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 have yet to read anything that proves that statistically, you are more likely to live a long life if your immediate family dies at 90+.
Then you need to start reading. Assuming you don't have the lifestyle issues that kill people off like smoking, alcohol/drug abuse, and obesity, genetics is the single largest factor in predicting longevity.
Even then, a lot of disease that killed off people in previous generations is curable now. Lots of cancers are cured now if they're detected early. There are all kinds of heart surgery procedures now to repair things. I figure by the time I get there, effective Alzheimer's drugs will exist.
With a father who made it to 85 and a mother who is 86, I kind of have to contingency plan for 90+.
It is clear and has been that the optimal financial strategy is to:
1. delay SS until 70
2. work until 70 so that you take no money from your retirement funds
3. live to 85+
It is clear and has been that the optimal financial strategy is to:
1. delay SS until 70
2. work until 70 so that you take no money from your retirement funds
3. live to 85+
Nah. The optimal strategy is to have so much wealth that a Social Security check or age at retirement simply doesn't matter.
By putting in for retirement at 66, while still working, we are able to afford to finish getting this house ready to sell. We've been struggling to keep the house for years. (Husband was behind in taxes before I met him. He was on disability, so no way to catch up.) What we get from the sale of the house is my real retirement fund. I'll gladly give up the 6% in the future for what the money can do for me now. Yet another reason why these articles are not a lot of help in making decisions like this.
For every year that you postpone Social Security benefits, your total Social Security Benefits will increase by 8%
I cut and pasted this from one of the countless articles about the advantages of waiting until you are 70 to collect Social Security.
If someone who did not understand money and retirement would read this, they would assume that their lifetime Social Security income will be at least 64% higher if they wait until they are 70 vs 62 to collect Social Security Benefits.
This is false. What is true is that by waiting until you are seventy to collect, your monthly Social Security Check will be at least 64% higher. What most people don't intellectualize is the reason the SS check is higher if you wait until 70 to collect is that you did not get ninety-six (96) SS checks from 62-70.
If you actually get more Social Security money by waiting till you are 70 is a wild card based on how long you liveand what you lost in interest, dividends, and returns by raiding your portfolio to cover your lost money because you waited to collect SS from age 62-70.
I think most people realize the bolded/underlined, OP. And you mention the option of taking it at 62; IMO that's foolish, unless you desperately need it. Taking it at a penalty means you're stuck with that penalty rate for the rest of your life, unless you can find part-time work, to pay more into your account. Everyone's circumstances are highly individual, so each person needs to decide for themselves, what the best time is to take their SS. One thing they can factor into the decision is longevity patterns in the family; if all your older-generation relatives lived into their 90's, that should tell you something.
The problem is, that people are having a hard time staying employed until 70, and some don't have enough of a stash to cover them in their unemployment, until 70, so they need the SS earlier. If anti-age-discrimination law could be enforced, it would be easier for people to postpone taking their SS. In fact, that alone might "save" the fund, who knows?
Here is another way to look at it: You could be investing that $25K every year in a total stock market fund and with a conservative 5% return you would have about $225,000.00. If you would have waited until you are 70 to collect, on your 70th Birthday you would have $0. Sure, your SS checks would be larger starting at 70 but how long will it take to make up for the $225,000.00 that is still growing?
There are articles on "hurdle rates" (i.e., the investment return you'd have to earn to justify taking SS early) that have been published in the Journal of Financial planning. There's quite a range of numbers, as it depends on whether one is married or single, male or female, and whether the analysis is done with pre-tax or post-tax numbers.
There can be some significant tax advantages in delaying, but it gets pretty messy trying to figure it all out so most people punt on that part and just look at pre-tax dollars.
Being alive at age 61 and being a total social butterfly and being part of a huge extended family, I know lots of people in their 60s, 70s, and 80s. in my discussions, these things are true for the majority of people that age:
1) By your early 60s, most people are sick of full-time work and want to relax and move to retirement or part-time.
2) Most people if they do retire or go to part-time at 62 don't have the savings to retire without getting a Social Security Check at the same time.
3) Most people's bodies and minds go downhill in their 60s and the period between 62-70 is the last time you can really do many of your travel and other dreams that you have been thinking about for years.
4) Lots of my friends and family who lived very healthy lives and did all the right things and grew up in professional white collar families died in their sixties and early seventies.
So, no, if someone wants to retire at age 62 and collect Social Security early, it is not foolish in any way.
Holy crap. Threads discussing Social Security claiming strategies on this forum are as bad as "Best Motor Oil" threads on automotive forums.
I have identified what will work best for us, others should do whatever will work best for them.
Same here. As for best oil, I've been using Mobil 1 for 30 years and have never had an engine problem related to lubrication.
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.
