W
WhodaThunkit
Guest
New column today. Bottom line: Married men and single women, wait as long as possible before beginning to draw SS. Married women, begin drawing SS as early as possible. The column gives more detail, of course.
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Except for all the situations and financial aspects that make that a bad idea. Note they do not incorporate any aspects of the "more money when quality of life is higher" line of thought, and that they presume the money will be invested and that the estimated "3% real rate of return" is most certainly a retirees best effort. They also remove the decision from the greater financial picture, which has already been demonstrated with real numbers to be a mistake.
The real interesting part is this...from the article:
"That's the conclusion of a recent study by economists Alicia Munnell and Mauricio Soto at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College."
From the Boston College web site:
"The Social Security Administration has recently awarded Boston College a grant of $5.25 million to set up a retirement policy research center."..."The Director of this new Center will be Alicia Munnell (CSOM). She is...a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury."..."This center will not focus on health issues"
Uh oh...the guys who want you to keep working and feeding into the SS pool as long as possible paid for all this 'research'. Now you know why I always say to check sources before taking up any bullet points from a newspaper column.
Alicia has also been quoted as saying "The financial gains from an additional year of work are really impressive,".
While this is true, it may betray either her personal belief or a direction that the organization the SSA has founded is based on: Keep people working, keep them away from taking their benefits as long as possible. You know what Alicia...I'm betting the financial gains from working until you drop are really impressive too.
Obviously an organization funded by the social security administration, headed by a former assistant treasury secretary, who isnt factoring in health issues...is going to come up with a very unbiased opinion.
But then again, the people who have already made the decision will find this supportive "documentation" comforting.
The real interesting part is this...from the article:
"That's the conclusion of a recent study by economists Alicia Munnell and Mauricio Soto at the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College."
From the Boston College web site:
"The Social Security Administration has recently awarded Boston College a grant of $5.25 million to set up a retirement policy research center."..."The Director of this new Center will be Alicia Munnell (CSOM). She is...a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury."..."This center will not focus on health issues"
Uh oh...the guys who want you to keep working and feeding into the SS pool as long as possible paid for all this 'research'. Now you know why I always say to check sources before taking up any bullet points from a newspaper column.
Alicia has also been quoted as saying "The financial gains from an additional year of work are really impressive,".
While this is true, it may betray either her personal belief or a direction that the organization the SSA has founded is based on: Keep people working, keep them away from taking their benefits as long as possible. You know what Alicia...I'm betting the financial gains from working until you drop are really impressive too.
Obviously an organization funded by the social security administration, headed by a former assistant treasury secretary, who isnt factoring in health issues...is going to come up with a very unbiased opinion.
But then again, the people who have already made the decision will find this supportive "documentation" comforting.
WhodaThunkit, while you certainly don't have to get along with TH, you also don't have to continue this public sniping. You posted a good link, I enjoyed reading the article, and it makes me think. But that doesn't mean everyone's going to agree with you.WhodaThunkit said:
I think that tracking the authors & motivations of these studies is a very valuable guide to their validity. As a master of manipulating customer opinions through the judicious application of his employer's funds toward similar "studies", TH knows what he's talking about.
He's done the work & reported his results with his opinions. It's a good post. It's not a personal attack on you and you shouldn't feel obligated to air your personal dispute in public. It's not about you, so kindly get over it.
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
So what you're saying is that its a bad thing to identify the sources and potential motivations of the suppliers of information? Just swallow it?
I see.
If I hadnt been one of the guys paying these artificially created think-tanks to produce the results I wanted for much of my employed life, I'd probably be a little less cynical.
If we can set aside the obvious enmity you have for me, and that you've shown no interest in dissenting data to your preset opinion, I'll offer this:
For someone working without adequate savings...they're going to have to keep working until the monthly cash flow situation - with or without social security - is adequate. They simply have no choice.
For someone who cant work, they'll have to take social security when its available. They simply have no choice.
