when should you take social security article

Status
Not open for further replies.
rayvt said:
The "quick BE" worksheet is pretty easy to understand. Depending on your assumptions for long-term average gain, the 62 vs. 66 breakeven is about 17 years. From 12 years if you "invest" in a non-interest bearing account to 30 years if your investments pay 6%.

BTW, the life expectancy for a male at 62 is 19 years. That's the breakeven time at 4% earnings. So, the question you have to ask yourself is "Can I invest and earn at least 4%?"
Click to expand...


Is that 4% a real or nominal return? If it is real then it is on par with standard SWR rate.
 
if everyone in my family lived into their 90's, a few have but most only into their early to mid 80's and a few far less than that, i'd be more prone to waiting until 66 or 70. it seems to me waiting 17 years to break even is a long time to wait. i'd rather take 17 years of a bird in the hand, however, i'm going to look into waiting each year to 66 just to see how that shakes out.

taxes, we all have to pay them and the more income from whatever source the more we pay in taxes so i'm inclined to not sweat that.

as far as income streams, i don't need ss at 62 because i presently am able to lbmn. my pension pays all my expenses plus i save about 1/2 of the net check. i don't consider what i need to live on now or 10 years from now because i seem to be able to live without any distributions from investments so far. perhaps i'm the exception since my total portfolio is nowhere close to $1M. i just don't spend much money and don't find shopping to be interesting.

i find this whole ss thing confusing, i used to think taking it at 62 was a no brainer. i wonder if i should talk to a financial planner or cpa to see what they say but i suspect this issue is one of those things that it depends upon your point of view and that'll cloud any objective analysis.

this has been a very interesting thread and has given me much to consider but i still think it may be best to just take the money asap. we'll see.
 
My plan is to take SS as late as possible because of longevity risk.

I see a lot of talk in this thread about statistical longevity, but I suspect that the life expectancy of folks on this board would tend to be longer than average because of lower stress.
 
as i pointed out in multiple posts above and on previous threads the BE method is not appropriate for the analysis of when to start taking SS

I disagree. Why isn't it?
Consider: at 62, you could either:
1) Don't start collecting. Wait for 70 and get a larger amount.
or
2) Start collecting, but put that money into a side account and let it grow until age 70. Then take monthly withdrawals in an amount such that the total (SS check plus withdrawal) equals the amount that SS would have paid if you had waited until 70.

From the "spendable monthly income" viewpoint, these scenarios are exactly the same -- up until the side account is exhausted. From 62 to 70 you have no spendable SS income, and after 70 your spendable income is equal to the age 70 SS amount. Since they are the same until depletion, the BE point (when the side account becomes empty) is the deciding factor.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Ahhhhh, maybe I see. You said "i dont know what you are getting at here. in my example i fully consider the case of the person taking SS at age 62. that person spends it."
Then the scenarios are not even remotely the same, are they? If the person spent the money he got at 62 because he needed it to life on, then he does NOT have the option of delaying until 70. So you are trying to compare two alternatives where one of them is not, in fact, an alternative at all---it's only a fantasy.

--------------
the only ways the BE method shows that for a single person taking SS at age 62 is better than delaying till age 70 are 1) using a totally unrealistic constant rate of return for that "savings account"
Did you even bother to look at my spreadsheet?? You plug in your own estimates for rate of return and COLA. Then it shows you the break-even point.

What is the highest rate of return that you wouldn't call totally unrealistic? Plug that in and see what it says. Would you call 3% return and 3% COLA realistic? Heck, even that has a BE of 11 years (age 81). PenFed right now pays 3% on a 7 year CD.

How about 6%? Would you call that totally unrealistic ? PGF (preferred stock ETF) is currently yielding 7.3%. The BE for 6% return and 3% COLA is 15 years (age 85).

Are you calling 10% totally unrealistic? Because that's the long-term return of the S&P500. I will grant that this might be dangerous to depend on, since the short-term returns jump all over the place.
The BE for 10% return and 3% COLA is.......never. The side account never even comes close to being depleted.

