Down goes the Dow

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

If you are married and your spouse has earnings (Principal Insurance Amount-PIA) there are additional strategies that are available depending on your age differeces (that did not benefit my family).

Igy

Probably not many on this thread that can take advantage of this, but supposedly one of the most missed strategies is:

If both you and your wife were born before 1954 (this goes away for people after that) and both worked, and one has reached FRA, the other one can start drawing SS at or before FRA, the other other one can draw a spousal benefit (50% of what the spouse is drawing) and let their own benefit continue to grow. Ideally, until 70.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

On the edge of my seat wrote:

Even with a 65% drop coming, you’ve found a way to increase your SS payment at 82 by 37% or more?! Do tell.

Discount rate of 2% from age 66-70, and 4% from age 70-82. My portfolio is hedged for the decline. The additional savings grows on a tax deffered basis from 70 to age 82. That number has a greater future value than the larger monthly benefit at age 82. Simple really.

If you’re still working, why are you saving into a traditional IRA (or equivalent) instead of a Roth?

WEP victim wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Seattle,

I would wait until at least your FRA (Full Retirement Age). If one takes SS at the earliest date, age 62 one would lose 25% of the FRA benefit.

Solid advice, but why stop there? Your benefit doesn’t max out until age 70. I understand that some people need the money sooner, but for those who don’t the wait can end up putting more money in your pocket. For someone whose full retirement age is 66, waiting until 70 means you come out ahead at age 81 (my calculations did not include an inflation adjustment which would reduce this age).

Agreed, calculation for break even depends on discount rate. Inflation is on both sides of savings and benefit.

Bocephus wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Discount rate of 2% from age 66-70, and 4% from age 70-82. My portfolio is hedged for the decline. The additional savings grows on a tax deffered basis from 70 to age 82. That number has a greater future value than the larger monthly benefit at age 82. Simple really.

If you’re still working, why are you saving into a traditional IRA (or equivalent) instead of a Roth?

I am contributing to my 401k where I get both a standard match and enhanced match; in addition I do a standard IRA for my wife. I would be eligible for a partial Roth but I have by the above saved quite a bit and would rather pay down debt.

Igy

Bocephus wrote:

If you’re still working, why are you saving into a traditional IRA (or equivalent) instead of a Roth?

Can be the best move. But, not always.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Bocephus wrote:

If you’re still working, why are you saving into a traditional IRA (or equivalent) instead of a Roth?

I am contributing to my 401k where I get both a standard match and enhanced match; in addition I do a standard IRA for my wife. I would be eligible for a partial Roth but I have by the above saved quite a bit and would rather pay down debt.

Igy

You have debt?

Yes.

Oh, the irony!

I admit to not being as frugal as Flagpole.

The link between emerging markets and the domestic market:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GvVoO5cKiSk

Irony Mann wrote:

Oh, the irony!

If the debt is related to his medical treatment, it might - might - be understandable. Otherwise it just highlights his hypocrisy.

Gruntz wrote:

Irony Mann wrote:

Oh, the irony!

If the debt is related to his medical treatment, it might - might - be understandable. Otherwise it just highlights his hypocrisy.

So wise guy, do you have a home loan?

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

The link between emerging markets and the domestic market:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GvVoO5cKiSk

I know some with think this impossible, but this is likely your dumbest post ever. I think your meds are negatively affecting your mind.

I think you should have been on meds but for other reasons. Oh I am no longer on chemo dweeb, so no meds.

Gruntz wrote:

Irony Mann wrote:

Oh, the irony!

If the debt is related to his medical treatment, it might - might - be understandable. Otherwise it just highlights his hypocrisy.

Don't be so critical. It could just be the result of poor investment stategy. It happens!

purple martin wrote:

Gruntz wrote:

If the debt is related to his medical treatment, it might - might - be understandable. Otherwise it just highlights his hypocrisy.

Don't be so critical. It could just be the result of poor investment stategy. It happens!

So says the guys who reside in a flop house by the Baltimore Metro. But hey they have plenty of time to get in a run and login to LRC at Bucky’s.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Gruntz wrote:

If the debt is related to his medical treatment, it might - might - be understandable. Otherwise it just highlights his hypocrisy.

So wise guy, do you have a home loan?

No. And I certainly would not want one at your age. No wonder you still have to work.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

I think you should have been on meds but for other reasons. Oh I am no longer on chemo dweeb, so no meds.

Not those meds.

Gruntz wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

So wise guy, do you have a home loan?

No. And I certainly would not want one at your age. No wonder you still have to work.

OK, glad I live in my house and not yours, especially at my age.