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.
62- 70% of SS benefit
65- 86.7%
66- 93.7%
67- full 100%
Where is the proverbial sweet spot. If you collect 70% over 5 years (free money X 60 payments) vs. getting your full 100% how many years at 100% do you need to collect to surpass the 60 payments extra you collected?
if one is spending down invested assets to live delaying it can take delaying ss until age 92 to see the same 5% real return a balanced portfolio has returned typically .
so comparing delaying ss if laying out the ss to live on from investments or money that could have been invested is a whole other story
so there are far more parameters involved then just making up checks .
taxes , roth conversions , zero capital gain brackets , aca subsidies, spousal benefits and spent down assets all can play a part making each situation different and swaying things one way or another.
simply adding up checks is not usually the only factor.there is no one best for all answer
Last edited by mathjak107; Yesterday at 10:26 AM..
I could be wrong, since I reached the "decision point" several years ago, but I seem to recall that the SS website, itself, gave you the numbers to determine the "crossover point".
I worked in a "manufacturing facility" for close to 40 years, and I have to say, I have to agree with the above comments, especially the highlighted part. I can remember a couple of times, when a blizzard, with very little warning, blew into the area, in the middle of the day. Management, in the interest of safety, announced that employees could leave, immediately, if they so desired.
I know that this isn't going to sound "PC", but after that announcement was made, you didn't want to stand in front of the door, as the mass of women who were exiting the place, would have trampled you. The majority of the men, however, held the idea that they had bills to pay, therefore they were staying for their full shift.
That was my experience also in manufacturing. Well not the bad weather piece (we had to stay until relieved by the next shift) but just generally the overtime piece.
Overtime was "voluntary" in most instances and very few women took it when offered but about 95% of the men did. I was one who would turn it down. I was single and had no obligations other than to myself and made enough to live, pay rent, drink, buy a new car, drink, eat, etc. without it.
Yes, Mogul, I am well aware of that. What I am talking about is means testing on a case by case basis. Same with Net Worth Tax. There is no way to administer something like that. It has to be the big formulary methods.
I could be wrong, since I reached the "decision point" several years ago, but I seem to recall that the SS website, itself, gave you the numbers to determine the "crossover point".
I worked in a "manufacturing facility" for close to 40 years, and I have to say, I have to agree with the above comments, especially the highlighted part. I can remember a couple of times, when a blizzard, with very little warning, blew into the area, in the middle of the day. Management, in the interest of safety, announced that employees could leave, immediately, if they so desired.
I know that this isn't going to sound "PC", but after that announcement was made, you didn't want to stand in front of the door, as the mass of women who were exiting the place, would have trampled you. The majority of the men, however, held the idea that they had bills to pay, therefore they were staying for their full shift.
Well, in a situation like that, SOMEONE would have had to go pick up the kiddies from school, take them home and stay with them, as the schools would most likely have let their students out for the day as well as your employer.
Women in general don't always work less than their male counterparts just because they're lazy or just arbitrarily choose to do so, but because most of the family responsibilities fall on their shoulders, ie, care of the children-sick kids, doctor, dental appointments, household responsibilities that require an owner to be present during business hours- ie, repairs done by tradespeople only during office hours. Hard to believe, perhaps, for a male employee whose life and identity is tied to his job, with a wife who works also but is naturally expected to take on all the responsibilities of the home and family besides earning that paycheck, but it really isn't the Domestic cleaning, cooking, nanny, nurse, chauffeur Fairy that magically waves a wand and everything gets done, fixed and keeps it all rolling smoothly.
I lived in a high cost of living area when I was first starting out. I had a job that paid diddly squat and I was lucky enough to have older coworkers who convinced me that I had to start participating in my 401K at least up to the match. I'd say "But I can't afford it!" and they would say "You can not afford NOT to!".
And they were right. I am glad now that I listened to them.
I had a similar situation when I was 25. But I was making chickenfeed living in LA. But I did start when I was 30.
My daughter works for Target and she is taking classes at community college. She has a hard time with school due to ADHD. She doesn't spend much. I have her paying rent and bills to get used to paying on time. But we put the max allowed into a Roth IRA for the third year now. Of course she is lucky that her expenses and spending are low.
I do appreciate the challenges faced by those with limited incomes. I was very fortunate. Started with nothing, worked my way through college, made some very good choices, etc. My complaint is not with those with financial challenges.
My complaint is with relatively high earners who live beyond their means, bigger and bigger houses, huge mortgages, etc. and then complain they can't retire. We all make choices, some better than others.
My complaint is entitled people who expect someone else to pay their way no matter what income strata you are in.
Well, in a situation like that, SOMEONE would have had to go pick up the kiddies from school, take them home and stay with them, as the schools would most likely have let their students out for the day as well as your employer.
Women in general don't always work less than their male counterparts just because they're lazy or just arbitrarily choose to do so, but because most of the family responsibilities fall on their shoulders, ie, care of the children-sick kids, doctor, dental appointments, household responsibilities that require an owner to be present during business hours- ie, repairs done by tradespeople only during office hours. Hard to believe, perhaps, for a male employee whose life and identity is tied to his job, with a wife who works also but is naturally expected to take on all the responsibilities of the home and family besides earning that paycheck, but it really isn't the Domestic cleaning, cooking, nanny, nurse, chauffeur Fairy that magically waves a wand and everything gets done, fixed and keeps it all rolling smoothly.
I was going to mention this. You did a better job than I would have.
There is likely some element of women not being as fit, being more frail (weaker) and predisposed to more illness to where overtime poses more of a physical cost (making it not as worthwhile). Men and women do have different bodily realities. I would not paint an entire gender with a broad brush like that (because some men are weaker and obviously some women are stronger and there is a built in age bias also). I believe this is what that poster was referring to and I would validate what he is saying to a certain extent (but, the issue is much broader than that)...
You do realize much of the reason it is women’s choice, not that they got paid less. A lot of factors involved. Choosing lower paid careers such as being a teacher versus stem careers. How many women became engineers versus day care workers?
Working less hours than men be it wanting to not put in overtime or having less work time because they became stay at home moms. In any case they have less pay, but it wasn’t that they got paid less than men for the same job, just did different jobs and hours worked.
Well put. But some people want to twist the facts to say that women only get 80% of the pay for doing the SAME work. However, that's not generally true.
I remember when I got my SS number. I had to go to the Post Office and fill out some paperwork. I had the idea of getting a job when I was 14 or 15 but my Mom said no one would hire me until I had that magic number. So I got the number in '65' or '66'. My first year of "earnings" in like '67' was less than $100. I'm glad I had SS taken out since I was too stupid to save on my own. In later years at work we would always really get after the youngsters coming in to participate in 401K. Lots of people don't think about it but getting a job with a pension or until recently, a 401K is like hitting the lottery for many.
Another thing hurting people our age is a big chunk of us had our jobs go off-shore (not me particularly) and got laid off, which besides being traumatic is a big interruption in earnings power until one makes it up with new employment.
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.
