Early SS could be the smartest move

[Totoro]

Really?

Yes.

Unlike the lottery, death is garantueed and participation is mandatory.

Unlike the lottery, not everyone has the same odds to win in a given drawing. It stands to reason as well that most people have a fairly good view of their chances relative to others.

It's a bet, but most people can beat the house since they have an information advantage.

 

[NW-Bound]

Unlike the lottery, death is garantueed and participation is mandatory.

Unlike the lottery, not everyone has the same odds to win in a given drawing. It stands to reason as well that most people have a fairly good view of their chances relative to others...

+1

Eventually, we will all get to win at the death lottery. You get to keep drawing until you are the grand prize recipient. One just needs to be a bit more patient.

About SS drawing, the article shows that early SS recipients appear to know about their health condition, hence start to draw early. They do not die early because they draw SS early. They draw early because they feel their health is declining.

However, the point of the article, as also summed up in its title, is that if one considers survivor benefits, it is advantageous to wait as long as one can. See that real-life example by Jollystomper earlier.

 

[gerntz]

Really?

In the past, a couple of times, I've had health assessments that told me my health age vs. my chronological age. These included things like BP, cholesterol levels, PSA, weight, drinking, smoking & driving behaviors, presence of guns, exercise pattern, & parents age a death. From that they calculated my likely longevity vs. average. It impacted my SS timing choice. You can control of these to at least some degree ex your gene pool.

 

[bingybear]

we have an article that claims there is a correlation between filing early and dying early
There are some comments that some of those people may be concerned about health problems.

Others might be justifiably worried about their health, Slavov’s study shows. Early filers were 80 percent likelier to die between 66 and 71 than those who filed for Social Security after the full retirement age. Early filers are also likelier to feel unhealthy and doubt whether they’ll make it to 75, according to the authors' analysis of survey data.

So we jump on the conclusion that early filing increases chances of early death.
They could have concluded that ER causes early death.
Really one would need to look more into the data (if it was taken). How many really had existing health problem? How many had sedimentary life styles? How many took care of their medical issues? How many had a life besides watching TV or posting on the internet?

I know quite a few people who retired at 62 and took SS. Many spent most of what they made when they were working and retiring at 62 was a rite of passage. Many of these people did not do regular medical and dental care throughout their life?
Or are some of these people in the study like my mom who had type 2 diabetes and kept eating sugar, honey, etc.--- yes this can effect your luck on the longevity wheel.
Remember statistics can lie...

 

[harley]

</sense of humor in this thread>

goto Monty_Python_Argument_Skit

 

[nate2953]

The modeling I've done says that to maximize SS, I should take at 62, my wife should file and suspend at FRA and then take her full benefit at 70. During the file and suspend time period, my wife will take half of my benefit. I'm thinking it will depend on how our finances look each year I'm 62 and over. Interesting is that since my wife is five years older, she hits FRA the same year I hit 62.

As for this thread, I agree that many people who know they have health issues likely are driving up the percentage of people taking SS at 62. I have a friend that was waiting to take SS but got a diagnosis of Parkinson's and went ahead and filed early.

Another thing is pensions. I'm not sure how they all work, but my friends that early retired from the autos are required to take SS at 62. Basically, their pension is X and once SS kicks in, they still get X but it is made up of SS+a smaller amount from the auto.

Just FYI, your spouse cannot file and suspend AND draw spousal benefits.

She can draw spousal benefits by filing a "restricted application" at her FRA if you are entitled to benefits or if you've filed and suspended.
I'm sure you meant what I wrote above, but sometimes the wording can be tricky


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[Totoro]

goto Monty_Python_Argument_Skit

Goto is considered harmful

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful

 

[harley]

Goto is considered harmful

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful

Lol! Right back at you! "Goto Considered Harmful" Considered Harmful (Bottom right of first page)

 

[Koolau]

<SNIP>

Remember statistics can lie...

People lie. (Figures don't lie, but liars figure.) Statistics only conceal as in:

Statistics are like a bikini. What they conceal may be more significant than what they reveal.

But YMMV.

