Laurence Kotlikoff - Maximize my SS.com

[daylatedollarshort]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 OK, but your link didn't take me to post #377, just to the start of the thread. I've found you can right-click the post # (says 'permalink' when I hover over it), and copy/paste that link to get to a specific post. Isn't #377 posts in to the thread going a long way to try to make your point that there are 'lots of' negative posts? I'm not even sure that comment was made seriously (you left the smiley-face out of your quote). Honestly, have you considered you might be just a wee bit sensitive on this, and reading negativity into some of these posts? -ERD50

I'll consider the possibility I'm a wee bit too sensitive on this if you consider the possibility I'm not and you might be doing just a wee bit of mansplaining.

[Hermit]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort My view early on in this thread was "I think that is why there is no single correct answer to the SS question for every household. We all have different priorities and goals to maximize. " In this thread and others I have noticed terms like waiting is a "no brainer", "collect SS at 62 so they can get screwed", "No need for any stupid 'break even analysis'", "a lot of folks cannot resist the 'early money' ", taking SS at 62 is a non-optimum decision by people who can't afford to be efficient, no quantitative case for taking SS at 62, where else can you buy an annuity for 8% (one sided claims because it does not consider the downside - the income lost if one dies prior to the crossover point), etc.

To me, it seems that taking SS at 62 limits your choices based on a change in situation in the future. In my case, DW died unexpectedly just before I turned 60. With that information, I had the option to collect SS on her account until I turn 70. That is an additional 13k per year that I collect that tilts the equation to waiting to 70. Had she died when I was 63 and I had already started my SS at 62, I would no longer have the choice. The additional 13k per year would not be a consideration.

[Katsmeow]

ERD50 - Having read most of the SS threads here over the past several years, it is obvious to me that the majority of posters tend to advocate waiting to 70, many quite stubbornly. I actually have always in the past been fairly neutral on this decision for me (DH took at 62 as we had 2 minor children) and figured I didn't have to think too much about it until I was 62 (which when I joined here seemed a long way away). Now that it is less than a year away I've been thinking about it more.

I had actually been leaning toward taking at 62 (or thereafter) if the market was down 20% or more, otherwise taking spousal at 66 and deferring mine to age 70 (in our case, DH and I have very similar benefit amounts, mine slightly higher). But, lately I've been leaning more to taking earlier.

But, I do get the feeling frankly than many here aren't just in favor of 70 but act sort of like anyone who doesn't wait is either poverty stricken or kinda stupid. I just think it is more complex than that.

[tmeeker]

Buy the book from Amazon titled "Get Whats Yours" way before you think you are ready to sign up for SSN. Honest.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Katsmeow ERD50 - Having read most of the SS threads here over the past several years, it is obvious to me that the majority of posters tend to advocate waiting to 70, many quite stubbornly. I actually have always in the past been fairly neutral on this decision for me ... ... But, lately I've been leaning more to taking earlier. ... But, I do get the feeling frankly than many here aren't just in favor of 70 but act sort of like anyone who doesn't wait is either poverty stricken or kinda stupid. I just think it is more complex than that.

Well, I guess each person's perceptions can be different. I just don't get that perception from these threads. As I've said, one poster who did a fantastic job of pointing out the logic of 'you can spend it now, knowing you will get more in the future', does, IMO, come across rather heavy-handed. And I think he would make his case better by not calling it a 'no brainer', as that doesn't account for conditions and needs/wants outside the scenario he presents. But I really don't think that is the same as calling someone 'stupid', (but it is close)! I guess I can roll with that one. I really think that all he meant was that it was a 'no-brainer' that you could spend it early if you take it late - and the math backs that up (but ignores things that might be important to others, like leaving money to heirs).

On a parallel side note - this is why I have always been so vocal on the dancing, happy feet comments about someone doing a pre-pay of the mortgage. If a pre-pay is so great, it infers holding a mortgage must be stupid and sad. I think people should be aware of the message they are sending, and I made the same comment early on about the 'no-brainer' comment regarding delaying SS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort I'll consider the possibility I'm a wee bit too sensitive on this if you consider the possibility I'm not and you might be doing just a wee bit of mansplaining.

