Social Security at 62, 66 or 70?

G

gozzie

Dryer sheet wannabe
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
21
I'd would like to revisit this topic. I tried to follow the discussion on the now closed board but frankly, it was too complicated for me. I am 59, spouse 56. I believe we have enough assets to retire but the problem is health care. I can get COBRA for 18 mos. and thereafter, State high risk pool. My thought is that I would take SS at 62 and use that money to fund our health care needs until ( and probably after) I qualify for medicare. It occurs to me that taking the money as soon as possible to protect our savings makes sense because the reduction in benefits will not affect our lifestyle. Does anyone know of any simple guidelines or rules of thumb on when to take benefits? Thanks. Gozzie.
 
The best discussion of this that I have ever seen is on our Best_Of board. Go through that until you have a specific question, then ask that question. Plenty of people can help when they know what the sticking point is. Otherwise, you are asking for us to do all that again.

Ha
 
84.6 plus or minus 0.1 yrs. My friends at the IRS know everything and would never stear me wrong. Right?

heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh heh - I suppose I can still cash them out at 70 and reset the clock - should I strike it rich. :D :D 8)
 
Most information that I have read on the subject consider several factors. Things like expected life, if you have a spouse, and several other issues.

I read one article that gave several good rules of thumb. For example if you have a spouse and no family history that would lead you to believe you would have a premature death... The spouse with the lower benefits amount would begin taking ss at 62. The other spouse would wait till full retirement (66.?) or late 70. This would enable the surviving spouse to have a larger indexed annuity (i.e., SS) for life. There were some calculations to back it up... But essentially the probability of at least one spouse living into the 80's is a fairly high. To make it work, you must be able to get by without the income for ss for 4-8 years (depending on the length of delay).




Here are some articles

http://www.fpanet.org/journal/articles/2006_Issues/jfp0306-art8.cfm
http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/articles/2005/11/27/it_pays_to_delay_taking_social_security_benefits/
 
It's hard to quantify, but the spending spree our government has been on, and shows no sign of stopping, is likely to result in higher taxes and/or reduced benefits in the years ahead. That gives an extra push to the idea of "take it now, befoe they take it away or tax it away."

Does that concept factor seriously into your ss planning, or do you just run the "normal" numbers?
 
Personally, I will take the SS the day I am able at age 62. Bird in hand and all....
 
I've read several places that if you can earn 8% on the money it's best to take it at 62 and start investing it yourself.
 
macdaddy said:
I've read several places that if you can earn 8% on the money it's best to take it at 62 and start investing it yourself.
Click to expand...

Never thought of it that way. Have you gone through the calculation yourself? 8% sounds reasonable to me.
 
macdaddy said:
I've read several places that if you can earn 8% on the money it's best to take it at 62 and start investing it yourself.
Click to expand...

The 8 percent return that you'll need is for a very low-risk investment compared to the no-risk approach of delaying SS. Also the 8 percent that you need is an after tax amount.

That probably means that you'll have to be in the equity (or other) markets and take some market risk which violates the low-risk approach.
 
Well, before the match strikes..... ;)

I plan on taking SS @ 62....I have a DB pension and the 'reduced' SS benefit will put me up to where my wage would be if I was still w*rking. I go along with the 'bird in hand' also! 8)
 
The answer to this question really depends on several things, some of which follow. First, how you are funding your retirement i.e. do you have a large pension and almost no portfolio or are you funding via a portfolio only? Second, do you want to maximize your spending early in your retirement? Third, how healthy are you? Fourth, do you want to leave an inheritance to someone?

The thread mentioned earlier addresses the second question and to some extent the fourth. However the answer to the first question may make all the other questions moot i.e you need to have the spendable assets to implement the delay strategy discussed. The third question is a mitigating factor in the earlier discussion.
 
Beaten to death here: http://early-retirement.org/forums/index.php?topic=9788.0

Which also references at least 4 other threads where it was equally beaten to death.

Bottom line from this corner is that for an actual early retiree with a reasonably well funded retirement plan, firecalc says you can withdraw more for the entire length of your ER with a higher survivability rate if the SS income stream shows up earliest, reducing your withdrawal requirements at that point.

And no, you dont have to make a 'risky' 8% on the money to make taking it and investing the money yourself become a winning strategy, as is outlined by Dory in the thread referenced above.

But hey, if you're still working into your 60's, have a poorly planned and funded retirement plan, blow all your money in your 50's, or have a working spouse making six figures...all bets are off. And you're not retired, early retired, or anything else having to do with this forum! :LOL:
 
I appreciate all the comments. My wife and my investments (1.5 mil. and paid up house) are the basis for our retirement. We have no kids and don't need to leave anyone an inheritance. Health is okay although my wife smokes (dammit). We don't necessarily want to spend more now, although I imagine we'll spend less if and when we grow older simply because of the ravages of old age.
 
CFB has an opinion, but CFB also provided actual numbers, data and firecalc run information, along with links to reports and articles that give everyone all of the information to help make a sound decision on the matter.

Some other participants provided funny or no math, wanted to obscure or pretend some risks and factors didnt exist, and made assumptions that are either not accurately assumable or not workable for a lot of people.

But as always, I think this is a decision thats made by a couple of hairballs and then the facts are orderly arranged or mitigated to suit that decision.
 
jdw_fire said:
The answer to this question really depends on several things, some of which follow. First, how you are funding your retirement i.e. do you have a large pension and almost no portfolio or are you funding via a portfolio only? Second, do you want to maximize your spending early in your retirement? Third, how healthy are you? Fourth, do you want to leave an inheritance to someone?
Click to expand...

Ditto! Also, remember the 25K single and 32K couple cut-off for "other" income is not indexed for inflation. So the longer you wait the more SS will be taxed just based upon inflation. On the other hand, some people don't care about this as all their SS is already taxed based on income. It's not one shoe fits all.
 
A really excellent article that manages to outline the criteria, minus the BS. It also references just about every other major article on the subject.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3743/is_200610/ai_n17190994/pg_1

Gotta love a 9 page paper of which 3 pages is notes and attributions.

I also havent heard anyone mention the no-brainer option thats come up a few times. Unless something has changed or prior posts were mistaken, you can take social security early and then at 66 or 70 give them the cumulative payments back and restart at the higher payment level.

In other words, you can take the benefits and either invest them in cash or TIPS and enjoy the free dividend, then give the principal back. Or put the $ into a higher returning but more risky portfolio with a higher return.

This is only a problem if you're still working into your 60's and the tax issues overwhelm the rate of return.
 
CFB:

That paper is the first comprehensive analysis that I have seen on this subject.

The paper has some figures that are not included in the linked web-pages though that I would have liked to have seen.

I will though reserve judgement on this issue until I have some time to ponder this and other papers on the subject.
 
Cute Fuzzy Bunny said:
A really excellent article that manages to outline the criteria, minus the BS. It also references just about every other major article on the subject.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3743/is_200610/ai_n17190994/pg_1

Gotta love a 9 page paper of which 3 pages is notes and attributions.
Click to expand...

The paper only treats the decision from the motivation of getting the maximum amount of money from SS, where as the thread I referenced in my last post points out that some peoples motivation is to spend more money earlier in retirement (between the ages of 62 & 70) without reguard to how much the retiree ultimately receives from SS. A change in a person's motivation can change what the correct answer is for any given person.

Cute Fuzzy Bunny said:
I also havent heard anyone mention the no-brainer option thats come up a few times. Unless something has changed or prior posts were mistaken, you can take social security early and then at 66 or 70 give them the cumulative payments back and restart at the higher payment level.

In other words, you can take the benefits and either invest them in cash or TIPS and enjoy the free dividend, then give the principal back. Or put the $ into a higher returning but more risky portfolio with a higher return.

This is only a problem if you're still working into your 60's and the tax issues overwhelm the rate of return.
Click to expand...

Actually there is a problem doing this if you are paying taxes on the SS, whether you are working or not.
 
Of course. Theres always a problem with not doing it the way ones head has preordained it.

This study seems to imply that almost everyone will be dead before they'd get any benefit out of taking a larger payment later.

With regards to the first point, firecalc says that one gets the most out of their early retirement spending by taking the payments as early as possible. As has been determined 97,000 times in various discussions, and highlighted nicely in ESRBobs book, a little income stream helps an ER greatly. According to the data, a smaller stream early is better than a larger stream later.

About the only scenario floated so far to puncture that is the one where you blow all your money on fishing trips in your 50's and hope the later, higher SS payments bail you out if you live too long. Or the one where you dont care if you die with money on the table, because you're dead. And I thought this game was about getting the hell out of the working world and enjoying your life, not hoping you die before you run out of money.

This document appears to reduce the matter to the most contained calculations, while the aforementioned firecalc runs make it an integral part of the whole lifetime financial picture. Same answer both ways.

Which apparently is the wrong one if it isnt the one you've already decided on. :)

But then again, trillions of dollars and the best actuaries and financial minds available could all be wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
  • Locked
Would it be better to take Social Security at 62?
12 13 14
Replies
329
Views
26K
braumeister
braumeister
D
Marriage Tax Penalty on Social Security wish I knew earlier
Replies
6
Views
1K
Dave J
D
F
Invest Social Security??
Replies
3
Views
772
Flyfish1
F
Midpack
DQOTD: Social Security “Pay Stub?”
Replies
9
Views
878
Midpack
Midpack
mattbaxx
Open Social Security + WEP
Replies
2
Views
603
mattbaxx
mattbaxx

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom