Another when to take social security, Morgan Stanley says 62 (singles, family, wife)

[Tominftl]

I would take the social security as soon as possible for the simple reason, we don’t know how long we’ve got and second, the Republicans want to cut social security and Medicare. We would like to think these programs are going to be around forever but the more in debt we get the more likely they are to cut these programs. God forbid they raise taxes on the wealthy, no they don’t believe the wealthy should pay taxes. We should treat them special? Why?

[mathjak107]

you can bet your last dollar anyone close to ss age would be grandfathered for sure and anything so bad to require major cuts would effect all checks whether you get them or not .
ss has not made changes to those at retirement age without grandfathering them in .

even when they killed file and suspend if you were of age you were grandfathered . same with restricted application as long as you were 62 in 2015 . .

[mschrief]

I took mine at 62 as I wanted to retired from federal service and have the income to tide me over until my pension was adjudicated. Worked perfectly.

My people don't live long, father died at 64, mother at 78, brother at 67.

I am 63 now and love every minute of retirement.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Tominftl

I would take the social security as soon as possible for the simple reason, we don’t know how long we’ve got and second, the Republicans want to cut social security and Medicare.

Republicans already "cut" Social Security last year.

"Cut" is the Media's words -- not mine.

What the law did was bar people on Social Security Disability from also collecting unemployment benefits.

You are either disabled and cannot work, or you can work but cannot find a job, in which case you're unemployed.

You cannot be disabled and simultaneously be able enough to work.

The "cut" was long over-due in coming and it will save Social Security money as well as save the States and federal government money, since they no longer have to pay unemployment benefits to people who claim they cannot work because they are disabled.

[Submariner]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

,,, (Usury is an abomination, condemned for 'only' 3500 years, etc, etc)
Do not read Ezekiel 18:13 KJV.

Usury is only a sin IF you do it within your tribe.

The Bible allows it if done to others.

[jetgraphics]

Originally Posted by Submariner

Usury is only a sin IF you do it within your tribe.[True, for the Jews]

The Bible allows it if done to others.

Not approved in the New Testament.

Usury and the Bible

(If he beget a son that) Hath given forth upon usury, and hath taken increase: shall he then live? he shall not live: he hath done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon him.
- - - Ezekiel 18:13 (KJV)

The New Testament also refers to usury, sometimes indirectly:

Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou has not strawed: And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine. His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sow not, and gather where I have not strawed: Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
- - - Matthew 25:24

And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
- - - John 2:14 (KJV)

Note: Usurers are synonymous with exchangers and changers of money.

- - Matthew 25:24 is often mistakenly interpreted, ignoring the condemnation of usury as a capital offense in Ezekiel 18:13. The "Hard Man" cannot be moral if he wants his servants to engage in an abomination.
“Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.”
- - - Matthew 25:24

And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive [gain], what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again [interest]. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again [no interest]; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest ...
- - - Luke 6:34-35 (KJV)

Because of this Biblical condemnation, Christians were forbidden to lend money for interest for centuries. Dante's Divine Comedy places usurers in the seventh circle of Hell. In Renaissance society, the only people allowed to charge interest were Jews, which often led to resentment as the Jews were enriched by their abomination.

However, Christian thinking on this subject has changed, and almost all Christians now either lend their money for interest, or have an account in a bank which does it for them.
The last Christian denomination to remove the ban on usury was the Roman Catholic Church, in 1918. (From Wikipedia)

BANKERS RULE!
(Which may explain "It's A Wonderful Life" replayed without royalties until it became a Christmas classic, where a usurer / banker is rescued by an angel.)

- - - - -
Of course, usury is mathematically unsustainable in any finite money token system due to the exponential equation for calculating compound interest.
Run future worth equations yourself.
Long term usury requires an infinite money supply. If you can't create new money, you're [expletive deleted].

[dcfas]

It seems to me that if you know you will spend down your savings and do not have a pension delaying is the way to go. You could also compromise and delay for one, two, or a few years.

[mathjak107]

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

[Giesela]

Originally Posted by mathjak107

no , you only add gains to your taxes from the stock sales if they are in a taxable account . they are taxed once .

however in the lower tax brackets if those gains added to your other income don't exceed that bracket , (old 15% bracket ) , you are in the zero capital gains bracket and long term stock gains and dividends have no federal tax

Not sure I understand anything from "zero capital gains bracket..."on. ?

According to this I am in the 22% bracket for 2019. BARELY A bit higher than 15%.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/16/here...-for-2019.html

[mathjak107]

then you don't qualify ... is that 22% after deductions ?