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 problem with that is that no one person is a statistic and none of us have a crystal ball. Just look at this forum and see those who have died even recently in their 60s and early to mid 70s. Is that the norm, probably not but many people will not make it to their 80s and 90s and many people who are healthy at 62 won't be by 72.
It's not just about getting the money back you put into SS. It's about living the best life you can for as long as you can whether it's 2 years or 30 years. If collecting at 62 will help do that, than go for it.
I turned 62 in December and, after much thought, and calculations, I am going to sign up to take now. A few considerations for my situation.
1) My family is not particularly long lived
2) Due to sports/active lifestyle I have had 16 operations and still not the most nimble out there, still need knees done. Perhaps I may live long enough to pass the B/E point but doubt I'll be as active.
3) One big line item in our budget is travel. As I age I believe that will drop (perhaps to be replaced by medicine) but the extra during these activer years is good
4) We have been living in Thailand and my ss at 62 covers our living expenses so I can let the balance of the nest egg roll.
Anyway as others mentioned there is no answer that covers all. Everyone's situation is different.
it is right here …. you need to collect about 22 years not counting any spousal you did not get or increased medicare premiums from not being protected if you delay vs a balanced fund averaging about 6% real returns just to get to zero roi delaying . using tips break even is 19 years .
you need to live to 90 delaying ss to see 5% and 95 to see 6% as an roi
Michael kitces did the work.
Math, thank you for the graphs, I will consider them when I do my own work.
I have to wonder, when we are talking investments and all to sustain us through old age and beyond, what the ROI is on building a "green" (low energy cost) retirement home to live in for the next 20 - 30 years. The risk would be somebody inventing "cold fusion" or something that would provide really cheap energy. But that would be such a good thing, I'd be willing to suffer the investment loss if it happened. Sorry, off topic, and don't expect anyone to answer, but it's an investment consideration for me. Another spreadsheet, I guess.
I personally don't use the argument of which way will I get the most total money out of SS.
I agree, and it's shallow, superficial and disingenuous. People in the financial industry have blinders on and "maximizing" is the only thing they know and they spin everything based on that myopic view.
For those whose FRA is 67 years, they lose 30% of their monthly benefit at age 62.
If your projected benefit is $2,000/month, then you lose $600/month -- or $7,200 a year -- to $1,400/month.
If you can live well-enough on that, then fine and dandy, but if not, you'll need to delay retirement for as long as possible.
For people whose retirement is already funded through savings, investments, 401(k) or pension, then I guess Social Security is just chump change that you really don't need, so I guess taking early retirement doesn't really matter.
But, for those who will rely heavily on Social Security for retirement to one degree or another, it's not making a lot of sense to take early retirement.
I agree, and it's shallow, superficial and disingenuous. People in the financial industry have blinders on and "maximizing" is the only thing they know and they spin everything based on that myopic view.
Interesting viewpoint, and illustrates why Bressler developed 33 flavors of ice cream. Personally, I think it's irresponsible, extravagant, and lazy NOT to spend some hours determining the best course of action to take in what will be one of the largest financial decisions of one's life. If not for yourself, for the people or causes you care about - I don't want to be a burden on anyone, not even the government - so I have worked hard, saved well, and lived below my means in order to make that happen (and understand even now there are no guarantees, 1929 happens).
Determining when to take SS is no different than making most any other financial decision. And being careful in that decision, using due diligence to determine the best course of action, does not make one Scrooge McDuck, rolling around on a pile of shekels in the vault every night, giggling at the economic misfortune of others.
Did you choose your home based on objective criteria, or throw a dart at a map? Decide whom to marry on a coin toss, or did you narrow the pool to those you considered would make a stable partner? Do you drive a car based on depreciation, reliability, value, comfort, performance and price, or did you choose it because it was "red"? The answers to those questions will often show the difference between the guy who puts the gold dubloon in the Salvation Army kettle each Christmas, and the guy who stands in line at the Salvation Army hoping to get a bowl of hot soup. One should never sell their soul or otherwise forsake their humanity for money. But neither should one allow themselves to be a leaf blown about in the wind because thinking about money is "shallow".
Ask your public official for the form to cancel "your" account.
To the one who replied about these two forms:
Form 4361 - is for an exemption from the self employment tax.
Form 4029 - exempts you from social security and Medicare taxes only. The exemption does not apply to federal income tax.
Neither form cancels the SS account, and all its associated duties and obligations.
(Could it be the 'number of the beast'?)
Coincidentally, if you have no number, the Fed Res will not open an interest bearing personal bank account for you - bless their hearts.
