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 06-02-2019, 08:14 AM
 
Location: SoCal
13,228 posts, read 6,331,374 times
Reputation: 9844

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
if spending down money that is or could be in a balanced fund it can take 22 years to break even and that does not include the spousal you are not getting if any since the spouse can't collect off your record until you file .
Every situation is different. My husband is already collection, so itís a barbell approach in our household. Female with bigger check is waiting to collect at 70. Male with smaller check is already collecting. Best approach in a couple with comparable earnings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-02-2019, 08:20 AM
 
71,584 posts, read 71,730,589 times
Reputation: 49184
my wife started collecting at 62 .... i collected at 65 ...it got to the point it was self defeating ...i was spending down invested assets delaying , giving up checks , my wife could not get 4500 a year in spousal added to her early benefit , and i would be paying more for medicare since i was not protected by hold harmless ....


no matter how i thought i would delay longer that thought died once i could take those checks and stop spending my portfolio down ....

i had to wait until at least the year i would be fra because i still work one day and also have my drumming gigs .. i would have seen a reduction filing earlier
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2019, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Outer Boroughs, NYC
1,666 posts, read 1,308,630 times
Reputation: 1076
I've noticed that most financial experts, from Suze Orman to Rick Edelman, now recommend taking Social Security at age 70 if you can wait (translation: family longevity, major health problems, or your need to put food on the table for you or your dependents). The assertion "But I might die first!" is countered more or less by: (1) You'll be dead, so you won't get upset" and (2) SS is security in old age, the difference being a more comfortable old age of $500-$600 more per month at 70 than at 66/67 (FRA). The monthly amt. is guaranteed to rise 8% + accumulated CoL adjustments each year you delay SS, unlike the volatility (or crash) of investing early benefits in stocks and bonds.

As others say above, legislation to cut SS benefits is far off. Unless both houses of Congress are controlled by the Freedom Caucus (not just a Republican Congress, a Tea Party Congress) after 2020, it won't happen soon. At worst, those retiring soon after legislation would be grandfathered in to keep their full benefits. Short of a Mick Mulvaney presidency in 2024, benefit cuts for current or soon-to-be SS recipients are pretty much impossible.

Last edited by masonbauknight; 06-02-2019 at 12:09 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2019, 12:05 PM
 
71,584 posts, read 71,730,589 times
Reputation: 49184
Quote:
Originally Posted by masonbauknight View Post
Actually, financial experts from Suze Orman to Rick Edelman are now recommending taking Social Security at age 70 if you can possibly wait (which means your family longevity, major health problems, and your need to put food on the table for you or for others). The assertion "But I might die first!" is countered, more or less, by: (1) You'll be dead, so you won't get upset" and (2) SS is security in old age, the difference being a comfortable old age with $500-$600 more per month at 70 than at 66/67 (FRA). The monthly amt. is guaranteed to rise 8% each year you wait, unlike the volatility (or crash) of stocks and bonds.

As others have said above, there won't be legislation to cut SS benefits unless both houses of Congress are largely Freedom Caucus (not just Republican but Tea Party) after 2020. At worst, those retiring soon will be grandfathered in to keep their full benefits. Short of a Mick Mulvaney presidency in 2024, benefit cuts for current or soon-to-be SS recipients are impossible.
if suzie and rick said that then they are really clueless in certain areas ,because each situation is going to be very unique ..if anyone says one way is inherently better then the other , you can stop listening at that point because they are misinformed themselves .


if we compare the odds between taking ss early and not spending down a balanced portfolio and losing all future compounding on that money vs life expectancy risk and delaying ss we see the following odds .

to equal each other out , one in a couple needs to live to 90-95 . at 90 it is that point that the roi on ss is about a 5% real return and those odds are 47% , but to see 6% real return , one in a couple has to live to 95 , those odds are just 19%

the odds of a balanced portfolio hitting 5.80 as an average real return (that is after inflation ) are 36% .

so there really is not a big difference in amounts at the end of the day between the two going by statistics as a couple . taking ss early does have slightly better odds of leaving the bigger balance. so it really amounts to are you more comfortable with more market risk or more longevity risk ?

for a single the odds greatly favor early ss and staying invested .










