Why Wouldn’t You Take Social Security at 62? (spend, retiring, difference)
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.
Question is, what is the impact of collecting at 62 and continuing to work?
Answer is, you can't earn very much before you start losing those benefits. For every $2 you earn above an annual limit (which is $17,640 for 2019), they will deduct $1 from your SS payment. If you earn TOO much, you could wipe it all out... and might as well not be collecting, at that point. This will continue for 5 years or so, until you reach full retirement age. Once that happens, your earnings no longer reduce your benefits, no matter how much you earn. In a nutshell, there is a penalty for working between 62 and FRA.
you can't collect ... you are considered retired if you make less than 1470 a month or 17,640 a year , then you give back one dollar for every 2 over . ... in the year you will be fra you can make 46,920 before giving back money
That's why I'm taking it asap. And it's not a socialist program. You paid into it. It's YOUR money.
Yep, you paid in. So did I, and so did everyone else reading this. Now it's "our money" (or really none of ours, unless we want to pretend that each of us owns a tire on the local firetruck).
Quote:
Originally Posted by ysr_racer
Taking my money and giving it to somebody else would be socialist.
As I said above, "don't look now but....." that is exactly what is happening. Once you start collecting, they will be giving you some of MY money. And if you live long enough, they will have exhausted all of "your money" and might be giving you even more of MY money. You're welcome!
Last edited by HeelaMonster; 06-12-2019 at 03:57 PM..
Just a friendly reminder, we have a whole 'nother sub-forum if you want to debate whose political party is better. Please keep politics out of the retirement forum, thanks.
Because at 62 I will not have enough in my 401K to retire. Since i will still be working, I do nto need social security.
If I took social security at 62 I would not have enough money to retire at 70 because the social security amount would be too low.
However if I could take social security at age 62 and keep working and then just invest all the social security money and make a better return than I would get by waiting, it could work out. I do not think you can take SS if you keep working full time can you?
I have to balance all of this with my belief that social security will be depleted to the pint where the amount of benefits will be meaningless some time before i retire, or they will just tax it heavily. And I think the government will find a way to heavily tax 401K funds as the huge wave f people with no retirement program other than social security begin to retire and starve. faced with letter them dies and finding a way to get at the 401K funds of those who did save, the government will obviously have to choose the latter. that might point to retiring early being the more prudent course so I might get at least some benefit out of the two retirement programs I paid into for most of my life (SS and 401K). Maybe I should just take and spend what I can and then join the hordes of broke retirees that the government has to find a way to keep alive?
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.
