Social Security

Better get it as soon as you can. Wait too long, you will get nothing.

Depends on one's life expectancy. If I wait until 67 instead of 62, my break-even isn't until I'm 83 - I'll be gumming my food and crapping my pants by then from all the junk miles I've run and junk food I've consumed.

I'm 60 now and I won't need it at 62, but I'm taking it anyway. I'll dump it into an S&P index fund for long term and either I or my heirs will be better off.

McSocial wrote:

Depends on one's life expectancy. If I wait until 67 instead of 62, my break-even isn't until I'm 83 - I'll be gumming my food and crapping my pants by then from all the junk miles I've run and junk food I've consumed.

I'm 60 now and I won't need it at 62, but I'm taking it anyway. I'll dump it into an S&P index fund for long term and either I or my heirs will be better off.

You make some very good points. Statistically that is what people do. The majority (55%?) take it early.

I read all of the posts here and the majority of LRCers favor waiting to take it at around age 66. A few want to take it at age 70.

In my case I have always been healthy so I do not have to take it now. Usually marrying a young spouse means you

want to wait as well, especially if there are children. I wanted to take SS at 62 and fully retire. It is tempting to take

it now and hope that investing works out.

The market is at record highs and stretched valuations, so betting that the market makes the difference would not be wise.

elviejo wrote:

What if you don't need SS at 62, or 65 or 69? I'm 4 years from 62 so I need to think about this some.

My main goal is to not run out of money before I die. I have enough, I believe, to not NEED to take SS at 62 or 65 or 69. I can wait to 70 simply because I don't think I'll need the money. I really don't care if by some misfortune I die at 71 and 'missed out' on SS disbursements from age 62. I'd be dead and I wouldn't care one bit! Again, my goal isn't to maximize the cash I take from SS but to make sure I don't run out of money by the time I die. In that case, assuming you have enough to meet your needs to 70, wouldn't it make sense to not take the money till 70?

Then take it at 70, dimwit!

I've had my head in the sand for a long while, and have learned a lot from this thread. But it's complicated. I still don't know what my wife and I should do.

I've made a few left turns, and at 60 my current business makes no profit, and my "salary" is only about $10K annually. I had a decent career previously, but cashed out my pension and 401K years ago just to cover living expenses. I have since relied on credit cards, and currently owe $30K in those unsecured high-interest "loans."

My spouse is 64. She earns about $40K, and has $25K in credit card debt. She has $44K in her 401K and has no pension.

Maybe she should collect SS now, and apply the monthly payments to our debt? Maybe I should start benefits at age 62 to do the same? We still have 7 years left on our home mortgage.

My benefits are projected to be more than hers, if we both wait until full retirement age. Neither of us are descended from exceptionally long-lived people (typically death at age 72-83).

What to do, ,what to do (besides increasing current earned income, which I am working toward!!!)?

fisky is awesome wrote:

Fisky - thanks - very good summary

.... I have a high income

....will likely work until 67 - 8 or so more years. Getting promoted as I write this

..... Lots in 401k and general accounts

....Given my family history, as dismal as it sounds, making it to 80 and no more seems likely.

....I think I will wait for FRA - despite the prospect of leaving a bigger chunk of investment for my spouse, who will outlive me by all probabilities and is younger.

First, thanks for the compliment and thanks for posting this.

To me as a retired financial advisor, you're in a win/win situation as far as SS is concerned. With good investment advice, investing your SS funds at 62 should work for you. Or you could wait. Either way, this is a minor concern. Just do what makes you the most comfortable.

However, your comment about not making it past 80, in my opinion, is a major quality of life issue that you should address. Life expectancy of a white collar, college educated, upper economic class, non-minority, nonsmoking male is several years longer than that. You should be taking proactive steps to stay healthy and active into your 90s and to address any hereditary health issues now before they arise.

The problem is... I don't know to whom to refer you to address all aspects of proactive, antiaging. Even though I'm extremely proactive in antiaging personally, I do it piecemeal with a team of professionals, each with their own niche.

I don't know if such a profession even exists! I'm going to post a generic question on my financial planning professional forum and ask. I'll let you know what they say.

Smoove wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

My Dad . . . was diagnosed with a then incurable cancer and given 6-7 years to live . . . [h]e was then the first person ever cured of this cancer and he is now 79, mom is 78.

Crap, it is 8:54 am eastern and the coolest thing that I will hear all day has already been heard.

I am biased, but I also agree it is the coolest thing heard all day...one of the coolest things I have ever heard.

I'm almost 60 and plan on working until I'm 65. Will take SS at age 66 and 10 months.

Great thread. Funny the last few days I’ve been giving some thought what I should do.

Husband and I took a big hit during the Great Recession. Lost our house and jobs.

