Poll for those 62 or older: At what age did you begin taking SS?

[REWahoo]

But they pay you for a extra month after you die, right?

I'll let you know...

 

[Moemg]

If the deceased was receiving Social Security benefits, you must return the benefit received for the month of death or any later months. For example, if the person dies in July, you must return the benefit paid in August. If benefits were paid by direct deposit, contact the bank or other financial institution. Request that any funds received for the month of death or later be returned to Social Security. If the benefits were paid by check, do not cash any checks received for the month in which the person dies or later. Return the checks to Social Security as soon as possible.

 

[unclemick]

In my case it was more like 2 or 3 months - I had this little thing called Katrina and aftermath which drew my attention and caused a slight delay.

heh heh heh - before the hurricane , I was going to put it off year by year depending on how cheap we could live in the old fish camp.

 

[old woman]

I will be 62 a year from April. I am a divorced from a dead guy so I can collect on his record I don't know what that might be. I will work until something happens, I am a bookkeeper with cataracts and somedays the numbers swim. If I lose my job or have a health event or something I will retire. Every year I wait will get me a bigger future check and about 55-70K in salary, profit sharing and bonuses so I can retire in poverty at 62 to in comfort at a later date. My investments are down and I don't feel I can count on them so having my SS almost double between 62 and 70 and a larger nest egg might be better.
I don't see why people choose full retirement date instead of a different date. To me that date isn't in any way special. I look at 62-65 and 70 as more having a reason to be chosen.

 

[Koolau]

Didn't vote 'cause I've got a month to go before 62. DW and I are covering our bets. She got her first deposit this month (she's 3 months older than I) at 62. I'm going to wait - probably until 66.

This way we will at least get something. Also, if I go first, she will get my larger benefit as a survivor. We liked this idea because I took my pension with only 1/4 survivor benefit instead of a reduced pension with 1/2 survivor benefit.

 

[OAG]

I'm planing to take SS at 62. Then if I'm healthy at 70 and it looks like SS will survive I'd repay what I received and collect at the higher rate.At least I've heard you can do that.Can anyone out there verify that?

I can, look at #2, this thread.

 

[F4mandolin]

2 questions from me...one just for curiousity.
For Curiousity---My pension will hopefully start in 2.5 years at 54. Goes without COLA until I hit 62 when it will adjust. Never knew there were pensions that went down at 62.....what folks get that kind of pension and why?
For Greed-- My wife (I married a UK Yorkshire lass) will be getting a 50% spouse SS when she becomes eligible most of 3 years after me. My waiting until 64 or so would increase my check a bit, but won't it also increase hers since she would be about 50% of mine?

 

[REWahoo]

For Greed-- My wife (I married a UK Yorkshire lass) will be getting a 50% spouse SS when she becomes eligible most of 3 years after me. My waiting until 64 or so would increase my check a bit, but won't it also increase hers since she would be about 50% of mine?

Check out this information on the SS website: Answer

 

[W2R]

2 questions from me...one just for curiousity.
For Curiousity---My pension will hopefully start in 2.5 years at 54. Goes without COLA until I hit 62 when it will adjust. Never knew there were pensions that went down at 62.....what folks get that kind of pension and why?

I'm not Curiousity, but - - some federal employees get an annuity supplement equal to their social security, and that obviously stops when they turn 62:

FERS Annuity Supplement

 

[pie2008]

I'm older than my husband so I started taking SS last year when I turned 62, based on my own earnings. We'll see what we want to do about his benefit when he turns 62 in a couple of years, but I expect he'll take it then.

 

[F4mandolin]

I think I have read that part of SS before.....although a little confusing for my wee little brain. I would interpret the reducing % for the spouse to be 50% of what I would be getting since it is based off the full retirement age (66.5 for me) and my steadily getting less before the 66.5 years. Is that correct?
A spouse receives one-half of the retired worker's full benefit unless the spouse begins collecting benefits before full retirement age. In that case, the amount of the spouse's benefit is permanently reduced by a percentage based on the number of months before he/she reaches full retirement age.

For example, based on the full retirement age of 66, if a spouse begins collecting benefits:

• At 65, the benefit amount would be about 46 percent of the retired worker's full benefit;
• At age 64, it would be about 42 percent;
• At age 63, 37.5 percent; and
• At age 62, 35 percent.

