Clear article about when to take Social Security

Markola

Markola

Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Joined
Nov 24, 2013
Messages
3,944
Location
Twin Cities
Last edited:
No, it really doesn't, because it doesn't show how much the $12K you'd leave in your investment account would be earning if you took SS at 62. It's a very simple picture, and it doesn't do a real world comparison.
 
RunningBum said:
No, it really doesn't, because it doesn't show how much the $12K you'd leave in your investment account would be earning if you took SS at 62. It's a very simple picture, and it doesn't do a real world comparison.
Click to expand...

Over a relatively short time period (5-8 years), you don’t know what your return will be. SS is guaranteed, so for a fair comparison you would need to compare to CDs, etc. Not a significant, amount especially when you consider inflation would eat up any investment returns.
 
and we're off...
 
Aerides said:
and we're off...
Click to expand...
Not me, I've said what I had to say and will put the thread on ignore. I took a look because sometimes the Motley Fool has good insight, or at least used to, but this is just basic math, too simple to apply in the real world. Out.
 
RunningBum said:
No, it really doesn't, because it doesn't show how much the $12K you'd leave in your investment account would be earning if you took SS at 62. It's a very simple picture, and it doesn't do a real world comparison.
Click to expand...

Here is chart at 5% interest. Shows about the same amount at 87-89 yrs.
 

Attachments

  • 5%.png
    5%.png
    226.3 KB · Views: 327
homestead said:
Here is chart at 5% interest. Shows about the same amount at 87-89 yrs.
Click to expand...

Nice calculation. The conventional wisdom of taking SS at 70 is the best is questionable unless you could live beyond 90 years. Why not take it earlier than 70 since longevity is uncertain?
 
Spanky said:
Nice calculation. The conventional wisdom of taking SS at 70 is the best is questionable unless you could live beyond 90 years. Why not take it earlier than 70 since longevity is uncertain?
Click to expand...

Based on that reasoning, no reason to save for retirement, you could die beforehand, in fact some people will.

But I'm stupid when I was 40, I saved for retirement...
 
No brainer for me as my job ended making 22k/year (part time) and 65 so took my 363/month due to WEP.
 
When to apply for SS is a personal decision for each person. Math and break even points don't really address the reasons some people file early, and some file later. Once you know the amount at different ages, I think most grown ups can decide when to apply. But then we have to throw in spousal benefits, survivor benefits, possible payment reductions in 2035..... What seems like
an easy decision gets complicated quickly. I would also like to know how many people who took the age 62 route actually invested the extra money without spending any of it. If it works for you, go for it.
 
Sunset said:
Based on that reasoning, no reason to save for retirement, you could die beforehand, in fact some people will.

But I'm stupid when I was 40, I saved for retirement...
Click to expand...

Not true. You still need to save for retirement even though longevity is uncertain. You still need to plan to live to a certain age and save accordingly to prevent outliving your money. Since the average life expectancy is about 85, why wait for claiming SS at 70 when the break even point is about 90? Even if you live beyond 90, say 100, the difference in total SS payment is not that significant.

Obviously, if you plan to live to 100, claiming SS at 70 is optimal.
 
Spanky said:
Not true. You still need to save for retirement even though longevity is uncertain. You still need to plan to live to a certain age and save accordingly to prevent outliving your money. Since the average life expectancy is about 85, why wait for claiming SS at 70 when the break even point is about 90? Even if you live beyond 90, say 100, the difference in total SS payment is not that significant.

Obviously, if you plan to live to 100, claiming SS at 70 is optimal.
Click to expand...

You made me wonder, what is the break even point.
This site says it's 77 which is much younger than the 90 yr old one I've never heard quoted until now.
The Social Security break-even age is 77
This site compares age 62 to 65, and probably only considers how much you get.
 
Even if you live beyond 90, say 100, the difference in total SS payment is not that significant.
Click to expand...

