SS facts WOW...

[NgineER]

X.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

[old woman]

I did restricted application at 66 so waiting for 70 collecting half of my ex so only cost me half as much to wait.
Waiting is emotional at 66 I would have gotten about 1,300 I think but I can't really live on that well. At 70 I will get enough to live on so I can spend my life savings on anything I want even if I live to 115. Nice to get that fixed lifetime amount to over the cost of living. My house cost me about 1,000 a month plus utilities so maybe 1,500 a month plus food and stuff so I can live on 2K, can't live on 1,300. Currently getting 892 so drawing some dividend income and selling a few thousand of investments a year at 68. This year so far I drew out 5K for property taxes and have a few thousand in banks and money market so can live to 69 without selling any more investments. I don't have big wants like travel just getting by day to day, repairing things that need repaired not worried about the money. 986K left I could spend so I could take out 40K a year but not comfortable drawing down investments more than 10-15K right now. After 70 enough income for life and a million left in spending money, don't want to spend more but knowing I can blow it all if I want and be ok is good too.

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by old woman ... 986K left I could spend so I could take out 40K a year but not comfortable drawing down investments more than 10-15K right now. After 70 enough income for life and a million left in spending money, don't want to spend more but knowing I can blow it all if I want and be ok is good too.

I think many of us here are in the situation of having more than we need or want to spend, although it varies (my spending is not that low).

Do you have anybody to leave that money to? Do you have a will?

[shotgunner]

Perhaps I am the only one here who has a subsidized health insurance plan through the ACA and has to factor that into my situation. I am 59 and 6 years to go to hit Medicare (no rush to get there). Pre ACA I was quite sure I would take SS at age 62. Now I will have to look at the landscape as it is when I get closer to that age. 100% of my SS income will be factored into my Modified Gross Adjusted Income for the purposes of subsidy aka tax credit calculation. Not only do I have to calculate the decrease to my tax credit but I may need to be sure I don't earn so much to go over the cliff and have no tax credit. As someone said playing the shell game with the government is not much fun and with the ACA makes the game even more complex.

[mathjak107]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aknowhow78 Yes this is our point..my own money upon my death can be given to our adult children but SS cannot..so why not spend that down and save your own until you have to take distribution?

depending how long you live, spending your own for just up to 8 years and then spending much less for potentially decades with the higher ss payments may be the better choice if legacy money is important .

by delaying until 70 withdrawals from savings are much less .

if spending the early ss instead there is no guarantee you will get better returns on your investments which can be left in place , they may even go down . .

in fact delaying until 70 with one person in a couple making it until 90 ( 47% chance ) the ss can work out to a 5% real return from what amounts to a gov't bond and is just about guaranteed . .

[mathjak107]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski Works perfectly if you die early.... but is suboptimal (less to your kids) if you live long. Pick your poison.

if a couple not only are odds high that one will live well in to their 80's but the odds are almost a coin toss (47%) one of you will see 90 .

[pb4uski]

Totally agree.... I think a lot of people fail to consider the impact of joint mortality and survivorship benefits in deciding when to start SS.

[mathjak107]

when you are retired and spending down you have to beat two parameters to come out ahead , this is true even when deciding to take a mortgage or not .

when we are not spending down average returns work fine . as long as the average return you can get beats the mortgage or in this case ss you win . but sequence risk is now the deciding factor .

you need to get not only a good average return but it has to be in the right sequence in order to come out ahead .

not always easy to do compared to when we are not spending down . ss has zero sequence risk so that makes it harder to beat with your investing instead

[GTFan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shotgunner Perhaps I am the only one here who has a subsidized health insurance plan through the ACA and has to factor that into my situation. I am 59 and 6 years to go to hit Medicare (no rush to get there). Pre ACA I was quite sure I would take SS at age 62. Now I will have to look at the landscape as it is when I get closer to that age. 100% of my SS income will be factored into my Modified Gross Adjusted Income for the purposes of subsidy aka tax credit calculation. Not only do I have to calculate the decrease to my tax credit but I may need to be sure I don't earn so much to go over the cliff and have no tax credit. As someone said playing the shell game with the government is not much fun and with the ACA makes the game even more complex.

Pretty much my position, but I've got 13 years to go until Medicare. My plan is to take SS no earlier than 65 at this time because of this, but who knows how the ACA will evolve.

[Senator]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mathjak107 if spending the early ss instead there is no guarantee you will get better returns on your investments which can be left in place , they may even go down.

This is 100% true. Far too many people take SS at 62 thinking they will get a better return on their own. Maybe, maybe not. Then, many spend the money rather than invest it instead.

Delaying SS is like a forced savings account, with solid returns.

Even COLA increases will be more by waiting, as they are on a larger initial amount, for the rest of your life.

Of course, if the Dr. give you bad news, go and run to file. Or get married.

