Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-10-2013, 03:12 PM   #41
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
veremchuka's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: irradiated - too close to the nuclear furnace
Posts: 1,294
So I'll hijack my thread.

I started to notice in my 30's how many people I knew were dying. Not a lot but some so I started to really watch the obits.

I came to the conclusion from looking at the ages in obits of the general population over time that if you make it to say 60 or 62 you have a good shot at the later 70's and above. A lot of people die in their 30's and especially the 40's and 50's and I still see that today.

I assume others have noticed this too. I associate it with hereditary or life style diseases that kill you in that time frame, get past that and pass go and collect another 15 or 35 years.
__________________

__________________
veremchuka 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 09-10-2013, 03:22 PM   #42
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
braumeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Northern Kentucky
Posts: 8,582
Veremchuka, I think you may be forgetting the difference between life expectancy at birth and life expectancy at [any] later age.

In 1930, life expectancy at birth in the US was 59.7 (all races, both sexes)
In 2010, it was 78.7, almost a 32% increase in 80 years.

But the older you get, the more likely you are to get still older.
__________________

__________________
braumeister is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 04:41 PM   #43
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Koolau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Leeward Oahu
Posts: 3,240
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerntz View Post
I found it interesting that, based on the examples in the article, the difference (lowest to highest) was about 10K out of about 765K. Not a huge difference no matter what option one chooses. One complicating factor in the examples is assuming that benefits are paid (life expectancy in the example) to age 85. Maybe the results would be much different if the expected age were (for instance 81). Anyway, I think the article argues for choosing OTHER reasons to pick a benefit date than the TOTAL benefits received over a reasonable life time (in this case to age 85).

With that in mind, I have identified one main reason to wait until 70 to begin benefits (for me): DW signed off to take a lower pension survivor benefit (current monthly pension benefit is increaseD). So, at 70, I will maximize my SS benefit and upon death, DW will have the highest possible SS survivor benefit available to her.

Obviously, there are many nuances in the decision, so, as always, YMMV.
__________________
Ko'olau's Law -

Anything which can be used can be misused. Anything which can be misused will be.
Koolau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 05:01 PM   #44
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
timo2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Rio Rancho
Posts: 1,438
Quote:
Originally Posted by veremchuka View Post
So I'll hijack my thread.

I assume others have noticed this too. I associate it with hereditary or life style diseases that kill you in that time frame, get past that and pass go and collect another 15 or 35 years.
That's how actuarial tables work. It is really interesting, but this knowledge can elicit unintended schadenfreude over living longer, it seems.
Actuarial Life Table
__________________
"We live the lives we lead because of the thoughts we think" Michael O’Neill
timo2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 05:12 PM   #45
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,380
According to US Actuarial Life Tables, for males the probability of death in any year falls from birth to the 10th year of life, then climbs slowly but steadily until there is a brief reversal from age 25-27. After Age 27, the death rate rises again slowly but steadily for the rest of a lifetime.

Actuarial Life Table
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-10-2013, 06:05 PM   #46
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Chuckanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 6,315
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
How long of a profile did you use? I wouldn't expect to see a big difference until you went out past 30 years, and the success rate will start to increase again if you go over 46 years or so (once 1966, a bad year, drops out of the test, so keep the profile length below that point). As I mentioned, this is really longevity insurance you are buying, so the advantage will only be there if that longevity comes to be.

Another consideration is, if the portfolio does OK between ages 62 and 70, delaying is not 'painful', and probably not harmful to the portfolio success. Several posters here did take SS earlier than planned when the recent dip hit us. The full draw down during that dip might affect success rates. That makes sense for their situation, and might make those general runs in FIRECalc, where the same rules apply to all time periods, a little 'off'.

-ERD50
I went out to 35 years. I retired later than many, probably most, people here, though a few years earlier than my official full retirement SS age.

Yes, delaying SS as a form of longevity insurance is exactly what I plan to do.

When I say not much difference, I am looking at the maximum amount I can spend with a 100% success rate.

The period between 62 and 70 is very important to me since I will get no SS and plan to spend quite a bit more doing things I may not be able to do in my 70's and 80's. Even allowing for that, with my assumptions used in FC - including three big lump sum expenditures between 62 and 70 - there is not much difference. It does help that I am still thrifty even when spending more than usual.
__________________
The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
Chuckanut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 07:41 AM   #47
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 79
"Selected Data on Aging, by Walter Vom Saal, is 30% die before age 65" Whether this data is right or wrong, I didn't know myself so I looked it up on the web. But I must say that once you reach a certain age, your chances of making it longer seem likely. Rather than compare it to age 1 to age 65. But then again it may not apply to me. Maybe I'll be lucky maybe not, I am not a gambler I took SS early.
__________________
lynxville is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 01:04 PM   #48
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpeirce View Post
So how does it work if the higher earner is younger? Or doesn't it?
Doesn't matter if that higher earner waits till his/her FRA for spousal benefit. Gets 1/2 the spouse's FRA benefit regardless between their FRA & age 70 or whenever after FRA the higher earner starts taking their own increased SS benefit.
__________________
gerntz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 01:21 PM   #49
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,380
Quote:
Originally Posted by lynxville View Post
"Selected Data on Aging, by Walter Vom Saal, is 30% die before age 65" Whether this data is right or wrong, I didn't know myself so I looked it up on the web. But I must say that once you reach a certain age, your chances of making it longer seem likely. Rather than compare it to age 1 to age 65. But then again it may not apply to me. Maybe I'll be lucky maybe not, I am not a gambler I took SS early.
Hey, it's on the internet, it must be true, right?

