guest
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 148
Ah ha! - early SS, bacon and and and Viagra! - like the old pharts on the tv ads.
Whoopeee!
heh heh heh -
they're old?
mmmmmmmm, bacon!
Ah ha! - early SS, bacon and and and Viagra! - like the old pharts on the tv ads.
Whoopeee!
heh heh heh -
I had the same reaction. I always thought they were of average age and had the misfortune of suffering from early onset dysfunctionality...they're old?
I had the same reaction. I always thought they were of average age and had the misfortune of suffering from early onset dysfunctionality...
Nah - great makeup!
heh heh heh - not to mention good camera work. I'm an optimist - thinking ahead of running down those young 65 yr old nurses aid's with my hoverround when I'm 85!
Thats pretty much correct. It matters a lot if you're entering an underfunded retirement, usually because you're suddenly unable to work any longer.
If you're 62 and have only enough money to make it to 70, you'd probably want to hold off on the SS until you're 70, providing you can then live the rest of your life on that amount. Still, it might be smart to take it earlier and try to hold onto at least a nugget of your nest egg.
For someone with a 7 figure portfolio at the age of 62, I doubt the couple of hundred bucks a month one way or the other will matter.
I just hope its still there in 15 years when I get there. I'm going to take it and blow it, each and every month. Pure fun money.
This is true with any annuity. Even one of the "buy at 55" SPIAs that I hope we have discredited will give a higher SWR in FIRECalc than depending on the assets to spin off cash flow. The difference is the time frame (usually 30 years) and the inflation adjusted SWR for a 60/40 portfolio of around 4%.On the other hand, taking social security early can help one retire earlier by introducing an income stream that handily offsets the need for a larger portfolio, using SS first and deferring their savings to a later age. This also reduces taxes.
Going out more than 30 years eliminates on of the great market disasters (the 1970's) and almost always gives a higher SWR than at 30. As for investment returns, I have no way of predicting.
The other key if you delay is hoping the govt doesnt start doing means testing, cuts the payout, drops the inflation adjustment, increases the taxation or some other method of pumping the bilge before the ship sinks.
If you take the money and invest it rationally, you'll be in your early to mid 80's before the delay strategy starts getting the upper hand. Having that bird in the hand may let you be a little freer with your spending between 62 and 85.
I'm guessing that the money is going to be more fun to spend at 62 than 85.
Alternatively, waiting to take the higher payout might mean missing any grandfather provision if general SS means testing is passed, which seems to be gaining political momentum and I expect to happen sometime in my lifetime.
It's hard to optimize a strategy in a game where someone else gets to change the rules whenever they like.
It's hard to optimize a strategy in a game where someone else gets to change the rules whenever they like.
I see little if any risk of being impacted by this once you are actually at an age to be able to make a decision to delay taking SS to get a higher payout.
Until age 62 the delay strategy is a theory, not an actual decision. And once you reach 62 you will have plenty of time to take action if you see a means testing law is about to be passed.
Everyone should gaze at their own belly button and contemplate a personal 'when to take SS' decision.Unless you're in your mid to late 50's and almost certain to receive 100% of the benefits as stated, largely without modification. Incorporating the availability of an income stream starting at 62 may allow you to spend more money NOW in your 50's.
Pretty appealing to someone who would like to spend a little more while they're young.
Its kinda funny to hear people say "I just hunkered over a bunch of spreadsheets and calculators and came to the conclusion that I should defer income until I'm old and deny myself whatever pleasures I may have gotten from it, just to make sure to mitigate the 2% chance I'll outlive my money."
Is that what we've traded our working lives for?
I'd rather work another year or two, or come up with an alternative plan for the slim chance that I live too long.
Yes to all the above. Things will definitely change with regard to SS.But havent there been a a number of changes throughout the years? Changes to the COLA adjustments and changes to the taxation rules? Wouldnt you expect there to be many more as the balance of workers to retirees changes drastically over the next 15 years?
Heck, over the last ten years havent rising medicare costs eaten up the COLA entirely, and then some?