Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Taking Early Social Security
Old 03-02-2014, 11:54 AM   #1
Confused about dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 2
Taking Early Social Security

I enjoy this website and have a question maybe someone can help me with. Many articles and opinions suggest taking SS as late as possible to increase the payout. My question is if someone has what they perceive to be enough to fund their retirement lifestyle via retirement accounts, rental properties, pension and cash savings, why wouldn't you take SS as early as possible and use that pool of money to help fund retirement rather than drawing down your personal assets? It just seems to me it would be better to not use personal assets and let them continue to grow if you can offset the income you may need by taking SS at 62. Hope this makes sense. Thanks in advance for any opinions.
__________________

1fuzzball 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 03-02-2014, 12:01 PM   #2
Moderator Emeritus
W2R's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 40,858
"When should I take SS, and why?" is a very frequently asked question here. It is addressed in the following FAQ, which might be fun to read while you are awaiting responses.

(FAQ Archive) When to take SS
__________________

__________________
100% retired since 2009 and never plan to work for anybody ever again, paid or not. Retirement funded by Social Security, mini-pension, and investments (AA 45:55, mostly Vanguard). Debt free with no mortgage and over-the-moon happy to be retired.
W2R is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 12:06 PM   #3
Recycles dryer sheets
keegs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: In a van down by the river
Posts: 407
Hi fuzz.. my 2 cents... If SS is going to represent a large percentage of your retirement income, then it maybe best to hold off until you can take the full benefit. If not and you think your retirement income will comfortably take you to an age that most of you relations have lived to, then go for it. We live for today and for tomorrow.
keegs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 12:21 PM   #4
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
growing_older's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,659
My plan is to have enough in personal investments to fund my retirement lifestyle. Since I will have enough money, I will take SS as late as possible. If I die early, I had enough money so the fact that I collect little or no SS doesn't matter much to me. My heirs get a little less, but I still live life as well as I wanted.

On the other hand if I live longer than expected, then by taking SS late I maximize that payout. It's a kind of longevity insurance with a COLA built in. In the event of a long long life, that's when there is the most time and therefor most chance of unexpected complications to my plan. I have no equivalent investment, so if I do happen to live a long time, I will be glad I waited.

To me it's not simply about maximizing the payout I receive. It's about maximizing the payout in those cases where it might matter to me, and being willing to take less in those cases where it doesn't matter.
growing_older is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 12:24 PM   #5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Ready's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,142
Quote:
Originally Posted by growing_older View Post
To me it's not simply about maximizing the payout I receive. It's about maximizing the payout in those cases where it might matter to me, and being willing to take less in those cases where it doesn't matter.
+1
My thoughts exactly. I think the best thing the OP can do to get more meaningful feedback is to give us some history on family longevity and their best guess about the age they expect to live until. There are many other things to consider as well...which is why entire books have been written about maximizing social security benefits. But that's the main first question I ask when this subject comes up.
Ready is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 12:52 PM   #6
Moderator
braumeister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Northern Kentucky
Posts: 11,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1fuzzball View Post
it would be better to not use personal assets and let them continue to grow
Grow by how much? Enough to handle the high expenses of your late life, or way more than enough?

Remember, some people actually want to have far more than "enough" when they die. Either to provide a substantial bequest to heirs, or to give to worthy causes. They are not bothered by the "gotta die broke" syndrome, but simply want to avoid worrying about finances.
braumeister is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 01:29 PM   #7
Recycles dryer sheets
ducky911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 410
This question is the hardest.

The answer is like a rat maze with no exit. Not sure to turn to a CPA or a palm reader for help.

