SS at FRA vs. at 70 - Unexpected results

[devans0]

We will be retiring at 62. The plan is to live off of modest pensions, some LTCG money, and move as much T.IRA as possible to Roth as we can. If there is enough of a downturn to get future RMDs spent down, we may take SS earlier than 70. I have to check the details, but file and suspend coupled with spousal benefits that are restricted could be a good interim plan at 66

 

[43WorkYears]

From the stats I see, the percentage of people that wait till 70 to take ss is in the single digits. Almost no one does. Very few live till 90+, but we all hope we can. I don't need to be blunt, but those are the facts. If you happen to live that long for a couple of years beyond 88, then you'll be a very old person on a limited income until you ......

As Howard Cossell would say, just telling it like it is.

Those are the facts, for most of us if we get there. Don't mean to offend anyone.

Good health to all.

P.S. And as it has been repeated on this sight and many other columns elsewhere , it's your decision. We should all think and at the same time be realistic. One thing for sure, we can do more things between 65 and 80 then between 65 and 90.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[43WorkYears]

I meant that to be 80 and 95


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

 

[mathjak107]

From the stats I see, the percentage of people that wait till 70 to take ss is in the single digits. Almost no one does. Very few live till 90+, but we all hope we can. I don't need to be blunt, but those are the facts. If you happen to live that long for a couple of years beyond 88, then you'll be a very old person on a limited income until you ......

As Howard Cossell would say, just telling it like it is.

Those are the facts, for most of us if we get there. Don't mean to offend anyone.

Good health to all.

P.S. And as it has been repeated on this sight and many other columns elsewhere , it's your decision. We should all think and at the same time be realistic. One thing for sure, we can do more things between 65 and 80 then between 65 and 90.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

the typical numbers we see include all those collecting pre retirement age at 62 when they show the 62 numbers ..

you have kids getting benefits too. when you look at the actual breakout it seems more are waiting.

 

[RunningBum]

From the stats I see, the percentage of people that wait till 70 to take ss is in the single digits. Almost no one does.

Many people don't really have a choice, they have to take SS early to pay for essentials. Why do I want my decision to be based on their situation. A more interesting stat would be to know the numbers for people who have enough money to easily go without SS until age 70, and who have reasonable financial knowledge (not really possible to quantify, I know).

Very few live till 90+, but we all hope we can. I don't need to be blunt, but those are the facts. If you happen to live that long for a couple of years beyond 88, then you'll be a very old person on a limited income until you ......

Well now, my income won't be quite so limited if I wait until 70 to collect SS, will it? That's precisely the point of those of us who are most likely going to wait to take SS.

As Howard Cossell would say, just telling it like it is.

Those are the facts, for most of us if we get there. Don't mean to offend anyone.

Good health to all.

P.S. And as it has been repeated on this sight and many other columns elsewhere , it's your decision. We should all think and at the same time be realistic. One thing for sure, we can do more things between 65 and 80 then between 65 and 90.

If we're talking facts, if I do anything between 80 and 90 than I've done more things between 65 & 90 than 65 & 80. But I'm sure your point is you'll be less active in your 80s. True. But I might need more care, or want to be able to turn my heat up higher in the winter when I'm 90. If I am able to still travel, I might choose to be more comfortable in first class. I have a friend who is past 90 who is doing exactly that.

And by the way, knowing I can rely on more SS after 70 means I can spend more of my nest egg from 62-70. It can all balance out, if you plan it.

If I die before the breakeven point, if I even have time for regret, it won't be that I didn't best use SS, it'll be that I died. But if I live beyond the breakeven point, I might be regretting every day that I grabbed SS early and am getting a smaller deposit every month than if I'd have waited until 70.

The only question in my mind is whether I could better invest the money I'll keep between 62-70 if I take SS early. As a few others have said, if the market is down when I hit 62, I'm more likely to go for early SS.

Don't mean to offend, but your facts are pretty incomplete.

 

[HtownRose]

my medicare increases remain unlimited since i have not filed for ss . once you do you are protected from increases being more than cola's .

no protection exists if you are not collecting.

Would someone please expound on this? (My FRA is 67.)

 

[mathjak107]

the hold harmless act says that no matter how much medicare is raised if you are collecting ss your increase can never be more than your cola.

that increase is past on in full to anyone not collecting yet and some years have had quite large increases if you were not collecting ss.

The hold harmless rule applies to all Social Security recipients except the wealthy (defined as those earning $85,000 for an individual or $170,000 for a married couple) and those who are receiving Medicare for the first year. In addition, there are low-income Medicare recipients whose Medicare premiums are paid by their state Medicaid agencies, and those premiums are not protected by the hold harmless provision.
The hold harmless rule also does not apply to the Medicare Part D (prescription drug) premium, but that program just started in 2006 and has not seen significant premium increases yet.

as an example a few years ago if you were collecting ss when there were no colas you were kept at the old 96 .00 rate. if you weren't collecting yet you were increased to 104.20.

 

[HtownRose]

Oh, wow, did not realize this. Thank you! Will definitely take that into consideration.

 

[mathjak107]

once i looked at all the effects of delaying ,spending down a 50/50 portfolio in down years or giving up decades of compounding gains on money i would be spending down suddenly delaying wasn't so attractive .

throw in the loss of my spouse not getting anything added to hers until i file and the medicare increases while delaying and just to break even pushed the age so far out.

there was a decent reward for delaying but it really didn't materialize until 89-90 or so. the gain before that age from delaying was to small to even worry about and the risk of not breaking even pretty high..

 

[Mulligan]

Thanks Mathjack for informing me I will be considered wealthy and will get yearly medicare cost raises. You are the first person who has ever told me that! I wish it was under better circumstances though.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[mathjak107]

misery loves company ha ha ha