Delay Social Securiy

[Francie]

I am wondering if it makes sense to utilize my investments when I retire at 62, then take SS when I turn 70 for the maximum payout, versus taking SS at 62 or 66.

I welcome any opinions.

[pooh]

I took mine at 62, also, after doing some math. I got less money per month if taken at 62, but more money over my lifetime. Did calculations up to age 75 I believe....it's been a while since I did the math, but it worked out better for me and for Mike to take our SS at age 62.

[RichieLion]

I took mine at 62, also, after doing some math. I got less money per month if taken at 62, but more money over my lifetime. Did calculations up to age 75 I believe....it's been a while since I did the math, but it worked out better for me and for Mike to take our SS at age 62.

That's what I did. I figured how much money I would get taking the money at 62 until I turned 66; and then how much time it would take to make up all that money I didn't get for those 4 years with the increased payment.

It turned out I would be at least 76 years old until I broke even, and then I would at that point start getting ahead by a few hundred dollars a month.

I figured I'd take the money while I'm young enough to enjoy it.

[barb1191]

I chose to take my deceased husband's SS when I retired at 62, and at 70, switched to my SS to get the higher rate. Worked out fine for me.

[angiefox10]

I will collect half my husbands SS until I am 70 and then take the max on mine, for an increase of 64%. It's an 8% increase every year.

Edit... My husband is still alive.... Now......

[aljetmet]

I am wondering if it makes sense to utilize my investments when I retire at 62, then take SS when I turn 70 for the maximum payout, versus taking SS at 62 or 66.

I welcome any opinions.

Most of us have that same question. The problem is to begin a financial analysis is to know all your financial details and your life expectancy.
Can your investments at say 3% return provide enough money to provide you the income you will be foregoing? Do you know how much you need?

There are so many variables.

My advice is to find a good retirement simulator and feed in your data and start SS at different ages. Social security website will provide the info you need for your expected benefits for each age.

Good Luck.

By the way, the president of the US should not influence your decisions...

[skyguy79]

That's what I did. I figured how much money I would get taking the money at 62 until I turned 66; and then how much time it would take to make up all that money I didn't get for those 4 years with the increased payment.

It turned out I would be at least 76 years old until I broke even, and then I would at that point start getting ahead by a few hundred dollars a month.

I figured I'd take the money while I'm young enough to enjoy it.This was the same basis I used in deciding to take my SS at 62. If one is fortunate enough to live to 70, can you imagine how old they would be before making up the benefits they would have lost over the 8 years between 62 and 70?

[BobKat1]

Most of us have that same question. The problem is to begin a financial analysis is to know all your financial details and your life expectancy.
Can your investments at say 3% return provide enough money to provide you the income you will be foregoing? Do you know how much you need?

There are so many variables.

My advice is to find a good retirement simulator and feed in your data and start SS at different ages. Social security website will provide the info you need for your expected benefits for each age.

Good Luck.

By the way, the president of the US should not influence your decisions...

Amen to that...

[BarryRX]

same decision for me. I took mine at age 63. If I waited until I was 66 there would be a 20 year payback. I have no guarantee I will live until 83 so I took it immediately. I figure if 90 bucks a month is going to make a difference in my life 20 years from now, then I'm in trouble anyway!!

[mmac321]

Now I am not 62 yet but I read this somewhere a couple of years ago and will ask SS if I can do at the appropriate time. I will take SS when I turn 62. When my wife turns 62 she will take the spousal benefit (half of my monthly benefit while I still take my full SS monthly benefit) she will suspend her SS benefit and it will continue to grow. At the appropriate time she will take her higher SS benefit. I have heard that if a spouse has not worked a day in their life they are eligible for this spousal benefit. There are lot's of ways to manipulate your SS benefit. Like I said I haven't tried this yet but it may be worth looking into. You may wish to start reading SS benefits on the net under AARP. Good Luck!!

[angiefox10]

Now I am not 62 yet but I read this somewhere a couple of years ago and will ask SS if I can do at the appropriate time. I will take SS when I turn 62. When my wife turns 62 she will take the spousal benefit (half of my monthly benefit while I still take my full SS monthly benefit) she will suspend her SS benefit and it will continue to grow. At the appropriate time she will take her higher SS benefit. I have heard that if a spouse has not worked a day in their life they are eligible for this spousal benefit. There are lot's of ways to manipulate your SS benefit. Like I said I haven't tried this yet but it may be worth looking into. You may wish to start reading SS benefits on the net under AARP. Good Luck!!

This is exactly what I will do. See my previous post!

[jimbo2012]

same decision for me. I took mine at age 63. If I waited until I was 66 there would be a 20 year payback. I have no guarantee I will live until 83 so I took it immediately. I figure if 90 bucks a month is going to make a difference in my life 20 years from now, then I'm in trouble anyway!!

I agree

[Bill-n-Brillo]

I am wondering if it makes sense to utilize my investments when I retire at 62, then take SS when I turn 70 for the maximum payout, versus taking SS at 62 or 66. ......

You might also want to compare and contrast holding onto your investments (and what you'd anticipate as a reasonable rate of return on them) versus dipping into them at age 62 when you retire.

Lots of avenues and things to consider - everybody's personal situation with drive some of their decisions.

Bill :)

[Bill-n-Brillo]

..... Edit... My husband is still alive.... Now......

I've heard he's walking a very tight line at present...... :wave:

Bill :)

[angiefox10]

I've heard he's walking a very tight line at present...... :wave:

Bill :)

I do the math! Lucky for him... I'm bad at math! :1rotfl:

[Hal :-)]

Now I am not 62 yet but I read this somewhere a couple of years ago and will ask SS if I can do at the appropriate time. I will take SS when I turn 62. When my wife turns 62 she will take the spousal benefit (half of my monthly benefit while I still take my full SS monthly benefit) she will suspend her SS benefit and it will continue to grow. At the appropriate time she will take her higher SS benefit. I have heard that if a spouse has not worked a day in their life they are eligible for this spousal benefit. There are lot's of ways to manipulate your SS benefit. Like I said I haven't tried this yet but it may be worth looking into. You may wish to start reading SS benefits on the net under AARP. Good Luck!!

You're close, but there's a problem. You can't take the spousal benefit to let you're own benefit grow until you reach Full Retirement Age (FRA). A spouse can take their spousal benefit at 62 (ex. if they've never work, as you say). It'll be appropriately reduced but they can not get a larger benefit on their own earnings later. The "suspend" situation is, you reach FRA, apply and suspend, and your spouse takes their spousal while yours continues to grow.

