Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-30-2015, 02:55 PM   #41
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
NW-Bound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 19,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
NWB, I'm not sure what your point is. I was responding to the OPs comment that his DW might wait until she is 70 to claim her benefits. There is no point to her waiting anything beyond her FRA... she gains nothing waiting from FRA to 70 and actually loses. See quotes below.
My apology. Now, I really missed the OP's statement regarding his wife waiting till 70.

It is true that her spousal benefit does not increase after her FRA. Hence, she will be forfeiting money by delaying.

Quote:
I realize that she can't claim spousal benefits until the OP files now that file and suspend is done so I concede that my comment about her taking spousal anytime between 62 and FRA would be dependent on the OP starting benefits.
OK. We both take a point off for being partially wrong.
__________________

__________________
"Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man" -- Leon Trotsky
NW-Bound 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 11-30-2015, 03:05 PM   #42
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: 16,420
No points off... just no extra points.
__________________

__________________
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 11-30-2015, 03:25 PM   #43
Dryer sheet aficionado
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Winslow
Posts: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
Even if she returned to Belarus after you die she is entitled to SS based on being your widow. The SS administration is very accustomed to paying out benefits to overseas recipients, directly into their overseas bank account if requested with an excellent exchange rate.

Just mentioned this as you might be thinking that she would lose that on returning home and may affect your calculations.
Thanks, I did know that. But nothing is ever simple: Because Belarus is on the State Department's human rights hit list, SS checks cannot be deposited directly into Belarus bank accounts. You either have to have a bank account someplace like Poland or (so I was told by the officials a couple of years ago) you could possibly go to the U.S. Embassy in Minsk every month and physically pick up a check.
__________________
Runner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2015, 04:04 PM   #44
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Chuckanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 6,328
Quote:
Originally Posted by Runner View Post
Right, that is exactly what my quick calculation yielded - the break-even point was 82, which is Pretty Old even under the best of circumstances.

.
Im not sure that reading obituaries is a good way to measure expect life spans, but you can add my parents to the mix - One died just short of 90 the other at 92.

There are other factors that may come into play for you or not. For example, LTC. Many of us either can't get it, or don't like the current plans available. Holding off SS until 70 provides additional income in the event LTC is needed.

Despite what some may claim it is not a one-size-fits-all answer. Rather is a your-milage-may-vary answer depending upon many individual issues, some of which many of us have never even thought existed.
__________________
The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
Chuckanut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2015, 04:17 PM   #45
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,820
Quote:
Originally Posted by Runner View Post
Right, that is exactly what my quick calculation yielded - the break-even point was 82, which is Pretty Old even under the best of circumstances.

I make a hobby of reading the local obituaries. Yes, some people do live to be 85 in some semblance of health. But I am always struck by how many people "left us suddenly and unexpectedly" at 48, 54, 65, 71 or 73. It's a sobering alternative to the actuarial tables. Which is why I lean toward the "take it at FRA and cheerfully blow it on annual vacations" philosophy. The notion that "by God I'm covered even if I live to be 92" just doesn't do much for me. Concerns about the welfare of my wife would be the only thing driving me in the other direction.
My observation is that most people who post here have enough savings that they aren't really afraid of running out of money before they die. For them, these discussions are about a few percent of their eventual estates. This might be the best approach SS at 66 or 70 - not such an easy question?

( OTOH, most people seem to select pretty conservative withdrawal rates. Nobody says that "historical returns on US stocks have averaged CPI + 6%, therefore I'll start retirement with a 7% withdrawal rate". They seem to make conservative decisions based on "bad case" scenarios. )

If you have enough money to fund nice annual vacations if you take SS at 66, you almost certainly have enough money to fund nice annual vacations by deferring SS to age 70. Money is fungible.

In fact, people who like the 4% SWR can actually "prudently afford" to spend a little more in the early years if they defer SS.
__________________
Independent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2015, 04:37 PM   #46
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckanut View Post
Im not sure that reading obituaries is a good way to measure expect life spans, but you can add my parents to the mix - One died just short of 90 the other at 92.

There are other factors that may come into play for you or not. For example, LTC. Many of us either can't get it, or don't like the current plans available. Holding off SS until 70 provides additional income in the event LTC is needed.

Despite what some may claim it is not a one-size-fits-all answer. Rather is a your-milage-may-vary answer depending upon many individual issues, some of which many of us have never even thought existed.
unless the difference is at least 100k a year that larger ss check isn't a drip in the barrel when it comes to ltc in these parts .
__________________
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2015, 06:35 PM   #47
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Senator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 3,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
unless the difference is at least 100k a year that larger ss check isn't a drip in the barrel when it comes to ltc in these parts .
Most patients do not require $100K a year.