Didn't Einstein say something like: Not everything that counts can be measured, and not everything that can be measured, counts

That sums up the argument for me. Somebody can show me a chart with calcs brought forth with much huffing and puffing showing me that if I live so long and if I start SS at one time it's "better" than starting it another.... and I'll say: So? Why do you think chump change is of any significance to someone who, long ago, stopped needing to worry about such chump change?

Which is harder to lift? A ton? Or 2100 pounds? Or two tons for that matter? The answer is for any normal person in a normal situation they will both feel equally heavy.
One is not more than the other.
 
we both pulled at 62. we sock it away to be used for our quarterly tax payments in the following year. daily living is off our pensions. investment and retirement portfolios are for a rainy day. RMD’s start in 2-yrs.
 
Sunset said:
You made me wonder, what is the break even point.
This site says it's 77 which is much younger than the 90 yr old one I've never heard quoted until now.
The Social Security break-even age is 77
This site compares age 62 to 65, and probably only considers how much you get.
Click to expand...

Comparing filing at age 66 with age 70, the break even point is at age 82. It might be 90 if the payments were invested with a return of 5%, which may not be possible. As another poster stated, there are many factors, i.e., spousal SS benefits, spousal survivor benefit, longevity risk, investment risk, etc to consider in order to decide when to claim SS.
 
This decision is almost becoming a moot point to us. Our FIRECalc is at 100% without cashing in on SS. My current thought is to start taking it at 67 for both of us (DW & I are of same age, DW gets 1/2 of what I get) for no other reason than I don't want to think about it. The total $$$$ difference in when to start taking SS has insignificant impact to our retirement finance or yearly budget. But it is always interesting to think what others are thinking.
 
Markola said:
Its title is hyperbole but this article lays out concisely and cleanly the trade offs around taking SS at 62, Full Retirement Age (FRA) or age 70. Circumstances willing, DW and I are aiming for 70 when, according to this article and other calculators, we can claim 132% of the FRA amount.

https://www.fool.com/amp/retirement...mportant-social-security-chart-youll-eve.aspx
Click to expand...

Any article or chart that purports to show you when to start your social security benefits, yet completely ignores spousal and survivor benefits, is fatally flawed.
 
It is always going to be an argumentive area with so many variables to look at.

In our case my SS at FRA, (67), would cover close to 100% af DW living expenses and some reasonable traveling if I were to pass. This doesn't take into account our investments, life insurance proceeds, etc. which I see as LTC insurance.
 
I think it is a big conspiracy theory. :whistle:

The Gubment wants you to take it at 70, as the average life expectancy is low in the USA and could actually be getting lower compared to other civilized countries with proper healthcare, sensible diets, less drug use and lower obesity levels. So if it sponsors articles encouraging the later the better theorists, then, "they" will be better off. More :whistle:
 
Last edited:
Like others I would be taking SS as early as they let me. And it’s not just based on our personal situation. I assign a non zero probability that benefits get negatively affected during the next two to three decades.

Sooner the better!
 
robnplunder said:
This decision is almost becoming a moot point to us. Our FIRECalc is at 100% without cashing in on SS. My current thought is to start taking it at 67 for both of us (DW & I are of same age, DW gets 1/2 of what I get) for no other reason than I don't want to think about it. The total $$$$ difference in when to start taking SS has insignificant impact to our retirement finance or yearly budget. But it is always interesting to think what others are thinking.
Click to expand...

Great you are in that position. Is 67 your FRA? That would be the decider for me. At your DW FRA her benefit is frozen and will not get age related raises.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Spousal Benefits Social Security ?
2 3
Replies
63
Views
4K
Gumby
Gumby
P
The age when you actually retire, vs. the age when you begin taking social security
2 3
Replies
55
Views
5K
Midpack
Midpack
T
A wrinkle in SS survivor benefit I didn't know
Replies
10
Views
2K
Dtail
D
latexman
When To Take Social Security? Study takes a statistical approach.
11 12 13
Replies
307
Views
27K
Koolau
Koolau
F
  • Locked
Would it be better to take Social Security at 62?
12 13 14
Replies
329
Views
26K
braumeister
braumeister

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom