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.
No, the maximum is higher than that. It all depends on your earnings history (amount and number of years). They take an average of your 35 highest years of earnings, indexed for inflation. Sorry I don't remember what the maximum SS retirement benefits check is, but you can find on their website (www.socialsecurity.gov). I do know it is higher than what you are saying in the bolded sentence above. Don't forget that the average benefit, which you quoted correctly, includes some people like me; I receive $138 per month. That is not a typo: one hundred thirty-eight dollars per month.
Note that the figure is based on earnings after age 21. (Also, it appears that earnings are not indexed after age 60 or so; i.e., the second year before the year one turns 62.) See, Social Security Benefits Handbook Online Edition - Chapter Seven (This handbook is not published by the SSA but is an excellent resource. I'm too tired at the moment to locate the proper SSA cite.)
I read that the vast majority of people receiving monthly social security have decided to receive it at age 62 rather than age 66 - so at age 62, they are willing to accept the vastly lower monthly amount.
Escortrider, no where did I say that $1700 or $1800 is the 'maximum'. I never spoke to 'maximum' at all at post #17. The average monthly amount received is $1100 or $1200. And one would need to be a very high earner for many decades to get the maximum of $2300.
Thank you for your clarification. I jumped to an erroneous conclusion there.
I read that the vast majority of people receiving monthly social security have decided to receive it at age 62 rather than age 66 - so at age 62, they are willing to accept the vastly lower monthly amount.
Yes, 25% lower to be exact. Or to put in the other way around, you would get 75% of the age 66 amount. But the interesting thing about that whole business is that it is calculated so that if you live the "average" amount longer (after 62), then you come out even. If you die sooner you are money ahead, the most extreme example being if you die upon turning 66, then your amount by waiting would be zero, and all the money collected since age 62 would be your gain. On the contrary, if you live longer than expectations, you are money ahead by waiting.
As you say, many people have, and are, applying at age 62. I think this is for two reasons. First, some people who lost their jobs are getting desperate to have something to live on. Second, there has been so much talk about Social Security "not being there" down the road that some folks are just hoping to grab what they can before something bad happens to Social Security.
If someone retires and stays home alone doing nothing, of course they will be depressed. Maybe some of them were depressed in the first place, and doing nothing is a result not a cause. That article just does not seem realistic. Of course people who continue doing something are mentally and physically healthier, whether it's paid or volunteer or hobbies. We know the stereotype of successful men who retire and then get depressed and die. But that's probably someone whose whole identity was tied up with his job.
The idea of working longer is in the air, and increasingly recommended by experts. I think it is wrong.
It completely depends upon whether you love your job or detest it. I certainly believe that people who live to work and jump out of bed every Monday morning probably should work until they drop.
I personally have never liked my job and am counting down the years until I retire. Hopefully, I can get out at age 55 and believe me, I will not get fat, vegetate or get "bored." I will love life without having to work in a job I pretty much despise. If a person has hobbies, exercises religiously and has a good marriage, early retirement is bliss. Those who are bored in retirement are probably those with no hobbies, no love in their life and just boring in general.
Do you mean receiving that on your own, or combining the monthly social security checks from you and your wife?
The average monthly social security check for an individual is around $1100 or $1200.
If you wait until your full age of retirment, your individual social secuiity check might be around $1700 or $1800.
I plan to work until I am 70 and that is what I am basing my SS on.
As I understand it my wife is entitled to her social security or 50% of mine whatever is more. If you are in this boat and able you might want to think just one or two additional years for making up.
If I retired now my SS would be $1,645.60, my wife would receive half or $822.80 plus a small state pension of $285.00 for a total of $2,753.40. We could do this but I would dread paying health insurance until I hit 65.
What I like about the state pension is there is survivorship which, $285 isn't much, but every little bit helps.
If I work just 3 more years that total climbs to $3,370.50 or $671.40 a month more which means the world. $671.40/mo will pay our property taxes, home insurance, car insurance along with all utilities including cable television and internet. In fact enough left over where we could go out to dinner once a week.
But working four more years increases us considerably to $4,357.86 which makes up a lot for my sin of not saving like I should have when I was able.
The difference for me working four more years is $987.36/month more and that is huge in retirement. That's enough for a couple cruises a year and occasional travel as long as we feel like it.
Using this calculator Savings Withdrawal Calculator by working just four more years it would be as if I did save an extra $235,000 which by withdrawing $987/month would last us 25 years. That extra four years is as if you were paid a retirement bonus of $59,000/year on top of salary. Hard to pass up that much money.
But SS is better as it is indexed to inflation whereas I figured a 2% net return which is, in my opinion, a rosy picture if inflation kicks up.
When you sin, like I did, by not saving enough you got to make it up somewhere.
(Pssssssst! I am not sorry I sinned, we had a good time and great experiences as a family.)
On the plus side I have a job I love, age discrimination does not exist and employers love it when you got 40 plus years experience. I know one guy who does what I do and he is still working full time at 86. He is my hero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulysses61
It completely depends upon whether you love your job or detest it. I certainly believe that people who live to work and jump out of bed every Monday morning probably should work until they drop.
I get depressed on Friday's so I guess I better continue working.
I got hobbies, flying for one, and that one can get salty on the wallet so I will work to fly instead of gardening. Unless Avgas goes through the roof that's where the extra $$$ will really be going.
Considering that my elder family members are living into their late 80's and 90's (my mother turns 91 in July and she's still going strong - my in-laws are still living at home - unassisted - at age 90 and 91)... I know I'd better be prepared to live at least 30 years past my retirement date.
That takes money.
We started saving at age 45 - we're now in our late 50's.....with 8 or 9 years to go.
Living WELL is the best revenge. That takes money.
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.