For someone who could retire and take social security early, if they simply dont need or couldnt spend the money, the numbers say that taking it early and investing it in rational, reasonable investment vehicles will push the break even past 81 years old. The age at which most people will expire, on average. So if you think you'll live longer than that and will be able to enjoy the extra money more in your 80's than your 60's...then wait. Otherwise take it early.
If you're an early retiree, the firecalc numbers I've run show that adding an income stream to an investment portfolio consistent with an early social security paycheck increases portfolio survivability, annual withdrawals and terminal portfolio sizes in every case with any reasonable investment mix vs taking it late.
If you're married, will live long enough to take it late, and your financial situation requires the higher income levels for a spouse that may outlive you...then wait.
As you can see, there are a lot of different factors, types of people and situations that should be considered.
If you were a little less "this is a slam dunk" (because if anything, its practically a slam dunk to wait) and were a little less passive aggressively hostile to people with alternate opinions, this would be a somewhat more productive discussion.
I see.
If I hadnt been one of the guys paying these artificially created think-tanks to produce the results I wanted for much of my employed life, I'd probably be a little less cynical.
If we can set aside the obvious enmity you have for me, and that you've shown no interest in dissenting data to your preset opinion, I'll offer this:
For someone working without adequate savings...they're going to have to keep working until the monthly cash flow situation - with or without social security - is adequate. They simply have no choice.
For someone who cant work, they'll have to take social security when its available. They simply have no choice.
For someone who could retire and take social security early, if they simply dont need or couldnt spend the money, the numbers say that taking it early and investing it in rational, reasonable investment vehicles will push the break even past 81 years old. The age at which most people will expire, on average. So if you think you'll live longer than that and will be able to enjoy the extra money more in your 80's than your 60's...then wait. Otherwise take it early.
If you're an early retiree, the firecalc numbers I've run show that adding an income stream to an investment portfolio consistent with an early social security paycheck increases portfolio survivability, annual withdrawals and terminal portfolio sizes in every case with any reasonable investment mix vs taking it late.
If you're married, will live long enough to take it late, and your financial situation requires the higher income levels for a spouse that may outlive you...then wait.
As you can see, there are a lot of different factors, types of people and situations that should be considered.
If you were a little less "this is a slam dunk" (because if anything, its practically a slam dunk to wait) and were a little less passive aggressively hostile to people with alternate opinions, this would be a somewhat more productive discussion.
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Ah yes. My "Screed", complete with reliable, repeatable sources and actual data, vs your well valued opinion based on newspaper columnists, books on finance and investing written by "marketing executives" and think tanks funded by biased agencies.
On the other hand, we've never determined your issues with or what is 'wrong' with my 'screed', as you wont discuss any specifics. You only wish to spend lots of time discussing how you wont discuss the actual issues.
I personally dont know Scott Burns. I've read plenty of his columns. Agreed with some. Disagreed with some. Found his numbers and process for coming to his conclusions to be somewhat constrained at times, and attributed that to the limits of short column space.
But I dont take his every opinion and source, hook line and sinker.
On the other hand, we've never determined your issues with or what is 'wrong' with my 'screed', as you wont discuss any specifics. You only wish to spend lots of time discussing how you wont discuss the actual issues.
I personally dont know Scott Burns. I've read plenty of his columns. Agreed with some. Disagreed with some. Found his numbers and process for coming to his conclusions to be somewhat constrained at times, and attributed that to the limits of short column space.
But I dont take his every opinion and source, hook line and sinker.
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I didnt say he was ignorant of the subject matter. I pointed out that his primary choice of occupation and how he describes himself in his biography is inconsistent with a career in finance and expertise in retirement.
My wifes ex husband is a CPA. He's also an idiot. How about you?
So let me get this straight. What were your expectations when you saw this newspaper article and posted it. Were you hoping to help people avoid the wrongheaded opinions of a bunch of anonymous internet posters, controlled by bullies, by posting as an anonymous internet poster?
