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 12-10-2018, 02:34 PM
 
2,752 posts, read 992,710 times
Reputation: 3206

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasperhobbs View Post
Yes, you do have to figure in the amount you collected retiring at 62 as opposed to waiting. Also, there is a non-cash value being able to retire at 62. Like no more work, bosses or annoying co workers.
Well said. I am planning on hanging it up in 2020 at 62 years old. Work has changed dramatically and itís affecting my health with stress so glad finish line is almost there.

I was convinced to use some of my 401k to wait out to FRA at 66.8 but after doing further analysis plus taking a serious look at my health plus my family history changed my mind and will probably take mine at 62 when I retire.

I did an excel file calculator and realized that even at a 4% return it would take until Iím 83 to make up for the upfront money I would have to put up.

I rather retire early enjoy my life as best I can while healthy and thankfully my investments will keep me financially stabled should I live past 83.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-10-2018, 03:14 PM
 
605 posts, read 188,541 times
Reputation: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by JRR View Post
No doubt about everyone being different when it comes to starting Social Security, depending on their circumstances.

When we were looking at when we would start it, we sat down and decided that my wife would start hers at just over 64 and that I would file a restricted application when I hit 66. That way I would get paid for waiting and she would have larger survivors benefit if I passed away first. I just filed a couple of months ago to start mine in January at the age of 69 1/2. But as they have done away with the restricted application, if we were figuring a strategy now, I would probably have started mine at 66 or so.
Yes SS seems to have done away with a few key strategies within the last 6 yrs or so.
Good for you guys to have that benefit.


If I cease work and take SS earlier than 70 yrs, we'll be screwed.

My SS at 70 would just cover our healthcare premiums with no significant cushion.
preferably I'll work p/t until age 75-77, but 72 at the earliest
RMD's kick in at close to my age of 72 so that +my SS should cover healthcare w/ some cushion
My husbands SS is $1650 a mo.

part b is a fantastic deal at $135 mo covering 80% of the costs (usually)
Healthcare sharing ministry very inexpensive at $90 per mo.
A medigap is all that is offered here, and it starts at $300 a mo. at age 65

My employer offers back to back long shifts, all within 2.5 days, w/lots of pto, some no cost retiree health benefits at 65, inexpensive health benefits for myself & husband, also at a discounted rate. Working 3 days a week is very do-able.
We started selling supplements online last month so that is going fairly well... netting about $650 a mo (after taxes).


.

Last edited by BumbleBeeHunter; 12-10-2018 at 03:25 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2018, 03:39 PM
 
11,976 posts, read 5,111,061 times
Reputation: 18714
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
that is what my sister is using in arizona . 1400 a month just for her and a 6k plus deductible . it is very expensive in your 60's ..

i was paying 7k a year with a 4500 deductible in ny but that was 2 years ago . now it is likely 8 or 9k a year plus deductible .
Well, it depends on your income doesn't it? I doubt very much ACA is charging people half or a third their total monthly income for medical insurance. Your sister has a pretty nice monthly income by most standards if she's paying $1400 for one person or maybe I'm missing something. There are more than a few retired people where $1400 a month would be half their monthly income or more. That's not going to happen. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2018, 02:35 AM
 
71,515 posts, read 71,694,121 times
Reputation: 49088
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
Well, it depends on your income doesn't it? I doubt very much ACA is charging people half or a third their total monthly income for medical insurance. Your sister has a pretty nice monthly income by most standards if she's paying $1400 for one person or maybe I'm missing something. There are more than a few retired people where $1400 a month would be half their monthly income or more. That's not going to happen. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
yes she gets no subsidy . but that does not mean those rates are not ridiculous when un subsidized . lower income people get subsidies , cost sharing and if it is low enough free medicaid . so this is not about them . this is about those who get nothing towards medical .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2018, 02:40 AM
 
71,515 posts, read 71,694,121 times
Reputation: 49088
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beach Sportsfan View Post
Well said. I am planning on hanging it up in 2020 at 62 years old. Work has changed dramatically and it’s affecting my health with stress so glad finish line is almost there.

I was convinced to use some of my 401k to wait out to FRA at 66.8 but after doing further analysis plus taking a serious look at my health plus my family history changed my mind and will probably take mine at 62 when I retire.

