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.
Or dropped in half if the stocks tanked. What's the point of that? Everyone is a perfect Monday morning quarterback!
That's the reason you need to carefully invest so you rarely lose money, and you make money most of the time. You need to diversify. If the market tanks, it will come back. It took 10 years after the 1929 crash, but it came back. The 2007 - 2008 crash was a setback for several years, but the market came back, as long as you didn't sell at the bottom!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perryinva
Even more depressing if THAT is the source of your income. You risk that scenario for your entire life, vs only the 8 hears you are delaying.
You got that right. So why gamble entirely on the stock market. There is this little thing called diversification of risk you may have heard of....
Ahh so you are saying that ANY kind if annuity is a poor investment for the future...and if the SS funds are NOT well in ested and you lose allmor most of it? We proponents if delaying ALREADY have a lot in the stock market. All ones eggs in the same basket???Really?
That's not the only source of income for us. We can live on the pension incomes alone to the same standard of living as we have been living for two decades, since we wouldn't have to save more money after we retire and we are debt free. The Social Security puts us above that level. Spending down the retirement accounts puts us way above that level.
People that don't have a pension, haven't paid off their debts, and haven't saved much their whole lives can't afford to take on a lot of risk because they didn't save enough money for retirement, and are retiring too close to the edge. For those people, there really are only two options. Continue to work, maybe until you die, or retire and live a very frugal lifestyle.
I have some good savings and IRA, etc. but I may start taking my SS at 63 anyway.
Why? Well, we (wife and I) are currently living high on the hog and it will help finance that for a while. If life is for living, enjoyment and helping others (especially our kids), then we might as well party on because who knows what tomorrow will bring?
And - we have plenty put away for tomorrow anyway.
I can't see any scenario where the difference between what I get now and what I would get at 66 will make a real difference in our lives.
It should not make a difference in you life. The idea is to draw the same amount regardless day 1 whether delaying or not.
The difference is by filing early you will be a whole lot more dependent on markets and rates and could have a worse outcome .
Survivor benefits are higher too. That may make a big difference. Your wife filing early for survivor benefits and you filing early for ss can make for a nasty cut . Just at a time she loses a ss check , has to file single and may have rmd's coming up
Mathjak, if the top earner decides to suspend at age 68 and gain another 8% a year until 70 (16% total), I understand that the spouse's benefit would also be suspended as of the May 2016 change.
Let's say the spouse's benefit is a combo of the spouse's earned benefit and spousal benefit:
1. Could the spouse go back and claim their own earned benefit while suspended or would nothing be claimed during the suspension?
2. Would the spousal benefit rise and then be 50% of the top earner's benefit at age 70?
3. So technically the couple would gain 16% on the top earner's benefit and half that sum (8%) for the spouse for a 24% increase total for the couple following a 2 year suspension. Is this correct?
My relative has found the SS office to give incorrect info on several occasions unfortunately and is totally frustrated. Thanks for any help.
No spousal gets paid while anyone is suspended. The party who's record is being used must be collecting .
The spouse always gets their own benefit . If they filed earlier than fra than they alwsys get a reduced benefit at any age.
If 1/2 your spouses full is more than your full had you waited until
your fra then the difference between the two is added to your early benefit.
If you filed early you will always be at less than 1/2 your spouses except for survivor benefits.
If you file at fra and 1/2 his full is larger than yours than you get 1/2 his full rate. His filing date has no effect on you as long as he is collecting . You neither gain anything or lose anything based on when he collects. It is always based on 1/2 his full less your full
I have some good savings and IRA, etc. but I may start taking my SS at 63 anyway.
Why? Well, we (wife and I) are currently living high on the hog and it will help finance that for a while. If life is for living, enjoyment and helping others (especially our kids), then we might as well party on because who knows what tomorrow will bring?
And - we have plenty put away for tomorrow anyway.
I can't see any scenario where the difference between what I get now and what I would get at 66 will make a real difference in our lives.
We're in the same boat as far as finances and have several options that all appear to indicate whatever choice we make will easily cover expenses while providing more than enough discretionary funds to cover hobbies, travel and helping the kids (even though paying for their college educations seems to have already helped them get off to a great start).
That said we're now close to certain that I, as a max earner for my career, will delay till 70. And earlier this year I was sure I would collect at 62 for the same reasons you cited. My reasons for joining the delay camp are to ensure a max survivor check for my wife. Generating a monthly income less reliant on investments. Potentially lower taxes over a retirement lifetime.
We should to be able to spend the same amount each year regardless of how we draw from the buckets. It's really all about simplifying the process.
^ If husband files at FRA does that automatically put the wife at 50%? Or does she have to wait for FRA to get half?
FRA is everything for couples seeking spousal benefits if like us you're in 66+ and 67 FRA bracket. In our case my wife will collect her own benefit at 62 and I'll delay at which point we're each collecting our own benefits. We're not looking at a spousal benefit. However in the event of my untimely demise she would claim my significantly higher delayed benefit as a survivor and give up her own benefit.
If you are in the same late FRA bracket as we are and are not eligible for any of the file and suspend strategies that were eliminated then I'm fairly certain your spouse needs to reach full FRA in order to receive a full 50% spousal benefit.
I wonder how many people decide to wait until 66, and die at age 65. Perish the thought.
I took mine at 62 - didn't really need to, but boy have I enjoyed life since!
If you die at 65 and didn't get a chance to collect SS, is it really going to matter?
To quote Hilarious Clinton, "what difference does it make?"
Why in the world would you care....you're planted in the ground.
Also, the IRS taxes Social Security. So, the earlier the age that you take it, the sooner you give back some of it in taxes.
Good point. Why ask for trouble? Leave it in the loney bin.
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.