Playing with the numbers, it turns out that 9% return and 3% COLA has the BE at age 101.
 
rayvt said:
--------------
the only ways the BE method shows that for a single person taking SS at age 62 is better than delaying till age 70 are 1) using a totally unrealistic constant rate of return for that "savings account"
Did you even bother to look at my spreadsheet?? no, i built my own. i think you didnt properly calculate (inflate) the amount of SS received at age 70, which explains the difference in our numbers You plug in your own estimates for rate of return and COLA. Then it shows you the break-even point.

What is the highest rate of return that you wouldn't call totally unrealistic? 3% real or with the inflation rate we are using (3%), 6% nominal. but in todays environment that is high Plug that in and see what it says. Would you call 3% return and 3% COLA realistic? Heck, even that has a BE of 11 years (age 81). PenFed right now pays 3% on a 7 year CD. a 3% return (nominal) when there is 3% inflation is a 0% real return and the break even point is between 78 and 79

How about 6%? Would you call that totally unrealistic ? PGF (preferred stock ETF) is currently yielding 7.3%. The BE for 6% return and 3% COLA is 15 years (age 85). the BE point of a 6% return (nominal) with 3% COLA (inflation rate) is between 80 and 81

Are you calling 10% totally unrealistic? Because that's the long-term return of the S&P500. I will grant that this might be dangerous to depend on, since the short-term returns jump all over the place.
The BE for 10% return and 3% COLA is.......never. The side account never even comes close to being depleted. the BE point of a 10% return(nominal) with 3% COLA (inflation rate) is between 84 and 85. and yes it is unrealistic, what retiree do you think will have their ENTIRE porfolio invested in stocks until they die? my answer is only if they get hit by a truck right after they retire, and then less then half of them.

Playing with the numbers, it turns out that 9% return and 3% COLA has the BE at age 101. nope, that cross over is between 83 and 84
Click to expand...

your numbers are wrong
 
rayvt said:
as i pointed out in multiple posts above and on previous threads the BE method is not appropriate for the analysis of when to start taking SS

I disagree. Why isn't it?
Consider: at 62, you could either:
1) Don't start collecting. Wait for 70 and get a larger amount.
or
2) Start collecting, but put that money into a side account and let it grow until age 70. Then take monthly withdrawals in an amount such that the total (SS check plus withdrawal) equals the amount that SS would have paid if you had waited until 70.

From the "spendable monthly income" viewpoint, these scenarios are exactly the same -- up until the side account is exhausted. From 62 to 70 you have no spendable SS income, and after 70 your spendable income is equal to the age 70 SS amount. Since they are the same until depletion, the BE point (when the side account becomes empty) is the deciding factor.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Ahhhhh, maybe I see. You said "i dont know what you are getting at here. in my example i fully consider the case of the person taking SS at age 62. that person spends it."
Then the scenarios are not even remotely the same, are they? If the person spent the money he got at 62 because he needed it to life on, then he does NOT have the option of delaying until 70. So you are trying to compare two alternatives where one of them is not, in fact, an alternative at all---it's only a fantasy.

--------------
Click to expand...

oops, i didnt address this. i will start with the fact that you seemed to ignore my statement that the real value of SS is as longevity insurance.

then you ignore the fact that your income stream is only equal to the age 70 SS income stream for a period of time (the length of which we seem to disagree on but it is finite), after that your income stream drops (mine doesnt).

your only professed value (which is questionable cus your numbers are incorrect) is that if you die young enough, your estate will be larger. the BE method just doesnt fit with the goals of most people retireing early (secure, stable income for life).
 
rayvt, I liked you BE analysis and to me that is a valid way to look at the decision, i.e. "at what age do I have the most money in the bank".

I've run very similar runs but used "future dollars" for the age 66 start date based on the understanding that the SS estimate that we all get are based on "today's dollars".

Irrespective, it still gives a BE of about 84-86 years old, depending on the return rate chosen. So it still matches your conclusions very well.

