Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-20-2014, 11:28 AM   #61
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
I know! And you are the 1st to point out the parallel of "SS delay" and "OMY of work".

Log that to random chance.
__________________

__________________
springnr 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 10-20-2014, 11:55 AM   #62
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProspectiveBum View Post
I'm 42, and DW is 46. Most retirement calculators give us slightly better odds of success if we take SS early...
That may be because you are relatively young.

After I went through the exercise to see how much we would get at 62, FRA, then at 70, out of curiosity I used FIRECalc to see how much we could spend with the various amounts of SS combined with our stash. It turned out that what we could spend (at 100% certainty for 30 years) was highest with SS claimed at FRA. The spendable amount is the same with SS at 62 and 70.

However, the SS at FRA won out over 62 and 70 by less than an amount of 2%, so it is not that significant. What's important was that they all resulted in me able to spend 30% more than what I am spending right now using just the stash.

Quote:
Originally Posted by photoguy View Post
... When I first started seriously planning for ER I had been assuming that SS would be insignificant.
Same here. What a pleasant surprise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by springnr View Post

Log that to random chance.
I have always chuckled when seeing posters wanting absolute assurance on anything. Hah, if life could be so predictable and knowable!

But then, if it were, life would be dull.
__________________

__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2014, 11:58 AM   #63
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent View Post
I'd say that this Social Security actuaries' table has somewhat higher mortality rates (shorter life expectancies) than most people who ask this question on this site will experience. This SS table is a "total population, period" table. I can think of three adjustments:

The table includes everybody, regardless of current health. For example, it includes people who were in hospices on their birthdays, and people who know they have serious diseases. People who ask the "should I defer SS?" question are usually in better health than the perfectly average American (simply because "average" includes those special cases).

The table does not distinguish by economic status. Other SS statistics show that people with higher lifetime average incomes tend to outlive those with lower lifetime average incomes. Most posters on this site are in the "higher" income group.

A "period" table is a snapshot based on current mortality. It assumes no future improvements in mortality rates. The general trend in mortality rates is downward. The SS actuaries use the "cohort" mortality tables, instead of "period" tables, when they are doing the projections for the SS trust fund.
This is what I used for a personalized life expectancy:

https://www.livingto100.com/

It takes a lot of factors into consideration.
__________________
Animorph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2014, 12:04 PM   #64
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,403
I used a calculator like that (it was mentioned in this forum), and was pleased with the results. And at an annual exam, my doctor declared that my blood tests were "the best he has seen in a long time". BP good, no cholesterol nor excessive glucose, BMI less than 25, no daily pills at all including vitamins, ya da...

A year after that, I was hospitalized for the first time in my life, struggling through major surgeries, wondering how the rest of my life was going to be. No, I was wondering if I was going to make it. And I have scars (many of them) to prove it. I have found out that the phrase YMMV applied to me in a negative way.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2014, 02:40 PM   #65
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoguy View Post
These are good points. Ideally I'd like some sort of regression model (that outputs quantiles) where I could put inputs like race, gender, education, etc.

Is this a big effect (say more than 1 year)?
I think you can get a feel for the impact of race and gender from the regular US Life tables: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LEWK3_2009.pdf

This is the SS paper on variations by lifetime earnings. See chart 1. Note that it's pretty straight forward to convert annual mortality rates into a probability distribution of ages of death (that's the dx column in a life table).Mortality Differentials by Lifetime Earnings Decile: Implications for Evaluations of Proposed Social Security Law Changes

The cohort vs. period issue is discussed here: Life Tables

Figure 3b. seems to say that a 20 year differential in date of birth converts to about a 3 year difference in life expectancy at age 65. I didn't see a direct comparison (e.g. period at age 62 for calendar year 2012 vs. projected cohort for people born in 1950 on the ssa.gov site, but there may be one).

But, I don't see any discussion of the short term selection effects deriving from people who know they are in bad health. I couldn't find any numbers for annuities that reflect the short term health issue. I did find something on life insurance that's somewhat relevant. http://www.actuary.org/pdf/life/cso2_june01.pdf

The probability that a 62 year-old man will die in the first year after buying a life insurance policy is about 25% of the probability that a 62 year old man who bought his policy 20 years ago will die within the next year (pages A1 and A3, 2.48 vs. 10.28 deaths per 1,000). This is the effect of the insurance company making sure that it doesn't sell policies to people with known health issues. This effect wears off to about 50% five years later.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-20-2014, 02:45 PM   #66
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,816
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProspectiveBum View Post
I'm 42, and DW is 46. Most retirement calculators give us slightly better odds of success if we take SS early..
IIRC, a few years ago we had a debate between two posters who seemed to be getting different results from FireCalc. One said that FC told him to defer, the other said that FC said to start at 62.