I'm 65 now. My younger wife already took SS on her earnings at 62. I'll take my spousal benefit (1/2 hers) next year, at 66. Let mine increase 8%/yr till 70.

As someone said, this is a complicated issue, it depends on marital and work situation, health, expected benefit, personal assets, etc.

I chose my path because my benefit is the larger one and it will be the survivors benefit when one passes. The break even point is around 80 regardless, but somehow I thought the COLA adjustment on the larger benefit would be especially helpful for the survivor. I just had a friend lose his wife and he said he was really surprised when he suddenly realized he was taking a big income hit losing his wife's SS and pension.

[angiefox10]

We took into consideration that women generally live longer than men.

[CMANN]

I am wondering if it makes sense to utilize my investments when I retire at 62, then take SS when I turn 70 for the maximum payout, versus taking SS at 62 or 66.

I welcome any opinions.

I had the same question. I called the Social Security administration and asked them. They ran the numbers for me and showed me that it was wise not to wait. I would advise you to likewise called the Social Security administration and asked them.

[rjm1cc]

I am wondering if it makes sense to utilize my investments when I retire at 62, then take SS when I turn 70 for the maximum payout, versus taking SS at 62 or 66.

I welcome any opinions.
I would assume I am going to live forever so making sure I break even on the distributions would not be part of my decision process.

You SS benefit will increase for each year you delay. I look at this as purchasing a fix annuity that has a CPI built in. You can not get a better annuity deal. The cost of the annuity is the payments you are not getting and you will be spending down your current investments. But your SS will last your life and your investments may not.

Also look at file and suspend. At normal retirement age (I think both have to reach this age) the higher income earner files for benefits and suspends (never gets the benefits) and then the spouse files on the account and gets the benefits. This could leave the other spouses account to continue to grow. If the spouse dies after starting to collect at age 70 the survivor gets the higher benefit.

This can get quite complicated so you might want to hire a fee only financial planner to help with this question. If you do make sure the person understands the entire process. I think their is a web site that address this but I can not recall how to find it.

Without knowing all of the details, I would spend your investments now and postpone SS. But remember when you both reach retirement age you can qualify on your spouse account (not sure but I think you both could collect on the others account) and it will not reduce your delayed benefits.

I have done the file and suspend so it does work although it took a few months of work to get the SS administration to properly process the paperwork. They are not too knowledgeable on the paper work process.

[Ragman]

I would assume I am going to live forever so making sure I break even on the distributions would not be part of my decision process.

You SS benefit will increase for each year you delay. I look at this as purchasing a fix annuity that has a CPI built in. You can not get a better annuity deal. The cost of the annuity is the payments you are not getting and you will be spending down your current investments. But your SS will last your life and your investments may not.

Also look at file and suspend. At normal retirement age (I think both have to reach this age) the higher income earner files for benefits and suspends (never gets the benefits) and then the spouse files on the account and gets the benefits. This could leave the other spouses account to continue to grow. If the spouse dies after starting to collect at age 70 the survivor gets the higher benefit.

This can get quite complicated so you might want to hire a fee only financial planner to help with this question. If you do make sure the person understands the entire process. I think their is a web site that address this but I can not recall how to find it.

Without knowing all of the details, I would spend your investments now and postpone SS. But remember when you both reach retirement age you can qualify on your spouse account (not sure but I think you both could collect on the others account) and it will not reduce your delayed benefits.

I have done the file and suspend so it does work although it took a few months of work to get the SS administration to properly process the paperwork. They are not too knowledgeable on the paper work process.

:agree: On the fixed annuity analysis.

An individual's or couples' health and general financial situation are extremely important.

Just like Medicare, SS is a very complicated decision.

[thekeithfan]

same decision for me. I took mine at age 63. If I waited until I was 66 there would be a 20 year payback. I have no guarantee I will live until 83 so I took it immediately. I figure if 90 bucks a month is going to make a difference in my life 20 years from now, then I'm in trouble anyway!!

Twenty years? Not sure about that, I think it is much less than that. You should see a financial analyst I think you are wrong ... sorry. If it was 20 years no one would wait.

[bandsdavis]

That's what I did. I figured how much money I would get taking the money at 62 until I turned 66; and then how much time it would take to make up all that money I didn't get for those 4 years with the increased payment.

It turned out I would be at least 76 years old until I broke even, and then I would at that point start getting ahead by a few hundred dollars a month.

I figured I'd take the money while I'm young enough to enjoy it.

Richie, I did exactly the same calculation and made the same decision. For me it was age 78 where the "breakeven point" came.

[BarryRX]

Twenty years? Not sure about that, I think it is much less than that. You should see a financial analyst I think you are wrong ... sorry. If it was 20 years no one would wait.
You are correct. I was doing some rounding which was inaccurate. My benefits from SS show that for each year I wait I get about a 7% increase, or about 21% for waiting 3 years. I currently get approx. $22,000/yr. If I wait 3 more years I would get $4620 more per year, but I would've earned $66,000 in those 3 years for a payback of 14.3 years, not 20 years. But if you count the $66,000 of my own funds that I have not had to use growing at a modest 3% per year, then the payback grows to 15.6 years. So it looks like the payback age is about 76 or 77 years old.

[BobKat1]

My wife and I started taking SS at age 62 for many of the reasons mentioned here.

As luck would have it, it turned out SS was a wonderful supplement during the worst of the recession when other investments were on a roller coaster (mainly down!). It gave us a nice cushion and eliminated the need to go too deeply into other retirement savings during the late-'07-'09 period.

[rjm1cc]

My wife and I started taking SS at age 62 for many of the reasons mentioned here.

As luck would have it, it turned out SS was a wonderful supplement during the worst of the recession when other investments were on a roller coaster (mainly down!). It gave us a nice cushion and eliminated the need to go too deeply into other retirement savings during the late-'07-'09 period.

Another consideration. SS can be a great safety net. The good thing is if you do not take it at 62 you can start it when ever you need to. Like wise if you wait until 70 the extra dollars can be very helpful and are not subject to investment risks.

[mjfg154]

You're close, but there's a problem. You can't take the spousal benefit to let you're own benefit grow until you reach Full Retirement Age (FRA). A spouse can take their spousal benefit at 62 (ex. if they've never work, as you say). It'll be appropriately reduced but they can not get a larger benefit on their own earnings later. The "suspend" situation is, you reach FRA, apply and suspend, and your spouse takes their spousal while yours continues to grow.

I'm 65 now. My younger wife already took SS on her earnings at 62. I'll take my spousal benefit (1/2 hers) next year, at 66. Let mine increase 8%/yr till 70.

As someone said, this is a complicated issue, it depends on marital and work situation, health, expected benefit, personal assets, etc.

I chose my path because my benefit is the larger one and it will be the survivors benefit when one passes. The break even point is around 80 regardless, but somehow I thought the COLA adjustment on the larger benefit would be especially helpful for the survivor. I just had a friend lose his wife and he said he was really surprised when he suddenly realized he was taking a big income hit losing his wife's SS and pension.
My husband and I went to SS and asked about me taking 1/2 of his SS (he is 2 years older) for me at 62 and then taking one at 70. They calculated what his and my SS would be at full retirement age (66). If 1/2 of his SS (at 66) is less than what my full retirement would be (at 66), then I could do it. As luck would have it mine would be more by just a few dollars.....darn, if I only retired a year earlier, I would have been better off.
Just remember in figuring that SS bases that type of eligibility on full retirement age amounts.

[BobKat1]

Another consideration. SS can be a great safety net. The good thing is if you do not take it at 62 you can start it when ever you need to. Like wise if you wait until 70 the extra dollars can be very helpful and are not subject to investment risks.

Yes, it's almost a no loose situation.

Our son, who works for the SSA says if you plan to live on SS you are in trouble, if you view it as a supplement in retirement, you're most likely in pretty good shape.

He said when he worked in field offices you'd be surprised at how many people are shocked when they learn they won't be able to live on SS alone in retirement.

[Mark1130]

I am in an unusual position for most couples.

My wife is 6 years older than I am. (yes, she took advantage of my innocence)

Will I be able to get 1/2 spousal benefits at 62 and delay my SS until 70 in order to get the maximum payout per month on mine?

[railroadman]

Since working for the railroad all my life, I have never paid into SS and will never receive any. Retiring twice at 60, will receive one check from railroad retirement and one check from the railroad company.

[REDCART]

I am in an unusual position for most couples.

My wife is 6 years older than I am. (yes, she took advantage of my innocence)

Will I be able to get 1/2 spousal benefits at 62 and delay my SS until 70 in order to get the maximum payout per month on mine?

If you're younger than your Full Retirement Age (FRA), let's say age 66 for arguement's sake--you must collect your own reduced retirement benefit before they'll let you claim your spouse's benefit. The rules are different if you're older than your FRA. Your FRA is determined by your DOB. Hope this makes sense.

Nothing is simple in life.

George

P.S. Does anyone besides me miss Paulette Walz, SSA's Public Affairs Specialist from the Leesburg office who had a weekly radio spot on WVLG? Paulette was the best and would be a very hard act to follow.

[Hal :-)]

I am in an unusual position for most couples.

My wife is 6 years older than I am. (yes, she took advantage of my innocence)

Will I be able to get 1/2 spousal benefits at 62 and delay my SS until 70 in order to get the maximum payout per month on mine?

You can only choice spousal while yours continues to grow after FRA (66 or 67).
Retirement Planner: Benefits For You As A Spouse? (http://ssa.gov/retire2/applying6.htm)

[keithwand]

I am in an unusual position for most couples.

My wife is 6 years older than I am. (yes, she took advantage of my innocence)

Will I be able to get 1/2 spousal benefits at 62 and delay my SS until 70 in order to get the maximum payout per month on mine?

Not so unusual any more. My wife is also 6 years older than me.
I could have taken her to her Senior prom but I was only in the 5th grade!

I "retired" when I was 48 and now at 58 am planning on taking my SS at 62.

It will already be reduced because of fewer earning years but hey something is better than nothing.

[CaptJohn]

Richie, I did exactly the same calculation and made the same decision. For me it was age 78 where the "breakeven point" came.

Ditto for me. I'm going through it now at age 64 since I was just laid off at a university but able to retire at the same time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3chFhCP5mQ

At about age 78, whether you start at 62 or 70, will collect about the same total AMOUNT. After that age is where the totals change. If you're going to live forever then wait until 70 to start collecting. If you think you'll make it to 78 or less then start earlier. How active will you be after 78? How much more will you be able to spend? Then there are those like Herv's business partner who just died before age 60 or my first cousin who died last year at age 61 and will not see any. A good crystal ball sure helps! :laugh:

[hdh1470]

life expectancy at age 62 is almost 18 years,So I think you must also think of this and leaving less for your spouse if you should be one of the 50% won't be around

[chazz1996]

Don't wait.
Life is short !

[rjm1cc]

life expectancy at age 62 is almost 18 years,So I think you must also think of this and leaving less for your spouse if you should be one of the 50% won't be around
And the life expectancy of both of you is greater than each of you. Thus the spouse will continue to get the higher benefit.

[Francie]

I want to thank all of you for taking the time and interest in my question.

I do not have a spouse and should have noted that in my question. That eliminates about 50% of the responses for me to consider.

I just turned 59 1/2 and have been investing in my 401(k) to the max allowed by my employer since 1984 and have several other investment vehicles, so I am not at all dependent on SS, but just trying to analyze the various scenarios.

Thanks again everyone! You all are just great and can't wait to meet some of you soon.

[mmac321]

Like many investment decisions it would be easy if we just knew how long we were going to live. Another word for investing is Legalized Gambling. Good Luck to all!!!

[jackz]

Strategies to Max Out Social Security Benefits - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/strategies-to-max-out-social-security-benefits.html)

[jimbo2012]

good link, tks

[rjm1cc]

Strategies to Max Out Social Security Benefits - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/strategies-to-max-out-social-security-benefits.html)

Very good. It shows that there are a lot of options to consider.

[REDCART]

Very good. It shows that there are a lot of options to consider.

Agreed, this article using examples simplifies a complex issue. However, strategies are always great in hindsight! A few years ago, the Wall Street Journal suggested the best approach to SS retirement benefits was filing for reduced benefits at 62, investing the money conservatively so you could withdraw your application at age 70, repay total benefits to SSA, and then refile a new claim which would include maximum delayed retirement credits. Of course that's a great strategy and perfectly legal except it neglected the fact that some people have done so and died a few months later. Unless you know with certainty when you're scheduled to depart this life, "take the money now."

[BobKat1]

Agreed, this article using examples simplifies a complex issue. However, strategies are always great in hindsight! A few years ago, the Wall Street Journal suggested the best approach to SS retirement benefits was filing for reduced benefits at 62, investing the money conservatively so you could withdraw your application at age 70, repay total benefits to SSA, and then refile a new claim which would include maximum delayed retirement credits. Of course that's a great strategy and perfectly legal except it neglected the fact that some people have done so and died a few months later. Unless you know with certaintly when you're sceduled to depart this life, "take the money now."

Maybe someone else will weigh in, but I believe that option is no longer available to benefit recipients.

[birdawg]

bump

[rjm1cc]

Agreed, this article using examples simplifies a complex issue. However, strategies are always great in hindsight! A few years ago, the Wall Street Journal suggested the best approach to SS retirement benefits was filing for reduced benefits at 62, investing the money conservatively so you could withdraw your application at age 70, repay total benefits to SSA, and then refile a new claim which would include maximum delayed retirement credits. Of course that's a great strategy and perfectly legal except it neglected the fact that some people have done so and died a few months later. Unless you know with certainty when you're scheduled to depart this life, "take the money now."This option is no longer available. You only have 12 months from when you start receiving benefits to stop the benefits and return money.

[REDCART]

This option is no longer available. You only have 12 months from when you start receiving benefits to stop the benefits and return money.

RJM1CC, Happy to see SSA made this change. It was a loophole that should have been closed from the beginning. When you consider the implications of withdrawing your retirement application, repaying your Medicare Part B premiums, and any income tax withheld, etc. it must have been a logistical nightmare, and costly to administer. SS is a social insurance program and was never meant to be abused this way, IMHO.

George

Instead of withdrawing your application for SS retirement benefits, you can request that they suspend your payments to begin accruing delayed retirement credits. I believe you have to do so prospectively rather than retroactively.

On December 8, 2010, the Federal Register published the Amendments to Regulations Regarding Withdrawal of Applications and Voluntary Suspension of Benefits with a request for public comments. The rule was final on that date. SSA modified its’ regulations to limit the voluntary suspension of benefits for purposes of receiving DRCs to months for which the number holder has not received a payment.

[Bill-n-Brillo]

Maybe someone else will weigh in, but I believe that option is no longer available to benefit recipients.

This option is no longer available. You only have 12 months from when you start receiving benefits to stop the benefits and return money.

Correctamundo! Retirement Planner: If You Change Your Mind (http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/withdrawal.htm)

Bill :)

[batman911]

The real wild card in the calculation is your life expectancy. If you are in good health, elderly family members have lived past 80, and you feel lucky, you will be better served waiting until 70 if you do not need the income before then.

[Shimpy]

I held off until full retirement (65 +10 months for me) because I wanted to still work and not be penalized for earning too much. Now that I'm retired I appreciate that extra monthly SS check and the money I was able to save while working.

[batman911]

I know when I will start to apply for SS benefits but I'm not sure when my wife should start. She is 58 but will retire from work when I do. Has anyone done the calculations on when their younger spouse should apply for benefits?

[CaptJohn]

It's not a simple answer. Everyone is different depending on circumstances. She could take spousal benefits if you're full age when you retire (66 or 67) (of course, she'll have to be at least 62) and then convert to full later but you'll have to run your individual numbers to find out.

[jimbo2012]

What type of professional knows these rules that one can consult with?

My accountant was not 100% sure, a financial planner I doubt it.

[REDCART]

What type of professional knows these rules that one can consult with?

My accountant was not 100% sure, a financial planner I doubt it.

The Social Security Administration publishes a geat deal of public information material both on their web site and in printed pamphlets found on racks in the reception areas of SS field offices.

It sounds like you're looking for guidance rather than information. If an attorney who specializes in "elder care" cannot give you guidance, he may know of an accountant who can help you make decisions. As you may already know, up to 1/2 of your SS may be taxable which is another part of the decision matrix.

[batman911]

You may find this website helpful:

Retirement Estimator (http://www.ssa.gov/estimator/)

[REDCART]

You may find this website helpful:

Retirement Estimator (http://www.ssa.gov/estimator/)

This is a great place to start. Notice the first link on the right side of the screen: Estimate you life expectancy. It really is the first question in the process, like it or not.

[CaptJohn]

Notice the first link on the right side of the screen: Estimate you life expectancy. It really is the first question in the process, like it or not.

That's the part that makes the whole process inexact! :laugh:
The best you can do is make your best guess. All the scientific charts in the world won't help.

[zcaveman]

Here is an SS calculator I found at AARP.

Social Security Calculator (http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/social-security-benefits-calculator/)

Since I started drawing SS at 62 I did not use it but it is available.

[CarGuys]

Ditto for me. I'm going through it now at age 64 since I was just laid off at a university but able to retire at the same time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3chFhCP5mQ

At about age 78, whether you start at 62 or 70, will collect about the same total AMOUNT. After that age is where the totals change. If you're going to live forever then wait until 70 to start collecting. If you think you'll make it to 78 or less then start earlier. How active will you be after 78? How much more will you be able to spend? Then there are those like Herv's business partner who just died before age 60 or my first cousin who died last year at age 61 and will not see any. A good crystal ball sure helps! :laugh:

I'm taking mine at 62 Capt. My account said you eill never make it up waiting till 65+ And my sales rep for TV said/ Herv you can;t buy back the years on your life.

They laid me off after 34 years. I'm leaving and not looking back.

[RichieB]

They laid me off after 34 years. I'm leaving and not looking back.

That's the spirit ! :coolsmiley:

You know what to do when life gives you lemons............

After 34 years, though, I hope you will be getting some kind of pension.....(?)

[CarGuys]

That's the spirit ! :coolsmiley:

You know what to do when life gives you lemons............

After 34 years, though, I hope you will be getting some kind of pension.....(?)

Yes saved the Pensions. The perfect storm has grown. It started in Wisconsin three years ago. If your a public employee in NY education over 55 and eligible to retire with 30+ years the target is on your back.

They ( Admin ) are way to scarred to hit you face on. Back stabbing is the perfered method

Wife is bailing after 42.5 years June 29th

[RichieB]

Looks like you will hae a good base to work from, with pensions and Soc Sec for each of you, in addition to any IRA/401k.

Now you need to finalize on a state that is tax-friendly toward retirement income. There are 7 states with no personal income tax, (Florida is one of them) and others which do not tax retirement income. You have to evaluate, and pick what's right for you.