(Usury is an abomination, condemned for 'only' 3500 years, etc, etc)
Do not read Ezekiel 18:13 KJV.
Math, thank you for the graphs, I will consider them when I do my own work.
I have to wonder, when we are talking investments and all to sustain us through old age and beyond, what the ROI is on building a "green" (low energy cost) retirement home to live in for the next 20 - 30 years. The risk would be somebody inventing "cold fusion" or something that would provide really cheap energy. But that would be such a good thing, I'd be willing to suffer the investment loss if it happened. Sorry, off topic, and don't expect anyone to answer, but it's an investment consideration for me. Another spreadsheet, I guess.
cutting costs is cutting costs , it is not the same as generating more income . it only appears to be doing that until there is nothing left to cut and expenses keep rising .
cutting costs , especially a big expense like housing is always a good idea but it is not part of the income generation side. you need both ....
Last edited by mathjak107; 01-15-2019 at 02:59 AM..
I agree, and it's shallow, superficial and disingenuous. People in the financial industry have blinders on and "maximizing" is the only thing they know and they spin everything based on that myopic view.
For those whose FRA is 67 years, they lose 30% of their monthly benefit at age 62.
If your projected benefit is $2,000/month, then you lose $600/month -- or $7,200 a year -- to $1,400/month.
If you can live well-enough on that, then fine and dandy, but if not, you'll need to delay retirement for as long as possible.
For people whose retirement is already funded through savings, investments, 401(k) or pension, then I guess Social Security is just chump change that you really don't need, so I guess taking early retirement doesn't really matter.
But, for those who will rely heavily on Social Security for retirement to one degree or another, it's not making a lot of sense to take early retirement.
the issue issue is that most can't delay taking ss if they retire early and don't have the assets to "safely " support them .
those who can benefit the most from delaying can't without working in some form and so we go round and round
i also disagree with " For people whose retirement is already funded through savings, investments, 401(k) or pension, then I guess Social Security is just chump change that you really don't need, so I guess taking early retirement doesn't really matter" "
it does matter because ss is an important part of the budget for most of us . our own assets can only TEMPORARILY FILL THE GAP while delaying .
.if we need 60k a year to live how and where we do and 40k comes from the portfolio and 20k from ss , that ss ain't chump change .
it is an integral part of the budget and plan . so your assets can temporarily layout the extra spending , but that sure does not mean you won't run out of money prematurely trying to draw that much permanently at that rate .
so the irony is those who need the bigger check and are under funded can't delay without other means of support . those with choices are those with enough assets to safely lay out or other forms of income to fill the gap .
but filling the gap temporarily which is what most of us do who can delay does not mean that you can go forever at that rate . you still need ss , you can just hold off a bit .
in our case my wife gets a pension ,, it represents 14% of our yearly budget , ss represents 28% , 42% is filled by the YOYO PLAN . you're on you're own .... so while we have a sizable portfolio that portfolio can only provide part of our budget . it is that total that our plan utilizes to support us .
Last edited by mathjak107; 01-15-2019 at 03:34 AM..
I agree, and it's shallow, superficial and disingenuous. People in the financial industry have blinders on and "maximizing" is the only thing they know and they spin everything based on that myopic view.
it depends who those people in the financial industry are .. i can speak for fidelity since i was a guinea pig for their optimizing ss software they introduced .. it did a great job finding the maximum dollars using pretty complex planning .
but , since it fell short of integrating it with individual needs and taxes they ended up taking it out of in house use for now . once they can integrate it in to individual situations interfacing with all other income and your portfolio it will likely be back .
most planners suck at the second half of the game .. they have all pretty much followed the boomers so mostly all of what they know is about the first half of the game which is the accumulation side of things .
few really are up to speed on the decumulation side and run on old school training and thinking .
the fee only guys are the worst i find .... they lack the training and certifications needed to get involved with modern day planning which tends to use certain insurance products as a baseline . if they had the training and understanding they would not be just fee only most of the time .
so the fee only guys i looked at personally were behind the times , and not so much trying to be " shallow, superficial and disingenuous" . rather it comes from lack of modern day training and thinking . many just parrot old school myths , like delaying is best ... but more modern numbers crunching shows if you have the money to safely delay then we are talking money that is either invested and spent while delaying or could be invested and spent while delaying .
that makes a big difference in results and what it ends up boiling down to is not a larger income or balance delaying . nope , that can happen either way .. it boils down to whether you want to be more weighted on the outcome of markets ,rates and inflation , or more weighted on longevity . the results can be the same for those who actually have a choive .
Last edited by mathjak107; 01-15-2019 at 03:10 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.
