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 02-20-2018, 07:55 AM
 
Location: RVA
2,174 posts, read 1,273,469 times
Reputation: 4497

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
The most you can get at age 70 if you have 35 high income work years is about $45k. To retire at age 62, you’d need about $400k to replace the Social Security income. Anybody in the 80th percentile for wealth can do that. Most people who accrued that kind of wealth are looking at at least a $35k age 70 Social Security check which would take $300k to replace. Somewhat better than “very few” but well beyond the reach of the median 62 year old.....
Exactly. But it’s still not chump change by any means. And for a someone that steadily saved and sacrificed by LBYM for those same 35 years and finally reached their say, $1M nest egg, it is a pretty hard pill to swallow to then turn around and start living on it and reducing it by 40% in order to delay the “reward” another 8 years. . It is far easier to talk about it than actually do it.

While I too am in a similar position to do as you, I doubt I will have the intestinal fortitude to delay until 70; 67 or 68 is more likely. SS will still be a large percentage of our income in order to maintain our same lifestyle, which was always my objective. I will know better once I start actually living it in about 800 days.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-20-2018, 01:04 PM
 
6,902 posts, read 7,308,990 times
Reputation: 9797
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffD View Post
To retire at age 62, you’d need about $400k to replace the Social Security income.
I just want to make sure I have this correct:
Are you saying that a person with 400K at age 62 can retire -- AND delay?

Let's presume no debt, a paid off house -- in a major metro area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2018, 01:14 PM
 
71,916 posts, read 71,971,035 times
Reputation: 49468
it still should not represent more than 35% to 40% of total portfolio value . a house is irrelevant . it is only based on savings regardless of what you own , if you will be using more than that percentage than it is not a safe thing to do

Last edited by mathjak107; 02-20-2018 at 01:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2018, 02:10 PM
 
6,902 posts, read 7,308,990 times
Reputation: 9797
I only asked to be clear about what was stated.

Personally, I don't think 400K is enough to retire on and delay.
But that may not have been what was intended.

I was taught....always ask to be sure you understand what the other person is really saying before you comment -- especially if you might disagree Sort of a let's make sue we're on the same page with the stipulations and ground rules -- before we start branching off into tangents, kind of thing.

I can't tell you how many times I hear people headed down the road to a friendly debate, when person A is taking about something that person B didn't even say or intend to convey.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2018, 02:53 PM
 
71,916 posts, read 71,971,035 times
Reputation: 49468
400k may not be enough to delay . but it is not for us to decide since we don't know their draw they need . for me it isn't even enough for us to retire not just delay . .

the only thing we can say is they shouldn't delay if it is more than 35-50% of that 400k. that holds true whether they own a home or live in a tent or rent .

the concern is not their budget but only that they spend to far down delaying . whether they can retire comfortably on 400k and ss is up to them .

Last edited by mathjak107; 02-20-2018 at 03:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2018, 03:15 PM
 
Location: RVA
2,174 posts, read 1,273,469 times
Reputation: 4497
He only stated it would cost $400k to delay (assuming a max SS of around $50k combined) AND still live as if the income was the same as expected at age 70, but starting 8 years earlier. The idea being that one could place a bucket of cash in a safe investment, say a CD ladder, and predictably withdraw the same amount that they would get from SS, compensated for inflation, from day one of age 62 retirement. When that bucket was empty, there would be no change in income, as then SS would begin paying that same amount from then on. It makes zero reference to how much one has saved overall.

The beauty of that approach is that one can change their mind at any time in the process. If one had a million saved, and put $400k in that bucket (actually less is required due to compounding interest, but 400k is a round number ), then from age 62, one would base their additional withdrawal rate on the remaining $600k, not a million.

So using the same roughly average SS of $14k/yr @ 62, numbers I mentioned above, if the commonplace 4% withdrawal is used, it can be seen that the net income will usually be higher from age 62 on by delaying to 70. For an age 70 filer, MFJ, assuming the spouse collects 1/2 FRA at their FRA, means they need $36k for first 4 years, and $24k for next 4 years, so a 2% CD ladder means about $220k is needed to fund the SS delay. So for an age 62 filer, MFJ, assume $21k SS + $40k (4% of $1MIL) =$61k . For age 70 filer, $36k SS + $31k (4% of $780k) = $67k/yr from day one, age 62.

This is a simplistic look at it because ages of spouses change when and how much, as well as taxes, both before and after filing. The age 70 filer will pay higher taxes from 62 to 70, if all sources of income are tax deferred. But then will pay lower taxes than the age 62 filer from age 70 on, because more of their income is tax free SS, and less is RMD mandated.

It also assumes that someone that worked enough to only have $1200/mo HAS enough savings to comfortably put $220k in a separate safe account. If they only have $400k saved, then the numbers are less convincing. Age 62: 21k + $16k= $37k/yr. Age 70: $36k + $7k= $43k. But now neither cohort pays any taxes at those incomes so the difference is actually less.

Last edited by Perryinva; 02-20-2018 at 03:50 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2018, 03:18 PM
 
71,916 posts, read 71,971,035 times
Reputation: 49468
yes .....

when i ran my delaying in retirement in firecalc i did it in 2 steps .

i figured the first 8 years spending . took the balance left then recalculated with the remaining balance and 8 years less .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2018, 05:41 AM
 
Location: RVA
2,174 posts, read 1,273,469 times
Reputation: 4497
One has to know what numbers are meaningful. If we look at percents, the second delay example with $400k saved looks like a slam dunk as the age 70 filer amount is 6k/37k or 16% higher vs 6k/61k is 10% higher for the $1M saver. But it’s still both a 500/mo difference, which is more significant for the $37k income person than the $61k income person. But “sacrificing” 55 % of your savings is significantly harder to do than 22%. 55% of the bulk emergency nest egg is traded for $500/mo, leaving just $180k. It is also more difficult to sustain a 60/40 AA and make the same percent return to carry the 4% WR, with a small $180k portfolio vs a $780k portfolio where a larger percentage can be invested in riskier higher return equities because those funds will not be needed until closer to end of life. Lower income retirees will be far less likely to chance their savings in the stock market than higher income retirees that had already spent many years in the market and made much/most of their nest egg by investing vs saving.

A max SS earner is also looking at larger absolute income numbers (a $25k SS@62 vs a $44k SS@70), and tax ramifications which make it easier to delay because the net payback is higher. And if one happens to be single, in poor health or a family history of no longevity, the incentive to delay is also less.

Last edited by Perryinva; 02-21-2018 at 06:07 AM..
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