I hope that nothing in this article surprises anyone here. The system is progressive on both ends. First the bend points, as he explains. Then taxation when benefits are recieved. One can pay income tax on anywhere between 0% and 85 % of the benefit received.
Same thoughts here. I have 7 years 8 months until I turn 62. I have very little confidence that SS benefits then will look anything like SS benefits (per my SS statement) now. I am single, and most likely shall remain so, so I have no spousal considerations to think about. I have no benefits from my late husband (govt), so there is no dilemma on whose to draw on and when.
, and/or plunk it into an existing TE muni bond fund to generate even more usable (if needed) monthly income.
So will I, until someone posts a simple rebuttal.
If the finances of the organization paying the annuity (AKA the US Government) were in order I would agree with the premise. Since they are not by a long mile, I would argue that depleting one's assets betting that 30 years of future payments from a financially crippled organization I have no control over are assured is too risky.So will I, until someone posts a simple rebuttal.
SIGH! this is getting old. it's an emotional issue more than a practical one.
no one knows FOR SURE when your going to DIE!(at least mostly no one).
taking it early and getting it now means it does not matter if equations show you get more while waiting.
if taking it early lets you enjoy your earlier retirement years more than your later to old to do anything years than so be it.
This is a great point. I know some people who are more energetic and overall much healthier at 55 than they were at 30, but I have never met anyone who is even merely just as energetic and healthy at 80 as they were at 55. Time takes its toll. And family history may shed a light on another reality: Macular degeneration, cancer, heart disease - nothing is inevitable, and you actually can do something to reduce the chances of all these bad things, but there's no escaping the fact that as you get older your chances of reaching that point where hiking to the top of Mt. Washington will be finally out of your reach increase.
We're not talking about "having wealth". We're either talking about the difference between two different subsistence scenarios, or a marginal difference between two wealth scenarios (since SS will always be a marginal contribution to any retirement described as "having wealth").
And the answer may be 'yes': Ron walks over to the thermostat, and it reads 58F. He could turn on the heat, but he knows that he barely has enough money to pay the monthly service fee, and doesn't want to start ticking up the per-kwh charges this early in the month. When does he turn on the heat? 56F? 54F? Some would say that 50F is okay - the pipes won't burst, that way - and think of all that money he saves by not heating his home beyond 50F. He could use that money twenty years from now to turn on the heat a little higher that year, if he lives that long.
But you're missing the point, that money is worthless for its own sake. The idea isn't to not spend it, but to spend it when it has the most positive impact for you. If you make the analysis so cold and calculating that you only see the money's side of it, then you cannot possible appreciate the impact what money buys can have on enjoying life. There most certainly is a connection, because otherwise we'd all be better off becoming ascetics.
Yes, that once-in-a-lifetime trip to see the Great Wall of China, or the Taj Mahal, or the pyramids of Egypt, is something that you should think about scheduling base on factors other than "saving it" until the end. We deliberately decided to take that trip when we were in our mid-forties. We'll remember it for the rest of our lives (i.e., paying dividends for a longer period of time), and we will have been able to better enjoy what the trip offered because we were mobile instead of in a wheelchair, clear eyed instead of half blind, etc.
