Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 06-12-2019, 04:48 AM
 
Location: RVA
2,766 posts, read 2,068,364 times
Reputation: 6638

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
the draw should be the same in either case , whether you delay or not ... only the composition of that draw should really change . delaying would have it just go from 100% all your money to a greater percentage of ss later while gains on your portfolio are on a smaller balance from being spent down in order to delay .

taking it early has the same income being less your money early on and more your money later , but your gains are on a bigger portfolio balance since nothing was spent down laying out the early ss money . it just pretty much reverses the pattern .

unless you are not dealing with spending down invested assets or money that could be invested , delaying should give no difference in draw
This all correct except the last sentence. I would look at “draw” as what income you draw from your portfolio vs income you “receive” from pensions, annuities and SS. You and I are saying the same thing, that’s it’s the composition of the income that changes.

Much of the FIRE crowd (Financially Independent Retire Early) have lived off their investments as mostly the sole income for 10-20+ years by the time they are eligible for SS. The vast majority of people could not and can not live that way. That majority works and gets paid. Income generation from a portfolio is foreign ground. I worked until less than 2 weeks ago. I have planned our retirement such that the paychecks never stop. But even though I am a very lucky person to have HC covered, DPB plans and retirement benefits, SS is still a major part of that plan, to have ~45% of our income as COLA and market protected. Filing for my SS at 63 (62 is not an option), reduces that percentage too much for MY comfort level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-12-2019, 05:04 AM
 
Location: S-E Michigan
4,266 posts, read 5,896,857 times
Reputation: 10790
Another consideration for some people is the affect of draw-downs on their portfolio by delaying SS IF the person has a goal of leaving a legacy to children, grandchildren, significantly younger spouse, charitable bequeathments, etc.

A surviving spouse could see some benefit by receiving their portion of a larger delayed SS payment, but you can't provide those funds to anyone else in your Will!

No one size fits all on the age to start drawing SS. Each individual/couple must examine their own needs and wants, and prioritize appropriately for themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2019, 05:33 AM
 
105,881 posts, read 107,840,851 times
Reputation: 79470
Quote:
Originally Posted by MI-Roger View Post
Another consideration for some people is the affect of draw-downs on their portfolio by delaying SS IF the person has a goal of leaving a legacy to children, grandchildren, significantly younger spouse, charitable bequeathments, etc.

A surviving spouse could see some benefit by receiving their portion of a larger delayed SS payment, but you can't provide those funds to anyone else in your Will!

No one size fits all on the age to start drawing SS. Each individual/couple must examine their own needs and wants, and prioritize appropriately for themselves.
It still may not matter ... the bigger check delaying ss can require much less draw from the portfolio from 70 on pretty much equaling the same balance left for heirs as a smaller check from ss but more coming out of the portfolio year after year taking it early..

It is not a delaying or not delaying that determines the balance for heirs but markets , sequences , rates and inflation vs longevity

Last edited by mathjak107; 06-12-2019 at 05:42 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2019, 05:47 AM
 
Location: Maine's garden spot
3,466 posts, read 7,199,846 times
Reputation: 4017
Medicare
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2019, 06:12 AM
 
105,881 posts, read 107,840,851 times
Reputation: 79470
Quote:
Originally Posted by AustinB View Post
Medicare
Huh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2019, 08:17 AM
 
8,276 posts, read 11,851,295 times
Reputation: 10075
Without wading through 26 pages of material, I would say that the need for health insurance is a primary reason why many delay until age 65, when Medicare kicks in. Having to pay an insurance premium all by yourself, without any employer help, can be very costly..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2019, 08:41 AM
 
2,094 posts, read 1,914,461 times
Reputation: 3639
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayCT View Post
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
The only reason is, the breakover point is around 78. So if you wait, and live past 78, you win. A lot of people do actually live past 78.

The monthly increase from 62 to 70 is huge.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2019, 08:43 AM
 
2,094 posts, read 1,914,461 times
Reputation: 3639
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkeydance View Post
i did 62 and here is why:

two of our friends retired from their jobs at 65 and started SS.
one died within 6 months and the other died within 17.
my wife said: take the "bird in the hand".
Ya- and on the other hand, you have a lot of people living past 80. So don't base it on a couple friends. Base it on you health and family history.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2019, 08:49 AM
 
2,094 posts, read 1,914,461 times
Reputation: 3639
Quote:
Originally Posted by matisse12 View Post
So by the time you are 70, the maximum will be way beyond the maximum in effect now? not disputing at all, just asking to make sure - the maximum rising would make sense.

"The maximum monthly Social Security benefit at full or normal retirement age is $2,788 for 2018 and $2,861 for 2019. However, the maximum allowable benefit amount is only payable to those who had the maximum taxable earnings for at least 35 working years. Depending on when you retire and how much you made while working, your benefits may be considerably less. The estimated average monthly benefit for "all retired workers" in 2019 is $1,461."

above from: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...nt-benefit.asp
Correct. In future dollars, my SS and my wife getting half..... if I wait to 70...... is at least $6000 a month.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2019, 09:14 AM
 
28,575 posts, read 18,596,190 times
Reputation: 30812
Quote:
Originally Posted by dbsteel View Post
Ya- and on the other hand, you have a lot of people living past 80. So don't base it on a couple friends. Base it on you health and family history.
On any given day, all my indications are that I'm quite healthy, although a bit heavy compared to a 25-year-old my height.

OTOH, I've had three severe health scares in the last year, including a couple that raised the doctors' eyebrows when they turned out negative.

The problem with being over 60 is that no matter how healthy you are today, you can still be dead in six months or demented within the next three years.

Three near misses in a year have been enough to convince me that I'd rather get started on my bucket list than continue doing 9-5 until a bullet connects.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top