To be or not to be (early SS or not) ...?

[FI_RElater]

That’s useful thx.

But you could theoretically claim 1/2 spousal SS, could you not?
How do you evaluate for this case?

Not anymore! not since the changes a few years ago

(see "deemed filing".... any filing for benefits is a filing for any benefits to which you may qualify... and you don't get to choose)


As for us (also close, but I'm slightly lower and older):
I'll likely take at FRA {I'm already past the "early" 62 filing} and spouse will delay until 70. That allows Roth conversions for a few years, surviving spouse to receive full FRA amount until they receive age 70 amount sometime later. {I've already gone past the age for either of my parents and my side has only one that's ever made it past mid-80's...... and those in my former profession had a statistically lower life expectancy (I've known some passing at 45,50, and early 60's; My expectancy would be 85 with a slim chance to 92 based on both environmental/career and genetic/family)

 

[wanaberetiree]

Not anymore! not since the changes a few years ago

(see "deemed filing".... any filing for benefits is a filing for any benefits to which you may qualify... and you don't get to choose)


As for us (also close, but I'm slightly lower and older):
I'll likely take at FRA {I'm already past the "early" 62 filing} and spouse will delay until 70. That allows Roth conversions for a few years, surviving spouse to receive full FRA amount until they receive age 70 amount sometime later. {I've already gone past the age for either of my parents and my side has only one that's ever made it past mid-80's...... and those in my former profession had a statistically lower life expectancy (I've known some passing at 45,50, and early 60's; My expectancy would be 85 with a slim chance to 92 based on both environmental/career and genetic/family)

Wow, really ! That’s a news, but makes the calculations easier, I guess

 

[FI_RElater]

...it would have been nice to have some more coin

the change only slightly affected us, given our savings, but it would have been nice to have had some coming in for the few years that I'd planned on delaying.
(I also missed out when they eliminated the income averaging thing for income taxes, got the wrong end of the shaft when they significantly revised the pension, didn't get any of the "free money" the fed handed out (if I remember, there were two different years... one was up to $1200 for a couple and the other was $600 for a couple; but our income was too high so we got the goose egg), and I probably forgot a few other things)

 

[Navigator]

When I asked this question, someone replied with a testing-the-limits strategy:

If you're going to die next year, take it immediately.
If you've got vampire genes, postpone till the maximum.

I keep reading that we're living longer. I wonder if the social security tables have adjusted for that.

I believe I read that life expectancy in the US has been going down the last couple of years, even for those who are older. In the rest of the developed world, I believe it is increasing slightly, but appears to be plateauing.

It seems like genetics should play a large role in how long a person lives, but I’ve read several places that it is not a good predictor of lifespan, unless your parents died young due to a genetic disease. Lifestyle appears to be the biggest factor.

 

[Chuckanut]

You can spend more money every year starting at 62 if you take SS at 70. Here's the discussion and the math that shows how it works:

https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=102609

But!!!........ This only works if you are not concerned about leaving an estate to your heirs. The extra money has to come from somewhere, right?

One other thing about taking SS at 70 is that you can always change your mind anywhere from 62 to 70 if you need to. IIRC, a number of people on this site did start up SS earlier than planned after the crash of 2008. Once you take it at 62 you will soon be locked into that amount (plus COLA) for life.

As others have said, there is no one right answer. The above is just one strategy you might wish to consider. Do what is best for you and lets you sleep well at night.

 

[ponyboy]

If you hate money, delay SS until 70.

Its pretty common knowledge at this point that you get the money, invest the money, make more money.

My inlaws are 65 and havent take SS yet. They claim they do not need it so why take it. If thats the case, why ever take it? No one has a crystal ball and no know knows how long they're going to live. Not sure why people risk it and delay taking it for 8 years. Makes no sense.

 

[ckelly78z]

Taking SS at 62 will give you a reduced amount of monthy $$ for more years, but also increase your usable $$ during the active years of retirement when you need it more. How long do you, and the DW plan to live, and be active ?...that's the real question.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

If you hate money, delay SS until 70.

Its pretty common knowledge at this point that you get the money, invest the money, make more money.

My inlaws are 65 and havent take SS yet. They claim they do not need it so why take it. If thats the case, why ever take it? No one has a crystal ball and no know knows how long they're going to live. Not sure why people risk it and delay taking it for 8 years. Makes no sense.

Remember the TLA, "ACA". If we take SS at 67 and 62 in 2022 (Respectively) and then end up paying half of it back for DW's Healthcare, it is a waste when it could be accumulating.

The whole equation changes if you get grandfathered healthcare paid for by a Company, Union or Service Benefit.

 

[LiveBelowMeans]

Looking at the SS actuarial tables, approx 1 out of 8 men will die between 62 and 70. Given that the total value of benefits is approximately the same when adjusted for inflation etc. regardless of when you take it, I will take at 62 to ensure I get something out of a system I have been contributing to for years. JMHO

 

[Mdlerth]

Just say no to drugs... and self-destruction... and poverty

I believe I read that life expectancy in the US has been going down the last couple of years, even for those who are older. In the rest of the developed world, I believe it is increasing slightly, but appears to be plateauing.

It seems like genetics should play a large role in how long a person lives, but I’ve read several places that it is not a good predictor of lifespan, unless your parents died young due to a genetic disease. Lifestyle appears to be the biggest factor.

I have read that headline, too. When I dove further into the details of the CDC study, two factors stood out as being responsible for the decline: opioid overdose and suicide.

For individuals to which neither of those factors applies, and in particular for the portion of the population with higher economic means (a common feature of people electing to retire early), life expectancy continues to rise.

