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.
Its not really worth much. Suppose that you get $19K from SS, and you take it for four years. You cannot afford to lose the money or the plan won't work so you have to find some really high paying CD in a FDIC institution. In the end of the four year term you will have made maybe $2000 in interest at the current abysmal rates.
And if they close the loop hole you can't.
My response is that the SS sytem wants to to wait because of the increasingly greater possibility that you will die before you rec eive full benefits. and for the rest of us this is a good thing that you die early. I just don't want to die early
My response is that if you look at the increased numbers that you get per month by waiting past age 62, you have to consider how long it will be before you sart making more.
Lets say that you can live without the SS at age 62, but you take it anyway. MY ss statement says that I'll get about 19.6K a year at 62, but I'll get 26.7K if I wait until I'm 70. Suppose I take the 19.6K and save it until I'm 70.
At that point I will have 8 x 19.6 = $156K, which is closer to $170K with compounded interest. The question then is that I will continue to get only 19.6K. How many year will it take to have me make more total income from SS, if I waited? At age 70, I will get 26K, but with the other plan I will have 190, at age 71 I will have 52K but at 71, I will have 208, at 72 I will have 77 but the other I will have 227, at 73 I will have 104 but on the other I will have 247, at 75 I will have 266 but on the other I will have 130.
For those of you who are number hounds these numbers may not be exactly right. Its the principle of the thing I'm talking about.
Will I live long enough to make back more total? Probably not.
And if I started in 70 when I get $26K, will I have a nest egg that I saved for some possible emergency? NO.
Take it at 62 and save as much of it as you can in some safe investment. You'll have a nest egg with it.
Its not really worth much. Suppose that you get $19K from SS, and you take it for four years. You cannot afford to lose the money or the plan won't work so you have to find some really high paying CD in a FDIC institution. In the end of the four year term you will have made maybe $2000 in interest at the current abysmal rates.
And if they close the loop hole you can't.
My response is that the SS sytem wants to to wait because of the increasingly greater possibility that you will die before you rec eive full benefits. and for the rest of us this is a good thing that you die early. I just don't want to die early
My response is that if you look at the increased numbers that you get per month by waiting past age 62, you have to consider how long it will be before you sart making more.
Lets say that you can live without the SS at age 62, but you take it anyway. MY ss statement says that I'll get about 19.6K a year at 62, but I'll get 26.7K if I wait until I'm 70. Suppose I take the 19.6K and save it until I'm 70.
At that point I will have 8 x 19.6 = $156K, which is closer to $170K with compounded interest. The question then is that I will continue to get only 19.6K. How many year will it take to have me make more total income from SS, if I waited? At age 70, I will get 26K, but with the other plan I will have 190, at age 71 I will have 52K but at 71, I will have 208, at 72 I will have 77 but the other I will have 227, at 73 I will have 104 but on the other I will have 247, at 75 I will have 266 but on the other I will have 130.
For those of you who are number hounds these numbers may not be exactly right. Its the principle of the thing I'm talking about.
Will I live long enough to make back more total? Probably not.
And if I started in 70 when I get $26K, will I have a nest egg that I saved for some possible emergency? NO.
Take it at 62 and save as much of it as you can in some safe investment. You'll have a nest egg with it.
Z
my problem is that my work history will only give me about $1100 a month, even if I wait to age 70. So, taking the $700 or so, at 62 is more worth it to me, I guess. Those of you on a much higher S.S. income level, may find waiting, worth it.
I don't expect to live a real long life (had a heart bypass at age 43!). I want to retire in four weeks as originally planned. But I ~ and numerous others at my employment ~ have had to post-pone our dreams until age 62. We have good insurance through our employer but cannot afford the Cobra payments. And so the health insurance thing is the proverbial carrot that drags our burned-out asses to work another few years.
So, yes, some people are forced to retire early while others want to retire now and can't. It's a double-edged sword.
I don't expect to live a real long life (had a heart bypass at age 43!). I want to retire in four weeks as originally planned. But I ~ and numerous others at my employment ~ have had to post-pone our dreams until age 62. We have good insurance through our employer but cannot afford the Cobra payments. And so the health insurance thing is the proverbial carrot that drags our burned-out asses to work another few year.
Even if you could afford the COBRA payments, my understanding is that you can only have COBRA for 18 months. If that is correct, then COBRA is not a long-term solution for anyone. That is, if someone wants to retire, then pick up Medicare at age 65, he would have to wait until age 63 and a half if COBRA is to be the health insurance solution.
You're right, health insurance is the big nut to crack in early retirement.
I don't expect to live a real long life (had a heart bypass at age 43!). I want to retire in four weeks as originally planned. But I ~ and numerous others at my employment ~ have had to post-pone our dreams until age 62. We have good insurance through our employer but cannot afford the Cobra payments. And so the health insurance thing is the proverbial carrot that drags our burned-out asses to work another few years.
So, yes, some people are forced to retire early while others want to retire now and can't. It's a double-edged sword.
I have a friend age 84 and her husband lived to 88. He never went to the doctor for anything. The lady told me a couple years ago it wasn't worth the cost, so she was not going any more either. I had an endocrinologist on 2001. He and his wife both canceled their health insurance and went "self pay". He said it was not worth the $8000 a year in premiums, so if a doctor goes un-insured, you know the system stinks.
I am forced to do without Medicare part B, now. And when I am 65, I may have to opt out of part B. And even if I can afford part B, I won't be able to afford any supplement. It seems poor people die younger than the rich do, and some of that is ability to pay medical.
Average life expectancy in many parts of Asia is under age 60, here it is pushing 80, all related to medical treatment.
Location: We_tside PNW (Columbia Gorge) / CO / SA TX / Thailand
34,829 posts, read 58,408,191 times
Reputation: 46349
self pay with occasional 'Medical/ dental vacations' & living overseas at times will be my probable 'bridge' from age 50 - 65. The 'new plan' (Obamacare) is very spendy. ~ 1.6x current 'group' plans.
So what if they wheel you in for an immediate heart bypass?
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.
I was expecting this...
