Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-07-2013, 06:23 PM   #41
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Katsmeow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by bizlady View Post
This is one I have not heard of before. May I ask if there is a reference someplace to this that I can explore more?
See:

Retirement Planner: Benefits For Your Spouse

Note the statement.
Quote:
If your spouse is under full retirement age and qualifies on his or her own record, we will pay that amount first. But if he or she also qualifies for a higher amount as a spouse, they'll get a combination of benefits that equals that higher amount.
So as I understand this (and I am no expert on this so double check), if a spouse is under FRA and applies for spousal benefits that spouse is first deemed to be applying for his/her own benefits and is paid that amount. If that amount is less than the person would be entitled to as a spouse then the spousal benefit is paid to make up the difference. So, basically, applying for spousal benefits before full retirement will permanently reduce the benefits that person is entitled to on his/her own record.

However, at FRA, this doesn't happen. The spouse can apply for spousal benefits and take them while not taking his/her own benefit which continues to grow until age 70.

Edit: Everyone does it. There is SS using the term "they" to refer to a single person where the gender is unknown. Sigh.
__________________

__________________
Katsmeow is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 11-07-2013, 09:03 PM   #42
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
We were planning (and still may) to take SS at age 70 as it would maximize our before tax SS benefits if we assume longer than average lifespans (like our parents/families). However, if we don't do Roth conversions (taxable now), RMD at 70-1/2 plus SS will increase our tax bite substantially. So we're still trying to optimize income/minimize lifetime taxes factoring in withdrawals and passive income from taxable assets (CG/dividend income), tax deferred (about 90% non-deductible) and SS while making assumptions regarding future changes in SS and tax rates - it ain't easy! It may turn out taking SS earlier may be beneficial...
I too plan on taking SS at 70 while attempting to minimize SS/total taxes from RMD's. Early next year, I plan on playing around with BigFoot48's spreadsheet over at Bogleheads combined with ESPlanner. Hopefully, I'll be able to figure something out regarding optimal Roth conversions before SS @ 70 vs. taking SS earlier.
__________________

__________________
Options is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2013, 09:24 PM   #43
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 64
The way I see it is it's good to be careful but you can only make plans on what you know now. There are a lot of possible things that can go wrong.
I think social security will be paid at 100% for at least for the middle class for the next 30 years. But the country is changing demographically and politically so who knows what the future will be like?
I agree with Chuckanut enjoy your time before you get too old. Unless you really love your job.
__________________
A year away from work is 26 years of 2 week vacations.
HappyOutsourced is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2013, 08:19 AM   #44
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,978
Quote:
Originally Posted by Options View Post
I too plan on taking SS at 70 while attempting to minimize SS/total taxes from RMD's. Early next year, I plan on playing around with BigFoot48's spreadsheet over at Bogleheads combined with ESPlanner. Hopefully, I'll be able to figure something out regarding optimal Roth conversions before SS @ 70 vs. taking SS earlier.
Me too. I looked at it, but it's going to take more study for me to fully understand the results...
__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2013, 01:54 PM   #45
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cut-Throat View Post
Well you should understand the facts before you start re-arranging your budget.

Fact 1 : Social Security has never contributed 1 Cent to the National Debt!

Fact 2 : There is Currently a $2.3 Trillion Dollar Surplus in what S.S. has Collected vs. Paid out Benefits.

So, if you look at the facts, a reasonable person would conclude that the 'talk' about Social Security is completely Political.

I'm 62 and not planning on S.S. changing for myself and I'm delaying to Age 70 to maximize benefits.

The Surplus is even Bigger than I thought.
Source :Social Security Has “A Large and Growing Surplus” | Accuracy.Org
Must respectfully disagree with the cited article, and notion that "talk" about SS is just political. The SS Trust Fund is essentially IOU's from the Fed Gov't, and payouts are exceeding collections by $55-75 Billion annually and rising. According to 'Summary of the 2013 Annual Reports' of the Social Security and Medicare Trustees-

"Social Security’s total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period. The deficit of non-interest income relative to cost was about $49 billion in 2010, $45 billion in 2011, and $55 billion in 2012. The Trustees project that this cash-flow deficit will average about $75 billion between 2013 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to the sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. "


