Opinois needed: I delayed SS, now 63 = Mistake?

[haha]

I'm trying to decide where the break-even point comes in. After all, the retiree is spending more money. If there is a break-even point, it would be for the heirs.

This is how I see it. Break-even schmake-even, who cares? You are either going to be spending more money, or pushing up daisies with no more need for money. I would like to leave money for heirs but it is a less important goal than having a better life now.

Ha

 

[chinaco]

EMF had a good point on his comment that delaying SS impacts heirs.

One of my thoughts about delaying my SS (which is larger than DW) is that she will have a higher Cola'd annuity if I die before her. Statistically one of us will hit the break-even point.

We will probably take DW SS at 62.

We will likely take mine at either at 66.x or 70.

IMHO - I do not believe that SS is going to go away. However, it might be taxed more heavily if one has other income sources. Still it provides a basic foundation for income if all else fails. My way of looking at it is that there is nothing else that I have access to that is as secure as that promise despite all of the rhetoric flying around.

 

[W2R]

IMHO - I do not believe that SS is going to go away. However, it might be taxed more heavily if one has other income sources. Still it provides a basic foundation for income if all else fails. My way of looking at it is that there is nothing else that I have access to that is as secure as that promise despite all of the rhetoric flying around.

That's for sure.

I also expect that SS cost of living increases might be reduced in comparison with the inflation rate. Alternately, they could fiddle with the multipliers for each year's income that are used to calculate your basic retirement benefit in the first place.

Still, as you point out, SS will provide a basic foundation for income that is not likely to go away. I am not counting on SS but it will be providing about 35% of my ER income, which is not a negligible amount. If it does go away, the impact on my budget would be pretty serious.

But as you imply, nothing is absolutely certain except death and taxes. Personally I am trying to arrange my ER budget so that I get my income from a number of sources (SS, small pension, investments, a small amount of CD interest, a small fixed lifetime immediate annuity, did I miss anything? LOL). Hopefully through diversification of TYPES of income sources (as well as diversification in my investments), I can deal with the disappearance of some of these income sources if that should happen.

 

[FIRE'd@51]

I'm trying to decide where the break-even point comes in. After all, the retiree is spending more money. If there is a break-even point, it would be for the heirs. If the retiree delayed SS benefits, by one year, and got hit by the proverbial bus on the way to the SSA office to start his payments, then his heir get $12,000 less.

But will the heir ever "break-even"? Since the retiree is spending more money every year after having delayed SS benefits.

Retiree 1 takes SS of 12,000 per year at age 66

Retiree 2 takes SS of 12,960 per year one year later (at age 67)

Retiree 1 invests the 12,000 he gets the first year at 2.5% real and draws 960 per year from it

Both retirees have 12,960 in spendable income until Retiree 1's 12K fund runs out (amortizes to zero) sometime in year 16 (the break-even point), after-which Retiree 2 will have spendable income of 960 more per year as long as he lives