I think you will find that LTC insurance policies are a smaller drip in the barrel. Many policies are only three years, and only cover up to $150 per day. That is $4,500 per month. If SS can cover $3,000 of that, you can self-insure for the remaining $1500 per month.

You were already going to self-insure for the amount over $150 a day, unless you buy a very expensive policy.
__________________
FIRE no later than 7/5/2016 at 56 (done), securing '16 401K match (done), getting '15 401K match (done), LTI Bonus (done), Perf bonus (done), maxing out 401K (done), picking up 1,000 hours to get another year of pension (done), July 1st benefits (vacation day, healthcare) (done), July 4th holiday. 0 days left. (done) OFFICIALLY RETIRED 7/5/2016!!
Senator is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2015, 06:58 PM   #48
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,408
if the ltc policy is to small then you blew it by ahving it . it either covers the expense and keeps you off medicaid or it doesn't . it is useless in either case for doing so
__________________
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2015, 07:19 PM   #49
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator View Post
My plan is to wait until age 70. Here is why.

SS is actuarially neutral. When you are 66+, you are ahead of the odds. Your longevity is expected to beat the SS estimate.
Great point.

As of 2011, at age 66, USA male life expectancy is 17 years or age 83. If your wife is 62 at that point, her life expectancy is 23 years or to age 85. And if you're in good health & work at living longer - exercise of body & mind, healthy habits, they're higher still. It doesn't matter who else is dying, if you work to take care of your health you're likely to beat the averages. If you're a negative slug, yea, take SS early. My bet is those that take SS early died on average below the expectancy tables.
__________________
gerntz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2015, 07:22 PM   #50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 9,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckanut View Post

There are other factors that may come into play for you or not. For example, LTC. Many of us either can't get it, or don't like the current plans available. Holding off SS until 70 provides additional income in the event LTC is needed.

Of course, when LTC time arrived, if you had taken SS early you might have a nice pot of $250 to $300k or so (say 8 yrs of collecting $22k/yr + earnings) to apply towards LTC.

You can't have it both ways, unfortunately. Wait until 70 and have a significantly larger monthly check. Start at 62 and invest the money monthly into the S and P 500 and have $200k to $300k accumulated when you hit 70.

There are risks and pros/cons either way.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2015, 08:18 PM   #51
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Senator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 3,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
if the ltc policy is to small then you blew it by having it . it either covers the expense and keeps you off medicaid or it doesn't. it is useless in either case for doing so
You are right, but many people cannot even get a LTC policy. A Long Term Care Insurance Rates for Single Age 55 would be 2007 per year and that would cover a Daily benefit of $150 and 3 year benefit period.

If you want a higher premium, it is MUCH higher. Starting at 70, higher yet.

That is why many people opt for the Medicaid route. No premiums, and 100% coverage for as long as you need it. Generally in a sub-standard place...

A higher level of SS could help, if it's in the bank or in a monthly check, it all adds up. Most will avoid a LTC situation before 70. Generally, if you go in before 65, you will recover and get discharged, and your health insurance will cover the entire trip.

Quote:
  • For every 100 elderly patients in a nursing home in a given year, 38 will recover or stabilize so they can be discharged.
  • About 88% of the 1,500,000 US nursing home residents (in 16,500 facilities) are over the age of 65
  • The average stay for elderly patients who die in a nursing home is just shy of 2 years.
https://www.longtermcarelink.net/eld...rsing_home.htm

Ir really depends on the health you have each year whether or not to collect SS at that time. Statistics mean nothing when the doctors says "I have some bad news..."
__________________
FIRE no later than 7/5/2016 at 56 (done), securing '16 401K match (done), getting '15 401K match (done), LTI Bonus (done), Perf bonus (done), maxing out 401K (done), picking up 1,000 hours to get another year of pension (done), July 1st benefits (vacation day, healthcare) (done), July 4th holiday. 0 days left. (done) OFFICIALLY RETIRED 7/5/2016!!
Senator is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2015, 09:55 PM   #52
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 13,269
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan View Post
Even if she returned to Belarus after you die she is entitled to SS based on being your widow. The SS administration is very accustomed to paying out benefits to overseas recipients, directly into their overseas bank account if requested with an excellent exchange rate.

Just mentioned this as you might be thinking that she would lose that on returning home and may affect your calculations.
Glad someone pointed this out....

And this IS important.... SS is payable to your spouse in almost every country... there are a few where they will not send it to (think Iran etc.), but she still can get it in the US.... and it is not lost if she does not get it monthly.... not sure how that works, but I did read it one time...
__________________
Texas Proud is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2015, 01:04 AM   #53
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 191
Isn't the non-worker spousal benefit based on the other spouse's actual benefit or normal retirement age benefit, whichever is less? Meaning if a spouse's normal retirement age is 66 and they work beyond that, that spouse's normal retirement age benefit is used to determine the spousal benefit.
__________________
statsman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2015, 03:33 AM   #54
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerntz View Post
Great point.

As of 2011, at age 66, USA male life expectancy is 17 years or age 83. If your wife is 62 at that point, her life expectancy is 23 years or to age 85. And if you're in good health & work at living longer - exercise of body & mind, healthy habits, they're higher still. It doesn't matter who else is dying, if you work to take care of your health you're likely to beat the averages. If you're a negative slug, yea, take SS early. My bet is those that take SS early died on average below the expectancy tables.
as of 2015 a 65 year old man has a 42 % chance of seeing 85 and women a 54% chance but as a couple they have a whopping 73% chance .

in fact as a couple one of them has a 47% chance of seeing 90 .

but statistics mean little to us mortals .

every year the insurers can tell us how many will die but they can't tell us who .

so for us mortals we only have 2 outcomes possible . we are either dead or alive or things work out as planned or they don't ..

if you are dead , well you need no money but if you or your spouse are alive then you need all that planning that goes with having longevity .

so basically we always plan around the possibility it is us that is on the other side of the statistic .

we insure against the things that can be devastating to us if we were the unlucky statistic .

we insure our homes for fire even though less then 1% of us will have our home burn down . we insure our lives when we are younger even though there is a minuscule chance we will die so young , just about everything in life we insure has the odds way not in our favor of collecting more then we pay in . in fact just good retirement planning has us figuring well in to our 90's regardless of statistics .

so looking at statistics for ltc and trying to determine your stay in a home or chances of needing long term expensive care is not going to help much if you are on the opposite side of the statistic .

i know my dad spent 6 years in a home after a stroke and my 55 year old co-worker just had a stroke after hip surgery and is now paralyzed so playing the statistic game can be financially devastating when you are on the other side of things ..

but that is why all insurance protects us against the remote flyers that if it is us it could be totally devastating and lead to an impoverished lifestyle for the stay at home spouse or the living spouse .


unfortunately if it is us that it happens to , since it has to happen to someone ,we can't call for a do over .

__________________
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2015, 04:57 AM   #55
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator View Post
Most patients do not require $100K a year.

I think you will find that LTC insurance policies are a smaller drip in the barrel. Many policies are only three years, and only cover up to $150 per day. That is $4,500 per month. If SS can cover $3,000 of that, you can self-insure for the remaining $1500 per month.

You were already going to self-insure for the amount over $150 a day, unless you buy a very expensive policy.

the policy's that run 3 years are generally state partnership plans not private insurance which to be worth anything need at least 5 years so assets can be protected and clear the look back stage .

policy's that are 3 years like our new york state partnership plan run 3 years because they carry no look back period and no asset shifting and a special agreement with our state . .

they also don't require that the stay at home spouse live's an impoverished lifestyle either with the medicaid restricted income once the insurance runs out and medicaid is involved .

in our case the 3 years insurance was just icing on the cake .

you do realize that once you go on medicaid the stay at home spouse has a very low restricted income even if assets are shifted in to trusts and are preserved .

the fact after the insurance is up that we keep all assets and income while a special version of medicaid pays the bills is where the policy value really is .

we took 300 a day inflation adjusted by 5% a year for 3 years coverage and 6 year's in home care . care runs about 450 -500 a day in our area for a decent place but we can absorb the difference .

it is the perks after the insurance is up that are priceless to us ..
__________________
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2015, 06:55 AM   #56
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Dawg52's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Central MS/Orange Beach, AL
Posts: 7,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by dallas27 View Post
Or... Skip all the math, take it at 68 and realize you made at least 50% of the right choice applying 0% of your time worrying about it.

