Poll: Taking SS - when?

[eytonxav]

Will be 69 in June, and took my SS at the beginning of 2018.

[Niuatoputapu]

Suggest you ignore the following unless you are interested in WEP and GPO

I voted "under 62 and starting SS at 70", though I include the "can change my mind at any time" rider. DW, now 62, will start whenever she retires. Her school system pension makes her SS subject to WEP, so her SS will be less than $500/month.

Waiting until 70 is longevity insurance, but more importantly, it is spousal survivor benefits. The survivor benefits would be almost negated by GPO (due to her pension) if I take an age 62 benefit. However, my SS benefits will grow more between age 62 and 70 than 2/3rds (part of the GPO calculation) of her pension growth. Thus, there will be much more for her to claim from my benefits if I wait until 70 (and die before her).

[Silver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mdlerth I voted "other" because for married folks it's really two questions with possibly very different answers resulting from two separate optimization problems.

This. I am 66 and my DH 65. I started SS last year at FRA 66, and DH will claim 50% of my SS at his 66th birthday in January 2019. (We squeaked by before that advantage was cut off.) Then DH will claim his own SS at age 70. If he should die first I'll then claim the higher amount.

Life is good.

[kimcdougc]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed B I voted for Other. I am under 62 and plan to evaluate year by year once I turn 62. If the portfolio is doing well I will hold off on taking SS until FRA. If we enter a bear and my portfolio drops to a level where I am not comfortable selling assets, I will start Social Security.

+1

[H2ODude]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silver This. I am 66 and my DH 65. I started SS last year at FRA 66, and DH will claim 50% of my SS at his 66th birthday in January 2019. (We squeaked by before that advantage was cut off.) Then DH will claim his own SS at age 70. If he should die first I'll then claim the higher amount. Life is good.

We're basically same but are same age (67) and mine is higher than hers. When hit FRA she took hers, I'm getting half as much. When I turn 70 I will take it on my record. We're using it to a) pay RMD taxes and b) provide longevity for her as my pension dies with me.

[SumDay]

I'm taking at 62, DH will be 66 (FRA) shortly thereafter, and he'll take 1/2 mine as a spousal benefit. Yes, we're eligible for this. Then, when he's 70, he'll take his after it's percolated for a few years. Just in time for RMD's to kick in.

[whaleknives]

Retired at 64-1/2 in 2015, but using savings until 70 to maximize SS for my spouse and self. Before SS I'm converting my 401(k)/tIRA to Roth, to avoid a higher tax bracket from SS + RMD's.

I'm well ahead of my 5 lowest FIRECalc cases so far.

[Out of Steam]

Under 62 and not yet retired. Plan to postpone until 65, but doubt I'll wait longer.

[6miths]

Younger than 62 currently and taking as late as possible. It's bonus money and plan to live a long time. Hopefully in good health.

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6miths Younger than 62 currently and taking as late as possible. It's bonus money and plan to live a long time. Hopefully in good health.

I have always thought that you are Canadian. If so, is the Canadian system similar to the US regarding benefits getting higher for late claimers?

[Yarnstormer]

I will take survivor at 60 (divorced w widow status) and my own at 70.

Really, the numbers would be approx the same if I switched them, but I prefer to let mine grow. I do worry that changes to survivor benefits are coming - seems they keep nibbling at the rules

[6miths]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6miths Younger than 62 currently and taking as late as possible. It's bonus money and plan to live a long time. Hopefully in good health.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound I have always thought that you are Canadian. If so, is the Canadian system similar to the US regarding benefits getting higher for late claimers?

Yes on being Canadian and yes the Canada Pension Plan is very similar to Social Security. Taking it later means a greater monthly cheque. AFAIK the main differences are that the maximum payout for SS is higher than CPP for high income earners although the governments have been talking about increasing the amounts for the last few years for all incomes (with increased contributions of course) and the second difference is that the Plan is in good shape financially and never discussion about it not existing or reductions in payouts. The age range to start is 60 with full benefits at 65 increasing to a maximum at 70. There have been discussions about increasing the range by 2 years due to longer lifespans but hasn't happened yet. As well there are two other pension plans which are not contribution based - Old Age Security which starts at 65 and the Guaranteed Income Supplement which also starts at 65 for those with low incomes. The effect of the three plans is that poverty in old age is quite low with many low income individuals having a greater income in old age than they did in their working years.

[Clone]

DW just turned 62 and began drawing. She is the lower earner, plus, she has some gov income that is not subject to self employment tax if you are drawing SS. I am not quite 62, and plan to draw at 70. Higher earner, thus longevity insurance, higher survivor benefit, and allow for more ROTH conversions. The thing with planning to draw at 70, you always have the option to draw earlier.

[97guns]

ASAP, if I could take anything now at 47 I would

[tb001]

I voted in the <62 and taking it at 62 category, but maybe should have been other? I voted for us as a family. DH is 54 and we have young kids. After looking into it on the advice I received here, it’s a no brainer for us as a family to start collecting when he turns 62, as long as there are no changes to SS in the interim.

[6miths]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tb001 I voted in the <62 and taking it at 62 category, but maybe should have been other? I voted for us as a family. DH is 54 and we have young kids. After looking into it on the advice I received here, it’s a no brainer for us as a family to start collecting when he turns 62, as long as there are no changes to SS in the interim.

Why do you say it is a 'no brainer'? Do you desperately need the money or does he have a health condition that will limit life expectancy?

[jimandthom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Niuatoputapu Suggest you ignore the following unless you are interested in WEP and GPO I voted "under 62 and starting SS at 70", though I include the "can change my mind at any time" rider. DW, now 62, will start whenever she retires. Her school system pension makes her SS subject to WEP, so her SS will be less than $500/month. Waiting until 70 is longevity insurance, but more importantly, it is spousal survivor benefits. The survivor benefits would be almost negated by GPO (due to her pension) if I take an age 62 benefit. However, my SS benefits will grow more between age 62 and 70 than 2/3rds (part of the GPO calculation) of her pension growth. Thus, there will be much more for her to claim from my benefits if I wait until 70 (and die before her).

Good point on the calculation at 70 not just FRA etc. Just did some math.

For us------ 2/3 of spouses CSRS present value subtracted from my SS future value estimate at 70 still puts us in the negative. I didn't add in colas as they are usually the same.

The final three years in calculating the CSRS pension were by far the largest earning.

It was a time when many auxiliary mail routes were being combined with other permanent routes and some of the sorting automation was starting to take major inroads.

So-- he went to 6 days every other week on a somewhat high volume high mileage route( but not so high as to cause any red flags) for 2 of the final three years.

Plus most of my last 15 years of worklife was being able to work in a job that allowed me to continue with my parental care arrangements. Pay was ok, had health benefits, great employee discount, 401k and I could walk to work. It was actually the perfect job in light of the care needs.

Guess I'll stick with collecting next year or 2020 for FRA.

[tb001]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6miths Why do you say it is a 'no brainer'? Do you desperately need the money or does he have a health condition that will limit life expectancy?

As I understand it, at 62, we will receive benefits for him as well as benefits for our two children, up to 18, and for me if I’m the sole caregiver, up to a family max. The article one of the forum members sent me to is here:

https://www.kitces.com/blog/why-soci...and-not-delay/

[6miths]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 6miths Why do you say it is a 'no brainer'? Do you desperately need the money or does he have a health condition that will limit life expectancy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tb001 As I understand it, at 62, we will receive benefits for him as well as benefits for our two children, up to 18, and for me if I’m the sole caregiver, up to a family max. The article one of the forum members sent me to is here: https://www.kitces.com/blog/why-soci...and-not-delay/

That is interesting and it sounds like you are correct in your situation. I don't know if we have those rules north of the border. Never an issue for us as children are grown.

[MarieIG]

Under 62 - and all over the map. In theory, if in good health, and depending upon status of conversions, would like to postpone mine to a minimum of 65, and DH (with the better earning history) to 70.