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

[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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by golfersailor I started at 62 three years ago and have not looked back!

Don't, you'll be severely disappointed.

[ejman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ejman 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ejman 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.

[Khufu]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ejman 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.

But that's an obviously false comparison. You are comparing a retrospective investment return (cherry-picked both to exclude a balanced portfolio by way and to skip over the crash!) to an insurance product that protects you with an income that you can't outlive. It is always the case with insurance products that there is a near-term disadvantage, particularly against cherry-picked stock market return. The benefit of insurance appears when the risk that you cannot afford to bear actually appears, i.e. unexpectedly long life,

If your comparison period included the past five years, compared to a balanced portfolio, reflected the ~8% increase due to Delayed Retirement Credits PLUS the COLAs for the five year period (since you are using nominal returns for the S&P, and you live 5 years more than you expect, what do you think the comparison would look like?

[mathjak107]

ill be 60 tomorrow and my wife is 62 .

we have debated this over and over and the fact is the best deal is she just filed and ill wait until 66 or maybe even 70.

there is no annuity on the planet i could buy with an inflation adjustment that even comes close to ss.

so i may just end up taking 1/2 my wifes at 66 and god willing my own at 70.

having said that ,the reason is we can spend a whole lot more out of savings now while we are young and healthy .

we can spend so much more now because we will have the security of a whopper of a payment coming in later to refill.

its not only about the payment but full fra lets you maximize payments if your married.

marilyn takes hers early, at 66 i may file and take 1/2 hers letting mine grow until 70.

with 2 horses in the race im not worried about breaking even. odds are one of us will go on but the fact is we can spend more right now by not taking it and thats key .
she switches

[Walt34]

Undecided so far. The pension option I took calls for the pension to drop by the amount of SS I would have been eligible for at 62 (which was last spring) thus maintaining a level income. But if I keep working I'll get more later and DW, who will presumably outlive me, will too.

And I don't mind the job I have now, which pays much more than the SS benefit. Easy commute, nice hours, low stress, the extra income is nice, etc. so for now I'll stay the course.

And we're banking most of the unplanned-for income to spend later which I think is optimistic because it relies on the assumption that there will be a "later". That's where the crap shoot comes in.

[golfersailor]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat Don't, you'll be severely disappointed.

Why look back?? Can't change anything so just enjoy what you have now. I like having my a pile of cash that I can touch and feel. Pension and SS pays all of our major bills without taking money out of IRA's. Would we have been better off waiting maybe or maybe not just depends on health and when we die.

[gerntz]

I'm 64.5. We're trying to keep income down in order to take more LT cap gains at 0% rate. Have a chunk of employer stock with big gains. Who knows what the future tax rates will be. May change then.

[Lsbcal]

Didn't realize I was voting in a poll that is now 3.5 years old.

Actually some of the folk's reasoning in this forum convinced me to take SS earlier then FRA. Shows an open mind. No regrets.

[ejman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Khufu But that's an obviously false comparison. You are comparing a retrospective investment return (cherry-picked both to exclude a balanced portfolio by way and to skip over the crash!) to an insurance product that protects you with an income that you can't outlive. It is always the case with insurance products that there is a near-term disadvantage, particularly against cherry-picked stock market return. The benefit of insurance appears when the risk that you cannot afford to bear actually appears, i.e. unexpectedly long life, If your comparison period included the past five years, compared to a balanced portfolio, reflected the ~8% increase due to Delayed Retirement Credits PLUS the COLAs for the five year period (since you are using nominal returns for the S&P, and you live 5 years more than you expect, what do you think the comparison would look like?

I'm not so sure it's obviously false. I did not cherry pick the period or the investment. The poster I was responding to made a comment regarding another poster that had taken SS 3 years earlier at 62 and made it sound as if that poster had made a mistake. I simply looked at the return on a very standard run of the mill investment for the same time period since that poster took SS and clearly the investment comes out ahead.

For the future - who knows - investments could do well or not SS payments could be sharply reduced or means tested - who knows. Considering options and deciding whats best is very seldom a black and white question for the simple reason that we do not know what the future holds.

I am biased though - I just applied for my SS ( at 62) after duly considering the arguments for delaying to my FRA or to age 70. Let's do another poll in 30 years and see how things turned out shall we?

[tightasadrum]

"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." W2R

Well, W2R, I'm at least one who is eligible for full SS benefits who has not elected to start yet. This "when to start SS" argument seems to go on forever. At least for now I'm of the mind that I will start it when I need it, or at 70, whichever comes first. I'm also seven years older than DW, so later would provide more COLA'd income for her if I go out first.

[imoldernu]

We took SS @ 62, back in 1998... but there were some differences then, in interest rates.
We were ultra conservative at our retirement in 1989/90. Cd's up to and through 2003 were substantially higher than today... As I recall there were times when we had jumbo CD's that were paying about 9% and even more.

In some earlier posts, I had questions about accumulation of capital, without actively investing in the market. Some of it came from beginning IRA's in 1974...
While interest rates have been up and down since then. There were times when plain old CD's paid 16% -17%... Between the late 1970's and mid 1980's it looked like easy street for everyone who could set a bit of money aside.

Certificate of Deposit Index (CODI), Historical Data

Not from being smart.. just being around at the right time.

Off topic, I'm sure, but looking ahead and considering the national debt @ 16T, I have an uneasy feeling about the possibility of double digit inflation, so as far as SS is concerned, wonder if the political structure would COLA SS with an actual inflation adjustment, or adjust in the manner of today,by excluding things like food and energy... possibly adding healthcare and education to the non-applicable cost of living adjustments.

SS at 62? A tough decision.

[mathjak107]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cut-Throat Stupid me.... I forgot about the 15% per year.

as we say hindsite is 20/20.

i can say this much for myself. if i had that kind of returns from my equities i would more then likely not take anymore of a withdrawal not knowing what tomorrows markets would be like.

the biggest bear market may be lurking just around the corner.

but i can tell you by delaying ss and having it pretty much a lock like i bought an annuity i would have no reservations about spending more.

big difference in the way i would handle the two events.