Hmmmmm..... Well, I'm going to cut you some slack here, since you included the smiley face. But I never really am sure what the smiley face means under a context such as this. Does it mean 'just funnin' with ya', or does it mean ' hah! I really got you with that one, and I'm grinning from ear-to-ear with superiority!'?

I had to google 'mansplaining', and it meant as I feared. But to be clear, if there was any seriousness in that comment, I find it highly offensive. And if it was a joke, I think it was a tasteless one. I don't talk down to someone because of their gender, and it is insulting to even suggest it. It also makes you sound weak, as if you can't be wrong, it must be someone else acting snobbishly.

Either way, this back and forth has gone on far too long. I'm out, and will stick to trying to learn something about the facts/logistics of SS strategies, and ignore whatever some people think other people are trying to say about the 'wise-ness' of their decision, outside of the facts.

-ERD50

[F4mandolin]

Again a SS thread to death.....

See the ball.....hit the ball......

Too much thinking......

I plan to take SS at 62.....am I wrong? Damned if know. Ask me when I get to 80 (22 years from now).

Was moving to the UK at this point in my life the smartest thing I could do? (money waste etc)......Yep. Because it was the best thing for ME.

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Quote:

But, I do get the feeling frankly than many here aren't just in favor of 70 but act sort of like anyone who doesn't wait is either poverty stricken or kinda stupid. I just think it is more complex than that.

I do not get that impression but I can see where it might come across. It is not simple, I agree. It is a strategy that was not discussed much in the past and the advantages that apply to some people are worth bringing to general attention. Until I got close to 62, I knew nothing about it. Until I ran our numbers, I had no clue. There are pros and cons. People should examine their individual situations if they want to make a rational decision, but if someone wants to shoot from the hip, I am OK with that. You have to go with your gut.

I plan to wait until 70 for my own reasons and I am pretty sure that 70 is the best for us. Our situation is fairly simple and most of retirement income for some time will be SS. YMMV.
1) I am married, so to maximize benefits to the survivor,
2) because we don't really need it right now,
3) my health is still good and my family has good longevity, and
4) I want to convert most of my IRA to Roth before I start to take SS (to avoid the Tax Torpedo for the surviving spouse).

If our situation changes (for example, my health turns bad), I would talk with DW about me taking SS right away but I could get by without in order for 1) above. (She has already started to receive benefits under file-and-suspend.)

If I were never married, I might have taken it early or alternately, postponed it until 70 to avoid the Tax Torpedo for myself. I would run the numbers first. I suspect there would be no advantage, so I would take it early. There are plenty of singles in my age group, so early could make sense for them as well.

My younger sister (married) took hers ASAP. She encouraged me to do the same, but my situation is a little different from hers and we have different preferences as well. No biggie.

[Texas Proud]

I see where some people get upset when others do not agree with them...


'How could so and so make that decision when I have laid it out with simple math that it is wrong....' and then the other side say 'what you did not take into consideration is blah blah blah'.....

The truth of the matter is BOTH are right.... and I think that most people here acknowledge that fact...

So if someone is talking in absolutes, let it go....


Just for fun... I am absolutely sure that waiting to 70 is easily the best for my situation... DW is 10 years younger and has no SS of her own... nobody can come up with a formula that would show anything different... but as always, life can change and make my plans worthless... DW's first husband died in his 40s... kinda takes all discussion out of what to do....

[Bikerdude]

Not to continue to but this article summarizes my thoughts. Others I know will disagree, however there is a link in the article to a study with some good charts.

There is no ‘right’ answer on when to claim Social Security - MarketWatch

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bikerdude Not to continue to but this article summarizes my thoughts. Others I know will disagree, however there is a link in the article to a study with some good charts. There is no ‘right’ answer on when to claim Social Security - MarketWatch

Then he goes from making sense to falling down the "conventionalism" rabbit hole and making a lot less sense:

Quote:

So I needed to calculate a break-even age — the age at which total Social Security payments from claiming at age 66 and age 70 would be the same.

The correct question: "Which will be of greater utility to my wife and I: The higher monthly inflation-adjusted check that we can't outlive, or the increased amount we'll keep in our portfolio if I take SS before age 70?" That would be an interesting examination, and worthy of the (electronic) ink.

[Cut-Throat]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bikerdude Not to continue to but this article summarizes my thoughts. Others I know will disagree, however there is a link in the article to a study with some good charts.