Or were you just a little bored on a sunday morning and felt like doing a little trolling for attention?
Going back to the actual topic. This forum is dedicated to early retirees. If you're an early retiree or just projecting for when you will be, do this. Open firecalc, put in your portfolio numbers, years, investment mix, all that good stuff you always do. Now put in your expected social security payments if received early and if received late. The SSA will send you a nice form telling you what the numbers are if you dont know, just go to their web site. See what the differences are between an income stream at 62, 65 and 67 (or whatever years work for you). See which ones look best to you.
Its that easy. Someone gives you the numbers, and someone gives you a tool to use them to see how they'll affect your early retirement.
For those that in their 40's and 50's dont think they'll need the extra money...I sure dont plan on fixing my own roof, changing my own oil and cooking all my own meals when i'm in my 60's. And for my personal firecalc run, I get to spend an extra chunk of change EVERY YEAR starting now in my mid 40's and that I'll leave more money to my son when I die. No downside. Thats one tough choice...
My wifes ex husband is a CPA. He's also an idiot. How about you?
So let me get this straight. What were your expectations when you saw this newspaper article and posted it. Were you hoping to help people avoid the wrongheaded opinions of a bunch of anonymous internet posters, controlled by bullies, by posting as an anonymous internet poster?
Or were you just a little bored on a sunday morning and felt like doing a little trolling for attention?
Going back to the actual topic. This forum is dedicated to early retirees. If you're an early retiree or just projecting for when you will be, do this. Open firecalc, put in your portfolio numbers, years, investment mix, all that good stuff you always do. Now put in your expected social security payments if received early and if received late. The SSA will send you a nice form telling you what the numbers are if you dont know, just go to their web site. See what the differences are between an income stream at 62, 65 and 67 (or whatever years work for you). See which ones look best to you.
Its that easy. Someone gives you the numbers, and someone gives you a tool to use them to see how they'll affect your early retirement.
For those that in their 40's and 50's dont think they'll need the extra money...I sure dont plan on fixing my own roof, changing my own oil and cooking all my own meals when i'm in my 60's. And for my personal firecalc run, I get to spend an extra chunk of change EVERY YEAR starting now in my mid 40's and that I'll leave more money to my son when I die. No downside. Thats one tough choice...
Just want to point out the BC center has also publicly said that without social security, many retirees would be destitute. In fact, with social security, many retirees are destitute.
I value knowing where the funding comes from. In this case, having read a lot of the work of the BC center, I don't see a conflict. I think they published material that argued against switching to the personal accounts Bush wanted, for example.
And BC, if you didn't know, is pretty liberal, politically.
I value knowing where the funding comes from. In this case, having read a lot of the work of the BC center, I don't see a conflict. I think they published material that argued against switching to the personal accounts Bush wanted, for example.
And BC, if you didn't know, is pretty liberal, politically.
SamHouston
Recycles dryer sheets
I've read Scott Burns columns for a long time and have gotten a lot out of them because Burns writes in such a clear style as opposed to some of the other financial columnists.
I understand what he's saying in this case, but I disagree with his logic for me personally. I don't plan to be "dependent" on Social Security payments making the real difference in my life as a retiree. I've paid into the fund for a good 40 years now and when I start to collect monthly payments I will look upon them as the gravy that gives me a few options to do some of the "fun" things that I look forward to doing in retirement.
For that reason, I will want to start the checks coming while I'm still young enough to do those "fun" things. So waiting as long as I can to start collecting from the Social Security folks is not a good option for me. I can see where it would be the best option for those who need the money more for survival than I will need it, but it's not a "one size fits all" situation.
I understand what he's saying in this case, but I disagree with his logic for me personally. I don't plan to be "dependent" on Social Security payments making the real difference in my life as a retiree. I've paid into the fund for a good 40 years now and when I start to collect monthly payments I will look upon them as the gravy that gives me a few options to do some of the "fun" things that I look forward to doing in retirement.
