Poll:When will/did you draw from SSA

[HillCountry]

70+ is what I am planning. SS covers around 20% of the budget, so don't see any significance either way.

 

[haha]

70+ is what I am planning.

You know that it maxes out at 70, so there is no advantage to waiting beyond then. Thus 70 is better than 70+.

Ha

 

[HillCountry]

You know that it maxes out at 70, so there is no advantage to waiting beyond then. Thus 70 is better than 70+.

Ha

It is 22 years away, so it may quite possible be 70+.

 

[Pastorm1]

Suggest reading this post.

http://www.nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2006/606/essentials/p42.HTM

Taking mine at 62.

 

[pb4uski]

Our current plan has us taking it at 62. I don't want to use up our own assets from 62 - 70. ....

However, if we have to pay extra in taxes by going for 62, we might delay. Our plan works at any age from 62 on, so we don't really need to decide until the time comes.

Taxes are part of the reason I am delaying until 70. Once I turn 70 my pension, RMDs and SS will push us into the 25% tax bracket unless I do Roth conversions as much as possible between now (58) and 70 so I'll save a lot in income taxes by waiting.

I was planning on 70 anyway as longevity insurance, but our tax situation sealed the deal.

If the investment performance is poor I can always chose to take it earlier if the balance of my nestegg gets uncomfortably low as the then lower tax deferred balances would make RMDs less of an issue.

 

[gauss]

We plan to wait until age 70. It is the world's cheapest inflation adjusted annuity.

Although "average" life span may be 83 or so, we plan to live much longer than that. Good insurance, high sociol-economic status, high level of education, low stress (now that ER is here) etc. Probably not unlike many others here on the forum.

-gauss

 

[pb4uski]

Suggest reading this post.

Retirement at 62: Is Receiving Social Security Early Worth It?

Taking mine at 62.

It is unclear if the author took RMDs into account in his analysis - there is no mention of them.

Second, it also looks like he didn't consider joint mortality for couples - analysis focused on singles.

 

[Hermit]

I voted for 70+. That's when I will start SS on my account, but I am currently collecting SS on my wife's account. Started when I retired this summer at 63. The option to collect on my wife's account made the decision to wait for my my account until 70 real easy.

 

[NW-Bound]

I have not voted and will not because I do not know. We also have two SS's which do not have to be drawn at the same time. I am not even 62 so have a few years left to think about this.

I think I am going to delay my own SS till 70 as an insurance for my wife who will most likely outlive me. And we may take her lower SS before that, the exact time to be determined.

 

[beowulf]

I voted for 70+. That's when I will start SS on my account, but I am currently collecting SS on my wife's account. Started when I retired this summer at 63. The option to collect on my wife's account made the decision to wait for my my account until 70 real easy.

Hermit-

If I understand the rules correctly, taking the spousal benefit before 66 permanently reduces your SS ultimate benefit by the percentage it's being reduced now. These are some explanations: Understanding "Free Spousal" Benefits | Social Security Choices and

http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20130903/BLOG05/130909990

Since you were 63 when you took the spousal benefit, the 50% of your wife's payment you would have gotten is reduced by 18% (6% a year) - making your spousal benefit 32% of her benefit now. Worse, when you take your own SS at 70, whatever you get then will be reduced by 18%. Of course, maybe you will have taken in enough during the next 7 years to offset the 18% reduction at 70. Since your wife is still working, did she file and suspend?

BTW, you do have a year from when you started to reverse your action by simply paying back all the money to SS.

 

[Hermit]

Hermit-

If I understand the rules correctly, taking the spousal benefit before 66 permanently reduces your SS ultimate benefit by the percentage it's being reduced now. These are some explanations: Understanding "Free Spousal" Benefits | Social Security Choices and

http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20130903/BLOG05/130909990

Since you were 63 when you took the spousal benefit, the 50% of your wife's payment you would have gotten is reduced by 18% (6% a year) - making your spousal benefit 32% of her benefit now. Worse, when you take your own SS at 70, whatever you get then will be reduced by 18%. Of course, maybe you will have taken in enough during the next 7 years to offset the 18% reduction at 70. Since your wife is still working, did she file and suspend?

BTW, you do have a year from when you started to reverse your action by simply paying back all the money to SS.

Sorry beowulf, I didn't add that my wife died 4 years ago. Rules for a surviving spouse are quite a bit different. By the way, I would have preferred to keep the DW around and forgone the extra SS but it didn't work out that way.

 

[NW-Bound]

Sorry about your loss. And if your DW were still around, you would have both SS's, and that would be even better financially as an additional person does not increase the cost of living 2X.

And regarding spousal benefits, we have a relative who got upset when finding out that when her husband died, she only got a step up to his higher SS while forgoing her own. She thought that SS would be like IRA or 401k, which would get passed on the heir.

 

[beowulf]

I am so sorry for your loss, Hermit. I had no idea. You are 100% correct. Survivor rules are very different.

 

[Hermit]

I am so sorry for your loss, Hermit. I had no idea. You are 100% correct. Survivor rules are very different.

Hi beowulf,

I didn't mean to make you feel bad. I usually refer to my (deceased) DW to avoid confusion. Didn't this time. Might have been the time of year.

Hermit

 

[youbet]

I guess I don't understand this one. My UK wife is eligible for the 50% spousal SS and she didn't put anything into the system either. Is there something with this GPO provision that just forces this not to happen?

That is the controversy of the GPO........

The GPO offsets your spousal benefit by 67% of any state/municipal pension you collect if your earned that pension in lieu of SS (did not contribute to SS while you were earning that pension). So, a stay at home spouse who never worked and never contributed to SS is eligible for 50% of the spouse's SS. A working spouse, say a public safety employee, who earned a pension from the state, is not eligible for any spousal SS if 67% of his/her pension is greater than 50% of his/her spouse's SS.

For example, if my SS was 20k, normally DW would get 50% or 10k. But 67% of her state pension is greater than 10k, so she gets nothing. If she had not worked at all, she would get the 10K.

Since my desire is to provide financial protection for DW should I predecease her, I started SS at 62. I'm investing the monthly payments and that accumulation would be available for her. The risk of waiting until 70 for me is that if I die before 70, neither of us would ever collect any of my SS and her situation would be less favorable. Otherwise, I would have delayed SS until 70.

 

[youbet]

an additional person does not increase the cost of living 2X..

Maybe not at your house!

 

[trouthog]

63