[Finallyfree]

Our financial planner (Edward Jones) was very helpful in making our decision. If you can afford it, take it at 62; wait until 65+ if you NEED the additional monthly income.

[thistrucksforyou]

Twenty years? Not sure about that, I think it is much less than that. You should see a financial analyst I think you are wrong ... sorry. If it was 20 years no one would wait.


I was looking at the difference on my SS account statement ...I have a 437.00 difference between age 62 and age 66....That could make a huge difference later in life...

[RichieB]

I was looking at the difference on my SS account statement ...I have a 437.00 difference between age 62 and age 66....That could make a huge difference later in life...

very true, but "later in life" is not guaranteed to us.

We all view things differently, so "to each, his own" really applies here.

[REDCART]

I was looking at the difference on my SS account statement ...I have a 437.00 difference between age 62 and age 66....That could make a huge difference later in life...

Add the total benefits that would be paid to you over 48 months (or whatever the period until your full retirement age) and divide that total by the difference (i.e. $437). You will see that it will take 12-15 years (144-180 months) at the unreduced rate to break even.

If you were to invest that money every month (dollar-cost averaging) or annually, (or for some using it to pay off credit card\mortgage balances)--you'll see that a reduced SS benefit may for many make more sense than you originally thought. And assuming your investment pays off, you will be ahead indefinitely.

[CaptJohn]

I was looking at the difference on my SS account statement ...I have a 437.00 difference between age 62 and age 66....That could make a huge difference later in life...

And that's only if you live past age 78! What's the family history on aging?

[allus70]

Another take on this subject.... consider SS as the cheapest annunity available on the market. Social Security: The Cheapest Annuity in Town - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/social-security--the-cheapest-annuity-in-town.html)

[rjm1cc]

And that's only if you live past age 78! What's the family history on aging?

I think the statics for the country say if you live to age 65 you stand a good chance of living to age 78. In general I think most individuals that qualify for SS will have a projected life span that will take them past the break even point. Espicaly couples who can benefit from survivors benefits. But yes, your family history and actual helath are much more important than country wide stats.

[hdh1470]

No one looks at Inflation rate,ss does not keep up with that.And at 62 half of us will be gone by 82.Also if you are spending your own money that will be gone and if you have a spouse they will have less savings that you have spent.As far as ss for us it will be the same for each of us as we both worked and made about the same.so either will not get more after passing of one of us.So for me take it in sept at 62 and not touch savings

[aljetmet]

Another take on this subject.... consider SS as the cheapest annunity available on the market. Social Security: The Cheapest Annuity in Town - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/social-security--the-cheapest-annuity-in-town.html)

I posted this article about a week or so ago.

Wonder how many people are reading it? It's very good.

[CaptJohn]

I posted this article about a week or so ago.

Wonder how many people are reading it? It's very good.

Yes, certainly worth reading. :thumbup:

[Cantwaittoarrive]

I was looking at the difference on my SS account statement ...I have a 437.00 difference between age 62 and age 66....That could make a huge difference later in life...

What I think you might not be considering is the annual increase you receive (except for 2010 and 2011). For example in my case I received an increase of $90 COLA a month this year, if for the each of the next 3 years I receive an additional $90 a month COLA the difference between age 62 and 66 would be $77 not $437. This of course is based on my numbers not yours, but I think most calculators and the SSA don't take in to account COLA when figuring breakeven. If you do take this into account most people would be dead for years before they ever reached breakeven. In my case in those 4 years I collect $100,000 from SSA in my case it would take about 80 additional years of life to hit breakeven. i doubt I will live to 142 so I'm not waiting. Also I will have my hands on the 100K to invest the way I see fit

[REDCART]

What I think you might not be considering is the annual increase you receive (except for 2010 and 2011). For example in my case I received an increase of $90 COLA a month this year, if for the each of the next 3 years I receive an additional $90 a month COLA the difference between age 62 and 66 would be $77 not $437. This of course is based on my numbers not yours, but I think most calculators and the SSA don't take in to account COLA when figuring breakeven. If you do take this into account most people would be dead for years before they ever reached breakeven. In my case in those 4 years I collect $100,000 from SSA in my case it would take about 80 additional years of life to hit breakeven. i doubt I will live to 142 so I'm not waiting. Also I will have my hands on the 100K to invest the way I see fit

When SSA provides you with an annual benefit estimate statement, the first three amounts listed are: (1) the amount at your full retirement age (i.e. 66 and 2 months) i.e. $1396 a month, (2) your age 70 amount (i.e. $1872) a month, and (3) your age 62 amount (i.e. $997) a month. The difference between your full retirement amount and your age 62 amount is $399 (30 percent). SSA does not include estimated COLA increases in their benefit estimate statement amounts. Keep in mind that annual COLA increases would increase all three amounts at the same percentage rate. You do not derive or accrue any special COLA advantage by taking a reduced benefit.

Returning to the example amounts above, this person (w/o COLAs) could receive a total of $49,850 for 50 months. If they had waited till their full retirement age, they would begin receiving $399 more. but it will take this person 124.94 months (10.42 years) to break even (at age 76 and 7 months). The break-even point varies but it will never be more than 15 years. If you're coming up with 80 years, you've made a mathematical mistake.

George

[gg]

I am not going to do the math since people have already done it. I believe it is better to take it early. If you don't need it...invest it and it will grow more at a low rate then waiting till you are older.

And the NUMBER 1 REASON to take it is sad. My husband only collected for 1 year after he started to get it at aged 62. He would have really been mad if he had not collected anything after putting in all those years. You never know how long you will live...so get it now. I am not eligible to collect since I taught in Ohio. So now others who live longer Will get our share.

[REDCART]

GG,

I agree with you that taking early SS and investing the money makes good sense. I am unfamiliar with the Government Pension Offset provisions of SS. Are you saying that your pension from teaching in Ohio completely offsets your SS widows benefit?

I misspoke earlier. It's not Government Pension Offset but Windfall Elimination Provisions (WEP) that offsets your widow's benefit. Similar concept but different rules.

[gg]

Yes, I get nothing from SS but every time I contact them about something else...like Medicare they check to see if I should be receiving something. They want to give me money but when they run the figures...it is that I get nothing. I can get Medicare on my husbands SS number though.

[batman911]

I am not going to do the math since people have already done it. I believe it is better to take it early. If you don't need it...invest it and it will grow more at a low rate then waiting till you are older.

And the NUMBER 1 REASON to take it is sad. My husband only collected for 1 year after he started to get it at aged 62. He would have really been mad if he had not collected anything after putting in all those years. You never know how long you will live...so get it now. I am not eligible to collect since I taught in Ohio. So now others who live longer Will get our share.

I'm not sure I agree about a government pension offset. Is it because you were not paying SS taxes while you were employed?

[Kitria]

My husband did the numbers and it would take 20 years to break even after we reached 70..so that brings us to 90. At that stage, if we make it 'til then, it just didn't make sense. We took our money starting at 62.

[cathyw]

gg...did you work for 10 years ? In order to get SS you need 40 credits (10 years of work)
If you worked 10 years and paid into SS, you are entitled to it. Call them again. Good luck !

[gg]

did not work enough quarters...but I am fine. I just believe in taking it early if you are eligible.

[aljetmet]

What I think you might not be considering is the annual increase you receive (except for 2010 and 2011). For example in my case I received an increase of $90 COLA a month this year, if for the each of the next 3 years I receive an additional $90 a month COLA the difference between age 62 and 66 would be $77 not $437. This of course is based on my numbers not yours, but I think most calculators and the SSA don't take in to account COLA when figuring breakeven. If you do take this into account most people would be dead for years before they ever reached breakeven. In my case in those 4 years I collect $100,000 from SSA in my case it would take about 80 additional years of life to hit breakeven. i doubt I will live to 142 so I'm not waiting. Also I will have my hands on the 100K to invest the way I see fit

Your analysis is incorrect. I hope no one changed their view because of it.

When a SS cola is given all benefit years are increased by the same rate accordingly. I'm not retired yet but my estimated benefit at 66 increased by the cola amount this year. Actually by delaying SS the difference between say 62 and 66 would increase in total dollars.

For example, a person eligible for $1000 at age 66 would be entitled to $750 at age 62. If a 3.6% increase is given the new benefit would be
$777 for age 62 and $1036 for age 66. Thus the difference increases from $250 to $259.

So by delaying SS you are not penalized by not getting colas in the years you are waiting to start benefits.

[allus70]

From Smart Money



By JACK HOUGH

For an investment return that tops those offered by hedge funds, insurance firms or Wall Street banks, baby boomers should look to Social Security.

That's right: The same math that is driving Social Security costs higher can provide fat returns for people approaching retirement. All you need is a way to make ends meet while delaying the start of Social Security benefits from age 62 to as old as 70.

MORE UPSIDE


Sure, those who defer will miss a bunch of checks in the early years but then will lock in bigger payments for life. This trade-off can be calculated as an investment return, just like a bond yield.

I asked John Shoven, director of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and author of numerous books and studies on Social Security, to perform such an analysis. The numbers might come as a surprise.

Consider an unmarried man in average health, age 62 the youngest age for starting retirement benefits. His payoff for waiting until age 67 to collect is the equivalent of buying a long-term bond that pays 3.2% a year. For a woman, all else held equal, it's a 4% yearly return, according to Mr. Shoven and his research partner, Sita Slavov at Occidental College.

Here's the whopper: For married couples, if the higher-earning spouse delays payments from age 62 to 70, but at age 66 begins collecting spousal benefits from the lower-earner's plan (as Social Security allows), the return is like owning a 7% bond.

Not just any bond, either. The fictional alternative would have to be government-guaranteed and provide periodic inflation adjustments. And the income would have to be tax-free for most recipients.

The closest real-world investments are Treasury inflation-protected securities, or TIPS. They're government-backed and inflation-adjusted, but they're subject to federal (but not state and local) tax. Ten-year TIPS on Thursday paid 0.21%.

Put differently, a 7% annual return for delaying Social Security payments is for many investors better than a bank certificate of deposit that pays more than 10%, considering the inflation adjustment and tax advantages.

Social Security wasn't designed to offer such generous terms to those who wait. Amendments in 1956 and 1961 gave participants a choice to collect benefits as early as 62 rather than wait until full retirement age, then 65. The formula determining payment size made collecting early as good a deal as waiting, says Gary Burtless, an economist and Social Security specialist with the Brookings Institution, a think tank.

Two things changed. Life expectancies have soared since the 1960s, while interest rates have collapsed. Insurance companies, which sell annuities that can turn savings into lifetime payments, monitor both factors to keep their terms competitive and profitable, says Robert Fishbein, vice president and corporate counsel at Prudential Financial (PRU: 47.38, -1.21, -2.49%) .

But for Social Security to adjust, Congress must act. The plan's current math uses a return assumption that dates to 1983. It assumes investors can easily find risk-free investments that pay 2.9% after inflation. As the aforementioned TIPS yields suggest, the actual rate now is below zero.

"We look at long-term averages, not short-term swings in interest rates," says Stephen Goss, chief actuary at the Social Security Administration. The reward for delaying benefits might look generous next to today's low rates, he says, but rates should eventually normalize to higher levels.

Some retirees find advice on when to start Social Security benefits confusing. That's because even a ballpark calculation must consider not only factors like gender, marital status, income and health, but also long-term changes to life expectancies and short-term changes to interest rates.

For now, the deal remains sweet. The plan's trustees say there is enough cash to pay full benefits through 2036 and three-quarters of benefits thereafter, and Mr. Goss says such deadlines historically have served as a call to action for Congress.

Members of both parties are considering legislation to rein in costs. "We clearly have to make changes to things like the retirement age to keep the program affordable," says Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.), the ranking member of the Finance Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions and Family Policy.

Future changes aside, with interest rates this low, delaying benefits is a good idea for just about anyone of average health. There are only a few exceptions, according to Mr. Shoven and Ms. Slavov. A single 62-year-old man of average health should delay until 69, not 70. Given his life expectancy, 69 is the age that maximizes his "net present value" of estimated payments, as a Wall Street analyst might say.

The lower earner in a two-earner household doesn't get much benefit delaying past 66. Social Security also provides benefits to spouses, and in some cases participants can collect both regular and spousal benefits. Most eligible couples should start collecting spousal benefits at 66, according to Mr. Shoven and Ms. Slavov.

Most retirees miss out on the juicy returns for delaying benefits. The most popular age to begin collecting is 62. Many retirees simply need the money. But low-income workers approaching retirement should try especially hard to wait, even if it means working longer, says Prudential's Mr. Fishbein, because this might be the best investment deal they'll see.