For that reason, I will want to start the checks coming while I'm still young enough to do those "fun" things. So waiting as long as I can to start collecting from the Social Security folks is not a good option for me. I can see where it would be the best option for those who need the money more for survival than I will need it, but it's not a "one size fits all" situation.
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
WhodaThunkit said:
We already covered this. There is no reason to 'set aside a bridge in tips or a mm account'. You are artificially reducing the portfolio size by removing money from it and setting it into a construction with an inferior return rate to produce the numbers you want. If you leave the money in the portfolio, you get a higher withdrawal, higher survivability, and higher terminal size. Every time.
We already had this discussion and we'll come to no different conclusions. While I may be an idiot and probably a bully by your definition, you are either a troll or a gullible and obstinate person with poor financial skills.
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
kate said:
Thats true...CRS found the following:
• Twenty-eight percent of those 65 or older - many of them grandmas and grandpas - had incomes of less than $10,000 in 2004. Ten percent had incomes of $50,000 or more.
• Social Security paid benefits to 88 percent of these older Americans. It is the largest single source of income among the aged.
Sixty-nine percent of Social Security beneficiaries age 65 or older receive more than half of their income from Social Security.
For 39 percent of elderly recipients, Social Security contributes more than 90 percent of their income.
For nearly one-quarter of recipients, it is their only income.
REWahoo
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give
WhodaThunkit said:
Whoda, I totally agree with you. Had you not beat me to it, I was going to post a reference to Burns SS column. I also know that there are two (at least) sides to every story and am interested in hearing both (all) of them. Even if they are posted by members of the lonely hearts club, prisoners of desire, or ex-members of the light brigade wearing fuzzy pink slippers.
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Hey, i'm not saying it isnt worthy information to rehash the discussion again.
If you'll read my question again, I was asking why the OP posted it, considering his/her obvious disdain for this "forum of bullies".
Now he/she will claim that its only a few people. I suppose then I'll have to pull out the quotes from other threads where the claims were far more broad spread.
So you have a place where you know you're going to get a negative reception. You dont like some people there. You know you're going to get jumped on. Why invite what you claim is going to be supressive harassment unless you like it? Thats all I was trying to get to the bottom of.
By the way, anyone want to dig up and link the scott burns article from about 14-16 months ago where he espoused taking SS early, replete with slam-dunk calculations in support of that idea?
I guess next year he'll split the middle and say to take it at 65? Or suggest working until you drop as he plans to?
Oh yeah, and that "total cash flow" thing? What was that saying my old vp of sales had at my first sales job? Oh yeah... "INCORRRRECT, *******!" What'd you do to get that result? Tie an arm and a leg behind your back and burn half the portfolio (PPI adjusted) annually in a fireplace to reduce your gas bill?
If you'll read my question again, I was asking why the OP posted it, considering his/her obvious disdain for this "forum of bullies".
Now he/she will claim that its only a few people. I suppose then I'll have to pull out the quotes from other threads where the claims were far more broad spread.
So you have a place where you know you're going to get a negative reception. You dont like some people there. You know you're going to get jumped on. Why invite what you claim is going to be supressive harassment unless you like it? Thats all I was trying to get to the bottom of.
By the way, anyone want to dig up and link the scott burns article from about 14-16 months ago where he espoused taking SS early, replete with slam-dunk calculations in support of that idea?
I guess next year he'll split the middle and say to take it at 65? Or suggest working until you drop as he plans to?
Oh yeah, and that "total cash flow" thing? What was that saying my old vp of sales had at my first sales job? Oh yeah... "INCORRRRECT, *******!"
What'd you do to get that result? Tie an arm and a leg behind your back and burn half the portfolio (PPI adjusted) annually in a fireplace to reduce your gas bill?
