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)
 
Old 06-10-2019, 05:36 PM
 
2,775 posts, read 993,967 times
Reputation: 3213

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by fallstaff View Post
Just wanna say this how the numbers seem to work out for me to. I am in the "sound financial footing / significant savings / sufficient income" camp. I keep running the numbers over and over with all the what-if's and "how abouts." Even if I live to 90 yrs old I am only somewhat ahead in total SS payments in every FRA vs -Age 62 and points in between- scenarios. (I didn't bother going to 70) At that age, and really any time after the age-80 break even point, does that fairly modest extra income enhance my life any? It's not enough to get me into a higher class nursing home or make that kind of difference. And that's probably the only difference that would be meaningful at that age
Same with me. But I respect that it may not be the case for others.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-10-2019, 05:43 PM
 
Location: Gilbert, AZ
3,182 posts, read 1,958,918 times
Reputation: 3320
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
Kitces did

Okay, I'll check on his website. Thanks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 06:04 PM
 
Location: SoCal
13,226 posts, read 6,326,744 times
Reputation: 9839
Quote:
Originally Posted by TylerJAX View Post
If you have sound financials/good retirement savings, you're better off taking it early imo. I'm going to take it at 62 and use that money to travel and let more of my retirement savings work longer. By the time I'm 78 and maybe even 70, I imagine I won't be able to enjoy whatever additional income I would have by taking the delayed payment and will probably have less in my retirement savings (which I plan on passing down to my hypothetical children/grandchildren) due to having to dip into it more early in my retirement.

If you had to retire later due to not having good retirement savings, then taking it later becomes the better option.
You seem to miss the whole thread with your comment. You think we’re not sound financially or have good retirement savings because we fly first class for international flights. Ludicrous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 06:06 PM
 
Location: SoCal
13,226 posts, read 6,326,744 times
Reputation: 9839
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
Yes - but you only have 12 months to change your mind if you start and want to stop...and as I said, you have to pay it back:
"You used to be able to collect Social Security benefits at age 62, then suspend benefits and restart them later. Now, if you collect any time before your full retirement age (say, 66), you have only 12 months to change your mind and you have to pay back any monies you received."

I think it's hard for people to delay something they've had coming for so long and it somehow seems counterintuitive to delay...and there is always the suspicion that the government will cheat them. I have several great aunts who all lived into their 90's and I saw what happened to their money - I want a bigger chunk coming in "on the regular" so that's why I'm waiting a few more years. I don't have a problem using some of my own money in the meantime.
You can stop anytime, I called for my husband, he took it nearly 3 years already.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 06:50 PM
 
394 posts, read 156,937 times
Reputation: 1103
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63 View Post
So what if they did? If they didn't even have enough saved to get them to that point I doubt getting their SS would have made those years much better. Do you really think a dead man cares that he didn't collect every penny of his SS?
I would. I paid into the SS system and that money belongs to me. If I take it early, even though it is less money, I can bank it or invest it and leave it to my kids. At least they can inherit it, instead of the U.S. government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 07:11 PM
 
319 posts, read 151,052 times
Reputation: 1276
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
I wonder what percentage of people waited until 70 just to die at 69 or sooner.
I would imagine very few. The ones who are waiting are most probably doing so because 1) they are in relatively good health; and 2) they have parents who lived a long time.

Of course, someone can be in excellent health at age 69 and die suddenly in a motor vehicle crash, but that is the exception, not the rule.

BTW, one's parents dying earlier than expected (e.g., early 70s) is not necessarily a predictor of the longevity of their offspring.

My father died of heart failure at age 72 (in 1992); he smoked his entire life and was overweight, with high blood pressure and high cholesterol. My mother died at 72 also -- four months earlier -- from gynecological cancer.

I am turning 66 this summer. I didn't smoke, don't drink, normal weight, no cardiac disease, no lipid abnormalities. (OK, if that is boring to ya, then so be it).

I do not plan to take my SS at 66. As the Boston University economist Kotloloff has argued (https://kotlikoff.net/about/), Social Security is an "insurance" policy -- it ensures against the insured not out living their retirement savings.

Having said all that, I fully understand that many Americans may have to take their social security earlier, even at 62. I keep reading articles about how Americans need to "get their act together" and start saving for retirement. I think the government needs to get their act together.

If wages hadn't been flat for the working class for four decades, if healthcare was affordable and portable, if housing was affordable, etc., then Americans would be able to save enough and then make a decision when it is best for them to take SS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 07:17 PM
 
5,426 posts, read 3,448,244 times
Reputation: 13709
34.3 percent take Social Security at age 62, the most popular age to take it.
Attached Thumbnails
Why Wouldn’t You Take Social Security at 62?-636643892727712218-061218-claim-online.png  
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 07:50 PM
 
Location: Central IL
15,232 posts, read 8,523,201 times
Reputation: 35647
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
Not true

You can stop anytime from fra up to under 70.......as long as you are fra you can stop your ss and let it grow at anytime.. you pay nothing back when you do a start stop..

Our original plan was my wife was going to stop her ss which she started at 62 at her fra and let it grow up until 70 ... we decided not to do it..

We were beta testers of fidelity’s in-house software optimizing social security .... it came up with my wife stopping her early benefit at her fra .... since she is older then me she would start it at 70 again ..

I would file restricted for half hers ... at 70 I would file for mine and once I filed she would get a spousal adder to her benefit.
I was speaking of people starting payments at 62 (or at least before FRA) since that has been the focus of this thread - in this case:

If you are in your first year of collecting retirement benefits, you can apply to Social Security for a “withdrawal of benefits.”

Why would you want to do that? Say you filed for Social Security as early as possible, at age 62, accepting a reduced benefit because you needed the money. Then suppose you got an unexpected windfall: an inheritance, or a new, higher-paying job. You’re now in a position to wait until you are older and can collect a larger benefit.

Timing is key. Social Security will let you withdraw your original application for retirement benefits only once, and it must be within 12 months of the date you first started claiming benefits.


On the other hand - you are referring to a completely different situation after you've reached FRA:
If you have reached your full retirement age (the age at which you are entitled to 100 percent of the benefit calculated from your lifetime earnings) but are not yet 70, you can request a suspension of retirement benefits.

If you can afford to do without your retirement benefit for a few years, this might make long-term financial sense. During a suspension, you earn delayed retirement credits, which boost your eventual benefit by two-thirds of 1 percent for each suspended month (or 8 percent for each suspended year). When you resume collecting Social Security, you’ll have locked in a higher monthly payment for life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 07:56 PM
 
134 posts, read 60,442 times
Reputation: 314
This will be the dumb question of the thread, but I've yet to see this spelled out anywhere. When they say the average social security check is $1461 per month in 2019, is this before or after Medicare Part B and D are taken out? If the former, then really the average check would be closer to $1303 (assuming deductions of $135.50 for Part B and, say, $22.50 for Part D).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2019, 08:06 PM
 
13,903 posts, read 7,400,560 times
Reputation: 25389
Quote:
Originally Posted by johngolf View Post
The simple question is, is SS needed meaning a cornerstone of your retirement? It is not a matter of have it or not, the issues is it is just less at 62.

Present average SS benefit is $1,400 and the max is $2,800. thus $16,800 per year difference and in may cases less.

My max is way more than $2,800/month. Like $1,000/month more. It's a COLA-protected and largely tax-free $45,222/year if I delay to age 70. If I somehow manage to blow through everything else, I can live OK on that in a paid-for house.
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

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