From the Article: "Each family’s situation is unique and my analysis may not be appropriate for your situation.I recommend that you get advice from a competent financial adviser before making this important decision."

And of course this guy's occupation is a Financial Adviser.

[pb4uski]

The really strange thing is that he doesn't mention at all that if he dies first that his wife will 'inherit" his higher benefit and it will be even higher if he delays and will increase the cash flow they receive on a jointly which will increase the chance that he will reach the breakeven point. (not that I think BEP analysis is the optimal way to look at that decision).

[rayvt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound What'd ya know? The SS @ 70 still wins, but by an "astounding" 0.5% increase in spending level! Due to the Bernicke's model, either one would result in an increase of 50% of initial spending over the flat spending model, and that's more impressive. So, do it at 62, or do it at 70. It does not seem to make a lot of difference.

Funny how a system designed to be "actuarially neutral" somehow always seems to turn out to be actuarially neutral. Damn math.

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

I never doubted it. My decision was based on personal concerns that could change.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound So, do it at 62, or do it at 70. It does not seem to make a lot of difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayvt Funny how a system designed to be "actuarially neutral" somehow always seems to turn out to be actuarially neutral. Damn math.

It was surprising that if we are going to both live till 100, then both of us drawing at 62 or both drawing at 70 makes no difference. We are at the same age.

But if I am going to drop dead in my 70s, which is likely, then my wife drawing at 62 followed by myself at 70 is a better strategy than both drawing at 62. It would allow us to spend another $4K/year, according to FIRECalc, and for my wife to continue to spend more till she's 100.

PS. However, if I allow for the spending to be reduced when I pass, then the advantage of delaying my SS at 70 is nullified again.

[tryan]

In my head I always figured a married couple should tap the smaller SS at the FIRST opportunity (grabbing the reduced bennie AND the 50% spousal bennie). Then tap the larger account later (like 70-72 yo). No spread sheets ... just what I figured would max the bennie.

The free Bedrock calulator confirmed this as the max bennie for us (tap at 62 yo for the smaller account ... 70 for the larger).

[jebmke]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound It was surprising that if we are going to both live till 100, then both of us drawing at 62 or both drawing at 70 makes no difference. We are at the same age. But if I am going to drop dead in my 70s, which is likely, then my wife drawing at 62 followed by myself at 70 is a better strategy than both drawing at 62. It would allow us to spend another $4K/year, according to FIRECalc, and for my wife to continue to spend more till she's 100. PS. However, if I allow for the spending to be reduced when I pass, then the advantage of delaying my SS at 70 is nullified again.

At or about 64 I have to decide on SS, Medicare and my Pension. I'm thinking of going 100% survivor on pension and then jumping off a cliff.

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski Here's the math for taking SS at 70 vs 62. Let's say that your FRA is 67 and your FRA benefit is $1,000/month. If you claim at age 62, your benefit will be about 30% lower, or $700/month. If you claim at 70 your benefit would be 24% higher, or $1,240/month. If you forego SS at 62 and delay to 70 then you will have forgone $700/month for 8 years, or $67,200 and you gain a $540 COLAed benefit for the rest of your life. An argument could be made that you give up more than $67,200 because of COLA, ok... so if you bake in a 2.75% annual COLA, the $67,200 becomes $74,036. According to immediateannuities.com, $74,036 of premium at age 70 (male) would buy a $467/month non-COLA lifetime benefit, so by delaying SS you get an extra $73 per month plus COLA on the whole $540/month. So now the question becomes whether you would be willing to pay $74k for a $540 COLAed monthly annuity benefit. IMO if your health is good that's a good deal.

I just saw an interesting article by Allen Roth that says the same thing I was trying to say in this post, albeit with different numbers.

Deferring Social Security Benefits Will Set You Up for the Long Run – AARP

[travelover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski I just saw an interesting article by Allen Roth that says the same thing I was trying to say in this post, albeit with different numbers. Deferring Social Security Benefits Will Set You Up for the Long Run – AARP

Confirmation bias

[pb4uski]

Perhaps... I think of it more is just independent confirmation... I don't see a whole lot of experts suggesting that people take SS at 62 if they can afford to wait.....but I have found both Allen Roth and Mike Piper's stuff over the years to be pretty solid.