REWahoo
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give
Here is a link to some previous discussions and articles on delaying taking SS benefits:
http://early-retirement.org/forums/index.php?topic=4943.msg86458#msg86458
As I said in that post, it is interesting that as the leading edge of the boomers get close to 62, we start seeing articles about delaying taking SS to age 70, etc. One fact not discussed in any of these articles IIRC is the double benefit (to SS) of the delayed SS recipient 1) continuing to work and contributing to SS and 2) the obvious benefit of delaying the SS fund draw down.
I rarely adhere to conspiracy theories, but this makes me very suspicious. Until recently I had never seen any press on the benefits of delaying beyond the "full benefit" age of 65 or 66. Did I miss something?
EDIT: I did find one explanation of the sudden appearance of all the "delay SS" topics:
http://early-retirement.org/forums/index.php?topic=4943.msg86545#msg86545
http://early-retirement.org/forums/index.php?topic=4943.msg86458#msg86458
As I said in that post, it is interesting that as the leading edge of the boomers get close to 62, we start seeing articles about delaying taking SS to age 70, etc. One fact not discussed in any of these articles IIRC is the double benefit (to SS) of the delayed SS recipient 1) continuing to work and contributing to SS and 2) the obvious benefit of delaying the SS fund draw down.
I rarely adhere to conspiracy theories, but this makes me very suspicious. Until recently I had never seen any press on the benefits of delaying beyond the "full benefit" age of 65 or 66. Did I miss something?
EDIT: I did find one explanation of the sudden appearance of all the "delay SS" topics:
http://early-retirement.org/forums/index.php?topic=4943.msg86545#msg86545
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I just hope that anyone who is still bothering to read this sees clearly that I devoted a great deal of energy to discussing this matter factually and without personal attacks until both myself and Nords were subjected to angry and undeserved retorts.
I'll also note that I took great care in looking back through "whodathunkit"s posts to see if I had ever responded to anything he/she wrote in a manner that would have inspired any anger. Excepting some sarcasm during the last social security "great debate" after trying hard to get him/her to discuss the issues openly, I see nothing.
I see in looking at his/her collective posts that he/she first showed up in one of the first discussions on social security, accompanied by several other anonymous or first time posters, all of them patting each other on the back. Never a "Hi, I am" or any mention I can see of his/her retirement plans, whether he/she is ER'ed, or very much specific information at all. Just sort of hit the ground making snarky comments. The other anonymous/first time posters appear to have sunk back into the ground after that initial social security discussion ended.
I also see he's had hostile exchanges with a number of people who disagreed with him/her. I guess its comforting that I'm not the only one thats created disdain.
I'll also note that I took great care in looking back through "whodathunkit"s posts to see if I had ever responded to anything he/she wrote in a manner that would have inspired any anger. Excepting some sarcasm during the last social security "great debate" after trying hard to get him/her to discuss the issues openly, I see nothing.
I see in looking at his/her collective posts that he/she first showed up in one of the first discussions on social security, accompanied by several other anonymous or first time posters, all of them patting each other on the back. Never a "Hi, I am" or any mention I can see of his/her retirement plans, whether he/she is ER'ed, or very much specific information at all. Just sort of hit the ground making snarky comments. The other anonymous/first time posters appear to have sunk back into the ground after that initial social security discussion ended.
I also see he's had hostile exchanges with a number of people who disagreed with him/her. I guess its comforting that I'm not the only one thats created disdain.
"Bullies"? Yikes!WhodaThunkit said:
Don't worry, WhodaThunkit, I won't moderate your posts. I wouldn't want you to feel that I was being less than objective about your contributions. The other moderators can figure out when you've exceeded the limits.
Good talking with you, you have a nice life now.
Thanks for the post. I used to be squarely in the "take it as soon as you can" camp. But as I've read more and analyzed various risks, I'm beginning to lean toward a straggled approach -- DW take it at 62 while I wait till later. Getting a larger COLA'd annuity is significant insurance against outliving your portfolio.WhodaThunkit said:
But DW and I (at 50 and 51) don't have to decide for awhile. I may change my mind again by then.
