Why I took Social Security at age 62 (marriage, legal, smart)
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.
depends on a lot of things now with spousal benefits . if she has her own work record things get a little complicated
Just curious. I was on disability at 62. I don't think I ever worked enough to recieve social security. I took my decieased husband's ss at 62. I'll be 65 in about six months.
My question is this, assuming I don't qualify on my own, does anything except being able to get medicare change at 65? The other question concerns property. My son is planning to move and have a space for me. I've already mentioned I want something detached. I don't do well without my own alone place. I'm thinking one of the detached mother in law builds which would actually be slightly larger than my shotgun house.
If/when I move, I want to sell my house. I wouldn't get a lot, maybe 15 to 18 k, but if that goes into my bank account, does SS make me spend it down? I'm perfectly willing to spend it to get the small house I want, and hopefully it be in my name. What would SS do with this?
If anyone can point me to the answers I'd much appreciate it since it plays a big part in how we do this.
Nice, seems like a no brainer to at least try and swing it without it then. You can always file if times are tough.
Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reneeh63
You can file at any time and it is prorated. That's the great thing! You don't have to make a big leap of faith that you can "last" until FRA, or last until 70 if you "skip past" FRA. You can take it one day at a time and if things get tough, file if you really have to - you've gained something at least by waiting as long as you did.
SS does not care at all what you have saved. At 65 the only thing that will change is you are on medicare. In most places a detached living dwelling is considerably more expensive, taxed higher, and even sometimes not allowed. He needs to check his zoning requirements. Two different owners can not own two different dwellings on the same owners property.
SS does not care at all what you have saved. At 65 the only thing that will change is you are on medicare. In most places a detached living dwelling is considerably more expensive, taxed higher, and even sometimes not allowed. He needs to check his zoning requirements. Two different owners can not own two different dwellings on the same owners property.
Thanks. The places he's thinking of are set up with an extra dwelling. I wouldn't care if it was in my name or not so long as it was understood it was my refuge. The areas are set up with a two family arraingement set up already.
So if I get shifted from the aca policy (never needed, cost nothing) to medicare, that would be good. I do have costs but added them up and with maximum costs wouldn't meet the deductable.
Thanks. The places he's thinking of are set up with an extra dwelling. I wouldn't care if it was in my name or not so long as it was understood it was my refuge. The areas are set up with a two family arraingement set up already.
So if I get shifted from the aca policy (never needed, cost nothing) to medicare, that would be good. I do have costs but added them up and with maximum costs wouldn't meet the deductable.
I'm confused. Are you asking whether you will need to pay for Medicare Parts B and D versus receiving a subsidy for each?
If you delay you may disqualify yourself from getting state assistance with medicare part b. that is what I am looking into now. If I wait much longer (I am 63 now) I will not qualify for assistance with medicare b (doctors). Then all the waiting to get a few more dollars is cancelled out by the ridiculous cost per month for medicare b. I want to move to a country that cares more about equal access to health care. The rich should not be the only people who can get healtcare.
To clarify -- whether you need to apply for Medicare when you turn 65 depends on whether you're still working at a place that provides health benefits. I'm 69, and have full health insurance because I'm working full time - and because of this, I don't have to file for Medicare yet. I will have to do so when I leave my full time job and no longer have benefits through the company. I can either file for part A now and put off part B until when I leave the company, or (because of a special exclusion) wait until I leave the company to file for it all.
I'll be leaving my company either next year or the year after. At that point, I'll file for Medicare and part B. But it may be different for you if you work for a small company since they can make older workers file for Medicare. Here's an article from AARP that makes it pretty clear:
...I don't have to file for Medicare yet. I will have to do so when I leave my full time job and no longer have benefits through the company...
I'm sure you know this, but for the benefit of others, if you find yourself in Vasily's situation, when you do leave employment that has provided you with medical coverage, be absolutely sure you get a letter from the company stating that your medical was covered through the work's group policy. If you don't have that letter, you will have to pay a stiff penalty every month for as long as you exchange carbon dioxide for oxygen on this planet.
I'm sure you know this, but for the benefit of others, if you find yourself in Vasily's situation, when you do leave employment that has provided you with medical coverage, be absolutely sure you get a letter from the company stating that your medical was covered through the work's group policy. If you don't have that letter, you will have to pay a stiff penalty every month for as long as you exchange carbon dioxide for oxygen on this planet.
Actually, I didn't know that -- adding it to my retirement to do list. Thanks.
Without reading all the posts in this thread, I say it depends on the variables involved in your decision. I think it's difference for someone like you who has done physical work (my mother's father went into the coal mines at the age of nine) and someone like myself who has been behind a desk his whole career. Employment prospects also factor in.
If I were in your shoes I think I would have made the same decision. I was laid off at the age of 62, and very nearly filed because I was having a hard time finding a new job. I was lucky and found something thanks to a friend, but if I hadn't been I would have started taking social security. You do what you have to do.
EVERYONE SHOULD READ THE ARTICLE YOU LINKED.
We didn't need our SS early - but both my husband and I took it at age 62. Why? Because our break-even point - the point at which we would start to get more by deferring to age 70 was - IIRC - about age 81/82 or so (this break even calculator used to be on the SS website - but disappeared perhaps 5 years ago or so). And that assumed we spent the money - and didn't invest it and make money off it (which we've done).
Will me and/or my husband live to 81+? Don't have a clue. If we die at 77 - we're big winners. If we die at 90 - we're losers. My theory was a bird in the hand...
You can't seriously call that (or any thing from The Motley Fool) an actual serious article. They are lightly disguised infomercials to hook you to visit their site and "learn about little known strategies", (that everyone actually already knows about) to buy in to their products and increase visit counts. They have been peddling that same horse pucky for years and years. The above linked "article" only basically says smart people claim SS early because they can retire earlier. Because on average it makes little difference as to how much you get from SS. Well, duh, that is the whole point of actuarial tables. It absolutely is not the right thing for everyone to delay filing for a better retirement. If fact, for most people, delaying filing is not even possible, so of course filing early is the better choice, it's the only choice.
Remember. The percentages gained as delayed credits in SS are exactly the same today as they were in say, 2000. EVERYTHING else in the world of investing and borrowing has changed except SS. So if you could buy a 5% or better 10 year CD at age 62, it WAS a no brainer to collect early. Annuities were far more attractive back then, as life expectancy was also lower and rates higher. It was easy to make a rational argument for not delaying, especially if you didn't need the money, like yourself! In fact, even today, if you really don't need your SS, there is little to be gained by delaying.
Delaying is only logical if the math works based on your economic, marital, savings, tax rate, status and desired retirement age. Is a $20k COLA, survivor inherited annuity at 70 for $240k worth it to you (or $10k for $120k, etc) or is it not. It is not rocket science, but it is deeply dependent on many many factors that require a realistic appraisal of ones own situation. If you live in a state where all retirement income is taxed and SS is not, that alone can be worth $2000 or more in net take home income per year. Conversely if you live where there is no state income tax, that is a non factor. And so it goes, with each variable of the equation. Which is way more than anyone wants to get in to on a forum.
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.