It turned out the the first person was running FireCalc as a 62 year-old, asking what he should do immediately. The second was younger (maybe 52) asking what he should do 10 years from now. As close as I could guess, it appeared that the order of returns issue gets involved somehow.

So I'd say over the next 16 years the calculators might change their opinion.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2014, 10:34 AM   #67
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animorph View Post
This is what I used for a personalized life expectancy:

https://www.livingto100.com/

It takes a lot of factors into consideration.
Thanks for posting this link as it is quite interesting. However I'm very skeptical of the calculator as I don't think it's based on actual data (i.e. estimated with statistical survival model). It also didn't ask me any questions about race which is one of the biggest covariates. I suspect the calculator is actually asking a bunch of questions about stuff it doesn't use to collect data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent View Post
I think you can get a feel for the impact of race and gender from the regular US Life tables: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LEWK3_2009.pdf
This is great data. Unfortunately they didn't include asians. sigh.

Quote:
This is the SS paper on variations by lifetime earnings. See chart 1. Note that it's pretty straight forward to convert annual mortality rates into a probability distribution of ages of death (that's the dx column in a life table).Mortality Differentials by Lifetime Earnings Decile: Implications for Evaluations of Proposed Social Security Law Changes
Chart 1 is fascinating (I've attached for forum readers). It shows significant drop in mortality even from deciles 7 to 10 in lifetime earnings. I had known about lower lifespans at the bottom of the income scale but didn't realize it was so large even around the top.

Quote:
Figure 3b. seems to say that a 20 year differential in date of birth converts to about a 3 year difference in life expectancy at age 65. I didn't see a direct comparison (e.g. period at age 62 for calendar year 2012 vs. projected cohort for people born in 1950 on the ssa.gov site, but there may be one).
This is a way bigger effect than I would have thought. Thanks for posting this info.
Attached Images
File Type: png Screen Shot 2014-10-21 at 9.27.59 AM.png (198.5 KB, 26 views)
__________________
photoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2014, 01:07 PM   #68
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by photoguy View Post
... This is great data. Unfortunately they didn't include asians. sigh. ...
Race is an important hereditary factor, but it can be overwhelmed by others. For example, it is well publicized that Japanese immigrants in the US do not share the same health characteristics of those living in Japan.

About rich people or those of higher socio-economic status having a longer life expectancy, that is no surprise. However, it does not mean one would get longevity by sticking OMY after another in a high-stress job. Surely, a doctor tends to live longer than a labourer, but between an doctor who ER'ed and one that works till 65, the one having more money is not the one healthier.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2014, 03:00 PM   #69
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by NW-Bound View Post
Surely, a doctor tends to live longer than a labourer, but between an doctor who ER'ed and one that works till 65, the one having more money is not the one healthier.
This is pure speculation. May be true, may be false, and I strongly doubt that there is enough quality data to tell which.
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2014, 03:06 PM   #70
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,403
OK, I can see now that perhaps the MD that can work till 65 is the one with a stress-free job, such as the one owning the allergy clinic I went to. He most likely outlives the one working in the hospital emergency room, even if the latter retires early.

But I think you know the point that I was trying to make, that there are many secondary factors besides the socio-economic one.
__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2014, 01:24 AM   #71
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
growing_older's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,608
Quote:
the one that push my decision over the top was what happened to a good friend of mine about 3 years ago and then to my BIL just last year. Both were in very good health "until" they were both diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Both only lived about 9 months after they were diagnosed. My friend was in his late 50's so he never saw a dime from SS. My BIL was 63 so he collected it for about a year.
I believe that your personal answer to whether it's better for you to start early or late depends on what you are trying to accomplish. There are some cases with spousal differences in ages or benefits that can make a big difference. And there are some cases with minor children that can make a big difference. But if we just think about a simple case of taking SS early or late, the best option depends on your goal.

If your goal is to leave the biggest pile of money behind, then arguments about getting the maximum benefit, using the benefit to offset 401k withdrawals and the like make sense. Similarly concerns about getting any SS at all in case you might die early could also come into play.

In my personal case, none of that matters to me. I have saved enough that I can pay my way at least to age 70 with no SS. Likewise if I die unexpectedly, my heirs will inherit more than enough to set them up comfortably, there's no real need to optimize that since they get more than "enough" regardless. So for me, I do not care about the cases where I die early but collected less SS than if I started earlier.

It seems I need to know my lifespan to know if early or late start to SS is numerically better. But I think that it not relevant for me. If I start SS late, but die earlier than I expected, I will have had enough money to live a lifestyle I was comfortable with, and since I'll be dead, I won't miss the money I could have had if I guessed correctly. But if I turn out to live a long time, I would prefer the larger payout and this is the only case in which it might actually matter to me. So this is the only case I want to optimize for. My plan is to wait as long as possible, although I might file and suspend after FRA just in case I get a poor diagnosis and want to claim as much back dated SS as I can. If you force me to bet on my lifespan, the only side of the bet I want to take is the one where I live a long long time. "Winning" the bet by dying early is an irrelevant case to me (since I'll be dead) so I have no reason to maximize my cash remaining in case I die early. Might be different if there were a spouse or heirs to whom that money might make a difference.
__________________
growing_older is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2014, 06:43 AM   #72
Recycles dryer sheets
Jager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 103
Part of what makes when to draw SS a challenging proposition are the conflicting factors.

Although we often focus on the break-even point and our expected mortality, maximizing our 'take' from Uncle Sam oftentimes misses the larger point.

The retirement years from age 62 to FRA are, for most of us, qualitatively superior to those after FRA. We're younger, we have more energy, our health is better, and we have yet to receive that today-is-the-day-you-die wildcard that some morning we will receive.

Similarly, the retirement years from FRA to age 70 are qualitatively superior to any that will follow.

So the first factor is whether drawing SS is necessary in order to retire in the first place. If it is, then that quickly becomes a powerful argument for taking it sooner, than later. Why trade away those "best" retirement years?

The answer why one might, of course, is written in the second, conflicting, factor: longevity and survivorship risk. If drawing SS early means an essential bet that one or both of a couple will check out fairly early - because the longer term financial horizon looks pitiable - then you hold off drawing SS. You trade away those "best" retirement years hoping not to have to eat dog food in your later years.

For some, SS is rather icing on the cake - they could retire without it. For most, however, it truly is a conundrum.
__________________
Jeff
Jager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2014, 10:01 AM   #73
Administrator
W2R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 38,852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jager View Post
The retirement years from age 62 to FRA are, for most of us, qualitatively superior to those after FRA. We're younger, we have more energy, our health is better, and we have yet to receive that today-is-the-day-you-die wildcard that some morning we will receive.
As someone who reached FRA this year, I don't wanna hear it!

A week before I turned 66 (my FRA), when weightlifting at the gym one day I lifted a total of 20.5 tons, the most of my entire life. I could never have done that at any younger age. I may never do it again! But I did it.

Yeah, my hair is whiter and I forget things more and my hands are more wrinkled than they once were, but my overall health doesn't seem to be any worse than it was when I retired at age 61.5. It seems better. I am hoping for a few more years, or maybe even another decade before the inevitable steeper decline begins.

While your statement may have been true years ago, when people knew less about how to take care of themselves, I'm not so sure it is true today. It seems to me that in 2014 there are a lot more healthy, active seniors enjoying life and challenging themselves both physically and mentally every day than I recall seeing back in the mid 20th century.

Or maybe that perception reflects the fact that I'm older, now.
__________________
Already we are boldly launched upon the deep; but soon we shall be lost in its unshored, harbourless immensities.

- - H. Melville, 1851
W2R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2014, 10:16 AM   #74
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 942
Not to turn this into a political discussion, but I am surprised that no one has really mentioned the issue of future changes to SS and how that impacts the decision process. Personally our current thinking is to wait to FRA at a minimum, and then reassess the political SS landscape.
__________________
LARS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2014, 10:29 AM   #75
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 Lancelot View Post
most will probably receive a lower total amount of benefits compared with those that delay.
I'm not sure what you mean by "most." 51%? 75%? 99%?

I started at 62 to protect DW due to GPO. But, as a side note, since I began SS just as we began recovery from the "Great Recession," the investment results for the money received so far have been impressive and will likely more than make up for the lower, started early SS checks.

You can't count on investment returns, no argument there. It's just how it's worked out for me.

If you live to a "typical" age and your retirement years have "typical" investment conditions, I don't think it matters very much when you start SS. No doubt unique, individual circumstances may dictate one course of action being better than another for any particular individual/couple.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2014, 10:37 AM   #76
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 Jager View Post
Part of what makes when to draw SS a challenging proposition are the conflicting factors.

Although we often focus on the break-even point and our expected mortality, maximizing our 'take' from Uncle Sam oftentimes misses the larger point.

The retirement years from age 62 to FRA are, for most of us, qualitatively superior to those after FRA. We're younger, we have more energy, our health is better, and we have yet to receive that today-is-the-day-you-die wildcard that some morning we will receive.

Similarly, the retirement years from FRA to age 70 are qualitatively superior to any that will follow.

So the first factor is whether drawing SS is necessary in order to retire in the first place. If it is, then that quickly becomes a powerful argument for taking it sooner, than later. Why trade away those "best" retirement years?

The answer why one might, of course, is written in the second, conflicting, factor: longevity and survivorship risk. If drawing SS early means an essential bet that one or both of a couple will check out fairly early - because the longer term financial horizon looks pitiable - then you hold off drawing SS. You trade away those "best" retirement years hoping not to have to eat dog food in your later years.

For some, SS is rather icing on the cake - they could retire without it. For most, however, it truly is a conundrum.
I think you're missing something Jeff.......

Your "safe" annual spend rate between 62 and 70 doesn't change much, if at all, whether you start SS at 62, 66 or 70. Try it in FireCalc. You should see little difference in portfolio survival rates whether you plug in your smaller SS at 62 or your larger SS at 70.

See post #62 by NW-Bound (above) for some examples.

There are lots of legitimate and sound reasons to start SS at 62, but having more money to spend while you're younger isn't one of them because it isn't true.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2014, 01:37 PM   #77
Recycles dryer sheets
Jager's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet View Post
I think you're missing something Jeff.......

Your "safe" annual spend rate between 62 and 70 doesn't change much, if at all, whether you start SS at 62, 66 or 70. Try it in FireCalc. You should see little difference in portfolio survival rates whether you plug in your smaller SS at 62 or your larger SS at 70.

See post #62 by NW-Bound (above) for some examples.

There are lots of legitimate and sound reasons to start SS at 62, but having more money to spend while you're younger isn't one of them because it isn't true.
I wasn't thinking in terms of portfolio survival or safe withdrawal rate. But rather contemplating the question for most people, who don't have such esoteric considerations. For most people, the availability of SS, and when to take it, very much affects when/if they are able to retire.

You're absolutely right that SS-age-of-withdrawal has minimal effect on portfolio survival. But the universe for whom that is an important consideration is, alas, a significant minority.
__________________
Jeff
Jager is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2014, 01:54 PM   #78
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by LARS View Post
Not to turn this into a political discussion, but I am surprised that no one has really mentioned the issue of future changes to SS and how that impacts the decision process. Personally our current thinking is to wait to FRA at a minimum, and then reassess the political SS landscape.
I don't put too much weight on this in my decision process for the following reasons:

1. If and when SS reform happens, it will likely have a bigger impact on younger people than older people.

2. I'm guessing that however the older folks are impacted, the changes will mainly impact the "wealthy". If I'm "wealthy" when I turn 70, then I will have won the game, and will easily be able to deal with the impact. If I'm struggling at that age, and need every penny of SS, then I won't likely be impacted by the changes.
__________________
Which Roger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2014, 02:25 PM   #79
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Which Roger View Post
I don't put too much weight on this in my decision process for the following reasons:

1. If and when SS reform happens, it will likely have a bigger impact on younger people than older people.

2. I'm guessing that however the older folks are impacted, the changes will mainly impact the "wealthy". If I'm "wealthy" when I turn 70, then I will have won the game, and will easily be able to deal with the impact. If I'm struggling at that age, and need every penny of SS, then I won't likely be impacted by the changes.
What has already been done questions these assumptions. Look at the low income thresholds for Medicare premium increases. This is so far from "wealthy" that it is laughable.
The first step-up comes at $85k for a single taxpayer. That is adjusted AGI, and all the adjustments increase AGI, not decrease it. This amount, and the higher steps are not inflation adjusted.

Ha
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2014, 02:26 PM   #80
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,403
I have told this story before, but need it here to lead to what I want to say.

I told another engineer who was 15 years my senior that I wanted to travel when I was young, so that on my deathbed I would not regret not traveling enough. He shook his head and said "Many people on their deathbed just wanted the pain to stop".

About when to take SS, let's take these two extreme suboptimal cases that one may end up in.

1) You took SS at 62, then find out that at 80 you are still going strong. It is highly likely that, due to human nature, you will regret not delaying it so that you would have more now. You will forget all the good stuff or experience you bought with that SS money. You will lament the "wrong choice" to anyone who listens, and tell them to learn from your "mistake".

2) You delay SS till 70, and at 71, find out that you do not have much longer to live. Are you going to regret not taking SS earlier, to spend it on that fancy car, taking that world cruise when you were younger? No, you will be so sad and too busy being scared to think about the unfulfilled bucket list.

In other words, case 1) makes you regret, and in case 2) you don't care. So, with my understanding of human nature as described above, it is probably safer to delay SS to avoid regret.

Caveat: The above assumes that you can live comfortably without SS, and are just debating whether you should take SS to buy more caviar and foie gras. If you are short of funds or if the market tanks, it is far better to take SS to reduce your WR.
__________________

__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How Much Power Does a Laser Printer Draw? haha Other topics 21 11-01-2013 09:51 AM
Taking Social Security early vs. not LeavingOhio FIRE and Money 268 06-05-2013 10:17 PM
New thoughts on the draw down phase walkinwood FIRE and Money 30 03-29-2011 07:38 AM
Real World FIRE Income Poll, Average Monthly Draw ShokWaveRider FIRE and Money 14 09-12-2006 11:50 PM
Worst Draw-Down haha FIRE and Money 11 02-11-2005 09:21 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:53 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.