youbet
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Depends, of course, on your actual investment yield.
Yep. That's the real wild card and it's tough to account for.
Last edited:
Depends, of course, on your actual investment yield.
If one delays SS to 70 once can always change one's mind before 70. So, if one decides at 65 she needs the extra money, just file the claim and collect the checks.
If one decides to collect SS at 62, is it possible to reverse that decision if at 65 one decides it would have been better to wait? IIRC, there used to be a provision for paying back SS earnings and getting a larger benefit later, but, I thought that was ended.
https://sites.google.com/site/ssmisconceptions/misconceptions-affecting-the-individual
Another analysis to add to the discussion and keep you awake at night. David Fromme provides some data regarding the effect of taxes on your decision to take or delay SS.
My understanding is that the spousal benefit is calculated as 50% of your FRA benefit, so there is no advantage there, of your waiting till 70.
....Mine and hubs SS are almost equal, so I'm thinking one takes at 66, the other at 70. That covers the longevity issue with surviving spouse. ....
How far should one deplete their portfolio in delaying SS? We are both retired and I will be 62 in march '16 and DW will be 58 in April '16. Hoping to delay to 66 and DW will draw her benefit at 62. Collecting a non cola pension at present but will need to draw down portfolio by 30% due mostly to an RV purchase (Truck & TT). After we start drawing SS, our income should exceed our expenses and allow us to rebuild our portfolio. Was planning to delay till 70 by using the Spousal option but now that that has gone poof, I will reassess the situation at 66. I guess my biggest worry is if inflation heats up & returns or so-so, I have no other option but to delay and take even larger withdrawals or tighten up the expense budget.
Yep. That's the real wild card and it's tough to account for.
How far should one deplete their portfolio in delaying SS? We are both retired and I will be 62 in march '16 and DW will be 58 in April '16. Hoping to delay to 66 and DW will draw her benefit at 62. Collecting a non cola pension at present but will need to draw down portfolio by 30% due mostly to an RV purchase (Truck & TT). After we start drawing SS, our income should exceed our expenses and allow us to rebuild our portfolio. Was planning to delay till 70 by using the Spousal option but now that that has gone poof, I will reassess the situation at 66. I guess my biggest worry is if inflation heats up & returns or so-so, I have no other option but to delay and take even larger withdrawals or tighten up the expense budget.
The fact that you will draw down your portfolio by 30% with an RV purchase is what concerns me. RVs are a quickly depreciating asset. Is there a less expensive way to do this?
The fact that you will draw down your portfolio by 30% with an RV purchase is what concerns me. RVs are a quickly depreciating asset. Is there a less expensive way to do this?....
Regarding the bold: Many people here have an asset allocation built for a long retirement. They need significant equities for the long run.That is the $64,000 question. We are in a very similar situation, with non-COLA pension, future SS estimates, and savings to fill the gaps. I've run several FIRECalc scenarios and found that looking at three basic strategies; we both take SS at 62, both at FRA, or both at 70 the best case appears to be both at FRA. In building spreadsheet models I sensed that spending down savings to delay SS would increase exposure to sequence of return risk, and I verified by plugging in the numbers for each and running the FIRECalc "Investigate" tab "Spending Level" searching for a 100% success rate. Claiming at FRA offered an increase in spending level over age 62 as expected (2.7%), but stretching that out to age 70 resulted in a reduced spending level even lower than age 62 (-6%). I'm sure it is very much a YMMV thing, as everyone's assets and future income sources are highly variable. Increasing future benefits by delaying makes sense, but decreasing savings makes one more vulnerable to future benefit changes. I'd rather try to keep three three legged stool somewhat in balance, at least as long as inflation doesn't eat up the non-COLA pensions too early we stand a better chance of that.
My understanding is that the spousal benefit is calculated as 50% of your FRA benefit, so there is no advantage there, of your waiting till 70.
... so widow gets 100% of whatever benefit husband was receiving when he died or would have been eligible for when he died - i.e., she could get 100% of his delayed age 70 benefit if he delayed.
Another reason to delay, maybe... I believe the spouse can also collect the full age-70 survivor's benefit at 60, not at 62 or FRA. If you have at least 10 years difference in ages, that is a big difference in amount collected.
And you only have to be married for 9-10 month's for the survivor's benefit.
Ha. My philosophy as well. Only the decision for me is either 62 or 66. So I will probably go with 64.