 

[REWahoo]

I interpret what you quoted in red as follows:

If your spouse waits until her full retirement age to begin drawing benefits, she will get 50% of the benefit amount you will be eligible to draw at your full retirement age (66.5). The reduction amounts shown (35 % at age 62, etc.) reflect the changes to the percentage amount of your full benefit she will be eligible to draw should she not wait until her full retirement age to begin drawing.

The amount she draws is based on her age at the time she begins taking SS and the amount you will be eligible to draw once you reach full retirement age. The amount she draws is not impacted by you taking SS at 62 or waiting until you are 64 - or until age 70.

If I am interpreting something incorrectly someone will be along shortly to correct me...

 

[F4mandolin]

Thanks......I like your version better. That way I could start taking SS at 62 and if things were doing just fine she could keep putting things off until she were older. Gives an extra option which might be useful. Putting my SS off a couple of years would only change MY benefits, not hers.

 

[OAG]

REW: has it basically correct. I will try to give you a "real life" example (the numbers have been changed to protect the innocent). IF your spouse takes SS at her age 62 it will be permanently reduced to 37.5 of yours at FRA (Full Retirement Age) or beyond. Which means even if you go to age 68 and say you get $2,000 a month she gets 37.5% of your amount or $750. She would normally get $1,000 but because she took it early her amount is reduced by 25% or to $750 (i.e, 37.5% of your $2,000). Upon your death she will "step up" to the $2,000 benefit used in this example. Of course the foregoing is based on the premise she would not get a larger amount if it were based on her earnings record (a factor that will come into play more now).

 

[F4mandolin]

Good info all around. My wife however will only be eligible for spouse benefits since she will have made little or no money working in the US. I am still living/working in the UK as a school teacher for the US Govt (she is a UK citizen) until I retire. The plan is to go the summer of 2011 if VERA is offered. We might take some part time work for a couple of years until the SS Supplement kicks in.

 

[W2R]

I found this frightfully old 2009 thread by doing a search. I think the results are fascinating, because it is not related to plans and reasons, but to what people actually DID - - and so far not one single person out of the 44 participants indicated that they actually took SS at full retirement age or later. Also, it was interesting to me to read REWahoo's post showing his satisfaction at seeing the pending deposit in his bank balance:

I looked at my checking account online this morning and for the first time ever saw this:

Feb 10, 2009
US TREASURY 303
PENDING DIRECT DEPOSIT ​

No second thoughts at all. Taking SS at 62 will cover 25% of our annual expenses - 25% I no longer have to pull from our shrunken nest egg.

Now that I am over age 62 and old enough to vote in the poll, I'll vote that I have not taken SS yet, although December 2012 (age 64.5) and July 2018 (age 70) are indicated in bold red letters on my calendar.

 

[Koolau]

I'm rapidly approaching FRA (less than 6 months) and I have NO plans to take SS then or any time soon, for that matter.

Whenever I think of taking SS, I go back to two significant concepts that loomed large in my life. From my flying days, I recall always thinking in terms of altitude vs airspeed. Both were "life" as a lot of either meant you could stay in the sky a little longer in an emergency. You could trade one for the other (within limits) but you couldn't have both if the fan ever quit. Personally, I preferred to have a lot of altitude whenever flying over an area without many apparent make-shift landing strips. In my c*reer as a scientist, one could trade potential for kinetic energy (or vice versa) under the right set of circumstances (the flying examples is a specific instance of this phenomenon, but in the physical and chemical world, the concept is much broader). I always viewed taking SS as "kinetic energy" (e.g., airspeed) and waiting for SS as potential energy (altitude). I've related other places about losing an engine while flying. Whether that incident affects my SS planning, I can't say. But, unless something else changes (law, financial set-backs, etc.) I plan to take SS at 70 (I'm hoarding my altitude!) I understand there are a dozen or more ways to look at the argument for/against taking SS at a given age. For me, perhaps it's psychological, but I've always tended to prefer potential energy rather than kinetic.

This concludes today's energy symposium. Oh, and YMMV.

 

[golfersailor]

I started at 62 three years ago and have not looked back!

 

[Cut-Throat]

I started at 62 three years ago and have not looked back!