I think most people take Soc. Sec. at 62 because they need it.
If you have reached this age, and do not, congratulations for being in a position to play "Soc. Sec. Futures".
My wife and I both took Soc. Sec. at 62, and any mistake on that front would pale in comparison to some of the "boners" I pulled early on in life.
May be fun to argue about, but the information I've seen puts it in the "Crap-Shoot" territory.
Regarding conspiricy theories, I can understand the Feds motivation by keeping you at the pump as long as possible.
If you have reached this age, and do not, congratulations for being in a position to play "Soc. Sec. Futures".
My wife and I both took Soc. Sec. at 62, and any mistake on that front would pale in comparison to some of the "boners" I pulled early on in life.
May be fun to argue about, but the information I've seen puts it in the "Crap-Shoot" territory.
Regarding conspiricy theories, I can understand the Feds motivation by keeping you at the pump as long as possible.
JPatrick
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 2,610
You know, I really hate to bring this discussion down to the really boring level known as real life, but sometimes observations in realtime have some value.
My SS age is still a few years away, but since it has been at least visible on the horizon, I have been giving the "what age to draw" question a fair amount of thought. Like whoda and the bunny, I've broken out the Big 5 tablet and number two pencil which has provided me with numeric conclusions, which by the way don't coincide with those expressed earlier on this thread, (think age 63), but I have also used that silly old reseach trick of asking real people who have been there done that, what they woulda, shoulda done.
I've asked relatives, friends, friends of friends, dude in waiting rooms, and --well you get the idea. If I throw out the folks that need the bucks to survive along with the workaholics who truly don't need anymore money and concentrate on us everyday folks in the middle, I'd have to say I've never found anyone who regretted their decision. What was that decision? A bit like the national averages, however, I've never met anyone who retired before 65 and then elected to wait for the max benefit at 70.
Does that make them all stupid and deprived? Sure doesn't seem so.
Hardly scientific info, but talking to real people can be valid. Anyone here know a senior citizen who is beating themselves up for not waiting to collect til 70 or even 65?
Want to hear a real problem? How about the multitudes who are not maxing out their 401K's and/or using other retirement saving vehicles to fund their own future.
Think you could find someone who regrets the fail to save decision? Under every rock!
How about devoting some bandwidth to that one.
My SS age is still a few years away, but since it has been at least visible on the horizon, I have been giving the "what age to draw" question a fair amount of thought. Like whoda and the bunny, I've broken out the Big 5 tablet and number two pencil which has provided me with numeric conclusions, which by the way don't coincide with those expressed earlier on this thread, (think age 63), but I have also used that silly old reseach trick of asking real people who have been there done that, what they woulda, shoulda done.
I've asked relatives, friends, friends of friends, dude in waiting rooms, and --well you get the idea. If I throw out the folks that need the bucks to survive along with the workaholics who truly don't need anymore money and concentrate on us everyday folks in the middle, I'd have to say I've never found anyone who regretted their decision. What was that decision? A bit like the national averages, however, I've never met anyone who retired before 65 and then elected to wait for the max benefit at 70.
Does that make them all stupid and deprived? Sure doesn't seem so.
Hardly scientific info, but talking to real people can be valid. Anyone here know a senior citizen who is beating themselves up for not waiting to collect til 70 or even 65?
Want to hear a real problem? How about the multitudes who are not maxing out their 401K's and/or using other retirement saving vehicles to fund their own future.
Think you could find someone who regrets the fail to save decision? Under every rock!
How about devoting some bandwidth to that one.
cute fuzzy bunny
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Amen Brother.
HFWR
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Regarding "average", to quote Jerry Reed:
"Well, the average American father and mother, owns one whole car, and half another. And I'll bet that half a car's a trick to drive, don't you?"
