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.
then no . you can only take your own . he can take 1/2 yours though instead of his own.. he qualify's for restricted application on you when you file and he is fra .
I am always confused about the SS and spousal benefits since the change. If my husband takes SS at FRA and I take it 2 years later at my FRA (getting half of his) can I let mine grow and take my own at 70?
At FRA, I would get almost same amount on my own record as I would on his (getting half his)
Now that I am done with the process and having done what you wanted, I can understand both sides of the issue as to why it was rescinded. It was a strategy that was very workable for some but not fully by all. It was really great if both spouses had high incomes as taking spousal from 66-70 on half of a higher income spouses benefits really minimized the impact of delaying.
When I compare the contribution and distribution rules of SS with those of our pensions it is obvious why SS is broken.
I'm 63 currently. I have many friends that chose to begin their SS at 62. My financial advisors recommend to me that I wait until 70 to take mine because of the substantial retirement assets I have. My wife will take hers at her FRA.
I periodically review this plan and it still continues to make the most sense for me. When I look at SS, had I taken it at 62, I'd be receiving $1800/mo. Waiting until age 70 to take SS will give me a monthly payment of $3300, a pretty substantial increase. The crossover point, the age at which the total SS received by waiting exceeds the total SS received by starting at 62 appears to be the age of 79. Not sure if that really means anything but if I live to 90 (my father made it to 89 and he was in terrible health.....I'm in excellent health), taking SS at 62 gives me a total received amount of $604,800. Taking SS at 70 gives me a total of $792,000. A substantial difference. Now, if I needed the monthly cash flow at 62, I'd have jumped on it. As it is however, I'll gladly wait until 70.
And it is important to remember that that $3300 at age 70 is in age 62 dollars. The actual check you will get at 70 will be increased by whatever the COL increases are. If they average 1.5% (which, honestly for thr last 3 years, they have not, but that can't last forever) then the actual check will be closer to $3700. ( where the $1800 check would be closer to $2000)
And it is important to remember that that $3300 at age 70 is in age 62 dollars. The actual check you will get at 70 will be increased by whatever the COL increases are. If they average 1.5% (which, honestly for thr last 3 years, they have not, but that can't last forever) then the actual check will be closer to $3700. ( where the $1800 check would be closer to $2000)
That is a very key point and because the age 70 check is higher the actual dollar increase from COLA is larger and because of compounding the gap increases each year. I have a newer updated perspective about all of this since I have started collecting at age 69 and my wife did at 62.
I'm 63 currently. I have many friends that chose to begin their SS at 62. My financial advisors recommend to me that I wait until 70 to take mine because of the substantial retirement assets I have. My wife will take hers at her FRA.
I periodically review this plan and it still continues to make the most sense for me. When I look at SS, had I taken it at 62, I'd be receiving $1800/mo. Waiting until age 70 to take SS will give me a monthly payment of $3300, a pretty substantial increase. The crossover point, the age at which the total SS received by waiting exceeds the total SS received by starting at 62 appears to be the age of 79. Not sure if that really means anything but if I live to 90 (my father made it to 89 and he was in terrible health.....I'm in excellent health), taking SS at 62 gives me a total received amount of $604,800. Taking SS at 70 gives me a total of $792,000. A substantial difference. Now, if I needed the monthly cash flow at 62, I'd have jumped on it. As it is however, I'll gladly wait until 70.
You can't just look at absolute dollars because that overlooks the present value of money (the value of those dollars you receive for 8 years before turning 70). At age 62, the present value breakeven of starting at 62 was about age 83 (which is also about the expected lifespan of someone 62). Obviously, if you outlive the actuarial tables, your results may vary. We chose to take at 62 and let our IRAs grow untouched. That was the right decision for us as RMDs start next year.
You can't just look at absolute dollars because that overlooks the present value of money (the value of those dollars you receive for 8 years before turning 70). At age 62, the present value breakeven of starting at 62 was about age 83 (which is also about the expected lifespan of someone 62). Obviously, if you outlive the actuarial tables, your results may vary. We chose to take at 62 and let our IRAs grow untouched. That was the right decision for us as RMDs start next year.
Because of pensions in addition to SS we had a fixed income goal for age 70 and were willing to let our investments fluctuate knowing that at age 70 or we could pour in the investments and start building big time.
You can't just look at absolute dollars because that overlooks the present value of money (the value of those dollars you receive for 8 years before turning 70). At age 62, the present value breakeven of starting at 62 was about age 83 (which is also about the expected lifespan of someone 62). Obviously, if you outlive the actuarial tables, your results may vary. We chose to take at 62 and let our IRAs grow untouched. That was the right decision for us as RMDs start next year.
Except that with current interest rates, factoring a PV rate into it would only yield a very low percentage every year (2%?), far below the 8%/yr that it grows while waiting until 70.
it isn't an 6-8% return though . you have the payment increasing by 6-8% but to get that you are giving up checks , spousal benefits and may be spending down invested dollars delaying. your actual return is zero until about 22-24 years out .
Where do affluent retirees get their income? Portfolios invested in stocks and bonds, you might think - but you'd be wrong. Turns out many are living mainly on Social Security and good old pensions.
Some might dispute how affluence is defined etc but it might be a interesting read to some
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.
