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.
I already said that if your health is bad, sure - collect. Healthy people collecting early? And then they say they don't even need it? THAT makes no sense - they get a perverse joy out of feeling like they are screwing the government or something. Extra pocket money, sure, whatever.
I don't know where you're getting that. Personally I get no joy knowing if I've come out ahead or not with SS. It doesn't matter to me in the least. For me, it's about retiring early enough to where I can enjoy at least a few years of being in relatively good health without going to work every day. SS makes that possible.
No one is getting screwed.
Working longer, in my family's case, does a couple things. First, we don't have any significant savings (although we do own our house outright), and by continuing to work and not claiming benefits now the hubby (he's 64 now) is building up a higher monthly amount with social security but also with his union pension. We'll be living on social security and pension monthly income with no other investments, etc. We'll probably not die young if our family histories and our current good health are any indication. We need the larger monthly income, it's really just that simple. Plus he has a follow-your-bliss kind of job and is not unhappy working.
That said, we're not planning on delaying beyond full retirement age. By that time the monthly income levels will be high enough for us to live income-wise more or less the same as we are now (a little better actually), plus hub can continue to work if jobs come up that appeal to him without concern about income limits and so forth.
Everyone's situation is different. There really isn't any case to be made for people all having the same strategy with regard to when they file.
Waiting till 70 (turn 68 next week) to ensure my surviving spouse has maximum benefits. At 62 it was $18,500. It's now at $30,580 going up roughly $200 every month en route to $34,656.
Invested for income (not capital gains) and have never sold a stock to take income. All from dividends.
It all depends on how long you think you will live. The big thing is being very old and running out of money.
Exactly. It's not a matter of figuring out which way you'll end up with more money (which depends on when you die), but rather on not running out in very old age. Delaying to 70 is like buying an inflation-adjusted annuity.
As others have noted, there are many factors to consider... some known, some unknown (and unknowable). In the end, it's always going to be a personal decision, factoring in health, how long you expect to live, other sources of retirement income, etc, etc. This is truly a case where "YMMV."
For me, there are two ways to look at social security. Some view it as an investment account, into which they have been paying for many years; they want to "get their money back" and might feel cheated if they didn't get it all out, and then some. Others view social security more as insurance, and accept that (just as with any other kind of insurance), they might get out less than they put in or they might get out much more if/when they need it (e.g., if they have an accident, or a fire, or... in this case... live longer than expected).
For those who care about the balance between starting early (and getting less money per month) and delaying to get more per month, the links below show the break even points for every filing age from 62-70.
His reasoning is this. At 62 1/2 he would get $1,900 a month from SS. At 70 the benefit would be $3,600. If he starts taking it at 62, he would earn a total of $171,000 in those years between retirement and 70 ($1,900 x 12 x 7.5 = $171,000). If he waits to 70, it will take over 8 years to break even and get that $171,000 back ($3,600 - $1,900 = $1,700; $171,000/$1,700 = 100.59 months or 8 years, 4 months).
He feels he should take that money and, assuming he does not need it, invest it to get a better return. Does this make sense? Is he missing something? Jay
Who knows? I'm 70 yo, elected to wait until 6 months ago, age 69.5, to take my SS, am in excellent health, enjoy my monthly generous SS check, don't question whether I'm "missing something" by waiting as long as I did. Blessings to you and your friend, hope your decision works out for you and him as well as it has for me.!
They say if you live to 60 without any major issues, then you will most likely live to at least 80.
I'm not there yet but am close enough that I'm looking forward to it. I'm good with both SS and a fair and decent pension and some savings. I will need all three to live a comfortable retirement.
However, if we turn into a socialized nation and the USA goes bankrupt, the whole game changes. It will probably be pretty bleak for many of us. Look at Venezuela. Yikes. But that's another thread.
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.
