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.
62. I am less interested in getting back more over the long run by waiting than I am in being able to spend the money while I'm young and healthy enough to be able to enjoy life now. My pension covers the necessities, but the extra $$$ from SS permits me to travel more and to eat out and otherwise enjoy life. I hope I live a long enough life that I would have ended up with more money by waiting, but what good is a few extra dollars when I'm 80 if I'm not healthy enough to spend it? Nothing is guaranteed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
generally the choice between delaying or early is not going to be about breaking even .
if you are living off your portfolio it is about do you want to be more dependent on markets ,rates and inflation for 8 years and as much as 70% less dependent for what could be decades latert ? or more dependent on longevity .
it boils down to more market risk or more longevity risk . take your pick .
I'm still a long ways away from collecting SS, but these are all considerations for me. I'm in one of those cohorts where the no-brainer conventional wisdom is to delay as long as possible. However, when I actually calculated the break-even years based on my projected benefit amounts (and playing with discount rates), it doesn't happen until around age 80 or later. My grandparents who have passed away so far have died at 73, 71, and 73. The one remaining is 79, not sure how much longer she has. Good health does not seem to run in my family. So "living into my 90's" would not be an entirely safe assumption at this point.
Obviously, it's still too far out to tell, but I'm not comfortable basing my retirement planning around "wait until 70 to collect SS" (assuming that's even an option by then).
I'm still a long ways away from collecting SS, but these are all considerations for me. I'm in one of those cohorts where the no-brainer conventional wisdom is to delay as long as possible. However, when I actually calculated the break-even years based on my projected benefit amounts (and playing with discount rates), it doesn't happen until around age 80 or later. My grandparents who have passed away so far have died at 73, 71, and 73. The one remaining is 79, not sure how much longer she has. Good health does not seem to run in my family. So "living into my 90's" would not be an entirely safe assumption at this point.
Obviously, it's still too far out to tell, but I'm not comfortable basing my retirement planning around "wait until 70 to collect SS" (assuming that's even an option by then).
Yes longevity should be considered.
My thinking is if you can afford to delay collecting SS you should do it. If you die before the break even point you will never know. If you have a spouse they can collect your amount if it is higher so there is still a win.
An exception might be for a married couple with one spouse having minimal benefits. They should probably collect when they retire.
I did not know my wife could file at 60, her current age. As I am 58 can she file against my earnings now or would she have to wait until I would have been eligible in 4 years? Can I assume she would receive my age 62 benefit if she files when I would have been 62 (she would be 64)?
I did not know my wife could file at 60, her current age. As I am 58 can she file against my earnings now or would she have to wait until I would have been eligible in 4 years? Can I assume she would receive my age 62 benefit if she files when I would have been 62 (she would be 64)?
I believe she can only file if she is a widow. Not good for you.
In May, 2016 the rules on social security changed regarding the file and suspend. That no longer happens.
Compare the poll now to what it was in 2011.
The big difference I see is a much higher percentage waiting until 70.
I did not know my wife could file at 60, her current age. As I am 58 can she file against my earnings now or would she have to wait until I would have been eligible in 4 years? Can I assume she would receive my age 62 benefit if she files when I would have been 62 (she would be 64)?
nooooooooooooo SURVIVOR BENEFITS ARE 60 NOT RETIREMENT BENEFITS .
she can only file at 62 and she only gets her own benefit .
when you file if 1/2 your full is more than her full she will get an adjusted difference added to hers .
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.