Thanks for the spreadsheet, I am currently modifying it to run cases based on Firecalc type analysis using Prof. Shiller's 140 years of data for CPI and annualized return of the market. So far, some interesting results.
 
OK, this is embarrassing but I uploaded my spreadsheet to Google Docs and the formatting got totally hosed and it lost the comments and instruction notes. So ignore the comments and just use the instructions below. The total functionally is still there and easy to understand.

I took rayvt's approach to find Break Even (BE) based on taking at 62 versus 70. But I also added Prof. Shiller's historical data (the stuff used in FireCalc) and also allow for calculating the FV of the SS estimates. The FV is important since the SS estimate is in today's dollars and you need it in future dollars, especially if you are younger than SS retirement age.

So bottomline, the calculation applies "real" CPI (or zero if neg) to the SS year to year, and uses "real" S&P data for appreciation of the saved SS payments.

Here is what you need to do.
1. Enter your age
2. Enter your SS estimates.
3. Enter a date that you would like to see historically how your SS decision would fare.

The spreadsheet will show you when you would break even by waiting and taking it at 70 vs 62 and all calcs are based on actual CPI and S&P500 historical data.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=t2xOQt9WbkhP3KgydmqJQZQ&authkey=CNyJtJUE#gid=0
 
Another option that only applies probably to a few but is important when it does apply:

DH began taking SS at about 62 and 9 months (the month after he retired). Once factor for us is that we have 2 children under 18. Each of them receives 1/2 of his Full retirement benefit (subject to the family cap on benefits).

So DH receives $1767 social security. Our two children under 18 receive $841 each a month. When our older son's turn 18 our daughters payment will increase about $300 a month. So we factored in the 4 years of payments for our daughter and almost 2 years for our son.

Since our daughter is 14 I could have received half as well (again -- subject to the family maximum) but I didn't since I still work part time.

DH is 7 years older than me. However, my SS will be slightly higher than his (I will hit the max). I figure I will take a look at our financial situation and the SS landscape when I turn 62 and will decide then whether to take it then or whether to wait until later. (I probably lean to taking it sooner rather than later).
 
Articles like this certainly have me concerned that major changes are coming in SS, and my guess is that none of the changes are gonna make anyone on this board jump for joy.

FoxNews.com - Entitlement Evolution Poses Threat to America's Finances

There seems to be a huge focus on SS/Medicare right now and the spokesperson in that article says ""So much of what the government is doing is to take money from younger people and give it to older people," Biggs said.

Talk about an inflammatory statement. Sort of neglects to mention that the "older people" paid in a goodly amount of money.

​
 
Zero said:
There seems to be a huge focus on SS/Medicare right now and the spokesperson in that article says ""So much of what the government is doing is to take money from younger people and give it to older people," Biggs said.

Talk about an inflammatory statement. Sort of neglects to mention that the "older people" paid in a goodly amount of money.
Click to expand...

The game now is to pretend that the raises in the payroll deduction hikes in 1977 and 1982 specifically aimed at building a reserve for when all those working boomers turned into those 'older people' didn't happen, and that that the resulting trust fund deposits aren't 'real', and so may be de-facto disappeared to offset the real debt.

The next big step will be to get the government out of Medicare, by turning it into a voucher system to be applied toward the purchase of private insurance. Current proposals being passed around in DC are to adjust the vouchers by an amount based on the general COLA allowance plus a portion of the rate of increase of medical costs, shifting more of the cost of private insurance for elders onto the elders, as a cost containment measure.

In the interest of conservative retirement planning, I'm not relying on Social Security in my planning, and am assuming I'll have to purchase private medical insurance past age 65, although probably at a better rate than the tremendous cost bump most policies show at age 65.
 
M Paquette said:
The game now is to pretend that the raises in the payroll deduction hikes in 1977 and 1982 specifically aimed at building a reserve for when all those working boomers turned into those 'older people' didn't happen, and that that the resulting trust fund deposits aren't 'real', and so may be de-facto disappeared to offset the real debt.

