25% of SS recipients sorry they took payments early...

[gayl]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taxman59 my plans were regarding SSI

Hopefully I'll never take SSI as I'd have to be permanently disabled to get that. I'll take SSA at 70 as my plan B in case the pension fund goes bust

[Dawg52]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShokWaveRider I thought that too. But because of ACA MAGI limitation, I decided to wait. I would not qualify for a subsidy if I took it at 62 and thus would give any additional income to an insurance company anyway.

That is a good reason to wait. In my area, ACA options are not good. Plus my individual policy premium is competitive with those through the ACA.

[Running_Man]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShokWaveRider I thought that too. But because of ACA MAGI limitation, I decided to wait. I would not qualify for a subsidy if I took it at 62 and thus would give any additional income to an insurance company anyway.

No, the government pays the insurance company for you, insurance company is not effected by your decision.

[ShokWaveRider]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Running_Man No, the government pays the insurance company for you, insurance company is not effected by your decision.

But MAGI includes SS Payments which limits your GovSub. This means YOUR portion increases, so yes you are giving more to the insurance company.

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunset ...So one of those folks who took SS at 62, because he had no savings and could get cash right away, when told he could be getting $300 more per month if he had waited until 65, will naturally say, he regrets taking it early.

This is what I was thinking.

Also, the regret might be the same as somebody who put it all on "red" now regrets he did not put it on "black". Heck, it's crapshoot anyway.

You pays gets your money and you takes your chance. Live with it.

[VFK57]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 Also - the poll is skewed by people still alive.

#3. Nobody knows how long one is going to live.

[Ready]

I took the time to read Laurence Kotlikoff's book "Get What's Yours - The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security", not because I am close to needing to make a decision, but out of pure curiosity about why social security is so complicated.

Even after reading the entire book I can't say I completely understand all of the things to consider before making a decision on when to file, so I can understand why the average US citizen may be confused about how it works and may ultimately regret their decision on when to begin collecting.

It seems odd to me that something designed to make life easier as a senior would be so complicated that it requires an entire book to understand. Most citizens simply are not going to take the time to try to read through all of the complex rules that come into play when making a decision on when to file. I know my parents did not understand all of the issues when they chose to file early. My mom is 90 years old now, so waiting until she was older would have netted her a lot more money.

[ShokWaveRider]

From a personal perspective, this is "our" rational for SS withdrawal time ~65 (1 year prior to FRA. SS is based on my allotment. DW is too Young to consider yet, and simply easier not to.


Income from Taxable investments (CD's Etc.) $2500 pm
Income from Non Taxable Accounts (IRA) $2500 pm
Potential SS Income at withdrawal time. $2000 pm


Taxable Amount At SS withdrawal time: $7,000 pm assuming IRA withdrawal of return only: = $84k (Will take any more if needed from Non Taxable accounts). Taxable obligation ~ $75k @ 15%

I will be on Medicare so ACA for me (If it does not get destroyed) does not enter into it.


Today:


Income from Taxable investments (CD's Etc.) ~$2500 pm


Our total annual Expenditures are around $40k pa. (10k from savings) Taxable income: ~$30k @ 15%. + Hefty ACA Sub.


Numbers are generalized for this.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Just_Steve So........75% are happy they took it early.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bclover works for me

Does it say that?

The other 75% could have some large % of don't know / don't care? Most polls are like that, the ones with a strong opinion are a smaller group on each end, a large undecided in the middle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 Also - the poll is skewed by people still alive.

Not if it was done in Chicago.

-ERD50

[marko]

...and only 20% understand that the break even point is about 79 years old.

[HadEnuff]

None of the people who died before the break-even point were asked.
That doesn't seem fair.

[gayl]

4 bd / 3 bath / .35 acres

Problemishes is there's only 2 common rooms :
breakfast room - kitchen - family room all connect in a straight line no walls
Living room - formal dining is just another long room (14' × 30')
No delineations

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gayl 4 bd / 3 bath / .35 acres Problemishes is there's only 2 common rooms : breakfast room - kitchen - family room all connect in a straight line no walls Living room - formal dining is just another long room (14' × 30') No delineations

Did you intend to post this on another thread?

[marko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HadEnuff None of the people who died before the break-even point were asked. That doesn't seem fair.

To me it's a little disingenuous in how SS words things.

The whole "you get more money" is true..."for less time" is left unspoken.

Further, if you're not completely savvy it would easy to think that at 65 and 70 (vs 62) there is a step function increase. Yes, taking it at 65 vs 62 gives you more money but so does taking it at 62.5, 63 or 64 (obviously not as great)

It's not like you get a big jump in benefit by waiting from 64.5 to 65 which I fear a lot of people might assume.

[JustCurious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marko Further, if you're not completely savvy it would easy to think that at 65 and 70 (vs 62) there is a step function increase. Yes, taking it at 65 vs 62 gives you more money but so does taking it at 62.5, 63 or 64 (obviously not as great) It's not like you get a big jump in benefit by waiting from 64.5 to 65 which I fear a lot of people might assume.

You are correct, but there is one aspect of reaching full retirement age that does provide a step function increase for those who continue to work...once you reach FRA there is no longer a limit on how much you can earn without triggering a reduction in your retirement benefits.

[Andre1969]

I always planned on taking SS at 62, as I figured I'd already be retired a good 11-15 years at that point (I'm 46 now, and it's looking closer to 11-12 at this point, but who knows?). My rationale was that I'd prefer to take it sooner, as I'd have a greater chance of getting locked in, whereas they may change the SS rules down the road if I wait too long. I also figured that if I took it sooner, that would be that much less of my investments that I'd have to cash in, to live off of.

But, I ran a few different scenarios through FIRECalc, and it didn't make much difference whether I took SS at 62, or 70, or anywhere in between. Maybe 2-3 percentage points at most. I can't remember though, which specific age yielded the best result, as it didn't really stand out among the others.

[W2R]

I'm completely happy with my decision to claim my own SS at age 70. Thrilled, actually.

I can also easily see and understand a multitude of reasons others may have for claiming SS at age 62. Let's face it, there are a multitude of factors that go into this decision, and each case may be slightly different.

When a decision becomes irreversible, I don't see much point in whining or regrets.

[Rustic23]

We were going to wait until 70, but took it at 67. The decision was based on the fact that we knew DW would have adequate funds to live on and then some, and the extra money at 67 would fund more toys and fun! Twelve cruises, multiple auto trips, and lots of dining out, we do not regret the decision at all!

For us it was a sliding scale. It was not a 62 or 70 decision.

[mickeyd]

I suspect that a good number of that 75% are not truly aware of the consequences of their early claiming. After all, we're referring to the general public here.

[UpAnchor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeyd I suspect that a good number of that 75% are not truly aware of the consequences of their early claiming. After all, we're referring to the general public here.

Based on folks I know - many of whom aren't that financially savvy - I'd guess most know that one's benefit is reduced by claiming early. And it's made very obvious in one's personal statement from SSA. But I do agree with earlier posts that most may not be aware of the continuous scale (no step-function). And I would suspect that many times it doesn't come up in the discussion with the local SSA rep. I can see the conversation progressing along the lines of, "How much will I get if I retire at 62? How much at full retirement age? Nah, I don't wanna wait that long."