For our pensions, I'll opt for the 75% survivor benefit (highest available), and my wife will opt for the 50% survivor benefit. My wife's pension won't be as big as mine and I figure I can live cheaper than she can. I'm not sure if my wife can live on less (in theory she should be able to do so), but then again, she really won't have a choice. The difference is that I'm willing to downsize as necessary and I don't think she'll want to so.
Choosing form of pension- Husband/Wife
- Thread starter bizlady
- Start date
Telly
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2003
- Messages
- 2,395
To each his own, but I'll offer a different viewpoint.
I had a small fixed pension coming of less than $500/month. When I early ER'd, the earliest start date of the pension was well off in the future. But in the meantime, inflation was reducing its real value year by year. When I reached the minimum age to take it, I took it single, no survivor benefits. Survivor benefits would really cut into it. If I went with a survivor benefit, with its corresponding reduction, then looked at inflation's effect on what was left of it over the coming years, it made one wonder, why bother having a pension at all?
So to maximize the current dollars out of it, DW filled out the forms to swear off of her interest in it. And now every month the single person amount goes into a checking account for the use of both of us. At least we will get some $ out of it before inflation reduces it to pocket change. If I kick off after writing this post, and the payments therefore stop, oh well. But I think it more likely that inflation is the killer in my case.
When the (fixed) pension dollar amounts are lower, I think that inflation's effect should be factored into the decision, along with the pensioner's health, of whether to go single or joint-survivor.
I had a small fixed pension coming of less than $500/month. When I early ER'd, the earliest start date of the pension was well off in the future. But in the meantime, inflation was reducing its real value year by year. When I reached the minimum age to take it, I took it single, no survivor benefits. Survivor benefits would really cut into it. If I went with a survivor benefit, with its corresponding reduction, then looked at inflation's effect on what was left of it over the coming years, it made one wonder, why bother having a pension at all?
So to maximize the current dollars out of it, DW filled out the forms to swear off of her interest in it. And now every month the single person amount goes into a checking account for the use of both of us. At least we will get some $ out of it before inflation reduces it to pocket change. If I kick off after writing this post, and the payments therefore stop, oh well. But I think it more likely that inflation is the killer in my case.
When the (fixed) pension dollar amounts are lower, I think that inflation's effect should be factored into the decision, along with the pensioner's health, of whether to go single or joint-survivor.
We talked about that (spousal benefit options) a lot as there were about five or six to pick from. We settled on the one where the COLA'd pension is reduced by 30%, figuring that she'd move to a smaller home or condo, one less vehicle, less food, etc. To ease the transition there is few hundred thousand in savings/investments/life insurance and she has a fairly frugal lifestyle so while she won't be jetting around the world - not something she wants anyway - she won't be dining on Alpo either.
Taking that option "cost" about $5-6$k a year in income but she's worth it.
Taking that option "cost" about $5-6$k a year in income but she's worth it.
Independent
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Messages
- 4,629
I recommend the approach that keeps the survivor income balanced. Your income, if he dies first, should be about the same as his income if you die first. That says you take the 100% to the survivor. It still isn't perfectly equal, but it's a lot closer.
However, you said that his expenses are higher than yours. Is that because he has expensive hobbies? or a some additional necessity (e.g. chronic medical)? In the second case, I'd accept some difference, but the "pop" in his benefit may cover it already.
That leaves life insurance. You could use it to equalize incomes. Theoretically it works, in fact, it can be awkward and expensive.
In my case, my prior employer maintains a group term life benefit on retirees. When we included it, it turned out that "equalizing" meant less than 100% of the pension for my wife.
However, you said that his expenses are higher than yours. Is that because he has expensive hobbies? or a some additional necessity (e.g. chronic medical)? In the second case, I'd accept some difference, but the "pop" in his benefit may cover it already.
That leaves life insurance. You could use it to equalize incomes. Theoretically it works, in fact, it can be awkward and expensive.
In my case, my prior employer maintains a group term life benefit on retirees. When we included it, it turned out that "equalizing" meant less than 100% of the pension for my wife.
metabasalt
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
- Messages
- 57
Haven't looked at this forum in almost a year but was reading this thread today and happened to notice your logo/icon/avatar. Being an ex-Kankakeean from wayback it caught my interest. Is the photo taken in Kankakee?
youbet
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I believe that photo was taken near the Kankakee River State Park. We were on a two day outing with the local paddling club.
The Kankakee River is really nice, especially considering its just over the horizon from the Chicago skyline.
metabasalt
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2008
- Messages
- 57
Thanks YouBet. I used to go to picnics there many, many years ago. However I never remember the Kankakee River being just over the horizon from the Chicago skyline. For me there was the 30 minute El ride down to Roosevelt? Station, then another 60-120 minutes on the City of New Orleans as I recall. By the time I got home I'd been staring over the horizon for hours! Still I did love that train ride!
$135/month would get him about $150,000 in life insurance that is guaranteed for life (universal life with no-lapse guarantee, not whole life) if he is in preferred risk health. Whole life for someone at age 55 usually does not make sense, especially since you are looking for death benefit, not cash value accumulation. If he can qualify for preferred rates, I think your best option is to take the $843/month and pay for the life insurance. This process is called "pension maximization". $150k life insurance is about 18 years worth of difference at that $700/month number you'd be getting otherwise. I am not sure how old you are, but is your life expectancy 18 years longer than your husband? That $150k is also paid out in a lump sum, so your present value would be $150k. The pension is paid out monthly, so your present value of $700/month for 18 years would be even less.
I'm just a year younger than my husband. We have in place a 25 year flat rate life insurance policy on each of us for 100k term life each--cost is $1000 a year (just over $200 for me, and $800 for him in premiums). Just took that out 2 years ago..... not sure how long we will keep that, but at least ontil SS kicks in I think...
Was he issued preferred risk class? If he was, he could get a new $100k policy guaranteed for 30 years for less than you're paying now ($692/year if he's age 53 now). A new 25-year policy would be $547/year at preferred rates. Your current policy would only have 23 years left if you bought it 2 years ago.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
What new series are you watching? *No Spoilers, Please*- Latest: sengsational
-