mountainsoft
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I am curious about the pro's and con's regarding the survivorship options on my wife's pension plan. They offer 100%, 67%, 50%, and 0% survivor options. We're both in good health, but I am five years older than my wife. While the odds of her dying before me is slim, it's obviously a possibility.
I don't know that I could survive on my own without her pension, so the 0% option is out.
I'm also sure I could get by with less if it were just me, so I don't see a need for 100% survivor coverage.
Selecting the 67% survivor coverage would increase our monthly payments about $200/month (compared to the 100% option). Choosing the 67% option would probably allow us to retire a full year earlier.
The 50% option only increases the monthly income another $100 per month. While I could probably survive on half of her pension, in addition to SS and my IRA, it might be cutting it close if there are two many unknowns in the future (health problems, etc.)
So, 67% seems like the smarter option, but I'm curious what advantages/disadvantages I may not be considering.
I don't know that I could survive on my own without her pension, so the 0% option is out.
I'm also sure I could get by with less if it were just me, so I don't see a need for 100% survivor coverage.
Selecting the 67% survivor coverage would increase our monthly payments about $200/month (compared to the 100% option). Choosing the 67% option would probably allow us to retire a full year earlier.
The 50% option only increases the monthly income another $100 per month. While I could probably survive on half of her pension, in addition to SS and my IRA, it might be cutting it close if there are two many unknowns in the future (health problems, etc.)
So, 67% seems like the smarter option, but I'm curious what advantages/disadvantages I may not be considering.