Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-01-2012, 03:09 PM   #181
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
TromboneAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,199
Never mind, my question was already answered.
__________________

__________________
Al
TromboneAl 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 03-01-2012, 05:58 PM   #182
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
packrat44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: near Canadian border and near Mexican border
Posts: 1,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by audreyh1 View Post
Here is an interesting chart from a blog that Midpack linked to earlier. Basically, only 3% of the SS recipients in 2004 and earlier elected to wait until 66 years or older to start receiving SS. Half of them elected to start at 62.

From Pensions, Retirement Planning, and Economics Blog: Annuities and Delayed Social Security

Audrey
I was aware about 50% started receiving their SS benefits at 66. However, I was shocked that only 3% waited until 66 or later. The majority in the US tend to live for the present and ignore the future. It shows by how many have debt problems.

There are many reasons why it is more beneficial for someone to receive benefits early. But there also many reasons for someone to delay. The 97%/3% break appears not to be logical.

Personally, I am waiting until 70 (2.5 yr), DW will start at 62 (3 yr). My parents are almost 98 and 95 and live at home without outside assitance. The rest of my parents siblings also show longevity. This is the secondary reason I am waiting; betting on also having longevity. The primary reason for waiting is the insurance value to DW. I do expect to pass before her (she also has longevity in her family). I am receiving 3 COLAd pensions that do not have survior benefits. DW will start receiving a small non-COLAd pension in 6 years. My present pensions cover our needs, but am drawing from our portfolio to cover some wants and taxes (agressively converting TIRAs to ROTHs). When we begin to receive SS benefits, all needs and wants should be covered. Our portfolio will be used to cover unforeseen shortfalls and when I pass and my pensions cease.
__________________

__________________
Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. That's my story and I am sticking to it.
packrat44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 09:48 PM   #183
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 718
I think anybody who is surprised at this is in a cocoon, and expecting that everybody else should be thinking the same way they do.

* Delay SS until 70? And live on what for the 5 years between 65 and 70?
Delaying is only an option for people who have a great pension or a lot of money in investments. That's got to be a portfolio of at least $250K to $500K.

* Much of the hoop-la w/r/t delaying until 70 is the substantially higher monthly benefit. Most of the proponents ignore the time-value of money and act as if a dollar in 5 years has the same value as a dollar today. This, even though the SSA says that whenever you start taking benefits, the dates are all actuarilly equivalent. "Age-related adjustments to Social Security benefits are intended to be actuarially equivalent, on average rendering lifetime benefits invariant to the timing of first receipt."

The SSA links to a 2002 research paper which says, in part, "Generally, with an age-65 normal retirement age, the profiles imply an actuarial premium for males, particularly low-earnings males, who accept benefits early" [actuarial premium means they get more than they should]
and

"Particularly for males, the eight percent annual credit for benefit claims past the NRA appears to be woefully inadequate, falling short of the age-70 AAF (actuarial adjustment factor) by almost seventeen percentage points." and

"Under our midrange discount rate assumption, most male beneficiaries face actuarial premiums that decline with benefit acceptance after age 62 and most females face actuarial losses that also decline with delayed acceptance. Thus, males have little actuarial incentive to delay their initial benefit claim and the disincentive is strongest for low-earning males. In contrast, most female beneficiaries have little actuarial incentive to accept benefits early. These gender differences in relative benefit profiles can translate into substantial lifetime actuarial premiums for males who claim early, and actuarial losses for early-claiming females."
__________________
rayvt is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2012, 11:09 PM   #184
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
haha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hooverville
Posts: 22,386
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayvt View Post
I think anybody who is surprised at this is in a cocoon, and expecting that everybody else should be thinking the same way they do.

* Delay SS until 70? And live on what for the 5 years between 65 and 70?
Delaying is only an option for people who have a great pension or a lot of money in investments. That's got to be a portfolio of at least $250K to $500K.

* Much of the hoop-la w/r/t delaying until 70 is the substantially higher monthly benefit. Most of the proponents ignore the time-value of money and act as if a dollar in 5 years has the same value as a dollar today. This, even though the SSA says that whenever you start taking benefits, the dates are all actuarilly equivalent. "Age-related adjustments to Social Security benefits are intended to be actuarially equivalent, on average rendering lifetime benefits invariant to the timing of first receipt."

The SSA links to a 2002 research paper which says, in part, "Generally, with an age-65 normal retirement age, the profiles imply an actuarial premium for males, particularly low-earnings males, who accept benefits early" [actuarial premium means they get more than they should]
and

"Particularly for males, the eight percent annual credit for benefit claims past the NRA appears to be woefully inadequate, falling short of the age-70 AAF (actuarial adjustment factor) by almost seventeen percentage points." and

"Under our midrange discount rate assumption, most male beneficiaries face actuarial premiums that decline with benefit acceptance after age 62 and most females face actuarial losses that also decline with delayed acceptance. Thus, males have little actuarial incentive to delay their initial benefit claim and the disincentive is strongest for low-earning males. In contrast, most female beneficiaries have little actuarial incentive to accept benefits early. These gender differences in relative benefit profiles can translate into substantial lifetime actuarial premiums for males who claim early, and actuarial losses for early-claiming females."
Can you give the link from which you are quoting?
__________________
"As a general rule, the more dangerous or inappropriate a conversation, the more interesting it is."-Scott Adams
haha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 12:08 AM   #185
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
packrat44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: near Canadian border and near Mexican border
Posts: 1,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayvt View Post
I think anybody who is surprised at this is in a cocoon, and expecting that everybody else should be thinking the same way they do.

As I stated above, there are reasons to take benefits early and reasons to take them later. Because you have resons to take early does not mean others are wrong for choosing to take them later.


* Delay SS until 70? And live on what for the 5 years between 65 and 70?
Delaying is only an option for people who have a great pension or a lot of money in investments. That's got to be a portfolio of at least $250K to $500K.

Yes. Live off your investments and/or pensions from 65 through 70, and far into the future. Some of us are blessed with good pensions and adequate portfolios. I would not have considered myself FI if my porfolio were south of $500k and therefore would not have retired.


* Much of the hoop-la w/r/t delaying until 70 is the substantially higher monthly benefit. Most of the proponents ignore the time-value of money and act as if a dollar in 5 years has the same value as a dollar today. This, even though the SSA says that whenever you start taking benefits, the dates are all actuarilly equivalent. "Age-related adjustments to Social Security benefits are intended to be actuarially equivalent, on average rendering lifetime benefits invariant to the timing of first receipt."

Not all people intend to die on the date the actuary tables state. Even if I were to pass prior the break even point, I could not care less about not taking benefits early. I did not need them early. Taking the benefits later gives an insurance that DW will have a higher benefit when I die and my pensions cease.


The SSA links to a 2002 research paper which says, in part, "Generally, with an age-65 normal retirement age, the profiles imply an actuarial premium for males, particularly low-earnings males, who accept benefits early" [actuarial premium means they get more than they should]
and

"Particularly for males, the eight percent annual credit for benefit claims past the NRA appears to be woefully inadequate, falling short of the age-70 AAF (actuarial adjustment factor) by almost seventeen percentage points." and

"Under our midrange discount rate assumption, most male beneficiaries face actuarial premiums that decline with benefit acceptance after age 62 and most females face actuarial losses that also decline with delayed acceptance. Thus, males have little actuarial incentive to delay their initial benefit claim and the disincentive is strongest for low-earning males. In contrast, most female beneficiaries have little actuarial incentive to accept benefits early. These gender differences in relative benefit profiles can translate into substantial lifetime actuarial premiums for males who claim early, and actuarial losses for early-claiming females."
Bottom line - if you are in poor health and plan to die before the cross over point and your porfolio is so small that you are not FI and you need every last penny to live on, then take your benefits early.

There are good reasons to take benefits early and there are good reasons to take them later.
__________________
Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered. That's my story and I am sticking to it.
packrat44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 07:01 AM   #186
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by audreyh1 View Post
Here is an interesting chart from a blog that Midpack linked to earlier. Basically, only 3% of the SS recipients in 2004 and earlier elected to wait until 66 years or older to start receiving SS. Half of them elected to start at 62.

Audrey
Makes sense. For almost all those folks, full retirement age was 65. And the reduction for age 62 benefits was much less than today.
__________________
gerntz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 07:52 AM   #187
gone traveling
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eastern PA
Posts: 3,851
Quote:
Originally Posted by packrat44 View Post
There are good reasons to take benefits early and there are good reasons to take them later.
True.

That's why they make more flavors of ice cream than just vanilla (even if it is the largest seller) ...
__________________
rescueme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 08:11 AM   #188
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 16,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerntz View Post
Makes sense. For almost all those folks, full retirement age was 65. And the reduction for age 62 benefits was much less than today.
Yes, looking at that chart with the 28% chunk retiring at 65, I was thinking that full retirement age must have been 65 in 2004. And it was. It didn't shift to 66 until about 2008. So, yes, that 3% applied to people waiting past full retirement age.
__________________
Well, I thought I was retired. But it seems that now I'm working as a travel agent instead!
audreyh1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 09:41 AM   #189
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Lsbcal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: west coast, hi there!
Posts: 5,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerntz View Post
Makes sense. For almost all those folks, full retirement age was 65. And the reduction for age 62 benefits was much less than today.
Good points! Do you or anyone else know roughly what the reduction percentage was for retiring at 62 instead of 65 on or around 2004? Just curious.
__________________
Lsbcal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 09:51 AM   #190
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lsbcal View Post
Good points! Do you or anyone else know roughly what the reduction percentage was for retiring at 62 instead of 65? Just curious.
My FRA is 67 (assuming it doesn't go to 70 in the next few years), and the benefit at 62 is about 30% less than the benefit at 67 and about half the benefit at 70. These are in nominal dollars, of course, and inflation makes the actual, "real" adjustments quite a bit less.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 09:52 AM   #191
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lsbcal View Post
Good points! Do you or anyone else know roughly what the reduction percentage was for retiring at 62 instead of 65 on or around 2004? Just curious.
This chart:
Benefit Reduction for Early Retirement
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 10:04 AM   #192
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Lsbcal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: west coast, hi there!
Posts: 5,695
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent View Post
So this chart seems to say that the benefit reduction does not differ all that much for older retirees that had put off retiring until 2004. If we label the age 65 group as FRA in Audrey's chart (post #177), it would not change much for current retirees.
__________________
Lsbcal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 11:13 AM   #193
Dryer sheet aficionado
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Saint Joseph
Posts: 41
"If you live to the average life expectancy for someone your age, you will receive about the same amount in lifetime benefits no matter whether you choose to start receiving benefits at age 62, full retirement age, age 70 or any age in between. "

From the SS web page.
__________________
jeffmete is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 11:21 AM   #194
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffmete View Post
"If you live to the average life expectancy for someone your age, you will receive about the same amount in lifetime benefits no matter whether you choose to start receiving benefits at age 62, full retirement age, age 70 or any age in between. "

From the SS web page.
That was at least presumably true when the benefits and retirement ages were last adjusted. I think there have been changes in life expectancy since then which would make waiting a better deal from an expected payout perspective. It's not like they have built-in adjustments for changes in life expectancy each year.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 12:07 PM   #195
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,012
Quote:
Originally Posted by ziggy29 View Post
My FRA is 67 (assuming it doesn't go to 70 in the next few years), and the benefit at 62 is about 30% less than the benefit at 67 and about half the benefit at 70. These are in nominal dollars, of course, and inflation makes the actual, "real" adjustments quite a bit less.
SS gets COLAs whether you are receiving it or waiting till age 70 so why would "real adjustments" be quite a bit less?
__________________
jdw_fire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 12:17 PM   #196
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Just updating the retirement age table to 2010



Age20042010
6251%45%
637%8%
6410%7%
6517%10%
DisConv11%13%
661%13%
671%1%
680%1%
690%0%
70-741%1%
75+0%0%

The "DisConv" is disability conversions. I believe that when a disabled person reaches NRA they re-label the benefit as "old age".

