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.
Singles do have less options as well as longevity for singles is shorter . Couples have 2 horses in the race with one bet . So either can out live the other making life expectancy longer than either alone .. so singles may do better filing earlier rather then spend down assets
Yup. Every time I read one of these threads, my head spins and I’m thankful I’m single. I’m taking it at 62 unless the ACA is still around 5 years from now and I can continue to get free healthcare.
Otherwise, I see no advantage to waiting. I might live past the “break Even”, but what will my quality of life be? Probably not worth worrying about.
lets see when the time comes , what you will do ... so many pre retirement planned on delaying .. but once that money is there and knocking on your door very very few actually follow through and delay very long , self included .
i always thought i would delay until 70 if you remember my pre-retirement posts .. well that changed once we were in real time .. i retired at 61 and by 65 i said this is crazy passing up more than 30k a year in ss for myself plus my wifes 4500 a year spousal adder to her benefit as we spend down more and more . .
at 65 it was game over and i filed .. i don't regret not delaying longer for a second .
i got so many comments here as to the fact i was big on 70 , so what happened ? well reality happened lol
But you are a spender, as you’ve said. Maybe GeoffD is not. Most engineering types have at least a little MMM in certain aspects of their life. (Not trying to speak for Geoff, just pointing out that many people do not pine for more spending money)
i can guarantee you if someone gave anyone here an extra 25k a year and said you only get it if you spend it and enjoy it , most here would have no problem .. in fact if that was the stipulation over a few years and then suddenly it stopped these people would be bummed out ..
there is always ways to enjoy money , choices and support causes or legacy money.
i can guarantee you if someone gave anyone here an extra 25k a year and said you only get it if you spend it and enjoy it , most here would have no problem .. in fact if that was the stipulation over a few years and then suddenly it stopped these people would be bummed out ..
there is always ways to enjoy money , choices and support causes or legacy money.
Sure, but that 25k extra comes at a cost in this case. He has to decide whether immediate gratification is worth it. Many would decide no.
This...
The extra three years of wait would have cost me 28.6 years to recover. Not financially worth it.
I'm not sure how that math works. My FRA is 66 years 8 months. My FRA Social Security check projects to be $35,715. My age 70 check looks to be $45,240. 3 1/3 years at $35,715 is about $120K. The spread is about $9,500. Ignoring the cost of the money, it would take 12 years to recover it. At age 70, I'm going to be very conservative with my money so I'm unlikely to do much better than track inflation with it so I think it's unlikely I have a high cost of money. Proportionally, everyone has the same math. If you don't have the money, you take the money earlier. I have the $120K so it's worth it to have the longevity insurance.
How could you possibly get to 28.6 years? Are you assuming 10% after-inflation returns on your money?
I'm not sure how that math works. My FRA is 66 years 8 months. My FRA Social Security check projects to be $35,715. My age 70 check looks to be $45,240. 3 1/3 years at $35,715 is about $120K. The spread is about $9,500. Ignoring the cost of the money, it would take 12 years to recover it. At age 70, I'm going to be very conservative with my money so I'm unlikely to do much better than track inflation with it so I think it's unlikely I have a high cost of money. Proportionally, everyone has the same math. If you don't have the money, you take the money earlier. I have the $120K so it's worth it to have the longevity insurance.
How could you possibly get to 28.6 years? Are you assuming 10% after-inflation returns on your money?
OK...here's how I arrived at that number. As MJ often states, the math changes when it's two earners. It is based on me plus spousal; not a single earner- since there are two of us in this household, and my timing affects both of us...DW HAS to be considered if our situation is to be analyzed. This assumes zero% on all after-inflation returns.
Our combined SS at age 70 would be $53904. Current is $46937, giving a potential difference of $6967 per year, or $580 more SS per month at age 70. DWs SS does not grow any more as her spousal was fixed at my FRA, not what I get at age 70. Given that this delay would cost us 3 years of lost SS, or $140,811 in unearned checks, plus draw down of IRA/401K of (lets be ULTRA conservative) $25K per year total income to allow us to delay (gets worse if we want to party), a total of $215811 is lost to delay. That alone actually takes 30.976 years to recoup at the additional $6967 per year in SS, but I understand there MAY be COLAs involved between now and then, so I was conservative, and tossed in a correction factor.
This shows how fast the advantage turns in favor of taking SS slightly earlier when all fiscal data-points are entered into the equation. It would still be worth delaying further, except the longest EVER that a male has survived in my lineage has been age 83, and I suspect I won't be one of the lucky ones in my family. I simply wouldn't live long enough to see break even, and since I don't use all of our current SS due to low COL, I actually end up with even more in the bank at age 70 than what is discussed above.
I would actually be surprised if your numbers ended up differently....
sizable spousal can really effect things . i did not wait past 65 because we were talking a 4500 a year adder we were not getting on top of me not collecting my check
not really , again the spending down of invested assets and the potential gains from markets vs longevity risk are the deciding factor . both can work out the same . you need average market outcomes if you take it early and invest or you need longevity in to your 90"s to match that if you delay, neither has a built in advantage once you calculate lost spousal and loss of compounding forever on assets either spent down or assets that could have been invested but were spent down delaying .
if anything , betting on average market outcomes and early ss actually may have the edge if you are single since so few individually will make it in to their 90's . couples have an advantage since you have two horses in the race and either can outlive the other
I get the idea that it comes down to either risking the markets or risking longevity. But what about people who don’t have much to gain in the market? If they could delay they would benefit. I’m guessing most without significant funds will not delay, of course, however.
I get the idea that it comes down to either risking the markets or risking longevity. But what about people who don’t have much to gain in the market? If they could delay they would benefit. I’m guessing most without significant funds will not delay, of course, however.
If you don’t have significant funds and need to retire then delay is not an option.
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.