Don't, you'll be severely disappointed.

 

[ejman]

Don't, you'll be severely disappointed.

That's an interesting viewpoint. Assuming that the money received from SS represents an equal amount of money that was left invested in Vanguards index 500 fund, the growth of that money from 3 years ago is compounded at close to 15% per year. A mite higher than the growth in SS payment.

People often forget that for a lot of ER folks, whatever the SS payments are represent an equal amount that is not coming out of investments so the rate of return on those investments makes for a less clear cut case. For those folks that have pensions that entirely cover their expenses - different story

 

[Cut-Throat]

That's an interesting viewpoint. Assuming that the money received from SS represents an equal amount of money that was left invested in Vanguards index 500 fund, the growth of that money from 3 years ago is compounded at close to 15% per year. A mite higher than the growth in SS payment.

People often forget that for a lot of ER folks, whatever the SS payments are represent an equal amount that is not coming out of investments so the rate of return on those investments makes for a less clear cut case. For those folks that have pensions that entirely cover their expenses - different story

Stupid me.... I forgot about the 15% per year.

 

[JakeBrake]

I filed for my SS at my FRA 66 years. DW was also 66. Her projected SS earnings based on her earning record would have been 1/4 of mine.

The original plan was that I would file and suspend and DW would receive the Maximum spousal benefit at 1/2 of my FRA amount and I would wait until 70. Bear in mind that if I filed for my spousal benefit on her record, then our combined benefits would still be less than 1/2 of my benefit.

Even so, we filed online. The online SS application is strictly customized to the individual applicant. DW's and my aplications were quite different. For example DW's application asked about her military service (she has none). My application said nothing about military service (I have some). I paid SS while in the military which shows on my SS earnings record.

Anyhow per the online application I thought I had filed and suspended. Per the online application SS is supposed to call by phone. This did not happen for either me or DW. Imagine my surprise when a direct deposit for me from SS appeared in our checking account. Also, DW received a direct deposit from SS, however, it was based on her own record which was about 1/2 of her spousal benefit on my record. By phone we did straighten things but by that time I did not want to give back my direct deposit so I said to heck with it. Let it come!

Also about that time DW recieived a letter from SS. They were going to do a "random" audit on her SS application. She absolutely panicked. Among other things the auditor who was several states away wanted our IRS returns (we have always filed jointly) from 1992 and 2005. I don't know if he could legally ask for our return from 1992 (he already had a copy). But I was so proud of myself that I was able to find the 1992 return that I had it at the audit which was by phone. He also wanted a certified copy of our marriage license. So, we had to take our marriage license to the local SS office to have it certified and a copy sent to the auditor. I think we passed the audit, we've never heard another word. This was our first and, hopefully, last visit to the local SS office.

In hindsight, I'm glad we have all that behind us and DW and my direct deposits should arrive every month until one or both of us die or the USA goes bust.

DW and my SS earnings cover about 2/3 of our monthly budget and causes our SWR to go way down.

 

[East Texas]

At this point in time I'm more in line with my fellow Texan (who started this thread way back yonder). My initial scenario was to roll my IRA over to a SPIA and delay social security. However, with the Fed keeping interest rates so low (an observation, not a political comment) I'm better off taking social security at age 62 - in the not too distant future - and only pull off investments if necessary.

Jake, I read your post with interest. My concern about filing online is you can't select federal withholding during the online process so I'm going to file in person. I'm also curious about the auditor requiring the older tax returns. IRS only requires you to keep current year plus three years unless fraud is involved and then (I think) it's current plus seven years (doing this from memory not from actual experience). It's just curious.

 

[REWahoo]

That's an interesting viewpoint. Assuming that the money received from SS represents an equal amount of money that was left invested in Vanguards index 500 fund, the growth of that money from 3 years ago is compounded at close to 15% per year. A mite higher than the growth in SS payment.

People often forget that for a lot of ER folks, whatever the SS payments are represent an equal amount that is not coming out of investments so the rate of return on those investments makes for a less clear cut case.

+1

 

[73ss454]

If it wasn't for these damn Roth conversions I would have taken mine already. I'm 63 1/2 this month and still on the fence. DW turns 62 in Dec. and is going to take her's on her record which is for only about 10 years.