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.
The people listed above had active professional lives well after “normal “ retirement age. That isn’t a coincidence.
SS WAS actuarially neutral 30 years ago. Not today. The more people that file early the less that is paid out because of the longer average live spans. If one wants to be politically incorrect then they would recommend thise with a hard life, low life time incomes, etc to filenlater “for their own good” and the affluent professionals to file early because “it doesn’t really matter, so keep your investments”. In those scenarios, each group would collect less lifetime benefits than if they reversed positions.
Problem with that thinking is that most with those hard lives can’t affort to work until a late age and claim SS security at a later age.
The reality is that most of those that can afford to delay are wealthier and in less physically demanding jobs. Are there exceptions sure, but the majority would fit that description.
At the end is all a gamble because none of us knows exactly when we will go even if we look at family history of short or long lifespans. So choose whichever will make you happier in retirement and don’t look back.
Problem with that thinking is that most with those hard lives can’t affort to work until a late age and claim SS security at a later age.
The reality is that most of those that can afford to delay are wealthier and in less physically demanding jobs. Are there exceptions sure, but the majority would fit that description.
At the end is all a gamble because none of us knows exactly when we will go even if we look at family history of short or long lifespans. So choose whichever will make you happier in retirement and don’t look back.
I don’t buy this argument. If money is no object, then Steve Jobs and Paul Allen would live forever, not died younger than 65.
Steve Jobs knew he had pancreatic cancer at an early stage. He turned down treatment, and thought he knew more than the doctors. When the cancer came back it was too late. He was offered the best treatment in the world, which he could easily afford, but was not as smart as he thought he was.
There is no "one size fits all" when it comes to SS
If I wait longer than age 64 or 65 (I've forgotten which one now) then odds are I loose $.
Husband is 7.5 yrs older, women already live 7 yrs longer on average
I"ll be taking his survivor benefits, likely, by age 82. He'd be 89.5 yrs old
Not to mention my SS is so low it won't even cover both our healthcare at age 65
So won't be taking it at that age anyhow since I cannot afford to take it
So...gotta wait until age 70-72 if I want it to cover both our healthcare costs with an extra $150-$200 leftover
Which if either of us are not healthy, isn't extra anyhow
In retrospect, I'd say take SS at 66 or so. While the total outlay/income lines cross each other at age 80, as we age we tend to need more money, not less. Bills, medical stuff, stray cats to feed, you name it.
That's my two cents, and worth every penny I can assure you!
Another thing you must consider is how will you pay for health care if retired and not working at 62. If you are going to go thru ACA then you need to watch your income because if you are receiving a pension and take SS it may bump you off receiving any credits that would help pay for insurance.
So there are different moving pieces and not just one answer that would benefit everyone. So do your research and make a decision that it’s best for you.
Yup. No one best answer at all. I know I’m lucky, healthcare is covered at low cost whenever I retire. DW is already 66, so Medicare automatically for her whenever I retire. No bad answer for me, just some slightly better ones.
Not so easy for those caught between a rock today and a possible hard place later. The only choice is take the chance that the hard place later may not happen rather than the guaranteed rock today.
Problem with that thinking is that most with those hard lives can’t affort to work until a late age and claim SS security at a later age.
The reality is that most of those that can afford to delay are wealthier and in less physically demanding jobs. Are there exceptions sure, but the majority would fit that description.
At the end is all a gamble because none of us knows exactly when we will go even if we look at family history of short or long lifespans. So choose whichever will make you happier in retirement and don’t look back.
And that's an important issue that many or some here refuse to recognize. It's not about taking SS at 62 so you can have fun as someone accused me of wanting to do. It's about not being able to physically do your job anymore because your job is a physically demanding one unless you want to retire a broken person with permanent injuries at 65, 67 or 70. I planned to take SS at 62 knowing full well I wasn't going to travel or buy an expensive new car. I won't be having fun with that money. I'll be able to live a relatively normal life with that money.
Last edited by marino760; 12-13-2018 at 12:20 AM..
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.