 

[Teacher Terry]

For the first time a thread has changed my mind. My husband is 5 years younger and was going to wait until 69 1/2 his FRA. But we both are subject to WEP and GPO. So we decided to collect his SS at 62 and use that money for travel. If we wait I will be 75 and who knows by then what life holds.

 

[racy]

One thing, too, about the Opensocialsecurity calculator, there's an option to pick a mortality table. At the end of the list is "assumed age at death", giving you the option to put in any age.
At some ages it will recommend that both husband and wife take their SS at age 70.
Something to consider if you have long-lived relatives (like me: aunt died at 101, father at 95, ...)

 

[Teacher Terry]

My MIL’ mom died at 89. Two years later her daughter was dead at 67. I don’t think parents longevity is the best indicator.

 

[MissMolly]

For the first time a thread has changed my mind. My husband is 5 years younger and was going to wait until 69 1/2 his FRA. But we both are subject to WEP and GPO. So we decided to collect his SS at 62 and use that money for travel. If we wait I will be 75 and who knows by then what life holds.

Nobody has a FRA of 69.5. The oldest anyone has to be (those born 1960 or later) is 67 to be FRA.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/agereduction.html

 

[travelover]

.........But people love to rehash it so let the fun begin..........

 

[NW-Bound]

I believe I read that life expectancy in the US has been going down the last couple of years, even for those who are older. In the rest of the developed world, I believe it is increasing slightly, but appears to be plateauing...

It sounds scary until I read that the cause was drug/alcohol/accident, all mostly self-inflicted and preventable.

 

[pb4uski]

If you hate money, delay SS until 70.

Its pretty common knowledge at this point that you get the money, invest the money, make more money.

My inlaws are 65 and havent take SS yet. They claim they do not need it so why take it. If thats the case, why ever take it? No one has a crystal ball and no know knows how long they're going to live. Not sure why people risk it and delay taking it for 8 years. Makes no sense.

A pretty financially ignorant response. In our case, from when we retired at 56 until SS starts we are in a low tax bracket so the benefit of low tax-cost tIRA withdrawals and Roth conversions are high, and much more valuable than taking SS early. Also, while not applicable to us, many people don't take SS from 62-65 because the higher income would destroy their ACA subsidies. Not to mention that delaying SS is a way to buy COLA-adjusted joint life longevity insurance at a bargain price.

 

[pb4uski]

.... My husband is 5 years younger and was going to wait until 69 1/2 his FRA. ...

Nobody has a FRA of 69.5. The oldest anyone has to be (those born 1960 or later) is 67 to be FRA.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/agereduction.html

OMG MissMolly, plese don't confuse people with facts.

 

[Teacher Terry]

Thanks Molly. I actually have the right age written down but was going by my memory)

 

[wanaberetiree]

Not anymore! not since the changes a few years ago

(see "deemed filing".... any filing for benefits is a filing for any benefits to which you may qualify... and you don't get to choose)


As for us (also close, but I'm slightly lower and older):
I'll likely take at FRA {I'm already past the "early" 62 filing} and spouse will delay until 70. That allows Roth conversions for a few years, surviving spouse to receive full FRA amount until they receive age 70 amount sometime later. {I've already gone past the age for either of my parents and my side has only one that's ever made it past mid-80's...... and those in my former profession had a statistically lower life expectancy (I've known some passing at 45,50, and early 60's; My expectancy would be 85 with a slim chance to 92 based on both environmental/career and genetic/family)

Did I misunderstand you ?

I see this "Benefits For Your Spouse. Even if you have never worked under Social Security, you may be able to get spouse's retirement benefits if you are at least 62 years of age and your spouse is receiving retirement or disability benefits. You can also qualify for Medicare at age 65."

 

[pb4uski]

I think what FI_RElater was referring to was a strategy where a spouse would file to claim spousal benefit only whlie letting the benefit based on their work record grow and that strategy was closed off a few years ago... now, if you file for a spousal benefit you are deemed to also have filed for your own so you would get the greater of your benefit or the spousal benefit.

 

[MissMolly]

Did I misunderstand you ?

I see this "Benefits For Your Spouse. Even if you have never worked under Social Security, you may be able to get spouse's retirement benefits if you are at least 62 years of age and your spouse is receiving retirement or disability benefits. You can also qualify for Medicare at age 65."

Well, it's mixing two different types of spousal. The one you mention above will remain in place for those spouses who have never worked and must rely on their spouses SS in order to file. And this is the only SS they will ever be entitled to.

The other one is for folks who file for spousal when they reach FRA and wait until they are 70 to file for their own. This is still in place, BUT you must be 66 by no later than 01/01/2020 to take advantage of it, and your spouse must have filed in order for you to be eligible.

 

[wanaberetiree]

Well, it's mixing two different types of spousal. The one you mention above will remain in place for those spouses who have never worked and must rely on their spouses SS in order to file. And this is the only SS they will ever be entitled to.

The other one is for folks who file for spousal when they reach FRA and wait until they are 70 to file for their own. This is still in place, BUT you must be 66 by no later than 01/01/2020 to take advantage of it, and your spouse must have filed in order for you to be eligible.

Sounds like in my case if we both worked and eligible for SS and won't be 66 by no later than 01/01/2020, that means that spousal benefits are gone !

 

[gwraigty]

Sounds like in my case if we both worked and eligible for SS and won't be 66 by no later than 01/01/2020, that means that spousal benefits are gone !

Um, no. Spousal benefits still exist. Basically, you can collect a spousal benefit if it's greater than what you'd get on your own work record, as long as your higher-earning spouse is collecting their own SS benefit.

Benefits For Your Spouse

 

[gtweath]

This is an easy question to answer, once you learn what age you will die