[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Cantwaittoarrive

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]

Originally Posted by allus70

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]

Originally Posted by gryoung

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

[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]

Originally Posted by allus70

Couples Can Boost Their Social Security Checks - Yahoo! Finance

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