Trustees Report Summary

While SS is clearly in much better financial shape than Medicare, vast majority of "reasonable" legislators & analysts from both parties agree that SS is not sustainable in the intermediate/long term without some significant changes.
__________________
ERhoosier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2013, 03:10 PM   #46
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by RetiringAt55 View Post
He may not be allowed to take spousal until he is 67 if his SS would be more than half of yours before then. That is why it may be better for him to take his SS at 62, if you are taking yours at 70.
Why do you say 67? Because that's what you think their FRA is (vs. current 66 & 66 + 4 mo for those born in 1956)? Thanks.
__________________
gerntz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 07:23 AM   #47
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerntz View Post
Why do you say 67? Because that's what you think their FRA is (vs. current 66 & 66 + 4 mo for those born in 1956)? Thanks.
Yes, I should have said FRA.
__________________
RetiringAt55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 08:46 AM   #48
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 138
My initial plan had been to take SS at 62 (with wife taking spousal benefit at same time). As I will have maxed out contributions, I think this would be around 30K a year. Lately, I have been considering postponing SS benefits with file and suspend at FRA and then taking my full benefits at 70 and pairing this with increasing SWR from 4% to 5% from an expected $3M portfolio for these eight years. I think growth in SS benefits will be larger than the loss in portfolio if I make it past my late 70s.

Marc
__________________
Marc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 09:19 AM   #49
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFWR View Post
I don't expect my SS amount will be affected, but taxation of it may, as well as the COLA calculation.
+1

As several of the states are figuring out, the way to cut the future expense of public pensions and SS is to reduce the COLA. It's a technique that also comes with desirable political benefits.......... The real impact of COLA cuts won't be felt until years down the road by which time the current politicians will have had time to CYA or, hopefully, die.

Look for SS benefits to be reduced by making the COLA less generous. This will impact everyone, including current recipients.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
For once I'm not being too conservative
Old 11-09-2013, 09:26 AM   #50
Dryer sheet wannabe
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 24
For once I'm not being too conservative

I'm 38.


Been planning for a 10% cut in SS benefits, and SS benefits being fully taxable. I also plan on all the retirement age brackets being bumped 2-3 years.

I see many here figuring on 20%

I also use a 10% cut when figuring out Survivor's Benefits for Family should I croak early.
__________________
DevonMiles19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 10:38 AM   #51
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Lsbcal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: west coast, hi there!
Posts: 5,694
A lot of what I was going to say has been well said above.

When doing retirement planning we should be careful not to worse case the situation to death. It's OK to defer taking SS if it doesn't impact your enjoyment of active years, say 62 through 70. That is a big if.

Some (not everyone certainly) will defer SS unnecessarily and then emotionally be unable to spend for enjoyable activities, house fixes and just plain fun "things". I know this because I was one of those types. Took SS at 64 at urging of DW. I believe I'm having a better time and less concerned about over spending now.

Plus the hit to our portfolio is dampened. Don't have to ruminate about having higher then 4% withdrawals now because we can stay below that pretty easily now. For some (me) all the FIRECalc runs in the world will not truly convince them to put aside the money worries unless the stuff is in the bank and available.

P.S. I agree with what was said that SS is not going to be cut much if at all. Maybe a few percent in the coming decade or two.
__________________
Lsbcal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 03:18 PM   #52
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 64
Lsbcal, you're a wise man. If there were a 'LIKE' button on this forum I'd hit it.
__________________
A year away from work is 26 years of 2 week vacations.
HappyOutsourced is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 03:31 PM   #53
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,437
I'm taking it at 62 just because I like to control as many variables as I can. Maybe it will work maybe not but I'm not betting on the come, to put it gambling terms.
__________________
Retired in 2016. Living off dividends / interest and a mini pension. Freedom.
foxfirev5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2013, 04:40 PM   #54
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,386
When to take SS discussions are the surest sign that people would way rather guess and make up what they want to think than to accept what is there. There are few reasons for not delaying other than you need the money now for survival, or you have been diagnosed with a rapidly lethal illness, or you do not understand how to interpret survival tables. And for completeness a few arcane situation like children under 18, etc.

Deferring to Firecalc is about like asking a Ouija board.

Ha
__________________

__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:38 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.