[Sue J]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyber888 No, it's not fair for me or some people. My wife is much older than I am and she cannot get SS, because she's been a housewife all her life. So, she has to wait for me to get SS, and when I get SS she'll be 75, and I will have to get SS at 62 for her to get medicare at 75. So, it's not gaming the system. Nobody should be taking SS at 75 yrs old. You are just generalizing, which is really not appropriate for everyone.

Is this correct? I didn't think you have to be taking SS to start Medicare. Isn't she Medicare eligible at 65 as a spouse of someone who has enough Medicare credits?

[nate2953]

It is incorrect. As soon as he is 62 she can get Medicare Part A for free and pay the regular premium for Part B. Prior to 62 she'll have to pay the reduced premium for part A and the regular premium for Part B. Just another example of unwillingness to do research into a problem that deserves a lot of thought and research.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

[Sue J]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shotgunner Perhaps I am the only one here who has a subsidized health insurance plan through the ACA and has to factor that into my situation. I am 59 and 6 years to go to hit Medicare (no rush to get there). Pre ACA I was quite sure I would take SS at age 62. Now I will have to look at the landscape as it is when I get closer to that age. 100% of my SS income will be factored into my Modified Gross Adjusted Income for the purposes of subsidy aka tax credit calculation. Not only do I have to calculate the decrease to my tax credit but I may need to be sure I don't earn so much to go over the cliff and have no tax credit. As someone said playing the shell game with the government is not much fun and with the ACA makes the game even more complex.

We are also using subsidized ACA insurance (many here are) and so far that's the reason why I will wait until Medicare age of 65 (or just 14 months longer to FRA) to take SS. First, 85% of my SS will be taxed at 15% (no matter when I take it, can't get around that) but the impact on our ACA subsidy is larger than I expected. We are not near the cliff like you are but when I look at the change to the subsidy with additional MAGI income (100% of SS, not 85% like taxes) the difference in the subsidy was in the range of 15-16% of the total SS received. For that kind of impact I can hold off until age 65 in 2020.

[Gone4Good]

Here's what the internal rate of return looks like for the "Delay SS until 70 Decision".

You have to live until about 74.5 before you break even. If you die sooner than that, you lose tons of money. If you live longer, the returns turn very positive relatively quickly.

If you live until 76 you realize an annual real return of 4% by delaying. If you live until 81 those real returns grow to 10% annually. Live another decade and you'll see your average annual returns top out at about 13% real.

That's a pretty crazy return profile.

[mathjak107]

if we both die , who cares , so what . we don't have to tolerate markets or worry about giving up a few bucks .

the bigger deal is what if we live . what if we live is the real concern .

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gone4Good If you live until 81 those real returns grow to 10% annually.

Yep. And per mathjack's earlier graphs, if a couple is both alive at age 65, there's a 45% chance (.62 x .72) that they'll both be alive at age 80 to enjoy those big returns, and only an 11% chance that both will have already died and the couple will miss them entirely.

If they've got a portfolio, they may feel safe in giving to charity and kin while they are still alive with real returns like that.

[mathjak107]

actually for a couple there is a 47% chance one will see 90 not 80 , for a 65 year old couple . since either one stands a chance of outliving the other a couple always has better odds then singles . there is an 89% chance for one person in a couple to see 80 , not 45%

[samclem]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mathjak107 actually for a couple there is a 47% chance one will see 90 not 80 , for a 65 year old couple . since either one stands a chance of outliving the other a couple always has better odds then singles . there is an 89% chance for one person in a couple to see 80 , not 45%

I don't think you understood what I wrote, it is 100% correct (and doesn't contradict what you wrote).

[mathjak107]

Quote:

Originally Posted by nate2953 It is incorrect. As soon as he is 62 she can get Medicare Part A for free and pay the regular premium for Part B. Prior to 62 she'll have to pay the reduced premium for part A and the regular premium for Part B. Just another example of unwillingness to do research into a problem that deserves a lot of thought and research. Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum

you can't get medicare before 65 regardless unless you have a disability .

You can also qualify for premium-free Part A benefits on your spouse's work record if he or she is at least age 62 and you are at least age 65. You also may qualify on the work record of a divorced or deceased spouse. Following the Supreme Court's 2015 ruling, people in same-sex marriages can qualify for Medicare on their spouse's work record, regardless of where they live or where they were married.

You qualify for full Medicare benefits under age 65 if:

You have been entitled to Social Security disability benefits for at least 24 months (which need not be consecutive); or
You receive a disability pension from the Railroad Retirement Board and meet certain conditions; or
You have Lou Gehrig's disease (amyotrophic lateral sclerosis), which qualifies you immediately; or
You have permanent kidney failure requiring regular dialysis or a kidney transplant — and you or your spouse has paid Social Security taxes for a certain length of time, depending on your age.

[nate2953]

The person requesting Medicare based on age has to be 65. The insured person simply has to have 30 QC's to give the spouse reduced premium part A. Once the person with 40 QC's is 62, that persons spouse can get Part A for free.


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum