Re: When to take SS
jdw_fire said:
Bunny you have proved no such thing, in fact I proved Cut Throat correct here
You did in fact prove that using cut-throats inaccurate numbers in an implausibly slanted way, that you can produce a desired outcome. What was it again? Using a lower 62 number and a higher 70 number than SSA sent out, then insisting that the firecalc results last until you're 120 while not factoring in any risk assessment for social security benefits being reduced in the future?
Folks, run firecalc with the numbers from your social security statement at 62, 66 and 70. Same scenario except with the SS thrown in at the different amounts and times. In all except a few unusual circumstances you will see a firecalc withdrawal rate and survival rate is higher for 62, THROUGHOUT YOUR RETIREMENT. Not just starting at 62, which for the 'retire and withdraw mechanically by the numbers' types (which I am not) means you should look at this decision BEFORE you're 62. You might be shortchanging yourself.
I've published the calculation results ad nauseum. If I made a presumption of receiving full social security benefits at 62, I can safely retire earlier and spend more money throughout a 45 year firecalc run than if I delay the benefit. This is nothing magical regarding social security. Bob Clyatts book quite thoroughly demonstrates that even a small income stream improves firecalc results immensely...and the earlier the better.
There definitely are some circumstances around tax situations and some specific conditions where it may pay to delay.
So run your own numbers, dont just take the BS from someone who has already made the emotional decision and then 'found' facts to suit, someone who wants you to buy annuities or someone who takes it personally when you find faults in their ideas and then hangs onto the anger. You all know who you are.
chinaco said:
I suspect you are still in the mindset of gain, gain, gain... and many of us are in the reduce risk, reduce risk, reduce risk mindset.
Reducing risk has an opportunity cost!!! The question is whether or not that suspected opportunity cost is real or just a possibility.
Not at all true. I'm all for the reduction of risk. The best way I see to accomplish that is to get my hands on as much money as I can, invest it efficiently, withdraw it efficiently, and have my money last a full lifetime. And then some. The best defense is a good offense...not punting the ball on first down just to make sure your quarterback cant throw an interception.
I'm having a hard time correlating hoping that I receive a higher benefit from a floundering program 40-50 years from now vs taking a smaller amount and investing it or spending it to preserve my earnings. Especially when every single calculator, when fitted with the proper numbers and without tying both arms and legs behind the displeasing scenarios back produces the result that taking the benefit early produces the highest income, highest portfolio size and highest survival rate.
THAT'S safe.
But its a lot easier to make up numbers, manipulate the scenario, then throw out platitudes like "I dont care how much money I have when i'm dead" or "why will I care? I'm dead!".
Theres no free lunch here, unless you live well past when the IRS mortality tables say you will, AND you're in great health in your 80's and 90's and will be able to appreciate the extra money. Since I cant know any of that, i'll go with what the numbers and calculators tell me and I try to not spin the numbers or how they're applied to produce the results I want.
I'll eagerly take 8 additional years of unimpeded Roth growth vs less than a thousand bucks extra per month.