The next big step will be to get the government out of Medicare, by turning it into a voucher system to be applied toward the purchase of private insurance. Current proposals being passed around in DC are to adjust the vouchers by an amount based on the general COLA allowance plus a portion of the rate of increase of medical costs, shifting more of the cost of private insurance for elders onto the elders, as a cost containment measure.

In the interest of conservative retirement planning, I'm not relying on Social Security in my planning, and am assuming I'll have to purchase private medical insurance past age 65, although probably at a better rate than the tremendous cost bump most policies show at age 65.
Click to expand...


OMG.... OMG... are you telling me that the politicians lied... tell me it ain't so....


There is no reserve in reality.... they have to get general funds to pay off those notes... but even if you took into account the stated reserve, there is still not enough to pay for all the benefits that are promised...

Just like when we discuss the unsustainable pensions for state and local gvmt employees... not having enough money is the problem.. SS does not have enough money... increasing the taxes for the working people to pay for the retired people is not fair... I am willing to be in the group that is screwed to get it fixed... I do not think the haircut is that big... probably 15% or so...
 
Zero said:
Talk about an inflammatory statement. Sort of neglects to mention that the "older people" paid in a goodly amount of money.
Click to expand...

And they just couldn't keep their hands off it and spent it all and then quite a bit more too.

Changes for the worse are inevitable as the money for it all just isn't there. Get ready to pay more and get less than was promised. It is inevitable.
 
M Paquette said:
The next big step will be to get the government out of Medicare, by turning it into a voucher system to be applied toward the purchase of private insurance. Current proposals being passed around in DC are to adjust the vouchers by an amount based on the general COLA allowance plus a portion of the rate of increase of medical costs, shifting more of the cost of private insurance for elders onto the elders, as a cost containment measure.
Click to expand...
Unless people want to see sick, homeless seniors crawling along the pavement this is an absurd idea. Could you cite what these proposals are, and who is proposing them, so I do whatever I can to forestall anything this inhumane. Most advanced countries do not separate out care for various subgroups, everyone is in the same boat. The medical expenditures are what they are for the entire country, they are not Medicare expenditures, Medicaid expenditures, VA expenditures, Federal retiree expenditures, US COngressmen expenditures, Military active duty, Tricare expenditures, etc. etc.

For a look by someone who has studied healthcare around the world, and been a consumer and participant in several non-US systems, and sees America as an emperor with no clothes, see this video:

T.R. Reid talks about health care systems around the world - KCTS 9 - blip.tv

I really cannot understand the cognitive flaw that keeps American voters from doing what is obviously morally right, and cheaper and better at the same time. How often can you get the moral high ground, better results, and a cheaper price? With medical systems, anytime you adopt a model other than that of the USA.

Ha
 
haha said:
Unless people want to see sick, homeless seniors crawling along the pavement this is an absurd idea. Could you cite what these proposals are, and who is proposing them, so I do whatever I can to forestall anything this inhumane. Most advanced countries do not separate out care for various subgroups, everyone is in the same boat. The medical expenditures are what they are for the entire country, they are not Medicare expenditures, Medicaid expenditures, VA expenditures, Federal retiree expenditures, US COngressmen expenditures, Military active duty, Tricare expenditures, etc. etc.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. It's an absurd idea on the face of it, but it's popular with certain political factions who see it as a longer term fix for federal budget woes. I expect to see it come up again and again, until conditions are right to pass it or something similar.

The most recent back-room appearance:
Medicare voucher system weighed - Press-Telegram

CBO analysis of last year's version (PDF)
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/119xx/doc11966/11-17-Rivlin-Ryan_Preliminary_Analysis.pdf

“Although the level of expected federal spending and the uncertainty surrounding that spending would decline, enrollees’ spending for health care and the uncertainty surrounding that spending would increase.”
 
Texas Proud said:
There is no reserve in reality.... they have to get general funds to pay off those notes... but even if you took into account the stated reserve, there is still not enough to pay for all the benefits that are promised...
Click to expand...