At the moment we are renting in a high income area. Both have pretty stable jobs full time. I started late saving. Was a stay at home mom for 10 years. I have IRA separate from work. It only has10.000 in it I also started a 401 k at work which I started 2 years ago. We are completely dept free. No credit cards. Own all cars ect. Husband is 64. I’m 55. Im assuming I’ll work till seventy. What it’s sounds like is husband should take his SS at 66?

I’m thinking about getting financial advice but do not know if I should talk to my bank or hire someone. What qualifications should I look for?

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

You lose 8% annually by taking a benefit before Full Retirement Age (FRA). You gain another approximate 25% by waiting to take a benefit at age 70 (no increase in benefit from there). Depending on how you discount the value of the benefit, the breakeven point of waiting from FRA to 70 is about age 83. So for most waiting to FRA is a given, waiting until age 70 is more of a coin toss.

Your narrative fails to take into account that social security benefits are nontaxable, or partially nontaxable depending on how much money you take from other retirements investments. It makes more sense to take SS early, and NOT to sell other investments which are taxable.

Have you tried "positive talk." Whatever you say, you have a tendency to attract.

For example a basketball player would say, "I'm an idiot, I'm an idiot, I'm an idiot," everytime he missed a shot.

Hate to say it but I think it found him.

Say the positive wanna be! If you cannot say something positive say nothing.

You missed something wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

You lose 8% annually by taking a benefit before Full Retirement Age (FRA). You gain another approximate 25% by waiting to take a benefit at age 70 (no increase in benefit from there). Depending on how you discount the value of the benefit, the breakeven point of waiting from FRA to 70 is about age 83. So for most waiting to FRA is a given, waiting until age 70 is more of a coin toss.

Your narrative fails to take into account that social security benefits are nontaxable, or partially nontaxable depending on how much money you take from other retirements investments. It makes more sense to take SS early, and NOT to sell other investments which are taxable.

Good point (I think), but what about RMD (required min. distributions)? If you have to take the money out anyway, why not live off of that, assuming that enough is being distributed. Never ran the numbers but I bet the RMD is not going to be big enough to live off of for a year. Not even close. Just throwing this out there since i haven't looked into it yet...

seattle prattle wrote:

You missed something wrote:

Your narrative fails to take into account that social security benefits are nontaxable, or partially nontaxable depending on how much money you take from other retirements investments. It makes more sense to take SS early, and NOT to sell other investments which are taxable.

Good point (I think), but what about RMD (required min. distributions)? If you have to take the money out anyway, why not live off of that, assuming that enough is being distributed. Never ran the numbers but I bet the RMD is not going to be big enough to live off of for a year. Not even close. Just throwing this out there since i haven't looked into it yet...

I’m pretty sure RMD kicks in at 70 yrs of age

robert678 wrote:

Social security is determined by your highest earning 20 years of employment, but it does max out if you're high income at a certain point.

35 years, not 20. I can’t believe you people rely on a running site that doesn’t even give good running advice for important life altering financial information.

You pension will effect you SS amount (windfall). If you are not taking your pension & still working take the SS now as the pension will not be accounted for until you take withdrawals.

Im pretty sure wrote:

seattle prattle wrote:

Good point (I think), but what about RMD (required min. distributions)? If you have to take the money out anyway, why not live off of that, assuming that enough is being distributed. Never ran the numbers but I bet the RMD is not going to be big enough to live off of for a year. Not even close. Just throwing this out there since i haven't looked into it yet...

I’m pretty sure RMD kicks in at 70 yrs of age

You must take RMD beginning the year that you reach age 70 1/2. The amount of the RMD is based on the value of your IRA/401k on Dec 31 of the previous year and percentage value based on your remaining life expectancy. Your broker or financial advisor can give you a form so you can either specify an amount or check "Calculate RMD for me and distribute that amount... (to your checking account, money market fund, or by a check to you). "

The percentage gets higher as you get older. At age 70 1/2, it's roughly 5% of the value of your IRA/401k on Dec 31 the previous year.

Your credit card interest payments are killing you... probably $11,000/year in interest alone. You have to get that under control and to get that under control you have to get your spending under control. Spending is the real issue here. That, or making more money, but spending is somewhat within your control immediately so start there.

I'd suggest you start with Dave Ramsey's book for guidance. Ramsey turns some people off, but his advice on debt is spot on.

By the way, your situation is pretty common among aging baby boomers.

My friend's parents have a pension, and his father and mother have other pension money that they use now in retirement. Still, at age 62, he was diagnosed with an incurable disease; I don't know exactly because he doesn't want to talk about it; his father was given five years to live. His pension wasn't supposed to start until he was 65, and they didn't want to invest in retirement money yet. He ended up retiring earlier than planned and starting Social Security at 62. This may have to do with his illness, and I looked it up at https://seekingretirement.com/ . It said that because he was sick, his pension started earlier.