Last edited by mathjak107; 06-02-2019 at 01:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2019, 12:05 PM
 
Location: SoCal
13,228 posts, read 6,331,374 times
Reputation: 9844
I agree, I don’t think they will cut for the over 50 crowd, mostly for the under 40 crowd like my kids, in fact there is one proposal floating around, something like SS 2100, they will raise the tax for people who make more than $400k, raise the limits from what is now to $100k before the IRS starts taxing SS, which has never been indexed for years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2019, 12:24 PM
 
Location: Coastal New Jersey
56,083 posts, read 54,565,498 times
Reputation: 66455
Quote:
Originally Posted by NewbieHere View Post
Nothing new from the YouTube that I dont already know already, my FRA is almost 67. This is why I will delay mine until 70, it’s peanuts at 62.
I'm about the same. 66 years, 8 months is my FRA. I'm almost 61 now. If my health is good, I will try to shoot for 70, too. I'm fortunate in that I am retired with a pension that at the time covers everything I need and a little more.
__________________
Moderator posts are in RED.
City-Data Terms of Service: http://www.city-data.com/terms.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2019, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Outer Boroughs, NYC
1,666 posts, read 1,308,630 times
Reputation: 1076
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
if suzie and rick said that then they are really clueless in certain areas ,because each situation is going to be very unique
My point was that financial experts (from media stars to your local advisor) are embracing Social Security at 70 as they rarely did in the past. Of course they say we all have different life situations -- the first being survival up to age 70 without our benefits. That's a whopper. Still, there aren't as many reasons to take SS earlier as we think there are, and the fact that only 3 percent of Americans wait till 70 just isn't smart. It's based on fear of an early death, or the unfounded theory that old age is so depressing, who needs extra money? After 70, we'll just stay home all day and eat donuts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801 View Post
I'm about the same. 66 years, 8 months is my FRA. I'm almost 61 now. If my health is good, I will try to shoot for 70, too. I'm fortunate in that I am retired with a pension that at the time covers everything I need and a little more.
I plan to wait, too. I don't have a pension (just IRAs), so I want the extra SS $$$ per month at age 70. If I had a good gov't or teachers' pension like you and a few relatives of mine do, I might take SS at 66. My relatives did -- though the ones who made it into their 80s are kicking themselves now for it. And lecturing me to wait.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2019, 05:13 PM
 
71,584 posts, read 71,730,589 times
Reputation: 49184
I have zero respect for anyone in the media who tries to push anything as one size is best for all or even almost all ..... suzie’s crowd are mostly the financial misfits and failures so she throws out advice geared for them . Most of the time it is not good advice but benign advice that won’t hurt them ....

I don’t bother with rick but I will say if he is recommending people wait until 70 carte blanch then I have no respect for his advice either ..these are very complex involved questions many times and as usual simple answers to complex questions are usually the wrong answers..

I am not saying 70 is a bad choice , but i am saying it is so complex if you really figure in all you need to that there is no such thing as one way is inherently better and a media person eluding to the fact there is a better choice is simply either ill informed or just blatantly not looking at all aspects

Last edited by mathjak107; 06-02-2019 at 05:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2019, 05:30 PM
 
394 posts, read 157,047 times
Reputation: 1103
I decided to collect a bit early at age 63. Why? I figured that I might "kick the bucket" before 70 and I wanted to collect a few checks before I did. If you die, no one gets your money but the US government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2019, 07:11 PM
 
2,443 posts, read 2,071,602 times
Reputation: 5690
I think the key is don't retire until you are sure you will have enough monthly income to live the lifestyle you want. It would be a real bummer to retire and realize financially you have to go back to work for a few more years.

How does that work if a person retires and starts collecting SS at 62 and then finds out they are not getting by and have to go back to work full time. Are they locked into collecting SS or can they delay it until they permanently retire?
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