Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-01-2014, 04:30 AM   #81
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fermion View Post
It isn't really a question of that, because you can just spend more of your portfolio in your sixties to make up for delaying your SS since you know the money will be higher in your later years.

In your sixties you could cash in some crap bonds and spend them since you are essentially buying better bonds by delaying SS.
by delaying you are also going to need less dependency on markets and rates. your withdrawal rate may come way down. by delaying we can become more aggressive investors since down turns are less a concern.

throw in the natural tapering off of spending as you age and you can take some pretty hefty withdrawals early on from your portfolio while you are young and healthy and refill later in life.
__________________

__________________
mathjak107 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 09-01-2014, 09:23 AM   #82
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by W2R View Post
Holy cow! That one says I'm going to live to age 94, even though some of my answers were less than ideal. I hope it's right!
Yes, I also got 94 and was surprised.

The post was a response to someone who seemed to be thinking about a much lower life expectancy. I thought it would be good to consider some higher numbers.
__________________

__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2014, 09:49 AM   #83
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,423
Refill if the goal is to leave money to heirs?
__________________
explanade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2014, 01:28 PM   #84
Dryer sheet wannabe
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 10
We are in the same position as the other poster who said they would need to draw from their 403b to fill in the gap until SS kicks in. So we were thinking of having one, the lowest, take it early at 62 (FRA is 67 for both) to cover most of the gap and the other take it at 70, unless at the time 67 made more sense. BUT this is assuming that the spouse who takes it early would get the higher full survivor's benefit if they live the longest.
Is this how it works or would the survivor's amount be reduced because they took their own benefit early?
__________________
volfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2014, 04:11 PM   #85
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: aberdeen
Posts: 267
Very instructive, but I think the difference may be very little, if all of us live very long and have reasonable savings. The flaws of any argument is the fact that it fail to state that the average life expectancy is about 79 years now.
Another is, somebody who is 64 years old(my age), has 50% chance to live another 21 years. That means half will not make it to 85. I like to be as optimistic as possible and is relatively healthy. I run 3 miles a day, but, the life data may fail a large number of us.
I'll get mine 64- 65 or 66 and will also spend my savings and retirement fund, slowly. At 84, if lucky, I'll be less active live most of them anyway.
__________________
Birchwood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2014, 05:15 PM   #86
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 718
There is no reason to assume that you'll live longer than your life expectancy as given in the mortality tables. This is not Lake Wobegon.

The SSA says that the payout is actuarially equivalent, for any ages 62 to 70. If you look at any accurate spreadsheet comparing taking at different ages, the break-even age is right around your life expectancy.

But, of course, we'll all be living long after the mortality tables show, because Lake Wobegon.

Do you have a good gut feel for how old 92 is? The last survivor of the Hindenburg just died -- at age 92. The Hindenburg crash is ancient history.
__________________
rayvt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2014, 05:30 PM   #87
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Birchwood View Post
Very instructive, but I think the difference may be very little, if all of us live very long and have reasonable savings. The flaws of any argument is the fact that it fail to state that the average life expectancy is about 79 years now.
Another is, somebody who is 64 years old(my age), has 50% chance to live another 21 years. That means half will not make it to 85. I like to be as optimistic as possible and is relatively healthy. I run 3 miles a day, but, the life data may fail a large number of us.
I'll get mine 64- 65 or 66 and will also spend my savings and retirement fund, slowly. At 84, if lucky, I'll be less active live most of them anyway.
while average life expectancy means something to an insurer to us the mere mortals of the world it means nothing.

for us ,life can only have two outcomes . things either work out or they don't . statistics don't exist.

we are either dead or alive. we either have enough money if we take ss early or we don't.

life is pretty simple once you realize statistics have no bearing on our planning.

since we do not know who lives and who dies the only thing we can do is assume we will beat methuslas record and plan for a nice old age despite those charts.
__________________
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2014, 05:36 PM   #88
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,193
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayvt View Post
There is no reason to assume that you'll live longer than your life expectancy as given in the mortality tables. This is not Lake Wobegon.

The SSA says that the payout is actuarially equivalent, for any ages 62 to 70. If you look at any accurate spreadsheet comparing taking at different ages, the break-even age is right around your life expectancy.

But, of course, we'll all be living long after the mortality tables show, because Lake Wobegon.

Do you have a good gut feel for how old 92 is? The last survivor of the Hindenburg just died -- at age 92. The Hindenburg crash is ancient history.
I don't care whether anyone else on this forum lives longer than the mortality tables show. I care that I might live longer. I'm not assuming I will, but I am planning in case I do.

As I've said time and again, if I die early, I won't be broke. Maybe some of you relying more on a pension have cash flow issues and need early SS money, but I don't. If I live a lot longer, the extra benefits might make my old age much more comfortable, and I'm much less likely to be a financial burden to my heirs.

I've dined with 2 people in their 90s this year. Heck, I skied with one of them one day last winter. Neither of them were on the Hindenburg, for what little that is worth to deciding on when to take SS. Yes, I do know how old 92 is.
__________________
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-2014, 05:56 PM   #89
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayvt View Post
There is no reason to assume that you'll live longer than your life expectancy as given in the mortality tables. This is not Lake Wobegon.

The SSA says that the payout is actuarially equivalent, for any ages 62 to 70. If you look at any accurate spreadsheet comparing taking at different ages, the break-even age is right around your life expectancy.

But, of course, we'll all be living long after the mortality tables show, because Lake Wobegon.

Do you have a good gut feel for how old 92 is? The last survivor of the Hindenburg just died -- at age 92. The Hindenburg crash is ancient history.
This table from SS is the "official" actuarial life table Actuarial Life Table

For us optimists that want to make sure we cover our bases to age 100 I see the table tells me that out of 100,000 that started the life journey there will 873 of us left. Piece of cake. All we have to do is make sure we are not part of the 99,127 dummies that didn't know how to do things right and apparently didn't eat their cheerios.
__________________
ejman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2014, 08:13 AM   #90
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
photoguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 2,301
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayvt View Post
The SSA says that the payout is actuarially equivalent, for any ages 62 to 70. If you look at any accurate spreadsheet comparing taking at different ages, the break-even age is right around your life expectancy.
I've always disliked when the SSA describes payouts as actuarially equivalent or neutral. Because this can only be true for an individual if you are 1/2 male and 1/2 female, as well as a good mix of all the races and ethnicities.

The difference in life expectancy at age 60 by using only race and gender is probably 7-10 years from worst (black males) to best (asian & hispanic females).
__________________
photoguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-02-2014, 09:15 AM   #91
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 5,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayvt View Post

Do you have a good gut feel for how old 92 is? The last survivor of the Hindenburg just died -- at age 92. The Hindenburg crash is ancient history.
I do, DM passed at 92, DF this year at 96. Their expenses went up their last year of life.

Neither were on the Hindenburg or heard of Lake Wobegon.
__________________
MRG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 08:23 PM   #92
Dryer sheet aficionado
Archman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongTerm View Post
.................................................. .................
But this doesn't take into account the growth of my investments I could leave in my accounts if I used the SS payments to fund expenses instead of withdrawing from investments. My SS payment at 62 is $21,252. If I leave that in my investments it will continue to grow.............................................

I'd love to hear more about how people made the decision one way or the other.

In my situation, if I take Social Security at age 63, and therefore drawing less from my retirement savings, my break even point is at age 97+,assuming the markets cooperate.
__________________

__________________
Archman 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
Yes, Yes, That's What Happened, I Was Sleepwalking poboy Other topics 10 02-06-2007 09:05 PM
Yes, I know... rs0460a Hi, I am... 2 07-07-2006 08:50 AM
Big Question is "Yes or No" haha FIRE and Money 70 03-17-2005 06:26 PM
Re:  Yes, but. Nords Other topics 1 04-01-2004 12:19 PM
Yes Virginia There is a Santa Claus moguls Life after FIRE 9 12-09-2003 05:01 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:09 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.