some factors
taxes now and then. Taking early could knock 0% tax on dividends into 15%
amount you can "safely" get above inflation for early money
how long you will live
wife/husbands age compared to yours
__________________
You've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
I hate (despise) loads and fees
Retired July '11 investments 60/40 in very low cost index and mutual funds, balance once a year at best.
ducky911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 02:06 PM   #8
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: 19,299
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1fuzzball View Post
I enjoy this website and have a question maybe someone can help me with. Many articles and opinions suggest taking SS as late as possible to increase the payout. My question is if someone has what they perceive to be enough to fund their retirement lifestyle via retirement accounts, rental properties, pension and cash savings, why wouldn't you take SS as early as possible and use that pool of money to help fund retirement rather than drawing down your personal assets? It just seems to me it would be better to not use personal assets and let them continue to grow if you can offset the income you may need by taking SS at 62. Hope this makes sense. Thanks in advance for any opinions.
Are you single or married? If single, then I'm not sure it matters much, particularly if you are male since my understanding it that the payouts from 62 to 70 or anywhere in between are designed to be actuarially neutral (in other words, the expected present value of payments are the same).
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56...60/35/5 AA
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 02:13 PM   #9
Moderator
samclem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 12,761
Unless you absolutely need the money early (to eat, have a place to live, etc), it probably makes sense to wait to take it until age 70. Especially if you have a spouse who depends on your SS benefit. It's the cheapest longevity insurance you can get.
If you live a long time, you'll come out money ahead and be glad you waited to start. If you die early--you're dead, so no chance to regret.
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 02:32 PM   #10
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 951
Because we are going to self insure for long term health we have decided to take my wife's ss early so as to take pressure off our investments down the road in case one of us have to go in a nursing home. Also because I have a public employee pension if my wife predeceases me I will not get any of her benefit. I guess though everybody's situation is different.
ripper1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 04:27 PM   #11
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
mickeyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Texas~29N/98W
Posts: 6,034
I am delaying taking my SS until age 70 because I have plenty current retirement income to live on prior to age 70 and would probably just put the extra cash in my Ally savings account with an APY of 0.87%.

By delaying the SS payoff I can accrue DRC at an 8% rate for 4 years. There is no way that I could receive an 8% APY on any current savings.

As I have stated a number of times before, one of the beauties of SS is that it is so damn flexible. You need it now~take it. Don't need it? Delay it.

Makes everyone happy.
__________________
Part-Owner of Texas

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. Groucho Marx

In dire need of: faster horses, younger woman, older whiskey, more money.
mickeyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 04:36 PM   #12
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by ripper1 View Post
because I have a public employee pension if my wife predeceases me I will not get any of her benefit.
Yes. GPO really changes things, and not for the better! We're doing the same thing only my wife has the public pension and won't get any spousal SS based on my earnings.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 04:37 PM   #13
Moderator
samclem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 12,761
Quote:
Originally Posted by ripper1 View Post
Because we are going to self insure for long term health we have decided to take my wife's ss early so as to take pressure off our investments down the road in case one of us have to go in a nursing home.
I would have thought this would be a prime scenario for delaying SS. LTC is most likely to be needed after age 70. If one spouse needs LTC and it puts a big dent in the portfolio, the higher monthly benefit provided by a delayed SS could make a significant difference in the standard of living of the healthy spouse. A surviving spouse with a diminished portfolio will likely be forced into the kind of low-volatility investments that have a hard time keeping up with inflation, so the inflation adjustments of the (larger) monthly SS check would be especially welcome. But, everyone has to assess their own situation and make their choices.
samclem is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 04:42 PM   #14
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
mickeyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Texas~29N/98W
Posts: 6,034
Quote:
A surviving spouse with a diminished portfolio will likely be forced into the kind of low-volatility investments that have a hard time keeping up with inflation, so the inflation adjustments of the (larger) monthly SS check would be especially welcome.
.

Good point. Well stated.
__________________
Part-Owner of Texas

Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. Groucho Marx

In dire need of: faster horses, younger woman, older whiskey, more money.
mickeyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 05:06 PM   #15
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1fuzzball View Post
I enjoy this website and have a question maybe someone can help me with. Many articles and opinions suggest taking SS as late as possible to increase the payout. My question is if someone has what they perceive to be enough to fund their retirement lifestyle via retirement accounts, rental properties, pension and cash savings, why wouldn't you take SS as early as possible and use that pool of money to help fund retirement rather than drawing down your personal assets? It just seems to me it would be better to not use personal assets and let them continue to grow if you can offset the income you may need by taking SS at 62. Hope this makes sense. Thanks in advance for any opinions.
I agree with you. There are a lot of diff. opinions but when I reach 62
my ssn, rentals and small pension will cover our living expenses with 10k left over. Will use the 401k pretty much for Travel.
SJ1_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 05:34 PM   #16
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
youbet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by samclem View Post
I would have thought this would be a prime scenario for delaying SS. LTC is most likely to be needed after age 70. If one spouse needs LTC and it puts a big dent in the portfolio, the higher monthly benefit provided by a delayed SS could make a significant difference in the standard of living of the healthy spouse. A surviving spouse with a diminished portfolio will likely be forced into the kind of low-volatility investments that have a hard time keeping up with inflation, so the inflation adjustments of the (larger) monthly SS check would be especially welcome. But, everyone has to assess their own situation and make their choices.
The problem with delaying SS when trying to protect a spouse who will not receive either her own SS or a spousal benefit based on yours is that if you predecease her as you reach 70, she never gets a penny from SS. If you start SS at 62, she gets a FIRE portfolio that is 8XSS + earnings larger than if you delayed.