The wild card is health. Retirees with life-shortening illnesses might be better off collecting early. Determining how each illness affects the equation is beyond the scope of this column, but Mr. Shoven offers a rule of thumb: "If you're healthy enough to work at 62, you should probably wait as long as you can to collect."

[Liebdoc]

Take the Social Security now while it is there and allow your investments to continue growing and compounding.

[REDCART]

From Smart Money

The wild card is health. Retirees with life-shortening illnesses might be better off collecting early. Determining how each illness affects the equation is beyond the scope of this column, but Mr. Shoven offers a rule of thumb: "If you're healthy enough to work at 62, you should probably wait as long as you can to collect."

For me, the final paragraph says it all. If there was some sort of guarantee similar to some annuities that your estate would recover some total amount by you electing deferred SS at 70, then all of this return on investment advice would make better sense. Otherwise as Liebdoc says, you're gambling on a long and healthy retirement and could easily lose it all.

[buzzy]

There's a qualitative factor here that nobody has mentioned. For example, we retired at 64 and 62, in good health. We had a big bucket list of things to do and places to see. Without the two SS's, we'd have to scale back our plans quite a bit. Now, after almost four years of retirement, and great travel destinations, we are so glad we did.

[NJblue]

For me, the final paragraph says it all. If there was some sort of guarantee similar to some annuities that your estate would recover some total amount by you electing deferred SS at 70, then all of this return on investment advice would make better sense. Otherwise as Liebdoc says, you're gambling on a long and healthy retirement and could easily lose it all.

Both options are gambles, but in only one of them will you be alive to regret taking the wrong one.

[allus70]

Couples Can Boost Their Social Security Checks - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/couples-boost-social-security-checks-040159659.html)

[collie1228]

I'm 62 and will retire in three weeks. I don't need the SS money now, but I want it. It's as simple as that for me. Life is a crap shoot, and the one thing that no one can buy is time. I also know that my lifestyle now is busier and probably healthier than it will be at age 70, should I be lucky enough to live that long. So I'll take it now, spend and invest it as I go, and won't look back. Giving up the 25% increase from age 62 to age 66 does not concern me in the least.

[collie1228]

I just noticed I have 499 posts - "Somebody told me" that your Social Security goes up 5% with every 500 posts, so I'm doing another one. Actually, I just wanted to see if I'm in a new category. Watch out Gracie, here I come . . . .

[batman911]

Couples Can Boost Their Social Security Checks - Yahoo! Finance (http://finance.yahoo.com/news/couples-boost-social-security-checks-040159659.html)

Has anyone successfully tried any of the scenarios in this article?

[rjm1cc]

Has anyone successfully tried any of the scenarios in this article?

Yes. I went to the SS office with my wife so we could do everything together and at the same time and the SS employee told me is was familure with file and suspend and could process the papper work. (My research showed that most SS employees were not processing the requests correctly). Long story short the paper work was not done correctly (form not processed) and I spent three or four months getting things corrected. The short story is that it worked so I would go for it.

[Prendie Girl]

I am wondering if it makes sense to utilize my investments when I retire at 62, then take SS when I turn 70 for the maximum payout, versus taking SS at 62 or 66.

I welcome any opinions.

I am 66 and am going to collect on my husband's social security. You have to be full retirement age to do that. When I am 70 I will collect on my own social security and that is about $400 more than my own current social security would be right now.

[Prendie Girl]

Yes, I am 66 and collecting on my husband's until I am 70 then my own. $400 difference.

[Prendie Girl]

You can't take spousal SS until you are full retirement age -66.

[jimbo2012]

Say the wife takes early at 63 receiving $500, does that change at 66?

When say the husband receives $1800, does the the wife at 66 get 500 + 900

[coach]

Say the wife takes early at 63 receiving $500, does that change at 66?

When say the husband receives $1800, does the the wife at 66 get 500 + 900

If your wife files on her own work record at age 63 and gets $500, when she is (full retirement age) 66 she could then file a spousal claim against your $1800 and receive half or $900. She would no longer receive her earlier payment of $500. If you died she would step up to your $1800 but no longer receive the $900.

[mrfixit]

...........Having not perused this thread in its entirety......
.........................................Perhaps this needs to be mentioned.......

....IF your spouse has passed away....

...........You are entitled to the Surviving Spouse benefits at age 60.

......You CAN collect the Surviving Spouse benefit,
............then switch to your own at 62 or 66 or whatever age.....
..................if and when your own benefit becomes a larger $$$ amount.

[chazz1996]

Do it now , don't wait, times a fleeting

[jimalto]

I am wondering if it makes sense to utilize my investments when I retire at 62, then take SS when I turn 70 for the maximum payout, versus taking SS at 62 or 66.

I welcome any opinions.

And what if you happen to not turn 70?

[batman911]

And what if you happen to not turn 70?

Then you would have done something nice for other people and you may get a gold star beside your name in Heaven. I do not feel I need to get every single penny I paid into SS out before my time is up to feel good about SS. I am simply happy that I will have income from SS for as long as I need it.

[Kelsie52]

There are many options according to your wants or needs. What a great Country !!:IMHO It all depends on your situtation.

We were lucky enough to get of the rat race of NY at 58/56 and find a little piece of paradise here in TV.

My calculations show if I start taking the $$ at 62 --my break even point is around age 77 --- (if we make it that long ) 3 of 4 parents passed before 77

We intend to enjoy (or save ) every penny while its still a viable program

Good luck and good health to all :posting:

[JourneyOfLife]

There are many issues to consider in addition to expected age of death of you and your spouse.

I could not adequately describe our plan and all of the issues that went into selecting our planned ages for beginning SS in a post.


It is definitely a detailed planning exercise. One needs to include personal risks in that planning exercise (financial ,legal, health, etc). It is amazing what concerns surface when one asks them self a simple question: "what might go wrong?" The answers can be a little frightening when one realizes there are so many pitfalls.

Since we have imperfect information, I tend to look at the problem more from a "limit our risk" POV rather than hoping to "maximizing our total return" from SS.

For retirement income, I tend to hope for the best, but plan for the worst.


Since that time is still a few years off, our plan could change depending on our situation in the future. Our current plan is for my wife to take SS early at 62 and I will take my SS late at 70. The reason is whichever one of us survives the other will have access to the larger check. We have reason enough to believe one of us might live long enough to make delaying one SS a smart move. Plus in a worst case financial situation (e.g., we lost everything)... SS will still be there and it is adjusted for inflation.