A few posts back I linked what the Chief Actuary of the SS system says about this. Here is what he says: Males, Age 0 start with 100,000 lives; males age 65, 80,308 lives left. Now to me, that doesn't look like 30% have died before age 65, no matter what Mr. Von Saal says.

Let's try females, maybe they die more before age 65 with childbirth and all. Females, age 0, 100,000 lives; females, age 65, 87,769 lives.

Whoops, doesn't seem like 30 % of the ladies die before age 65 either.

Maybe the SS Chief Actuary is poorly informed?

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
Old 09-11-2013, 01:44 PM   #50
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 447
Well, it was "selected data" ...
__________________
Peter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 03:15 PM   #51
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerntz View Post
Doesn't matter if that higher earner waits till his/her FRA for spousal benefit. Gets 1/2 the spouse's FRA benefit regardless between their FRA & age 70 or whenever after FRA the higher earner starts taking their own increased SS benefit.
"Even if he or she has never worked under Social Security, your spouse may be able to get benefits if he or she is at least 62 years of age and you are receiving or eligible for retirement or disability benefits."

Retirement Planner: Benefits For Your Spouse

To get spousal benefits, the other spouse must be receiving benefits or have applied and suspended. This makes it more difficult if the younger spouse is the bigger earner.
__________________
Animorph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-11-2013, 11:58 PM   #52
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Reno
Posts: 555
Haven't read all the posts.
But one consideration I'm pondering is that the timing could be dependent on retirement and portfolio timing. That is, as long as the investment environment/portfolio is doing well, continue to delay SS.
If the market crashes, take it earlier and defer drawing from the portfolio, particularly the stock piece. Seeing it as an income option (or option on stock/portfolio value) increases under the scenario that both stocks and bonds allocations go down at the same time.
Just a thought but I suspect someone made it already.
Also, as retiredunder50, it would allow further consumption earlier on the assumption spending will decrease later as one slows down.
__________________
RobLJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2013, 09:09 PM   #53
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 154
Just remember, per SS newsletter in May/2013 SS funds will be depleted.

"The combined assets of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) Trust Funds are projected to become depleted in 2033, unchanged from last year, with 77 percent of benefits still payable at that time."

We'll still get some, but it will decrease.

I feel it will get worse because there are so many unemployed that can't contribute to SS and the wages of middle class employees aren't increasing with inflation. They just mentioned this week that the top 1% are getting richer while the lower class are getting more poor. This doesn't help SS at all.
__________________
heirloom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-12-2013, 09:10 PM   #54
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 154
I stand to be corrected....2033, not 2013.
__________________
heirloom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2013, 07:52 AM   #55
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animorph View Post
"Even if he or she has never worked under Social Security, your spouse may be able to get benefits if he or she is at least 62 years of age and you are receiving or eligible for retirement or disability benefits."

Retirement Planner: Benefits For Your Spouse

To get spousal benefits, the other spouse must be receiving benefits or have applied and suspended. This makes it more difficult if the younger spouse is the bigger earner.
I'm not following why this makes it tougher. I would think the older, lower income spouse is most likely to taking SS benefits first. Yes/No? So when the younger high earner reaches their FRA, he/she just applies for spousal benefit of older spouse already on SS.

Don't know what the spouse who never worked has to do with this. I think that spouse can only collect spousal benefits, not benefits on their own.
__________________
gerntz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2013, 01:16 PM   #56
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerntz View Post
I'm not following why this makes it tougher. I would think the older, lower income spouse is most likely to taking SS benefits first. Yes/No? So when the younger high earner reaches their FRA, he/she just applies for spousal benefit of older spouse already on SS.

Don't know what the spouse who never worked has to do with this. I think that spouse can only collect spousal benefits, not benefits on their own.
Yeah, file and suspend mechanically works the same, but you only get 1/2 the lower earning spouse's full benefit. Not as good as the other way around. The key part of the quote was: "you are receiving or eligible for retirement or disability benefits." That hinders the older spouse from receiving additional spousal benefits (from the higher earner) before receiving their own benefit (if higher) at age 70. That's my poorly worded "difficulty". Without that requirement it would have been possible for the older low earning spouse to file at FRA for half the higher earning spouse's full benefit, just like the case when the high earner is the same age or older.
__________________
Animorph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2013, 02:43 PM   #57
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
braumeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Northern Kentucky
Posts: 8,582
Doesn't the high earner in this case have to be at FRA before the spouse can get spousal benefits?
__________________
braumeister is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2013, 10:01 PM   #58
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by braumeister View Post
Doesn't the high earner in this case have to be at FRA before the spouse can get spousal benefits?
No, but...

Spousal benefits are available as long as the other spouse is already taking benefits. That could be age 62 to FRA. But the other spouse is then stuck with that lower-than-FRA benefit forever. Not a problem for many, as we all know. The other spouse can only file and suspend if they are at FRA or above.
__________________
Animorph is offline   Reply With Quote
how much faith do you have in actuarial tables
Old 09-14-2013, 10:49 AM   #59
Dryer sheet aficionado
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Tinton Falls
Posts: 45
how much faith do you have in actuarial tables

I wonder how this current & next generation of our population will impact the actuarial tables. Yes, there are medical advances, but compared to the previous generation, how much will our obese, sedentary lifestyles, with sleep deprivation, screen-watching, minimal physical activity, and exposure to more chemical toxins in our foods and environment affect the tables? Doesn't anybody think we might be experiencing a real downward trend in life expectancy?
__________________

__________________
retiredunder50 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 07:29 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.