Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Discuss Latest WCI Blog Post: What’s the Best Age to Take Social Security?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Craigy
    replied
    The women in my family, and the women in my wife's family, live forever.

    They are also terrible with money.

    They should delay benefits as long as possible.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim
    replied
    Calculate your life expectancy based upon your current age, not the average life expectancy tables.
    https://www.ssa.gov/planners/lifeexpectancy.html
    Go from there.

    Leave a comment:


  • JBME
    replied
    The average life expectancy for a male in the United States is 76. The average for a female is 81. Living longer is also causally related to higher education and higher net worth/salary. So it's perfectly reasonable for many on this forum to believe they'll at least live into their 80s. Now does that mean everyone on here will live into their 80s? No, some will die in their 70s or much younger and others will die in their 90s or live longer. You need to account for your own family history too. But the high-level metrics on life expectancy in the United States suggest thinking you'll live into your 80s is totally reasonable, on average

    Leave a comment:


  • StateOfMyHead
    replied
    It never ceases to amaze me that so many feel sure they will live into their 80s or 90s as that is not what the averages indicate regardless of if your great uncle Herbert lived to be 140. You are only healthy until you aren't and that change can come about swiftly with no warning. At this time I will continue to plan to take it as soon as I can and invest the money. If I make it to 85+ guaranteed my world will have shrunk and my daily expenses will be reduced unless skilled nursing care is necessary. If I require a nursing home I plan to go to the cheapest, most neglectful place around to hasten my inevitable death. If anything is left over and my spouse isn't still living it goes to charity. Or at least that is the current call as I am also refereeing from the cheap seats.

    Leave a comment:


  • Craigy
    replied
    Originally posted by Lordosis View Post
    Say you take it at 62 and collect until you are 70. Would you consider repaying all the money you had collected up until age 70 so that you could have a higher payment going forward?
    Up until recently this was allowed, and there were people who took advantage of it. I.e. people showing up to the SSA office and writing a six figure check.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hatton
    commented on 's reply
    I would only do it like that if you are sure to be completely retired by 62.3.

  • VagabondMD
    replied
    I completed the Piper exercise. It recommends me taking SS at age 62 and 3 months and my wife at 70, for max benefit ($73k per year starting in 2034).

    Leave a comment:


  • Steven Podnos MD CFP
    commented on 's reply
    I'm not so sure that negative changes to SSec will exempt older individuals. The addition of means testing to Medicare B and D didn't screen out existing recipients, nor did the imposition of taxation on SS benefits in general. The SECURE act that might pass this month will change the taxation of inherited IRAs for all.

  • Tim
    commented on 's reply
    Interesting result. You pile up cash until the 70 and it takes until the low 80's to catch up on the cumulative benefits. Completely ignoring taxes or investment returns. Playing it in with RMD's is a little more complicatied than I would like to try. The logic on you is the eight years of payments outweigh the life expectancy (I guess) and the wife gets the higher amount when she outlives you.
    Congrats! You get the lower amount and actuarily pass away sooner. It's not completely intuitive when a spouse is thrown into the mix.

  • JBME
    replied
    Originally posted by Tim View Post
    VagabondMD

    Here is Piper’s software.
    https://opensocialsecurity.com/
    •It is telling me for spouse to immediately claim before FRA, now. Take the haircut and for me to wait until 70.
    •This prompted me to reconsider. Built a spreadsheet and it’s money ahead until the mid 80’s.
    •Numbers don’t lie. But ... her parents and grandparents, crap one of her aunts lived into the 100’s. It’s based off of mortality tables.

    Would be curious how yours or anyone’s turns out.
    I'm clueless on this issue going forward too. Fairly young so I expect benefits to decrease (i assume a 25% haircut). Wife is 6 months younger than me. She'll reach the second bend point when she's 42 and I'll reach the second bend point at age 50. PoF's series on SS made sense to me and it's just not worth it to get to the third bend point. Plan to retire at 55. Expect to have a lot in tax-deferred accounts so we need a lot of time for Roth conversions. The illustration is saying I should declare at 62 and wife should declare at 70. I get why she'd declare at 70 but I don't get why I should declare early. I was thinking with all I've read maybe I shouldn't also delay to age 70 but was considering maybe declaring at age 67 (FRA)

    Leave a comment:


  • JBME
    commented on 's reply
    While we expect SS to change, especially given that old people are the most reliable voters, any changes would likely only impact younger people (say, under age 40 or maybe age 50). They moved the retirement age from 65 to 67. They'll probably move it up again. When people talk about changes to SS they only focus on the possible negative changes. Right now you can get more if you wait to declare at age 70. But who is to say in the future they won't move that age up to 72 or 73 or 74?

  • Steven Podnos MD CFP
    replied
    Timing of taking Social Security benefits is a common planning issue. I would argue that there are only a couple of salient facts:

    1) Don't take benefits until you reach Normal Retirement Age (currently ages 66-67 for most) if you still have earned income
    2) As noted in the article and comments, the crossover to being paid more to wait is between 14-22 years. Now add in the assumption that the program will change, and waiting seems unwise. We've seen the imposition of taxation on 85% of SS benefits for most and means testing for Medicare part B in recent years. It seems inconceivable
    that something won't change with this bankrupt program. I'd suggest that making 100% of benefits taxable is next. It is also possible that benefit increases could be limited to those with "means." Any change at all like this pushes the crossover date further along and makes waiting a poor financial decision.

    Leave a comment:


  • Tim
    replied
    VagabondMD

    Here is Piper’s software.
    https://opensocialsecurity.com/
    •It is telling me for spouse to immediately claim before FRA, now. Take the haircut and for me to wait until 70.
    •This prompted me to reconsider. Built a spreadsheet and it’s money ahead until the mid 80’s.
    •Numbers don’t lie. But ... her parents and grandparents, crap one of her aunts lived into the 100’s. It’s based off of mortality tables.

    Would be curious how yours or anyone’s turns out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Hatton
    replied
    Good question? My guess is for one to take it at FRA but it is just a guess. There is software.

    Leave a comment:


  • VagabondMD
    replied
    My wife and I are similar age (wife 11 months older) and income (both well beyond second bend point). Both wait until 70 or one earlier?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X