Join Early Retirement Today
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Social Security at age 62
Old 05-04-2016, 09:03 AM   #1
Recycles dryer sheets
littleb's Avatar
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 176
Social Security at age 62

I found out 2 of my relatives took social security recently at age 62 instead of full retirement age or older.

One of them said their FA told them ss is struggling and will not be around in the next 10 years or so. i have heard that comment for the past 15 years and it is still around.

Also, the break even point where you will receive same amount (Total Dollars) at age 75 etc. After that age your benefits will be higher if you elected the full retirement option.

So, I see different reasons why someone might take ss at age 62. Maybe if you are in bad health, longevity does not run in the family or you don't have the money to coast from age 62 to FR age.

What age were you when you took social security? Are there other advantages at age 62 vs full retirement age?

littleb is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 05-04-2016, 09:12 AM   #2
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,137
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

jim584672 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2016, 09:22 AM   #3
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 13,124
What politicians might do notwithstanding, SS will "run out of" money in about 2035, so a bit longer than ten years.
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2016, 09:23 AM   #4
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
REWahoo's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Texas Hill Country
Posts: 43,361
Originally Posted by HFWR View Post
What politicians might do notwithstanding, SS will "run out short of" money in about 2035, so a bit longer than ten years.
Numbers is hard

Although rare, it is possible to read something on this forum you don't agree with and simply move on with your life

Retired in 2005 at age 58, no pension
REWahoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2016, 09:27 AM   #5
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 12,464
I plan to take SS at age 70, because my family history suggests I will live long past the Soc Sec age break even of about 81 years old (chart included in link below) Sadly some people know from their own medical and/or family history they're unlikely to live past 81. We all have to weigh our probabilities. I'd suggest you search and read a few articles discussing the advantages/disadvantages of taking Soc Sec at 62-FRA-70, I've linked just one below, there are many more online.

As for Soc Sec solvency, while something may have to change, benefits may remain pretty much as is for many years. Some report Soc Sec can pay full benefits out to 2030-2035. And if/when a reduction takes place, it may not affect those who have already claimed benefits - it may mostly affect next generations. If existing beneficiaries are affected, I would assume it will affect all, beginning at 62 or 70 won't matter thereafter.

3 Reasons It's Smart to Take Social Security Benefits at 62 -- The Motley Fool
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2016, 09:28 AM   #6
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Houston
Posts: 646
Current plan is for wife and I to take SS at 62.

Neither of us expect to be long lived. So good chance one or both of us won't make it far enough past break even point to be worth worrying about it.

Good chance one of us will die several years before the other. So good to collect our 1.5 (my SS + 1/2 of mine for wife) as long as possible before it drops to just 1.0. Basically one early death moves break even point later in time.

Any SS we use will lessen use of saved assets, leaving more for kids when we pass.

Have enough savings that if we don't need the higher SS to sustain us in our later years.

Those are our reasons but everyone's situation is different. Many use delay of SS to 70 as a insurance against outliving assets. That's really a good reason to consider delay IMHO. Just doesn't fit my situation.

Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum
Whisper66 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2016, 09:35 AM   #7
Moderator Emeritus
W2R's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 40,162
Originally Posted by littleb View Post
What age were you when you took social security?
My plan all along was to take SS at age 70, because of some cases of extreme longevity in my family tree, because females statistically tend to live longer than males, and because of my desire to use SS as "old age insurance", so to speak.

Then I discovered that if I waited until age 66 (my FRA) and then claimed divorced spousal SS, my own SS would continue to grow from age 66-70 even though I was receiving divorced spousal SS during those years. This strategy either has or will be ending soon due to changes in SS law last year, but it was allowed in 2014 when I turned 66 and did it.

So, right now I am getting divorced spousal SS and at age 70 I plan to switch over to my own SS.
5/17/2018: Retired a second time, this time from my volunteer Admin duties. After 10 years of being on the team, and 40,000+ posts, the time just seemed right. It has been such fun to work with all of our Mods and Admins and I plan to stick around as a regular member.
W2R is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2016, 10:05 AM   #8
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 3,410
I'm 63 and retired; my family tends to live into the 80s and some beyond that. As the law stands now I can file for Restricted Benefits and get spousal only at age 66 while letting mine grow, so that's my plan. I'm well aware that taxation of SS benefits will only get worse, but it's still an income stream I can't outlive so I want to maximize it.
athena53 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2016, 10:16 AM   #9
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,100
63 years, 4 months,
Decided to take it as I had minor children and they get a monthly check also with no effect on my benefits. And because I'm hitting the peak spending years of my retirement with high school age boys soon going to college.

Also, since I'm subject to WEP, my current benefits are less than $400 a month, waiting doesn't amount to big dollar impact.
RE2Boys is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2016, 10:18 AM   #10
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
travelover's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,270
I'm old enough to still do a restricted filing, so plan is for DW to take it at 62 when I'll take spousal only, then full benefit at age 70. When I die, she gets my benefit.
Yes, I have achieved work / life balance.
travelover is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2016, 10:48 AM   #11
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
imoldernu's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Peru
Posts: 4,652
Need a crystal ball to figure it out...

We retired in '89 at age 53, interest rates were high, so much of our cost of living came from interest on our nest egg. In 1998 when we became eligible for SS at age 62, we took it. This kept much of our capital intact and growing.

I suppose if we had been smarter, we might have calculated the pluses and minuses, but it looked like a better choice, as we didn't expect to live long enough for there to be a difference. Now, at 80, in retrospect, we might have done better, but are to lazy to figure out the "might have beens".

In any case, no regrets. It all worked out well, as we're in pretty good shape for whatever the coming years may bring. Not rich, but not worried.

We've been at low interest rates for such a long time, that many have forgotten what savings accounts were producing in the past. Rates of 6% to 12% on FDIC five year CD's made it easier to "invest" without risk.

It was a different time.
Attached Images
File Type: png Historical CD Interest Rates 1984 2016 Bankrate.png (59.3 KB, 44 views)
imoldernu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2016, 10:55 AM   #12
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,316
I will be 64 this August. Original plan was to start at age 65.....or once I neared that birthday perhaps hold off one more year. I've posted here before that I have a chronic medical issue (a form of leukemia) but I have never needed treatment. Nevertheless I can't ignore my likely reduced life expectancy.
Well, I've been sick for the last 6 weeks, catching back to back viruses. This is the other issue with leukemia, having compromised immunity. I'm on the mend, but this bout has been an eye-opener and DW and I are revisiting that Social Security plan.
I'm not one to make rash decisions, so as of now we intend to start my SS at age 64 1/2. By then, we may change our mind but I don't think so.
mystang52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2016, 12:22 PM   #13
Walt34's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern WV Panhandle
Posts: 17,402
I waited until FRA at 66 to maximize what the spousal benefit will be assuming I exit first.
I heard the call to do nothing. So I answered it.
Walt34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2016, 01:02 PM   #14
Recycles dryer sheets
redshift's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Seattle
Posts: 55
I plan to take SS around 64, perhaps earlier. DW took SS at 64. I will start even sooner if needed - I'm of the 'discretionary expenses may be lower after 75ish' school. Any over 75 folks that want to weigh in on that?
redshift is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2016, 01:24 PM   #15
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 735
Took SS at 62 in order to leave a bigger inheritance (would have to deplete IRA to replace income). Our plan indicates that we'll have more income than expenses once all income streams come online in about 6 years and this will last for 15-20 years. So our secondary goal was to maximize our inheritance to our kids.
akck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2016, 01:41 PM   #16
Full time employment: Posting here.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 538
I'm a single female and my intentions are to take SS at age 62 in late 2017; however, I would consider delaying a few years and taking the balance out of my 401k if worthwhile. My 401k would be depleted by about a third if I delayed to 70. Given my family tree and current health, I see myself as living to my early or mid 80's but probably not my 90's. I will have a decent sized pension with COLA (okay it's a diet COLA) so am not overly concerned about running out of money in my old age.

One of my concerns is future means testing of SS given that increased Medicare Part B premiums start at an $85K AGI for singles - so better to take SS now before it gets reduced. I'm starting to perform calculations to determine impact of Roth conversions, delay in SS, RMDs, etc. on taxes and portfolio but the results have not been clear cut given that I'm automatically in a higher tax bracket due to the pension and single status.

Correction: 401k would be depleted by about 1/3 if I take SS at FRA but depleted by more than 1/2 by age 70 which seems too risky. This assumes I take 3 1/2 % out plus replace SS. Whether I would delay SS will also depend on how market is doing.
ABQ2015 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2016, 02:09 PM   #17
Dryer sheet aficionado
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tacoma
Posts: 36
The best advice that I have heard on this topic (and what I intend to do) is to wait until full retirement age (68 for me), but to start paying myself (from my existing investments) the amount we would have received at age 62 (starting at age 62).

This way you we can enjoy the cash sooner (when healthy and most active) while receiving the equivilent of an 8% annual return on our money (each year you defer, your SS benefit/payment increases approx 8%). You can look at this process as being similar to buying an annuity. The risk, of course, is that SS goes belly-up or pays some reduced benefit in the future, but I think anyone with a 20 or 30 year horizon is safe.

Giving my kids an inheritance is not our goal, so that aspect is not a factor for us.
oneill225 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2016, 02:19 PM   #18
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
DrRoy's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,019
I don't need the income early and DW and I are in good health so the plan is to wait until 70. We see it as a future inflation adjustment.
"The mountains are calling, and I must go." John Muir
DrRoy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2016, 02:28 PM   #19
Recycles dryer sheets
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Beaverton
Posts: 388
Wife took hers at 62 to help pay for health insurance. I'll take mine at 66.2 but will keep an eye on the markets. If a huge tumble then will claim earlier.
Bir48die is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2016, 02:38 PM   #20
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,192
I took SS at 62.

My primary reason was concern over the rules being changed at some point particularly against HNW folk. Take the money, run and hope for grandfathering was my motto.

My secondary reason was the realization that the break even was about 78 coupled to minor Fed and full state tax advantages vs taking it from my portfolio; I pocket about $4K a year in saved taxes for eight years.

If I live to 78 I'll be more than happy to start taking a 'loss' of sorts and I likely won't need as much cash anyway.

Living well is the best revenge!
Retired @ 52 in 2005
marko is online now   Reply With Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
So, do you feel your age? Act your age? Like your age? vickko Life after FIRE 84 04-10-2010 01:47 PM
Social Security at age 60? cashbalancetrouble FIRE Related Public Policy 40 03-20-2010 03:55 PM
Paying social security tax after age 66 modhatter FIRE and Money 2 03-10-2007 03:59 PM
At what age will you take Social Security? retire@40 FIRE and Money 39 10-05-2006 12:58 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:16 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.