At any rate, the average age seems to have moved up a little.

I'm surprised that 45% of Americans are ready to quit work at 62. But I'm not surprised that most start SS about the time they quit work. Most people live paycheck to paycheck.

Even if they have savings, spending them down to defer SS isn't something that most people even consider seriously. Those that do usually can't part with the savings (just like most people can't commit to an SPIA). People on this board are unusual in that we both have savings and are analytical enough to think about it.

Table 6.A4 at: http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy...t/2011/6a.html
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 12:22 PM   #197
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent View Post
I'm surprised that 45% of Americans are ready to quit work at 62.
An increasing number of them, no doubt, are laid off older folks who weren't completely ready to retire, but had no good job prospects (especially with today's rampant age discrimination) and had to take it at 62 whether they wanted to or not...
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 12:26 PM   #198
Moderator
ziggy29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 15,613
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdw_fire View Post
SS gets COLAs whether you are receiving it or waiting till age 70 so why would "real adjustments" be quite a bit less?
Except that historically, benefit levels before you start collecting rise according to overall wage increases, not inflation. And historically (though this may be changing), wage increases have exceeded inflation.

Again, this may not be the case any more -- wage growth has essentially been zero over the last five years or so.
__________________
"Hey, for every ten dollars, that's another hour that I have to be in the work place. That's an hour of my life. And my life is a very finite thing. I have only 'x' number of hours left before I'm dead. So how do I want to use these hours of my life? Do I want to use them just spending it on more crap and more stuff, or do I want to start getting a handle on it and using my life more intelligently?" -- Joe Dominguez (1938 - 1997)

RIP to Reemy, my avatar dog (2003 - 9/16/2017)
ziggy29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 01:43 PM   #199
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 16,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lsbcal View Post
Good points! Do you or anyone else know roughly what the reduction percentage was for retiring at 62 instead of 65 on or around 2004? Just curious.
A person turning 62 today (born in 1950) and taking SS benefits sees a reduction of 25%.
A person turning 62 in 2004 and starting SS saw a 20% reduction.

So to me the difference is 5%. At least that's what I got from Independent's table.

Audrey
__________________
Well, I thought I was retired. But it seems that now I'm working as a travel agent instead!
audreyh1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2012, 01:50 PM   #200
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
audreyh1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rio Grande Valley
Posts: 16,515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Independent View Post
Just updating the retirement age table to 2010



Age20042010
6251%45%
637%8%
6410%7%
6517%10%
DisConv11%13%
661%13%
671%1%
680%1%
690%0%
70-741%1%
75+0%0%

The "DisConv" is disability conversions. I believe that when a disabled person reaches NRA they re-label the benefit as "old age".

At any rate, the average age seems to have moved up a little.

I'm surprised that 45% of Americans are ready to quit work at 62. But I'm not surprised that most start SS about the time they quit work. Most people live paycheck to paycheck.

Even if they have savings, spending them down to defer SS isn't something that most people even consider seriously. Those that do usually can't part with the savings (just like most people can't commit to an SPIA). People on this board are unusual in that we both have savings and are analytical enough to think about it.

Table 6.A4 at: Annual Statistical Supplement, 2011 - Summary of OASDI Awards (6.A)
Thanks for the updated table.

The average age moved up one year. That's simply because the Full Retirement Age (FRA) moved up one year for younger folks. We are still at only 3% starting SS after FRA. And, wow, only 1% wait until 70 - same as before.
__________________

__________________
Well, I thought I was retired. But it seems that now I'm working as a travel agent instead!
audreyh1 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
When to start taking Social Security davemcmullen FIRE and Money 74 10-14-2008 09:23 AM
Social Security Spousal Benefits ocdude FIRE and Money 19 05-15-2008 12:33 PM
Maximizing Social Security Benefits eyenitnoy FIRE and Money 20 06-18-2006 09:29 PM
When do Social Security payments start? Retiredtwice Other topics 3 11-18-2005 11:29 AM
Social Security Benefits Cut For Early Retirees Michael Other topics 12 01-05-2005 01:45 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:11 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.