Thanks, Whoda, too, for lumping me into the "got it together" group (being 51 and then some), a fact that's been corroborated by an expensive extensive study funded by the Shiner Bock Drinkers and Kona Gold Growers Ass'n. (See, Nords, shoulda bought that house...)
I've done some what-ifs (with crayon, in my case), trying to determine what ye old nestegg will look like, and don't have much faith in their accuracies, so I'll probably wait 10.5 years before actually making the decision. But given my probable life expectancy of around 80 years, my SWAG at this juncture will be to take earlier rather than later, so I can spend it in my hopefully still active and healthy years. If somehow my piggy bank gets fuller than I anticipate, I may decide to wait. Too many variables at this point...
My parents retired comfortably on two pensions - one decent, one small - and two early SS checks. They didn't get to be globetrotters, but did fairly well, all told. My Mom passed away last year, aged 74. Should she have waited? Her life expectancy was probably mid 80s, before the cancer, i.e....
"Well, the average American father and mother, owns one whole car, and half another. And I'll bet that half a car's a trick to drive, don't you?"
Thanks, Whoda, too, for lumping me into the "got it together" group (being 51 and then some), a fact that's been corroborated by an expensive extensive study funded by the Shiner Bock Drinkers and Kona Gold Growers Ass'n. (See, Nords, shoulda bought that house...)
I've done some what-ifs (with crayon, in my case), trying to determine what ye old nestegg will look like, and don't have much faith in their accuracies, so I'll probably wait 10.5 years before actually making the decision. But given my probable life expectancy of around 80 years, my SWAG at this juncture will be to take earlier rather than later, so I can spend it in my hopefully still active and healthy years. If somehow my piggy bank gets fuller than I anticipate, I may decide to wait. Too many variables at this point...
My parents retired comfortably on two pensions - one decent, one small - and two early SS checks. They didn't get to be globetrotters, but did fairly well, all told. My Mom passed away last year, aged 74. Should she have waited? Her life expectancy was probably mid 80s, before the cancer, i.e....
New Thinking
Recycles dryer sheets
I'll add a couple of thoughts if I may..
- One thing most people miss when figuring the SS comparison calcs between 62 and 70 is that not only do you not get penalized by starting prior to Full Retirement Age & recieve Delayed Retirement Credits, you get credit for the intervening Cost-Of-Living Adjustments...The SS website is not clear on this, so it is often missed..So Whoda, when you say your SS is $18,000 at 62 and $32,500 at 70, I would say it is probably much higher at age 70, more like $39,500 or so if you figure the COLA projections are about 2.8% long term..This depends on your age, so I am just guessing that your Full Retirement Age is 66.
- Therefore, I don't think the FIRECALC forces people to take this into account. If you just plug your age 70 amount in without the 8 years of COLAs, your numbers wouldn't reflect the true value of delaying.
- There is a compounding effect as the higher base amount generates higher COLAs and the rules of compounding interest really apply over a long period.
- One comment was made by JPatrick that he asked current retirees about their decision..I would just warn you that the "early versus late" debate changed drastically only recently as the Full Retirement Age got bumped up to age 66 (and will head to 67) and the Delayed Retirement Credits just increased to 8% for most..It wasn't as "actuarially fair) in the past to wait to take SS.
- I would also point out to any of you who wish to Delay Social Security that their is a very unique quirk in the law that let's you start your spouse's SS early..Let me explain and assume the spouse is female (although SS is gender neutral) ..Generally speaking, a spouse will receive the greater of her own worker benefit or a "spousal benefit" based on the work record of her spouse..The spousal benefit is one half of the husband's worker benefit subject to any early reductions. A spousal benefit does not earn any Delayed Retirement Credits when delayed past the spouse's Full Retirement Age. It USED TO BE, that a spouse couldn't take the spousal benefit until her husband started SS. But changes made in 2000, allow the husband (worker) to file and immediately suspend his benefits. This means he continues to accrue a higher benefit by delaying, but the spouse starts her spousal benefits and doesn't leave any "money on the table".
