New Article in NYTIMES about Social security (55, acquaintance, spouse)

[bkk1057]

Collect Now, or Later? Timing Your Social Security Benefits



http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/11/yo...e.html?_r=1&em

There is also a link to retirement advice/ calculator site AnalyzeNow.com

[CollegeGuy9]

liars...

It's better to collect as soon as possible than to wait.

More dollars in real terms; TVM.

[mathjak107]

The article missed one important aspect of waiting which i like... that is if you have enough money to lay out for a bit, you can spend far more right from day 1 of your retirement then you can if you take ss early.... you have the security of knowing your nest egg will be refilled with 30% more money plus cola increases if you live at least to 70

if you dont live then its a moot point although your spouse will benefit... i know i want as much money as i can withdraw in the early years while we are still young and healthy and not worry about running out of money later on should we live longer then we thought... while taking ss at 62 may allow us 4% withdrawl of our nest egg inflation adjusted each year i would take as much as 6% right from day one if i knew i had 1/3 more refilling our savings later on.

you couldnt buy any annuity for even close to that cost to kick in at age 70 and give you that kind of dough


remember for most of us its not about dying with the biggest pile, its about having the best lifestyle we can afford while we are healthy and alive

[Gandalara]

An acquaintance of mine said this article was probably planted by the government - to hopefully slow down the new retirees taking the money at 62 and stopping the flood going out of the govt' coffers.

Please note I said acquaintance - not friend - mainly because I can't tell if he was serious when he said it!

[Tesaje]

Originally Posted by Gandalara

An acquaintance of mine said this article was probably planted by the government - to hopefully slow down the new retirees taking the money at 62 and stopping the flood going out of the govt' coffers.

Please note I said acquaintance - not friend - mainly because I can't tell if he was serious when he said it!

Funny how some people like to complain the govt is utterly incompetent, until they want to blame it for every conspiracy theory they can think of ...

In raw numbers, it will take about 16 years to make back what you have lost by taking the amount at 62 compared to waiting to 70. So, if you think you will be long lived, it might be worth it. But if you don't, it might not be worth it. There are a lot of different trade-offs to consider. The govt encourages people to wait and take it later simply by making the older age start a higher dollar number. There is no need to "plant" articles. The way it is set up makes the intent obvious.

[mathjak107]

for someone who wants to retire but dosnt have much money in their nest egg then 62 is the only option for them...

for people who have enough money to retire and live the lifestyle they want to and dont need to worry about out living their money then again 62 is good to collect

the rest of us who have a sizeable nest egg but could use more money per month then conventional wisdom would allow us to take then waiting is the best deal ever ... if you want more money right from day one to do and buy more of the things you want to do without fear of running out of money because you withdrew to much in the early years then waiting is the best deal ever. dont forget we arent talking actually waiting until 70 to take more per month , we are talking effecting your life at age 62 right away by taking more from your nest egg today and enjoying it. you have the security of much more money refilling your nest egg later on ...

i always tout its not about living long enough to break even, thats old school thinking from the financial gray beards of our parents generation who never thought further then the tip of their nose... ..... the thought today is more about how do we get more money per month to enjoy life right now while we are young and healthy ,,....thats done by buying the gov't annuity , the wait until 66 or 70

that annuity for what it cost in money layed out is the cheapest annuity ever for a whopping 30% more plus cola adjustments for as long as you or your spouse live. that wait is an incredible deal...its an 8% gain a year
in payments not even counting the cost of living adjustments on that extra money
look up how much an annuity cost that would kick in at age 70 and pay that kind of money for a lifetime and have cola adjustments and be transferable to a spouse .... its a rediculiosly high amount .....so high very few could even afford to buy it..


of course most will never take advantage of this deal because they go right back to the old conventional thinking of what if i die and dont break even or social security runs out of money and so they take the money now even though they dont need the money now and subject themselves to a lifetime of smaller incomes and loose the annuity deal of our lifetime....

another advantage is smaller taxable incomes as by the time social security kicks in you would have spent down more of your ira's and 401k's having smaller mandatory withdrawls at age 70

[TuborgP]

Great article and it is full of the variances depending on situation and your expectations on longevity. Each person needs to research and do what they feel is best for their situation. One person's mistake in retrospect might be a good decision for someone else down the road. The key is what plays out in your future and if you don't know your own why would you believe what some else tells you yours would be?

[TuborgP]

Married couples should read that section and realize that experts recommend one take it at 62 in many situations.

The following is from the OP link
In many cases, the higher-earning spouse should delay his or her benefits until age 70, while the lower earner begins to collect at age 62. This ensures that the surviving spouse will end up with the maximum amount of benefits for the rest of his or her life. Even if the higher earner died before age 70, the survivor’s benefits would be bumped up to what the deceased spouse would have gotten, said Lesley J. Brey, a fee-only financial planner in Honolulu.

[Synergy1]

Originally Posted by TuborgP

Married couples should read that section and realize that experts recommend one take it at 62 in many situations.

The following is from the OP link
In many cases, the higher-earning spouse should delay his or her benefits until age 70, while the lower earner begins to collect at age 62. This ensures that the surviving spouse will end up with the maximum amount of benefits for the rest of his or her life. Even if the higher earner died before age 70, the survivor’s benefits would be bumped up to what the deceased spouse would have gotten, said Lesley J. Brey, a fee-only financial planner in Honolulu.

Anyone who says to split retirement is kinda out of the real world problems and discovery should be on their plans. We retired at 55 because we could and we did....Health is good but who knows in 5 years or more.

In a world of turmoil and terrorist attacks as a common place today's dollar is obviously going to be worth much less in the near future. So what does one need to do? Work forever? NOT! ! Desktop financial planners are everywhere. Go and do whatever your heart desires.

I say enjoy your life when you can. Have fun with your children and and your grandkids. If you are lucky see your dad and mom and thank them for being there for you....
The time to save was when you were working... I assume we all saved a quarter or something or other to at least survive with smiles and giggles.

[evilnewbie]

Originally Posted by Gandalara

An acquaintance of mine said this article was probably planted by the government - to hopefully slow down the new retirees taking the money at 62 and stopping the flood going out of the govt' coffers.

Please note I said acquaintance - not friend - mainly because I can't tell if he was serious when he said it!

I consider the NY Times a low impact paper... by that, I mean it won't change people's behavior so I doubt the government is involved... rather I think the author has a vested interest in not seeing Social Security get totally obliterated (i.e. someone who supports the idea of having a Social Security program)... she wants to prolong the pain as long as possible, some people don't know a bad idea when they have one... you might say Madoff would of rather have his victims pull their money out later, that way the scheme would of lasted longer... some people be for this idea because they like unrealistic profit... glad the recession hit, it exposed all these fraudulent schemes for what they are... ponzi...