Well, they could do something really drastic, like cut benefits to 78% of the current projected level when they exhaust the reserve in 30-40 years. Or, they could do something radical like raise the full retirement age by 1 whole month for every year that passes. Or, they could go all medieval and remove or significantly raise the income cap on the SSA payroll tax.

It's not exactly hard to fix.
 
I'm not all that worried about Social Security going away. My plan is to wait until the (currently) 70 1/2 year old point to maximize the SS monthly income and survivor's benefit for DW. I'll spend down my IRA between 59 1/2 and then, to reduce the tax impact and leave less of a mess (inherited IRA rules and funkiness) in the estate.

I'm not worried about the whole crossover point, and whether or not I'll maximize my payout. First, I'll be dead, and won't be particularly upset about possibly missing the crossover. Second, I'm viewing SS payments as a sort of longevity insurance for DW and I, and providing the best monthly income in old age is more important to me than the 'efficiency' in beating the crossover point for maximum accrued income.
 
I have a modest proposal. The government could enter the annuity market by offering (as the British, Dutch and French did in the late Middle Ages), an inflation indexed annutiy at 7%. I'd be game for some of that action.

Assume 76 million boomers from 1946-64, times and average of maybe $500,000 each and you get. $38,000,000,000,000
That should help draw the shortfall down a bit.
 
M Paquette said:
I tend to agree. It's an absurd idea on the face of it, but it's popular with certain political factions who see it as a longer term fix for federal budget woes. I expect to see it come up again and again, until conditions are right to pass it or something similar.

The most recent back-room appearance:
Medicare voucher system weighed - Press-Telegram

CBO analysis of last year's version (PDF)
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/119xx/doc11966/11-17-Rivlin-Ryan_Preliminary_Analysis.pdf

“Although the level of expected federal spending and the uncertainty surrounding that spending would decline, enrollees’ spending for health care and the uncertainty surrounding that spending would increase.”
Click to expand...
Thanks for the links. I read them, and it appears that the weird subgroup of the Republican party is out to commit hara kiri once more. If anything could turn me into a socialist, this would be it. In fact, drop the "if" clause- I would much prefer a single payer system with no other options for every man woman and child in America than this crazy, immoral fantasy of a right wing loonie.


Ha
 
M Paquette said:
Well, they could do something really drastic, like cut benefits to 78% of the current projected level when they exhaust the reserve in 30-40 years. Or, they could do something radical like raise the full retirement age by 1 whole month for every year that passes. Or, they could go all medieval and remove or significantly raise the income cap on the SSA payroll tax.

It's not exactly hard to fix.
Click to expand...
An expert, Alicia Munnell of Boston College agrees with you. Not hard to fix forever. The problem seems to be that it also makes really good divisive sound bites for politicians to hammer away at.

Ha
 
haha said:
I really cannot understand the cognitive flaw that keeps American voters from doing what is obviously morally right, and cheaper and better at the same time. How often can you get the moral high ground, better results, and a cheaper price? With medical systems, anytime you adopt a model other than that of the USA.
Ha
Click to expand...
+1
 
haha said:
..........
I really cannot understand the cognitive flaw that keeps American voters from doing what is obviously morally right, and cheaper and better at the same time..............
Ha
Click to expand...

I think there is a significant portion of this country that would rather go naked than see someone else get a pair of socks for free.
 
I see the thread hijackers have arrived. :nonono: :mad:

Ponzi or Ponzi-like programs don't go on forever. They can't. All these claims in posts 86-98 have been hashed out ad infinitum elsewhere. No reason to go into that here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
Marriage Tax Penalty on Social Security wish I knew earlier
Replies
6
Views
1K
Dave J
D
P
The age when you actually retire, vs. the age when you begin taking social security
2 3
Replies
55
Views
5K
Midpack
Midpack
G
Future Opt Out Lump Sum tax checkbox
Replies
2
Views
304
pb4uski
pb4uski
D
How to factor future SS into pre-SS spending
Replies
16
Views
776
Koolau
Koolau
D
Medicare/Social Security Question
Replies
21
Views
1K
Sunset
Sunset

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom