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.
This post is strictly geared towards individuals who
contributed near maximum for 35 working years into Social Security.
This is equivalent to approximately $2,000 a month at age 62.
After speaking to a number of Retired New Yorkers I found
a very small disparity in the age many chose to collect Social Security.
Many collected at age 62,less at 65 and even less at 70.
After some homework I made some interesting observations.
Hope this is of help to many.
Life expectancy for Males
Long Island: age 80
New York: age 79
Life expectancy for Females
Long Island: age 84
New York: age 84
This is only a generalization......
As in the above example of 35 years of near maximum contributions:
Collecting at age 62 would have collected $416,568 by age 79... $441,072 by age 80... and $563,592 by age 85 Collecting at age 67 would have collected $417,600 by age 79... $452,400 by age 80... and $626,400 by age 85
Collecting at age 70 would have collected $388,360 by age 79... $431,520 by age 80... and $647,280 by age 85
It is important to pay attention to your family history.
If you grandparents and parents lived into their 90's then it makes sense collecting S.S. at a later age is optimal.
In the same breath if your lineage checks out in their 60's collecting as early as possible may be your best bet.
There are so many other things that govern when one collects S.S. that may be impacted or have an impact on you.
How it affects property taxes, etc.....or have minimal effect in other Retirement friendly states.
I think the safest bet for a New York male is 62 gauging a check out age of 80.
I think the safest bet for a New York female is 67 at check out age of 85
You have a jump start on getting back the money you put in.
You will make use of it more at an early age than the later years.
What is your opinion?
Curious minds would like to know.
Last edited by Mr.Retired; 01-01-2020 at 09:37 AM..
social security is not about what if i die ... it is all about what if i or my spouse live ....there are so many factors .
as humans we have only two outcomes and statistics mean little . we are either dead or alive . which will you be ? so we only die once but we live every day so whats best is unique only to your personal situation not statistics .
most of us who delay are not working so we need to lay out our own money in advance .
if we compare the odds between taking ss early and not spending down a balanced portfolio and losing all future compounding on that money vs life expectancy risk and delaying ss we see the following odds .
to equal each other out , one in a couple needs to live to 90-95 . at 90 it is that point that the roi on ss is about a 5% real return and those odds are 47% , but to see 6% real return , one in a couple has to live to 95 , those odds are just 19%
the odds of a balanced portfolio hitting 5.80 as an average real return (that is after inflation ) are 36% .
so there really is not a big difference in amounts at the end of the day between the two going by statistics as a couple . taking ss early does have slightly better odds of leaving the bigger balance. so it really amounts to are you more comfortable with more market risk or more longevity risk ?
for a single the odds greatly favor early ss and staying invested .
the real problem is that there really is so much more in the break even calculation so if folks are not well informed they do not really have the full picture .
the real calculation has to include the fact that you may be spending down invested assets that are now gone forever and no longer able to generate income , you have to count the checks you did not get , if spousal benefits are going to be used then waiting from 62 to fra means your spouse gets no adder to their benefit if they filed .
in our case my wife gets 4200.00 a year added to her benefit when i file and the longer i delay the longer she does not get the adder .
you are not covered under medicare's hold harmless law so you get the full increase rather then be limited to just cola amounts .
.
all that can push break even well out in to the 80's .
there is a lot to consider on both sides of the equation but when you can argue both for and against both sides equally then you understand it enough to make a good decision .
This post is strictly geared towards individuals who
contributed near maximum for 35 working years into Social Security.
This is equivalent to approximately $2,000 a month at age 62.
After speaking to a number of Retired New Yorkers I found
a very small disparity in the age many chose to collect Social Security.
Many collected at age 62,less at 65 and even less at 70.
After some homework I made some interesting observations.
Hope this is of help to many.
Life expectancy for Males
Long Island: age 80
New York: age 79
Life expectancy for Females
Long Island: age 84
New York: age 84
This is only a generalization......
As in the above example of 35 years of near maximum contributions:
Collecting at age 62 would have collected $416,568 by age 79... $441,072 by age 80... and $563,592 by age 85 Collecting at age 67 would have collected $417,600 by age 79... $452,400 by age 80... and $626,400 by age 85
Collecting at age 70 would have collected $388,360 by age 79... $431,520 by age 80... and $647,280 by age 85
It is important to pay attention to your family history.
If you grandparents and parents lived into their 90's then it makes sense collecting S.S. at a later age is optimal.
In the same breath if your lineage checks out in their 60's collecting as early as possible may be your best bet.
There are so many other things that govern when one collects S.S. that may be impacted or have an impact on you.
How it affects property taxes, etc.....or have minimal effect in other Retirement friendly states.
I think the safest bet for a New York male is 62 gauging a check out age of 80.
I think the safest bet for a New York female is 67 at check out age of 85
You have a jump start on getting back the money you put in.
You will make use of it more at an early age than the later years.
What is your opinion?
Curious minds would like to know.
if you are not working you need to lay out the ss you are not getting SAFELY .
no one should wait 8 years to spend more ... nooooooooo , that is a poor plan .. rather you keep the same budget all the way through . you lay out the ss up front , and once ss kicks in the make up of your budget shifts from all your money to more ss money but what you spent should stay consistent starting at 62 all the way through .
get the idea that ss is based on life expectancy out of your head and look at all the factors involved if you live or your spouse lives .
you have taxes , investing and survivor benefits to look at as well as your own resources integrating in to the plan , including aca subsidies if you need medical from 62-65 , rmd effects when combined with ss and a spouse that will file single tax wise with rmds after you are gone .
A little trivia - while a person can take SS benefits at age 62, the first payment isn’t made until about 62 and 2 months because you don’t get benefits for your birthday month when you turned 62 and they are paid on a month delay, e.g. December’s benefit is paid in January.
Last edited by martinjsxx; 01-01-2020 at 01:09 PM..
there is lots of stuff one needs to know .. in fact after your full retirement age (fra),the month you file in can be pretty important ...
it is not a publicized bit of info that after fra and before 70 you can lose delayed credit if you file for any other month then january and you never recover it .
For Example…
Let’s say you have a PIA of $2000 at your full retirement age of 66. And let’s say you turn 66 in June of 2015. You decide to wait until you turn 68 (two years past your FRA) to claim your benefit. You would then be entitled to a 16% higher benefit. When you file at age 68, you’re expecting to receive $2320 a month but when your first payment shows up the amount is for $2240.
What happened?
Because of how Social Security sets benefits, you only receive the delayed retirement credits that accrued as of Jan 1 the year you filed. Since you filed in June of 2017, you only get 18 months credit; 12 months for 2015 and 6 months for 2016. Based on this determination, you will only see an increase of 12% to your benefit instead of the 16% owed to you. Eventually you’ll get full 16%, but not right away. You will have to wait until January 2018 to get credit for the 24 months of your delayed retirement credits. Then your benefit will increase to the expected $2320.
Underpayment?
You’ll notice that there are six months where you are essentially underpaid. From June 2017, until January 2018, you receive $80 less a month than what your retirement benefit should be. Unfortunately, there is no way to get this money back. Social Security will not make up the difference at a later date.
Age 70
For some strange reason, if you delay your retirement benefit until age 70, you will get your full 32% right away. The “January Rule” won’t apply. However, anyone filing between FRA and age 70 may lose out on some of their benefit, depending on the timing.
Last edited by mathjak107; 01-01-2020 at 02:42 PM..
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.
