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.
Meanwhile, those of you sitting around waiting to maximize every dollar are just getting older and good retirement years are just passing you by.
I am living on less, enjoying every day, and I am FREE!
You all assume too much...health and longevity plus financial security is not guaranteed. Take it while you can, is my recommendation to anyone who can swing it NOW. Life is too short to waste any more of it on working for others.
As soon as I read your post I knew you would be pounced upon. Like mathjak and perry the decision to delay SS will not affect my retirement age at sometime in my very early 60's. I will be out there enjoying life. But by delaying and withdrawing from some of my savings and investments to compensate for not filing for SS at 62 I can actually draw several thousand dollars more for those 8 years and then cut back when I do file. The extra social security will reduce the draw from my own investments, provide tax benefits and provides my spouse with a significantly larger benefit if I check out.
If you're a regular reader of the retirement section you would know the people advocating delaying SS are NOT sitting around. A lot of thought went in to their decision.
I retired a bit early 2 years ago (age 60) due to my position being eliminated and being forced to take a pension. What I would warn you about is the cost of health insurance. Mine has gone up substantially since my COBRA termed out, and if the new health care bill becomes law, it's projected it will increase dramatically due to my age and retirement income bracket. Under the ACA older person's premiums can't exceed 3 times younger people's; in the new bill, that increases to 5 times. If you retire with over $75K a year in income, you'll get a nice tax credit. Anything up to that, you'll owe up to $3,000 a year more, depending on the county you live in (there are maps you can find online with a breakdown by the CBO).
Do not underestimate this expense. I have the cheapest plan I can find, and between the premiums and deductible, I have to shell out over $13,000 a year before my plan pays for anything other than one annual exam (which includes no blood tests) and one mammogram. I needed 8 additional mammogram pictures last fall (everything was fine) and paid for those out of pocket. I have no prescription drug coverage, but don't need any. If I did, that would be an additional expense.
So plan carefully. I could be pumping a lot of money into consumer discretionary spending if my health insurance wasn't so expensive.
This, this, and this. I am still working at 62 only because I need health insurance and I have a GREAT plan through my job. As a widow, I could be getting $1639/month in survivor benefits and let my own SS accumulate until I am 70 at which point it would be over $3400/month. I have sufficient assets.
BUT.
I have a pre-existing condition (thyroid) so without ACA I am uninsurable, plus I am over 60. Even under ACA, I live in a non-Medicaid-expansion state, so there is ONE provider, and premiums range between $900-$1400/month plus deductibles of $6000-$7500/year plus additional out-of-pocket max. By working, I not only continue to get paid, and put more money away for retirement, but I am paying $49/paycheck for premiums ($1274/YEAR) with a $1600 deductible. Between uncertainty and the low cost of my current coverage, I'd be stupid to retire now.
And I also know from hanging around the retirement section that some of us are rich and some of us are poor. Two different worlds, my friend. Just because you are well off financially doesn't make your opinion ''right'' for the rest of us. And none of us are going to live forever. Everyone has a right to their opinion based on their situation.
facts are facts and opinions are just that- opinions .
then there are personal choices not based on fact and that is okay .. whether someone decides to file early or delay is a personal choice . but that does not change the math or facts . there is nothing wrong with whatever choice is made as long as you understand the ramifications of a choice.
the problems are when folks think they understand something but they really have a very narrow view of the way things work, but little understanding in realty as to all the details or the ramifications of the other aspects and interactions they are not aware of . because then they are making a choice on half a head of information .
our brains can only rationalize with what we think we know . but all the things we don't know are never entered in to the equation .
that is why i hang with the enemy a lot of times . i want to know the other side of things . hanging with those who support your view or know what you know do not increase your knowledge at all about the other side .
if you look at my posts from years ago my views on things have changed totally opposite as i learned more of what i didn't know . it is likely they will change again as new srtudy's and research show there are better ways .
Last edited by mathjak107; 03-17-2017 at 05:55 PM..
''Facts'' in your world are not ''facts'' in mine or some others. You seem intolerable of any one who does not agree with your calculations as they work in your world and might be irrelevant in someone elses.
Why are you even riding my case MJ? Beer Belly asked for opinions and I and others are giving them. I prefer at this point to let the thread continue on point. I hope you do too.
