25% of SS recipients sorry they took payments early...

[VFK57]

Also - the poll is skewed by people still alive.

#3. Nobody knows how long one is going to live.

 

[Ready]

I took the time to read Laurence Kotlikoff's book "Get What's Yours - The Secrets to Maxing Out Your Social Security", not because I am close to needing to make a decision, but out of pure curiosity about why social security is so complicated.

Even after reading the entire book I can't say I completely understand all of the things to consider before making a decision on when to file, so I can understand why the average US citizen may be confused about how it works and may ultimately regret their decision on when to begin collecting.

It seems odd to me that something designed to make life easier as a senior would be so complicated that it requires an entire book to understand. Most citizens simply are not going to take the time to try to read through all of the complex rules that come into play when making a decision on when to file. I know my parents did not understand all of the issues when they chose to file early. My mom is 90 years old now, so waiting until she was older would have netted her a lot more money.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

From a personal perspective, this is "our" rational for SS withdrawal time ~65 (1 year prior to FRA. SS is based on my allotment. DW is too Young to consider yet, and simply easier not to.


Income from Taxable investments (CD's Etc.) $2500 pm
Income from Non Taxable Accounts (IRA) $2500 pm
Potential SS Income at withdrawal time. $2000 pm


Taxable Amount At SS withdrawal time: $7,000 pm assuming IRA withdrawal of return only: = $84k (Will take any more if needed from Non Taxable accounts). Taxable obligation ~ $75k @ 15%

I will be on Medicare so ACA for me (If it does not get destroyed) does not enter into it.


Today:


Income from Taxable investments (CD's Etc.) ~$2500 pm


Our total annual Expenditures are around $40k pa. (10k from savings) Taxable income: ~$30k @ 15%. + Hefty ACA Sub.


Numbers are generalized for this.

 

[ERD50]

So........75% are happy they took it early.

works for me

Does it say that?

The other 75% could have some large % of don't know / don't care? Most polls are like that, the ones with a strong opinion are a smaller group on each end, a large undecided in the middle.

Also - the poll is skewed by people still alive.

Not if it was done in Chicago.

-ERD50

 

[marko]

...and only 20% understand that the break even point is about 79 years old.

 

[HadEnuff]

None of the people who died before the break-even point were asked.
That doesn't seem fair.

 

[gayl]

4 bd / 3 bath / .35 acres

Problemishes is there's only 2 common rooms :
breakfast room - kitchen - family room all connect in a straight line no walls
Living room - formal dining is just another long room (14' × 30')
No delineations

 

[REWahoo]

4 bd / 3 bath / .35 acres

Problemishes is there's only 2 common rooms :
breakfast room - kitchen - family room all connect in a straight line no walls
Living room - formal dining is just another long room (14' × 30')
No delineations

Did you intend to post this on another thread?

 

[marko]

None of the people who died before the break-even point were asked.
That doesn't seem fair.

To me it's a little disingenuous in how SS words things.

The whole "you get more money" is true..."for less time" is left unspoken.

Further, if you're not completely savvy it would easy to think that at 65 and 70 (vs 62) there is a step function increase. Yes, taking it at 65 vs 62 gives you more money but so does taking it at 62.5, 63 or 64 (obviously not as great)

It's not like you get a big jump in benefit by waiting from 64.5 to 65 which I fear a lot of people might assume.

 

[JustCurious]

Further, if you're not completely savvy it would easy to think that at 65 and 70 (vs 62) there is a step function increase. Yes, taking it at 65 vs 62 gives you more money but so does taking it at 62.5, 63 or 64 (obviously not as great)

It's not like you get a big jump in benefit by waiting from 64.5 to 65 which I fear a lot of people might assume.

You are correct, but there is one aspect of reaching full retirement age that does provide a step function increase for those who continue to work...once you reach FRA there is no longer a limit on how much you can earn without triggering a reduction in your retirement benefits.

 

[Andre1969]

I always planned on taking SS at 62, as I figured I'd already be retired a good 11-15 years at that point (I'm 46 now, and it's looking closer to 11-12 at this point, but who knows?). My rationale was that I'd prefer to take it sooner, as I'd have a greater chance of getting locked in, whereas they may change the SS rules down the road if I wait too long. I also figured that if I took it sooner, that would be that much less of my investments that I'd have to cash in, to live off of.

