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 want to take mine next year (earliest I can), but will eventually convert (hopefully a long time)to my spouse's as his would be quite a bit more than mine. I'd get penalized before 66.8 months, but would have to take it. I thought I'd work to 70. What a joke that was.
I was talking to a friend the other day about Social Security and when to take it. A family member is waiting until 70 to get the maximum benefit but my friend thinks that may not be best. He noted that you are losing 7 1/2 years of income by waiting and it would take a number of years to recoup that money.
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
Usually in hindsight what you should have done is clear to you or your survivors. Prior to the time you need to make decision there is usually not a clear path. At 71 we are good and what was best is a what ever for the most part. That’s amazing because for years I so actively participated in these discussions.
I want to take mine next year (earliest I can), but will eventually convert (hopefully a long time)to my spouse's as his would be quite a bit more than mine. I'd get penalized before 66.8 months, but would have to take it. I thought I'd work to 70. What a joke that was.
If you take yours before fra you will always be at less then half
I am only 54 so I have a while to go before I call it quits. I would love to continue working into my 90's if I have it in me. Working till age 70 does not seem to be a problem. Then again I love being at work. My wife also works at the hospital. One of our sons is working toward a degree where he will one day work here. Our daughter has talked about becoming an RN since she was 3. She has this goal of working with her mom and dad at the Hospital. For me this is a family adventure.
My dad is in his early 80's. He retired at 64. My mom is in her late 70's. They are still going strong. They do what they love and that is what retirement should be like. For me I am already doing what I love.
I am only 54 so I have a while to go before I call it quits. I would love to continue working into my 90's if I have it in me. Working till age 70 does not seem to be a problem. Then again I love being at work. My wife also works at the hospital. One of our sons is working toward a degree where he will one day work here. Our daughter has talked about becoming an RN since she was 3. She has this goal of working with her mom and dad at the Hospital. For me this is a family adventure.
My dad is in his early 80's. He retired at 64. My mom is in her late 70's. They are still going strong. They do what they love and that is what retirement should be like. For me I am already doing what I love.
Do you mind if I ask what you do there? Really, it's none of my business and no offense if you want to leave it at that. I was just curious.
One big factor to consider is that Medicare doesn't start until 65, so for many people that's going to be an expensive three years of medical coverage.
This is me... I have pre-existing conditions that would make private insurance very expensive.
I also have a whole bunch of cheap "no questions asked" life insurance through my employer.
And I continually dump a good chunk of pay into my 401K.
The good news is that I'm nearly 61 and rarely even think about retiring. My job is not physically strenuous.
I have many years in and get plenty of vacation. I get lots of time off even with a full time job.
So if I keep working until 70 or close to it, it could work out three ways.
I croak early and my wife gets a big insurance check + SS + 401K and lives out her days comfortably.
My wife croaks early and I get a big insurance check + SS + 401K and live out my days comfortably.
No one croaks and we get inflated SS + 401K from working longer and live out our days comfortably.
All three of these sound like pretty decent options.
My parents lived into their mid-90s but rarely spent any money past 82 or so. They mostly just stayed at home just visiting the grandkids after 82. Really no need for any more money then SS was paying them, in fact they saved most of it.
So there are two things to consider, how long you are going to live and how long active are you going to live.
I don't see the point in waiting past 62 even if you think you going to live to 120. Money has a lot more value in your 60's vs your 80's.
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.
I don't see the point in waiting past 62 even if you think you going to live to 120. Money has a lot more value in your 60's vs your 80's.
I agree with the bolded part, but honestly it makes me more inclined to delay taking SS until 70. In the worst scenario where we spend all or most of our assets, we could get by without struggling on those bigger SS checks (and then eventually the survivor on the bigger of the two checks). On the other hand, trying to live on the age 62 check(s) would be extremely difficult for us.
So, knowing we have that income backstop, drawing assets down with a bit of reckless abandon in the earlier years is not nearly so scary.
I agree with the bolded part, but honestly it makes me more inclined to delay taking SS until 70. In the worst scenario where we spend all or most of our assets, we could get by without struggling on those bigger SS checks (and then eventually the survivor on the bigger of the two checks). On the other hand, trying to live on the age 62 check(s) would be extremely difficult for us.
So, knowing we have that income backstop, drawing assets down with a bit of reckless abandon in the earlier years is not nearly so scary.
Well, never be reckless. At least not at 60. Recklessness is for the young and dumb, who still have plenty of time to recover from stupidity.
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.