No one is riding your case. Facts are facts in anyones world. You made the comment that its better to enjoy life now with less money, rather than sitting around suffering until the checks come in. What the facts are is that no one should ever advocate that for anyone. Ideally you should retire when you want to. Income be dammed (spelled wrong intentionally). So why do you see anyone recommending filing later as telling you to either suffer with less now, or work and not retire when you want to, in order to delay? No one should ever recommend that filing later makes sense for everyone. It doesn't. It doesn't even make sense for the majority of people. No one is putting anyone down that chooses to file at 62, or because they are "poor" or just " not rich". But in the same vein, you are saying how much better it is to collect less now and live off that now, rather than delay. There is absolutely nothing we said that implies it is wrong or denigrating to file at 62. Facts are facts, retire early and delay if you can afford it, or don't.
If the SS rules change or I know I have a short time to live, I would file in a heartbeat. But apparently, it makes sense for those that file at 62 because they have no other alternative, to tout it as fact that if you delay filing, you are somehow short changing your life by delaying.
If you were to say that the only way you would be able to delay was to delay work or suffer with less by doing without an adequate income while delayed, most people would tell you not to delay. If however you wanted to work until 70, more power to you. Those are all personal choices.
I applaud beerbelly for taking the first steps at analysis of his future. If my spouse ever told me that I can't retire when I want to and to suck it up or deal with it, ESPECIALLY if physical pain is shortening my life or reducing the quality of life, I'd show them how a door works.
Last edited by Perryinva; 03-17-2017 at 06:44 PM..
Meanwhile, those of you sitting around waiting to maximize every dollar are just getting older and good retirement years are just passing you by. I am living on less, enjoying every day, and I am FREE!
I can tell you as a healthy 60 year old who still very much enjoys her low six figure income job providing healthcare to our most deserving citizens our Veterans, I am certainly not sitting around nor do I feel oppression in any way from my job but quite the opposite. With my income and 5 weeks of annual paid vacation I have the time and income that allows me to travel now pretty much when and where I want, within reason can purchase whatever I want, and additionally fund charities that are meaningful to me that enhance the lives of others this spending has very little impact on my retirement income from FRA to the end of my life.
I can certainly appreciate the reasons that led you to retire at 62, but if I were to do the same I would gain some freedom but the trade off would be a significantly reduced retirement income for the rest of my life. Being a FERS retiree the bulk of my retirement income comes from 3 steams which are a pension, TSP/401K account, and Social Security, so retiring at age 62 not only is my SS significantly reduced, so will be my pension and the balance of my TSP/401K account. Working 4.5 additional years to FRA significantly enhances all my retirement streams of income, and my working income those additional years will allow me to save a good sized emergency fund account, and additionally have the funds combined with first claiming a widow's survivor benefit to allow me to defer my SS to my higher age 70 benefit. So what this all means for me personally, retiring at 62 instead of at my FRA of 66.6 I will reduce my annual retirement income by $36,000 for the rest of my life.
You are happy with your decision retiring at 62 and are living on less and still are able to enjoy life and I say in all sincerity good for you!! Since I do not encounter the same work difficulties that you did that led to your retirement, it would be a foolish decision for me to give up $36,000 in annual income which will not only enhance my enjoyment in retirement, it will allow me to continue with the same level of charitable giving which enhances the lives of those less fortunate than myself as well as the lives of my two grandchildren which I would not be able to continue to do with what would be my age 62 retirement income.
Everyone's choice when to retire is equally valid because those choices are made from very individual and unique circumstances.
And I also know from hanging around the retirement section that some of us are rich and some of us are poor. Two different worlds, my friend. Just because you are well off financially doesn't make your opinion ''right'' for the rest of us. And none of us are going to live forever. Everyone has a right to their opinion based on their situation.
Think I'm aware of both sides of poor and well off. Born to a single teen mother on welfare and was on the free lunch program in NYC. Thankfully I rose above that life but my mom started collecting SS at 62 because she had no choice. I've helped her out on numerous occasions over the years.
My response to your post had absolutely nothing, zero to do with the financial decision people have to make. It was in response to your assertion that people that are delaying collecting SS are missing out on retirement. That in your words are busy trying to get every last penny and are not free. Not living their lives. That was the overall gist of your post.
I'm not telling anyone what to do. In my opinion you can do whatever you want, whatever is best for your situation. I'm going to do what's right for me and my wife. All I wanted to do was reply to your post and say that you can retire at a reasonable age and live your life and "be free" and still delay social security. Provided you have accumulated the resources to do so.
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.
