[Hal :-)]

Originally Posted by 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!!

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by rjm1cc

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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!!

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]

Originally Posted by RichieLion

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]

Originally Posted by thekeithfan

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Hal :-)

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]

Originally Posted by rjm1cc

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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.