Interesting SS question

[pb4uski]

Perhaps they are related.

 

[Bestwifeever]

You're funny. It is a simple yes/no question.

I ask you one simple yes/no question and in response you don't answer it and insist that I answer 4 of your questions.

You should come back with 16 questions .

I think even I could have come up with an answer to your single and simple question.

 

[pb4uski]

You should come back with 16 questions .

I think even I could have come up with an answer to your single and simple question.

I thought about that but didn't for two reasons. First, I couldn't think up 16 questions for a simple situation and more importantly, I was afraid I would get a response with 256 questions.

 

[jdw_fire]

you guys are a riot, but in perfect keeping with closed minds. (BTW it is very disappointing that 2 moderators, who are not acting under their official duties as moderators, join in the ridicule.) your reluctance to answer me tells me that you arent all that serious about your question (and your personal attacks are confirmation)

ok, since i am serious, i will make assumptions about your answers and provide to you what you would not provide me; answers.

starting with the last questions 1st, i am going to assume that this retiree's portfolio is sizable enough that said 4% WDR is significant compared to the amount of SS s/he is scheduled to collect at age 62 (i.e. portfolio is greater than 9 times the amount of SS s/he is scheduled to collect in their 70th yr if s/he were to wait till then to start collecting). and i will assume that their expenses would be covered by SS if s/he waited till age 70 to start collecting.

and now for the first question i asked; i think there is no way you would suggest that retiree take WDs from their portfolio the way i described in my last post. further i think that you would recommend something less than the 4% plan (since you are such a believer in FireCalc, not that there is anything wrong with FireCalc). given this "answer" to my 1st question, it is obvious that you are concerned enough about longevity (i.e. living longer than you told me this retiree would) that you wont bet your portfolio on a short life. therefore, i would recommend that this retiree put off taking SS till age 70 and use SS as their longevity insurance, living off their portfolio entirely between the ages of 62 and 70.

now, on the other hand, if you were so absolutely sure that this retiree would be dead in 10 years that you are willing to recommend that s/he use the radical WD plan that i asked you about (again, there is no way i believe you would do that) then i might also (meaning in addition to using said WD plan) recommend s/he take SS at age 62, because doing so would increase their spendable amount even more. but s/he better be absolutely sure s/he dies in 10 yrs.

 

[REWahoo]

This thread is a wonderful example of why the forum installed "ignore poster" software.

 

[marko]

jdw_fire: OP here.

It was a simple question within a "never touch the principal" context.

Just wanted to know if the "NTTP" might mitigate the "(almost) always take SS at FRA or beyond" rule.

After the posts/replies, it seems that I have my answer, which is "NO". It's all good.