Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Social Security age 70
Old 07-14-2015, 02:42 PM   #1
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,685
Social Security age 70

In reviewing the increases in Social Security I see that the increase from age 69 to age 70 is actually only 6.45% not 8% as the 8 percent is of the full retirement benefit. So waiting each additional year after the first year is steadily less advantageous. Using the single male the life expectancy of 14.8 years at age 69 would result in a 6.75% payout for just the return of capital to the end of life expectancy. For a single female it is 5.85% so there is a small expected real return built in for females but not males. Obviously if both are alive it would have an even better return.

So for you single guys out there, Social Security is probably fiscally better to take at 69 than 70.
__________________

__________________
Running_Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 07-14-2015, 02:58 PM   #2
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,495
I note that you say it's probably fiscally better to take SS at 69 versus. That's a big "probably". For those with longevity in the family history, or those with a history of above average health (such as myself), not so much. I will be delaying until 70 personally.
__________________

__________________
Options is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2015, 03:25 PM   #3
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,403
Good point

Age Benefit% increase
66100 
671088.0%
681167.4%
691246.9%
701326.5%
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2015, 03:31 PM   #4
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,495
See this (and the discussion in the comments section as well):

The Retirement Café: Early Retirement and Social Security Benefits

Specifically:

Quote:
Some of those arguments made by the "claim early" crowd are valid. Maybe you and your spouse won't live a long time, who knows? Maybe benefits will be reduced in the future. But living long enough to regret claiming early is a far more common event than reductions in Social Security benefits have been. Don't protect yourself from sharks and ignore heart disease.

Nearly all academics in the field and economists, some Nobel laureates, recommend delaying benefits as long as possible.
If they can't convince you, I certainly can't. If you do, however, agree that delaying claims for Social Security benefits is a good idea, then it becomes a consideration for early retirement.
Emphasis added
__________________
Options is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2015, 03:46 PM   #5
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 11,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by Options View Post
I note that you say it's probably fiscally better to take SS at 69 versus. That's a big "probably". For those with longevity in the family history, or those with a history of above average health (such as myself), not so much. I will be delaying until 70 personally.
I think it's more general: "For those who aren't certain how long they'll live, not so much."

69 vs 70 probably won't be a big deal for anyone. But "less advantageous" isn't the same as "disadvantageous." If the idea of a lifetime inflation-adjusted monthly check is attractive, and if we've priced commercial annuities and seen what they costs/yield, then waiting to 70 may be more attractive than other options
__________________
"Freedom begins when you tell Mrs. Grundy to go fly a kite." - R. Heinlein
samclem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2015, 03:49 PM   #6
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Options View Post
See this (and the comments in the comments section as well):

The Retirement Café: Early Retirement and Social Security Benefits

Specifically:



Emphasis added
Claiming at age 69 instead of age 70 is not claiming early, it is merely looking at the benefit and determine if one would be better off waiting. i think if I was a single male and my wife had passed, most of the benefit of waiting to age 70 has evaporated. At full retirement age benefit of 2500, the age 69 benefit of 3100 is probably better for a single male to take instead of spending the $37,200 one would need to spend in order to defer the benefit of an additional 200 per month which would only require a 6.48% withdrawal from that portfolio to maintain. It has a 56% chance according to Firecalc of lasting 25 years and 85% chance of lasting 15 years and 99% chance of lasting 12 years to age 81.

If at age 69 I was a single male I think the increase in social security for that last year of increase is not worth it. After all if social security increased 8% each year after full retirement age to infinity there must be a point at which one should absolutely collect it, eh?
__________________
Running_Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2015, 04:15 PM   #7
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,495
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post

...

If the idea of a lifetime inflation-adjusted monthly check is attractive, and if we've priced commercial annuities and seen what they costs/yield, then waiting to 70 may be more attractive than other options
This.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Running_Man View Post
Claiming at age 69 instead of age 70 is not claiming early, it is merely looking at the benefit and determine if one would be better off waiting. i think if I was a single male and my wife had passed, most of the benefit of waiting to age 70 has evaporated. At full retirement age benefit of 2500, the age 69 benefit of 3100 is probably better for a single male to take instead of spending the $37,200 one would need to spend in order to defer the benefit of an additional 200 per month which would only require a 6.48% withdrawal from that portfolio to maintain. It has a 56% chance according to Firecalc of lasting 25 years and 85% chance of lasting 15 years and 99% chance of lasting 12 years to age 81.

If at age 69 I was a single male I think the increase in social security for that last year of increase is not worth it. After all if social security increased 8% each year after full retirement age to infinity there must be a point at which one should absolutely collect it, eh?
But SS does not increase to infinity after FRA. My point is that other variables exist regarding how much delaying SS is "worth it". Those variables regarding when (as in which year) to take or delay SS involve more than a simple financial evaluation. In the example you used, that $200 more withdrawn monthly might very well make a difference should an individual live longer than expected, exhausting their PF. Regarding FC calculations, I would never be comfortable with 56% or 85% chance of success of anything. Then again, I'm very conservative, so YMMV.

Here's Cotton again responding in the comments section of another post viewing using delaying SS as a hedge against longevity risk:

Quote:
I don't believe that financial arguments based on guessing when some healthy person might die are sound. Yes, the odds favor your spouse outliving you, but I know a 97-year old man who has so far outlived his decade-younger and much healthier wife by nearly a decade. You should be planning to protect yourself from longevity risk, not guessing when you will die.
Emphasis added

Also see this comment by Mark Zoril regarding the emotional aspect of when SS is claimed:

Quote:
In my experience as an adviser (and with my Father as well), the decision to take benefits early is emotional. For many people, especially middle and lower income types, SS represents a significant marker in their life. They also feel like they are "ready" to receive it. They have worked a long time, many in work that has not been satisfying or frustrating, and finally want to get paid from a plan that they have paid in to forever. The numbers and risk evaluation, as it were, are just not as interesting to people that feel this way.
__________________
Options is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2015, 06:37 PM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
Good point

Age Benefit% increase
66100 
671088.0%
681167.4%
691246.9%
701326.5%
Thanks for the chart.

I believe CPI inflation will essentially add on top of that, via the PIA calculation. So that's a decent equity market return for one year, even for the last year, guaranteed.
__________________
Animorph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2015, 07:36 PM   #9
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animorph View Post
Thanks for the chart.

I believe CPI inflation will essentially add on top of that, via the PIA calculation. So that's a decent equity market return for one year, even for the last year, guaranteed.
That's the increase in monthly benefit you get for giving up 12 months of benefits.
It's not at all like a "market return for one year".
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2015, 08:11 PM   #10
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Ready's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,823
I thought the increase in return from 67-70 was exactly 8% per year. What am I not understanding here?
__________________
Ready is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2015, 08:23 PM   #11
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ready View Post
I thought the increase in return from 67-70 was exactly 8% per year. What am I not understanding here?
Seems it's 8%/yr but not compounded. So, 8% each year over the benefit at full retirement age. I hadn't realized that either.
__________________
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2015, 08:26 PM   #12
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ready View Post
I thought the increase in return from 67-70 was exactly 8% per year. What am I not understanding here?
It is 8 percent of the Full Retirement amount not a compound 8 percent. So the actual percent increase per year falls as the amount builds. It falls below the simple capital return at 0% real return for expected life at age 69 for single males.

0 percent real return lasts to age 85 - 16 years
If one could earn 2% real return the $37,200 would last to age 88
__________________
Running_Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2015, 08:44 PM   #13
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent View Post
That's the increase in monthly benefit you get for giving up 12 months of benefits.
It's not at all like a "market return for one year".
Not exactly, but close. The only real difference is the one year of payments lost. Otherwise the present value and payments scale together. The present value growth is like a market return.
__________________
Animorph is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2015, 09:19 PM   #14
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
ronin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,190
Also watch if filing at 70 that they don't default you retro back to 69.5. Seems to be what they do unless you specifically decline.

dont-let-social-security-cut-your-retirement-benefit-with-retroactive-benefits-against-your-will/
__________________
We are, as I have said, one equation short. – Keynes
ronin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2015, 09:29 PM   #15
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ready View Post
I thought the increase in return from 67-70 was exactly 8% per year. What am I not understanding here?
As others have said, it is 8% of your FRA benefit for each year you delay. Simple , not compounded. So if you delay two years your benefit increases 16%, 24% for three years and 32% for four years.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2015, 08:34 PM   #16
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 716
Although. actually, it isn't 8% per year. It's 24/36% per month. Non-compounded, so just multiply the # of months after your FRA by 24/36 percent.
__________________
rayvt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-15-2015, 09:14 PM   #17
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Vermont & Sarasota, FL
Posts: 16,403
Insightful post.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 09:27 AM   #18
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Animorph View Post
Not exactly, but close. The only real difference is the one year of payments lost. Otherwise the present value and payments scale together. The present value growth is like a market return.
I'm not sure what math you're doing.

I view deferring from 69 to 70 to be equivalent to lending the gov't $124 over a period of 12 months, then getting back $8 per year for as long as I live. That is not a 6.5% "market return". If I live to 89, my IRR is 2.6%. Die sooner and the IRR is lower, live longer and it's higher.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 10:52 AM   #19
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Koolau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Leeward Oahu
Posts: 3,240
If you need it now, take it now. Otherwise, SS has some subtle (to folks not visiting this forum) advantages if delayed to 70. If you are worried about leaving money on the table, you probably take SS early. But if you want to "use" SS to cover a need created by your particular situation, you may want to delay.

At least so far, I do not need the SS income. I am using it for longevity insurance for myself, but especially for DW who I'm "betting" will outlive me. Stated before, I took the 25% pension survivor benefit instead of 50% to improve my starting pension benefit. To make up for that, I will attempt to wait until 70 to claim SS so that my higher SS survivor benefit will make up for the lowered pension survivor benefit. I also think of the higher SS benefit at 70 as a form of Long Term Care insurance.

Would never attempt to tell anyone else how to proceed with such an intricate decision as SS. Fortunately, at least the folks here understand just how many permutations are involved with SS strategy. Even if we ultimately "guess" wrong, we will have had the knowledge to make a plan that fits our needs. So many other folks just assume you take your SS when you retire or at 62. While "knowing" the intricacies of SS makes it a headache to pick the right path, at least we have the knowledge to play our "what if" games with ourselves before we choose. YMMV
__________________
Ko'olau's Law -

Anything which can be used can be misused. Anything which can be misused will be.
Koolau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-16-2015, 04:21 PM   #20
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
mickeyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Texas~29N/98W
Posts: 5,880
Even a 6.5% increase is pretty sweet these days.
__________________

__________________
Part-Owner of Texas

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. Groucho Marx

In dire need of: faster horses, younger woman, older whiskey, more money.
mickeyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So, do you feel your age? Act your age? Like your age? vickko Life after FIRE 84 04-10-2010 02:47 PM
Social Security at age 60? cashbalancetrouble FIRE Related Public Policy 40 03-20-2010 04:55 PM
Paying social security tax after age 66 modhatter FIRE and Money 2 03-10-2007 04:59 PM
At what age will you take Social Security? retire@40 FIRE and Money 39 10-05-2006 01:58 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:17 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.