But, I ran a few different scenarios through FIRECalc, and it didn't make much difference whether I took SS at 62, or 70, or anywhere in between. Maybe 2-3 percentage points at most. I can't remember though, which specific age yielded the best result, as it didn't really stand out among the others.

 

[W2R]

I'm completely happy with my decision to claim my own SS at age 70. Thrilled, actually.

I can also easily see and understand a multitude of reasons others may have for claiming SS at age 62. Let's face it, there are a multitude of factors that go into this decision, and each case may be slightly different.

When a decision becomes irreversible, I don't see much point in whining or regrets.

 

[Rustic23]

We were going to wait until 70, but took it at 67. The decision was based on the fact that we knew DW would have adequate funds to live on and then some, and the extra money at 67 would fund more toys and fun! Twelve cruises, multiple auto trips, and lots of dining out, we do not regret the decision at all!

For us it was a sliding scale. It was not a 62 or 70 decision.

 

[mickeyd]

I suspect that a good number of that 75% are not truly aware of the consequences of their early claiming. After all, we're referring to the general public here.

 

[UpAnchor]

I suspect that a good number of that 75% are not truly aware of the consequences of their early claiming. After all, we're referring to the general public here.

Based on folks I know - many of whom aren't that financially savvy - I'd guess most know that one's benefit is reduced by claiming early. And it's made very obvious in one's personal statement from SSA. But I do agree with earlier posts that most may not be aware of the continuous scale (no step-function). And I would suspect that many times it doesn't come up in the discussion with the local SSA rep. I can see the conversation progressing along the lines of, "How much will I get if I retire at 62? How much at full retirement age? Nah, I don't wanna wait that long."

 

[NW-Bound]

Also - the poll is skewed by people still alive.

Not if it was done in Chicago.
-ERD50

I assume you meant that dead Chicagoans could vote.

But then, perhaps you meant that they kept getting their SS too.

 

[ERD50]

I assume you meant that dead Chicagoans could vote.

But then, perhaps you meant that they kept getting their SS too.

Yes, both!

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

All right!

I have visited Chicago twice, but perhaps should give relocation to Windy City some thoughts for the fabulous benefits for my wife when I croak.

Lemme rerun FIRECalc with the new parameter...

PS. Oops. Better check with my wife if she cares about the chance of being put in the slammer for SS fraud. How sure are you of this that it is safe?

 

[Sunset]

From a personal perspective, this is "our" rational for SS withdrawal time ~65 (1 year prior to FRA. SS is based on my allotment. DW is too Young to consider yet, and simply easier not to.
......

All by itself, doesn't this tell you to take it at 70, so you maximize the survivor SS for your young wife, since once you are gone she will need to live many many more years.... ?

Perhaps this is not an issue for you as her SS will be higher than yours ?

 

[medved]

I was bound and determined at a young age that Alpo wasn't going to be in my diet.

Its not bad if you put some hot sauce on it.

 

[samclem]

Also - the poll is skewed by people still alive.

Not a single dead person now regrets taking it early . . . or late. They are dead.

Sounds flippant, but that's one rational argument for waiting to start--if you die early and therefor might have "better off" to start early, there's no opportunity for regret. But going the other way and knowing you'd have more money coming in every month if you'd waited--well, there's a good chance to stew in that pot for decades.

 

[NW-Bound]

Is that true?

A person who is not well-off eats cat food from 62 to 70, in order to get more later. At 69, he's diagnosed with a terminal disease. Won't he regret not eating better food for the 7 years before his death, or taking those European trips? Not everybody dies instantly. Many have time to reflect.

Maybe he's too saddened with his misfortune, he does not have time to think about not eating those steaks.

 

[audreyh1]

If he were still alive when polled he gets to state his regret.

 

[NW-Bound]

... if he did not kill the pollster.

 

[Music Lover]

A lot of people on this site left money on the table to retire early, and very few of them seem to have regrets.

So, it's not surprising to me that there are plenty of others who made the choice for early SS so they can enjoy the extra money now, and those with regrets that they did not take it early when they had the chance.