[Shimpy]

I would have taken mine at 62 but didn't because I wanted to work to 67. This way I wasn't limited to how much I could earn, and each year my SS would rise until I decided to take it at 67. Good choice for me as the last 5 years of working were my biggest money earning years which helped the SS calculation. I figured each year I worked at the end eliminated a year back 20 years ago when I earned very little.

[JoelJohnson]

On the SS.GOV site you can find a table of the index factors for each year (starting in the 1960s I think) for someone born in 1950. Anyway, if you print off a copy of your SS earnings from the web site, you can multiply your earning for each year with the index factor and get your inflation adjusted earnings for that year. Once you put in all your data, sort the results to get the highest 35 years of adjusted earnings and get a total. Divide that by 420 (35 years in months). That's your avg indexed monthly earnings. The site will explain about the exact formula, but if you take about 1/2 that amount you be will close to your monthly benefit at age 66.

I have a Excel spreadsheet, but it is easy enough to create your own.

The SS site now has an index table for someone born in 1951.

If you want a copy of my Excel spreadsheet (it's a 2002 version) email at JoelJohnson530@gmail.com and I'll send you copy. You will just have to enter you own numbers of course.

[Mallory Voice]

I am wondering if it makes sense to utilize my investments when I retire at 62, then take SS when I turn 70 for the maximum payout, versus taking SS at 62 or 66.

I welcome any opinions.

NEVER! If you are not working apply for SS at age 62 and let your investments continue to grow. Waiting until age 66 or later - you will never live long enough to recoup what you would have lost in benefits! Do the math!:read:
MV

[DianeM]

I opted to start the minute I turned 62 and let any investments I have continue to grow and use them as needed. My philosophy was that I figured SS may not last forever and I wanted in before the powers that be decided the bank was closed. I also figured that waiting was a gamble. I may live to 100 but I also may not see the sunrise. None of us know so I decided to take the money and run.

[Midvale]

I opted to start the minute I turned 62 and let any investments I have continue to grow and use them as needed. My philosophy was that I figured SS may not last forever and I wanted in before the powers that be decided the bank was closed. I also figured that waiting was a gamble. I may live to 100 but I also may not see the sunrise. None of us know so I decided to take the money and run.

Me too!

[asianthree]

we are going to delay for awhile and see how it goes...can always change our mind and take early SS

[manaboutown]

Take the money and run! Woody Allen. I took mine at 65.10 mos, full retirement age being born in 1942. I did not want to lose by taking early or wait until I was 70 because I did not and do not trust that SS will remain as promised.

[dillywho]

My brother died 4 months after he turned 65. He went in for surgery less than a month after he turned 65 and never came home because of complications after the surgery. He wanted to work until his "full retirement age" so passed on taking it at 62. He was born in 1945 and would have turned 68 the 17th of this month.

My point? Life does not come with a guaranteed expiration date so you may never live long enough to get the maximum. You paid for it, along with you employer(s), so go for it at the earliest possible time.

[Schaumburger]

I was born in 1960. According to the Social Security web site:

Remember, the earliest a person can start receiving Social Security retirement benefits will remain age 62.

If you start receiving retirement benefits at
•age 62, you will get 70% of the monthly benefit because you will be getting benefits for an additional 60 months

So am I better off waiting until I turn 67 which is the full retirement age for those born in 1960 and after? Or is it a crap shoot? If family history has anything to do with my decision...my mother died at 67; my dad is still going strong at 83. He retired at 62 and started collected Social Security right after he retired, so he has been collecting SS for 21 years.

[DougB]

Please everyone, keep posting the benefits of retiring and collecting SS at the age of 62. I am printing them all out and taping them to all the walls for my wife to see. Two years and counting!

[allus70]

From Morningstar

Social Security: Delaying Equals Staying Power for Your Portfolio (http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=610000)

[Pepperhead]

I took mine at 62 and applied every penny of it as extra payments on the principle of my mortgage. The interest I saved more than made up for my not waiting until max age.

[Villager Dude]

Our decision is based on the fact my Mother in law lived to 96 (my wife has good genes )

Wife took social security at 66, at 66 I will take 1/2 of hers ( spousal Benefit ), I will defer mine which is higher than hers.

At 70 I will start mine which will be 32% higher than my SS at age 66.

At my demise my wife will get 100% of mine for life which will be far more than hers would be by waiting to age 70.

[batman911]

Our decision is based on the fact my Mother in law lived to 96 (my wife has good genes )

Wife took social security at 66, at 66 I will take 1/2 of hers ( spousal Benefit ), I will defer mine which is higher than hers.

At 70 I will start mine which will be 32% higher than my SS at age 66.

At my demise my wife will get 100% of mine for life which will be far more than hers would be by waiting to age 70.

Good plan Villager Dude. The decision of when to start taking SS payments is an individual choice. A lot depends on your current state of health, longevity of parents and grand parents and financial need. No one shoe fits all.

[rjm1cc]

Our decision is based on the fact my Mother in law lived to 96 (my wife has good genes )

Wife took social security at 66, at 66 I will take 1/2 of hers ( spousal Benefit ), I will defer mine which is higher than hers.

At 70 I will start mine which will be 32% higher than my SS at age 66.

At my demise my wife will get 100% of mine for life which will be far more than hers would be by waiting to age 70.

Agree

[asianthree]

My brother died 4 months after he turned 65. He went in for surgery less than a month after he turned 65 and never came home because of complications after the surgery. He wanted to work until his "full retirement age" so passed on taking it at 62. He was born in 1945 and would have turned 68 the 17th of this month.

My point? Life does not come with a guaranteed expiration date so you may never live long enough to get the maximum. You paid for it, along with you employer(s), so go for it at the earliest possible time.



it would be so nice to have an expiration date on the bottom of our foot...but since thats not possible...my fathers parents lived to be 98 and 99...my dad had been trying to go the light at 80...he can't understand why he is not going to live as long as them

[Russ_Boston]

Our decision is based on the fact my Mother in law lived to 96 (my wife has good genes )

Wife took social security at 66, at 66 I will take 1/2 of hers ( spousal Benefit ), I will defer mine which is higher than hers.

At 70 I will start mine which will be 32% higher than my SS at age 66.

At my demise my wife will get 100% of mine for life which will be far more than hers would be by waiting to age 70.

Sounds like a very sound plan based on my knowledge of the system.