draw a lot more money planning shorter , then when ss kicks in , if you live that long it acts as longevity insurance picking up where your reduced savings left off .

I think many people underestimate the effectiveness of modern medicine's ability to prolong life and believe because their parents did not live to a ripe old age that too is their destiny and do not realize that the medical technology that could have prolonged their parent's life was not available at that time.

Working in healthcare as long as I have, and for the last 17 years in primary care taking care taking of the same patients over this time period that have multiple chronic diseases I continue to be amazed how so many of these patients that are mostly in their 80s now with modern medicine can bounce back after an acute exacerbation of one or more of their diseases. Twenty years ago these same patients more likely than not would have not survived because the medical technology that enhanced their survival today was not available back them. I have several patients that are over 25 year AIDS survivors because they contracted this disease after all the immune drugs were available which they take religiously and have lived pretty healthy lives since their diagnosis. Those unfortunately that contracted this disease prior to the availability of these immune drugs had little to no chance of surviving this horrible disease.

When I returned home from work yesterday I made myself a cup of coffee and began to read my local town newspaper that had just arrived in the mail. When I reached the obituary page it listed 5 recent local deaths. The ages of these individuals were 101, 98, 95, 86, and 82. The 101 and the 98 year olds were women and the rest were men. In the obituary of the 101 woman it was noted that her husband passed 36 years ago, and the 98 year old lost her husband 28 years ago. Both of these women listed surviving children that are likely in their mid to late 70s, as well as grandchildren, great grandchildren, and great great grandchildren. Maybe these women had good longevity genes, but I have no doubt modern medicine also played a roll too. And it make you wonder if their 70 something children that carry their genes combined with modern medicine will live past 100. Although these surviving children are well past conventional retirement age, hope the surviving grandchildren that are likely in their 50s financially plan for a possible 35+ year retirement because there is a strong possibility that could be their future.

[mathjak107]

my mom died at 55 and my dad early 70's . i am still going strong .

[mathjak107]

as michael kitces said :

“life expectancy” can be a somewhat misleading term. Many people hear the term and think of it as a measure of how long they can “expect to live”. In reality, though, life expectancy is a measure of the average time a person within some particular population is expected to live. While the average is meaningful in many respects, it may not always provide the best measure for setting expectations about the actual age someone is likely to reach. Because mortality rates aren’t constant across a lifespan and the distribution of ages at death are heavily skewed (i.e., more people die old than young), commonly cited life expectancy measures—particularly life expectancy at birth, which is most often cited in the media—may result in misleading expectations.

For instance, a child born in 2014 has a life expectancy (average age at death) of 79. However, the median age of death for the same child is 83, and the modal (most common) age at death is 89! Given the shape of the distribution of ages at death (negatively skewed), it’s simply a mathematical fact that the mean is going to be lower than the median or the mode.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Understanding Longevity Expectations With Survival Curves
One way to explore some of the nuances within mortality figures is to visualize that data through the use of a survival curve – a figure which plots percentage of people still alive (i.e., the “survival rates” of a population) over time. Looking at the trends in how survival curves change over time can help us to not just see whether life expectancy is changing, but specifically where changes are occurring across it.

As you can see in the survival curve above, only roughly 1-in-10 people born in 2014 is expected to die prior to age 60 (i.e., 90% are still alive), but beyond that point, the rate of death begins to increase substantially. However, over 60% of children born in 2014 are still expected to be alive when the cohort reaches their “life expectancy” (i.e., average age at death) of 79. The median (age 83) is equivalent to the 50th percentile, and the mode (89) is roughly around the 30th percentile. By age 100, only 2% of people born in 2014 are expected to still be alive. While simple statistics like life expectancy certainly serve a purpose, survival curves give us a much better look at the “story” behind the data.he lifespan.

[Hefe]

"A man who is 65 now is expected to live another 17.9 years (to age 82.9) and 65-year-old women are expected to live another 20.5 years (to age 85.5)." (Averages as of 2014)

So this is the reality now & it is the best way to think about the future if one is considering the odds & make economic & life decisions based on. If you have a spouse more generous survivor/widow's SS benefits should also be a factor.

Plus 2 couples who at age 71 have the exact same gross "income" from SS & IRA, one of which took SS at 62yo & the other couple at 70yo, the couple who took it at 70 will pay far less in taxes each year than the one who claimed at 62, this could easily be a couple of thousand dollars or more annually at a moderate income level.

It's simply math, not an emotional notion to base your old age finances on.