- One final comment, Alicia Munnell does some great work for retirees and future retirees..This is especially critical in a time of increased risk being born by the individual retiree...She would never be influenced by funding to the Center For Retirement Research..Trust me on this.
Let the discussion continue...
- One thing most people miss when figuring the SS comparison calcs between 62 and 70 is that not only do you not get penalized by starting prior to Full Retirement Age & recieve Delayed Retirement Credits, you get credit for the intervening Cost-Of-Living Adjustments...The SS website is not clear on this, so it is often missed..So Whoda, when you say your SS is $18,000 at 62 and $32,500 at 70, I would say it is probably much higher at age 70, more like $39,500 or so if you figure the COLA projections are about 2.8% long term..This depends on your age, so I am just guessing that your Full Retirement Age is 66.
- Therefore, I don't think the FIRECALC forces people to take this into account. If you just plug your age 70 amount in without the 8 years of COLAs, your numbers wouldn't reflect the true value of delaying.
- There is a compounding effect as the higher base amount generates higher COLAs and the rules of compounding interest really apply over a long period.
- One comment was made by JPatrick that he asked current retirees about their decision..I would just warn you that the "early versus late" debate changed drastically only recently as the Full Retirement Age got bumped up to age 66 (and will head to 67) and the Delayed Retirement Credits just increased to 8% for most..It wasn't as "actuarially fair) in the past to wait to take SS.
- I would also point out to any of you who wish to Delay Social Security that their is a very unique quirk in the law that let's you start your spouse's SS early..Let me explain and assume the spouse is female (although SS is gender neutral) ..Generally speaking, a spouse will receive the greater of her own worker benefit or a "spousal benefit" based on the work record of her spouse..The spousal benefit is one half of the husband's worker benefit subject to any early reductions. A spousal benefit does not earn any Delayed Retirement Credits when delayed past the spouse's Full Retirement Age. It USED TO BE, that a spouse couldn't take the spousal benefit until her husband started SS. But changes made in 2000, allow the husband (worker) to file and immediately suspend his benefits. This means he continues to accrue a higher benefit by delaying, but the spouse starts her spousal benefits and doesn't leave any "money on the table".
- One final comment, Alicia Munnell does some great work for retirees and future retirees..This is especially critical in a time of increased risk being born by the individual retiree...She would never be influenced by funding to the Center For Retirement Research..Trust me on this.
Let the discussion continue...
haha
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
JPatrick said:
With complete respect to your opinion, I don't se that we are bandwidth constrained on this forum. Recently we have discussed, at length, such important topics as "How many TVs do you own?" "How many functioning computers do you have", etc. So there should be room for SS.
Some of us feel that SS will be "gravy", thus not particularly important. I disagree, to put it mildly. Just a moderate respect for life's exigencies should put us on notice that an ace in the hole could be really helpful at some point. Granted, this may not apply to some people, including military retirees, some feds, etc, who already have a whole handful of aces.
But if you are depending on the 60/40 mantra, or your own skills, then you could run dry. So social security is at least important enough to be seriously discussed, at length.
Ha
JPatrick
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2005
- Messages
- 2,610
Thanks Kate. Losing those pups is tough isn't it.kate said:
I had to put her down on New Years Day. Not the worst day of my life, but it is right up there on the list. Some day I'll tell that story.
I haven't been able to shake the funk I've been in and people are starting to give me those looks. You know, those looks.
I'm convinced I've got to find Molly's breeder if I am ever to be happy again.
My craigslist ad is below. Of course I'm chasing other angles as well.
http://houston.craigslist.org/pet/127380170.html
C
Cut-Throat
Guest
HaHa said:
I agree ! - Last year at this time, the discussion was mainly - 'At what age are you safe that Bush won't eliminate your SS' -
What a difference a year makes. I think even he (Bush) will be too embarrassed to even mention it in his State of the Union address this week.