Ha. My philosophy as well. Only the decision for me is either 62 or 66. So I will probably go with 64.
__________________
Retired 3/31/2007@52
Full time wuss.......
Dawg52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2015, 07:16 AM   #57
Dryer sheet aficionado
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Winslow
Posts: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
as of 2015 a 65 year old man has a 42 % chance of seeing 85 and women a 54% chance but as a couple they have a whopping 73% chance .

in fact as a couple one of them has a 47% chance of seeing 90 .
The problem being, how many 85 or 90 year olds have anything resembling "quality of life" versus "wish they were dead and probably would be better off dead"? We can all point to exceptions, but I have considerable actual experience with the very elderly and it is not a state that I look forward to (even though, at 66, I have zero health problems and am fitter than 99.9% of my peers). Most of the very elderly that I know are miserable regardless of whether they are in state-run warehouses or private facilities. Those who are happiest (relatively speaking) seem to be those who remain in their homes, even long after this is a safe alternative. I just don't see worrying about what my situation is going to be if and when I'm 87 or 93 as even being part of the equation.
__________________
Runner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2015, 08:07 AM   #58
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 716
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet View Post
Of course, when LTC time arrived, if you had taken SS early you might have a nice pot of $250 to $300k or so (say 8 yrs of collecting $22k/yr + earnings) to apply towards LTC.

You can't have it both ways, unfortunately. Wait until 70 and have a significantly larger monthly check. Start at 62 and invest the money monthly into the S and P 500 and have $200k to $300k accumulated when you hit 70.

There are risks and pros/cons either way.
One of my activities since retiring has been modelling finance things in spreadsheets. In addition to the SS spreadsheet I posted above, there's another for S&P500 portfolio returns, including customizable stock/bond allocation.
The median long(ish)-term total return for a 60/40 allocation is 9%/yr
FWIW, the median 100/0 return is about 10.5%/yr.

If you plug into my SS sheet an earnings rate of 9% and a 2.5% COLA, the breakeven age for 66 vs. 70 is ... 110. That's basically never.

Playing further, the worst 20 year return for 100/0 (all S&P500, no bonds) was 6.3% annual.
Plug in 6.3% return and 2.5% COLA, the breakeven age is 89.
SSA says the life expectancy of a 70 year old born in 1950 is 16 years or age 86.
__________________
rayvt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2015, 08:14 AM   #59
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Senator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 3,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by rayvt View Post
One of my activities since retiring has been modelling finance things in spreadsheets. In addition to the SS spreadsheet I posted above, there's another for S&P500 portfolio returns, including customizable stock/bond allocation.
The median long(ish)-term total return for a 60/40 allocation is 9%/yr
FWIW, the median 100/0 return is about 10.5%/yr.

If you plug into my SS sheet an earnings rate of 9% and a 2.5% COLA, the breakeven age for 66 vs. 70 is ... 110. That's basically never.

Playing further, the worst 20 year return for 100/0 (all S&P500, no bonds) was 6.3% annual.
Plug in 6.3% return and 2.5% COLA, the breakeven age is 89.
SSA says the life expectancy of a 70 year old born in 1950 is 16 years or age 86.
You cannot compare the S&P to SS. You would need to compare a 100% guaranteed return to make an apples to apples comparison.
__________________
FIRE no later than 7/5/2016 at 56 (done), securing '16 401K match (done), getting '15 401K match (done), LTI Bonus (done), Perf bonus (done), maxing out 401K (done), picking up 1,000 hours to get another year of pension (done), July 1st benefits (vacation day, healthcare) (done), July 4th holiday. 0 days left. (done) OFFICIALLY RETIRED 7/5/2016!!
Senator is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2015, 08:16 AM   #60
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Senator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Eagan, MN
Posts: 3,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
we took 300 a day inflation adjusted by 5% a year for 3 years coverage and 6 year's in home care . care runs about 450 -500 a day in our area for a decent place but we can absorb the difference.
What does a policy like this cost? Is it two individual policies, or a couples policy?
__________________

__________________
FIRE no later than 7/5/2016 at 56 (done), securing '16 401K match (done), getting '15 401K match (done), LTI Bonus (done), Perf bonus (done), maxing out 401K (done), picking up 1,000 hours to get another year of pension (done), July 1st benefits (vacation day, healthcare) (done), July 4th holiday. 0 days left. (done) OFFICIALLY RETIRED 7/5/2016!!
Senator is online now   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
Puerto Rico not such a good idea? Ed_The_Gypsy Life after FIRE 3 02-08-2014 06:15 PM
Turns Out I'm Not Such An Early Retiree! tangomonster Life after FIRE 16 11-10-2011 10:27 AM
Apple Computer need help - Not as easy as I've heard!.... Cut-Throat Other topics 22 03-31-2006 07:33 PM
It's not as easy as you think Gone4Good FIRE and Money 8 12-21-2005 06:21 PM
Covered calls made easy....too easy? laurence FIRE and Money 8 09-13-2005 10:13 AM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:56 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.