It's a tough deal but those are the rules. If the DW had just stayed home, she'd get the spousal SS and it would be worth delaying.

Edit - I think you missed the fact that the non-SS spouse does not receive any spousal SS, period. If the SS spouse goes into LTC and dies after dimishing part of the FIRE portfolio, the surviving spouse gets no SS. There is no death benefit due to GPO. It requires a little different view when planning.
__________________
"I wasn't born blue blood. I was born blue-collar." John Wort Hannam
youbet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 06:17 PM   #17
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Chicago
Posts: 951
Quote:
Originally Posted by youbet View Post
The problem with delaying SS when trying to protect a spouse who will not receive either her own SS or a spousal benefit based on yours is that if you predecease her as you reach 70, she never gets a penny from SS. If you start SS at 62, she gets a FIRE portfolio that is 8XSS + earnings larger than if you delayed.

It's a tough deal but those are the rules. If the DW had just stayed home, she'd get the spousal SS and it would be worth delaying.

Edit - I think you missed the fact that the non-SS spouse does not receive any spousal SS, period. If the SS spouse goes into LTC and dies after dimishing part of the FIRE portfolio, the surviving spouse gets no SS. There is no death benefit due to GPO. It requires a little different view when planning.
Thanks for the clarity, Youbet.
ripper1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 06:29 PM   #18
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Ready's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Southern California
Posts: 2,142
Since we are on the topic of social security, I have a question that's a bit off from the original post but I'm hoping those of you who understand the system better than me can answer, or point me in the right direction.

My partner and I are now eligible to get married in California. We both have put the maximum amount possible into the social security system for most of our careers, and our anticipated benefits are within a few dollars of each others. My partner is about 6 years older than I am. FRA for both of us is age 67. No kids.

Is there any conceivable benefit to either of us as it relates to social security from getting married? Can I claim a portion of his benefits at an earlier age than FRA while delaying my own benefits until age 70?
Ready is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 07:31 PM   #19
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Harrogate, UK
Posts: 895
Take it now.....damn politicians will mess things up sooner or later (NOT trying to get a mod kill job.....really)
F4mandolin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2014, 08:17 PM   #20
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ready View Post
Since we are on the topic of social security, I have a question that's a bit off from the original post but I'm hoping those of you who understand the system better than me can answer, or point me in the right direction.

My partner and I are now eligible to get married in California. We both have put the maximum amount possible into the social security system for most of our careers, and our anticipated benefits are within a few dollars of each others. My partner is about 6 years older than I am. FRA for both of us is age 67. No kids.

Is there any conceivable benefit to either of us as it relates to social security from getting married? Can I claim a portion of his benefits at an earlier age than FRA while delaying my own benefits until age 70?
You can have the younger partner claim spousal benefits between FRA and 70.
__________________

Animorph 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
Taking Social Security at 62 - Point to Ponder freebird5825 FIRE and Money 63 06-16-2013 09:26 PM
Taking Social Security early vs. not LeavingOhio FIRE and Money 268 06-05-2013 09:17 PM
Finally taking our business to the next level- nervous about taking a step backward thefed FIRE and Money 16 11-01-2010 11:32 AM
When to start taking Social Security davemcmullen FIRE and Money 74 10-14-2008 08:23 AM
SS benefits, delay taking Social Security, Scott Burns article landover FIRE and Money 11 11-29-2005 05:58 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:10 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.