 

[RetireBy90]

Spouses benefit is capped at 50% of the primary persons PIA.
Widows benefits is capped at 100% of the monthly benefit amount the deceased was receiving.

In English: spouses do not benefit from DRCs. Widows do benefit from DRCs.

Forum

Sounds like a good reason to stay away from Doctors, hospitals, and knives if you wait till 70.

 

[Chuckanut]

That settles it. I am not collecting early, it leads to an early death.

Not really. It's the extra money that leads to the early death, not the source. I highly recommend you get rid of that nasty extra money, ASAP. If you like, I can dispose of it for you.

 

[athena53]

This doesn't surprise me. Life insurers have known for a long time that mortality among people who buy annuities is much lower than the general population because of "self-selection"- i.e., people who buy annuities expect to live a long time. They even use different mortality tables.


The opposite would happen with early SS recipients- if you're in poor health or have a family history of early death, you file at 62.

 

[Chuckanut]

The opposite would happen with early SS recipients- if you're in poor health or have a family history of early death, you file at 62.

You would think so. But, in my family of long lived people, most of the older folks took it at 62. However, they were also the people who survived a Depression and a world war (sometimes two world wars) so security was a big issue for them.

 

[flyingaway]

Where did they count those people who wanted to take SS at FRA, but did not make it there?

 

[RetireBy90]

Another thing is pensions. I'm not sure how they all work, but my friends that early retired from the autos are required to take SS at 62. Basically, their pension is X and once SS kicks in, they still get X but it is made up of SS+a smaller amount from the auto.

DW has a small pension from the county school district, and she get a SS offset (an extra $500 each month) along with the pension from retirement age till she is FRA, regardless of when she takes her SS. Just another example of how some pensions work.

 

[Bir48die]

Another Twist To Early SS

So I have a question... As is I am planning on doing SS at 66.2. I am 60. If I take at 62 it will be $1,900 or so per month (hers will be $1,400/mth in January of this year). If I take at full retirement it will be approximately $2,600/month.

Conventional wisdom says wait for full SS so if I croak first she gets higher benefit. I see that logic. However in our case she has taken a lower pension so I can be a beneficiary if she croaks. If I go first her pension will increase approximately the same amount as the difference in SS amounts ($550/mth or so). In addition she'll pick up approx $1,100 per month tax free from Veterans from her late husband so a total of $1,650/mth after me taking early SS.

Do I take early or full? Some depends on market and if I want to keep 401K's alone (approx $1.85 million as of today).

 

[bingybear]

So I have a question... As is I am planning on doing SS at 66.2. I am 60. If I take at 62 it will be $1,900 or so per month (hers will be $1,400/mth in January of this year). If I take at full retirement it will be approximately $2,600/month.

Conventional wisdom says wait for full SS so if I croak first she gets higher benefit. I see that logic. However in our case she has taken a lower pension so I can be a beneficiary if she croaks. If I go first her pension will increase approximately the same amount as the difference in SS amounts ($550/mth or so). In addition she'll pick up approx $1,100 per month tax free from Veterans from her late husband so a total of $1,650/mth after me taking early SS.

Do I take early or full? Some depends on market and if I want to keep 401K's alone (approx $1.85 million as of today).

Conventional wisdom? Many would say waiting until 70 to start SS is better for maximizing survivor benefits.
It looks like you have a lot going for you, so the real question is what do you want to optimize? Survivor benefits (both ways)? Income over time? Lower taxes at RMD time?
In sort, what is important to you?

 

[Bir48die]

Conventional wisdom? Many would say waiting until 70 to start SS is better for maximizing survivor benefits.
It looks like you have a lot going for you, so the real question is what do you want to optimize? Survivor benefits (both ways)? Income over time? Lower taxes at RMD time?
In sort, what is important to you?

Financial Planner says maximize death benefit but he was not aware of the additional $ available on my death. So, that point is moot.

So doing P/T for at least 6 months to maybe end of 2016. At that time I can review the market which is causing me a bit of concern. I guess my reasoning would be to allow more assets to grow in 401K's depending on the length and severity of the market. Also aware of the growth of SS from 62 on in real terms.