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 thought I was going to retire at 67 and take my benefits, then. However, I am still working part-time, so I delayed until 70. I worked the minimum number of quarters in the US and will also have a foreign pension from my job, here, plus a small state pension from Denmark once I am no longer working at age 73. It keeps adding up, along with my savings, but I am still frightened to death of the economics of retirement.
Everyone has a different situation, but overall, if you can afford to delay taking benefits, it should be a great investment. Where else can you earn a guaranteed 8% return on your money? In addition, COLA will apply later on to the greater amount. Delaying social security is a really great stategy if you can afford it and if you and/or your spouse live long enough. I would think more than twice if you need to delay your retirement in order to delay taking SS.
I'm 65.
I am very fortunate to have a job I love doing and psychologically I am not ready to retire yet. Yeah, I would rather be working.
The earliest I will retire is when my wife turns 66 at which time I will be 67 years and 4 months old.
At 67y 4m I will sign up for benefits then (most likely) promptly suspend them so my wife will receive 50% of my full retirement benefit.
But I plan to not draw until age 70 the main reason being survivorship. By waiting, along with a bit of planning, we're never going to need my wife's social security so we're just going to save it and if something happens to me she will receive my benefit that will be 132% of my full retirement age benefit if I just wait 4 more years.
Like many American families we didn't save for retirement like we should have but by working just an extra four years, or even one or two if you can, we can make up for a lot of mistakes of the past.
It's significant those year(s) of working. A FRA benefit of $2,200 becomes $2,376 by working just one year beyond FRA. That extra $176 pays for our homeowners insurance and property taxes for as long as we live here.
But working the extra 4 years the FRA benefit of $2,200 turns into $2,904 with the extra $704 being enough to pay all our housing costs which includes insurance, property taxes, all utilities and even our cell phones. Like I said, working those extra years can make up for a lot of past sin.
As far as "longevity studies" and "getting your money back" I could care less.
I would rather have two years retirement drawing $2,904/mo rather than forty years drawing $1,650. $1,650 would scare me to death. I guess I could do it but I wouldn't own a car, go anywhere or do anything outside of maybe mow the lawn.
I don't care if I get all my money back or even a little. What matters to me more than anything else is our quality of life whether we have six months or forty years left. Like many we have had a few financial thin times during our married life together but (knock on wood) we have never gone without. We have never had anyone call about an unpaid bill or been threatened by some sort of service cut off and we're not about to discover the experience after I do stop working.
I know a widow living on just SS. Its not a pretty sight, watching her try to eek by on this little bit she has. My plan is to keep working. The extra that SS pays out if you keep working a few years is a big bunch of money over 20 years of retirement. Meanwhile, while we work, we have plenty of money for what we want to do.
The fact is, one cannot prove the "optimal" age to begin drawing SS without knowing the date that is going on your death certificate. It makes sense to understand the arithmetic and the breakeven points, take spousal considerations into account, and then figure out how it all applies to your real life. Then, since nobody knows the date of their death in advance, either split the difference (one spouse draws early, the other waits--or draw at 64 instead of 62 or 66) or go with your gut instinct.
from what we heard, prior to retirement there is no set answer. It depends on need, other investments, how long you expect to live, based on health and family history, future plans and probably other things. I took mine at 62, hubby did make a mistake, He started taking his at 64 and 1/2, long story, but it really cost him, just for a 6 month early withdrawal and it was done for convenience, nothing else.
Everyone has a different situation, but overall, if you can afford to delay taking benefits, it should be a great investment. Where else can you earn a guaranteed 8% return on your money? In addition, COLA will apply later on to the greater amount. Delaying social security is a really great stategy if you can afford it and if you and/or your spouse live long enough. I would think more than twice if you need to delay your retirement in order to delay taking SS.
You are not earning 8% on your money. You're not earning anything.
If you take early SS - and put that money in the bank - earning zero - and then start taking that money out when you take "regular" SS - dividing it equally among the SS payments for the rest of your life expectancy - you're not making anything. You're just moving money from then to now (or later).
COLAs apply to all SS across the board (they increase the benefits you're getting now as well as those you'll get in the future).
As many other posters here have mentioned - the main issue (from a strictly actuarial money POV) is whether you think you'll outlive the "break even" point (in my case - close to 79 when I started SS at age 62). For some people - it may be an issue of whether they need/want less cash in hand now - or think they may need/want more cash in hand later. These people are generally thinking about cash flow management as opposed to only dollars and cents. On my part - unless and until I get to 79 - I am a winner taking early SS. Robyn
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,572 posts, read 81,167,557 times
Reputation: 57798
I suppose I may be unusual, but at 60 I still enjoy working in this job and every additional year adds to my pension from my employer, as well as the SS, 401K and to the equity in our home. At this point we are thinking 67, sell the house and pay cash for one in a less expensive area, and with two retirements and SS payments we should be able to manage. Of course, anything can happen between now and then but currently we are happy as is.
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.