I did an excel file calculator and realized that even at a 4% return it would take until I’m 83 to make up for the upfront money I would have to put up.

I rather retire early enjoy my life as best I can while healthy and thankfully my investments will keep me financially stabled should I live past 83.
you can't figure a flat 4% return when spending down . the difference in sequences of gains and losses coming in , between the best and worst outcomes can make that income fail 15 years sooner at the same exact assumed average return . this why calculations can get very complex when integrating one's investing in to the equation .

even cash instruments and fixed income have negative real return years , so a spread sheet usually will be way off from reality.

but you were on the right track , a balanced portfolio investment being spent down up front can take 22 years to break even and that is without considering spousal benefits not received while delaying .

Last edited by mathjak107; 12-11-2018 at 03:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2018, 03:35 AM
 
71,515 posts, read 71,694,121 times
Reputation: 49088
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasperhobbs View Post
I think the chart is outdated. An up to date chart would be the majority at 65, higher percentage at 70 and 62 being the lowest. All due to having to wait for Medicare at 65. My opinion anyway. FWIW
latest numbers (2017) show more at 62 taking it . 48% of woman take it at 62 and 42% of men . at fra 34% of men take it and 24% of women . at 70 4% of women , 2% of men . but keep in mind many took advantage of spousal ploys so one will file earlier . just the fact at 62 more women take it and at fra more men says their are more spousal strategies being used .


Last edited by mathjak107; 12-11-2018 at 03:46 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2018, 04:01 AM
 
Location: R.I.
973 posts, read 603,846 times
Reputation: 4208
Quote:
Originally Posted by jasperhobbs View Post
The million dollar question when retiring at 62 is what do you do about health insurance?
That ^ is the easy part for me but there is more to it than that. I will be 62 in February and could walk away from work at that time taking my FEHB BC/BS Standard option insurance with me which would cost me $243.17/month. Sounds great except at 62 I will have only 19 years of Federal service which changes my FERS pension calculation, so not working to my FRA of 66.6 counting the raises I will get during those years I would lower my annual pension amount by around $10,000. In addition to that not contributing max to my TSP during those 4.6 years that would cost me about another $150,000+ from that account reducing my annual withdrawals by another $10,000. And with me being a widow and plan to take my Social Security survivor's benefit first at my FRA and delay taking my own at 70, with my survivor's benefit at 62 being significantly lower than my own at 62, I could not afford to take that lower amount and would have to take my own so I would loose another $10,000/year not being able to delay to my age 70 benefit. So the bottom line for me is if I were to retire at 62 my streams of retirement income will be around $30,000/year lower than they will be at my FRA. If I had to I could live on that lower amount but there will be no extras and doubtfully that amount of income will keep pace with inflation.

So I have made the choice to work to my FRA because my retirement income then will produce for me personally a greater inflation buffer comfort zone, and when I finally throw in the work towel I want it to be a done deal because returning to any type of paid employment after what will be a 45 year nursing career is not how I want to spend my retirement however long or short it will be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2018, 04:54 AM
 
2,443 posts, read 2,070,283 times
Reputation: 5690
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
latest numbers (2017) show more at 62 taking it . 48% of woman take it at 62 and 42% of men . at fra 34% of men take it and 24% of women . at 70 4% of women , 2% of men . but keep in mind many took advantage of spousal ploys so one will file earlier . just the fact at 62 more women take it and at fra more men says their are more spousal strategies being used .
Looks like number taking SS at 65 is climbing as expected from the previous chart
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2018, 04:58 AM
 
71,515 posts, read 71,694,121 times
Reputation: 49088
the numbers overall may have more to do with both the media blitz about spousal benefits and strategies and the rush to jump on board with the ending of them . medical coverage too is an issue

Last edited by mathjak107; 12-11-2018 at 05:10 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2018, 05:34 AM
 
Location: Central IL
15,211 posts, read 8,518,332 times
Reputation: 35606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamette City View Post
I took it at 62 also. No regrets whatsoever.
I don't think anyone regrets taking it at 62 when they are only 65 or 70 - they MIGHT regret it if they live to 80, 85, or 90! THAT'S when I want to hear back from all those taking it early but not many of them are online to tell us...so we hear a very one-sided conversation on the topic.
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