Collecting Social Security at age 62 is the best decision, here is why:

[Rianne]

And that's why I love the minutia of this forum.

 

[Clone]

I don't understand why there is so much confusion. I just ran a random calculator on the internet and it said that I am going to live to age 86, and my wife is going to live to age 90.

Sadly, I am going to die on my birthday.

I also have found that the stock market is going to perform at a level of 10%.

So I know what my plan is!

As a side note, I have been asked out to dinner by a friend of a friend, who supposedly has some recent news on how SS is going to go away, and that the stock market is going to collapse. He has some kind of miracle product, I think my friend said it was a variable annuity or something like that. A sure thing! Can't lose! So maybe I will change my plans...

/s

 

[youbet]

Does it show this or does it show that under a particular set of circumstances it is better to collect at 62?

It shows that for folks with good financial skills and a prudent outlook, it likely won't matter very much when you start SS. When you're 90 (let's hope!) and look back, you'll likely see that since you handled your finances optimally and in congruence with your SS decision, the results were similar either way.

 

[Texas Proud]

Missed this at first... but lots of responses.....

To OP...

Your analysis is very flawed... it is only one data point... and from that one data point you state that taking at 62 is the way to go for everybody (that is what I read)....

That is just plain false... if the market had tanked when you retired you might want a higher SS... if the market was flat, probably the same...

You also do not consider all the married people who have many different possibilities... what if you are married to someone much younger. (I believe it is NYexpat that is 20 to 30 years older than spouse).... if the older person does not receive a cent in payments but spouse gets the benefits there is no way taking at 62 makes sense...

Might put this in the pet peeve thread when someone wants to tell me what is best for me when they have zero idea what really is best...

 

[haha]

Here's a link to the post I mentioned earlier:

http://www.early-retirement.org/for...f-maximize-my-ss-com-77660-4.html#post1604411



-ERD50

This is very obviously true. Nevertheless, plenty of geniuses will come along to "prove" something else. Same ole, same ole.

As far as these posts being designed to prove that what the OP did was right only for him, doubt it. What use is "proving" that some action already taken was the obvious best thing to do? If someone went to Las Vegas and put his million on black, would his ~$2 million from a wining bet prove this was "the best thing to do?"

Ha

 

[ShokWaveRider]

I was going to take mine at 62, but decided to wait till 65 (1 year before FRA) the reason is that I did not need the income, if I had it I could not qualify for ACA subsidies. That made the decision easy. I WAS going to take it at 62 as my longevity prediction is about the national average.

 

[ERD50]

This is very obviously true. Nevertheless, plenty of geniuses will come along to "prove" something else. Same ole, same ole.

As far as these posts being designed to prove that what the OP did was right only for him, doubt it. What use is "proving" that some action already taken was the obvious best thing to do? If someone went to Las Vegas and put his million on black, would his ~$2 million from a wining bet prove this was "the best thing to do?"

Ha

Agreed, and I didn't intend it to "prove" anything, but to show one way the process can be thought through.

Even if we try to simplify some things just for analysis, and make assumptions about a few things that we can't (say we assume living into the 90's), there are still variables like market returns that come into play that could swing the decision one way or the other.

But given what we do know, I will plan to delay until 70, because I can, and because I feel that is the best longevity insurance for DW. Like a bet in Vegas, it may end up being a losing bet. But a choice must be made in this case. I'm trying to that with my eyes open.

I also doubt that taking it at 62 would a bad thing, it might all work out pretty close in the end. It's just the "this is the right thing to do", versus the "here are the things to consider" approach that kinda pushes my buttons.

-ERD50

 

[Blueskies123]

I was going to take mine at 62, but decided to wait till 65 (1 year before FRA) the reason is that I did not need the income, if I had it I could not qualify for ACA subsidies. That made the decision easy. I WAS going to take it at 62 as my longevity prediction is about the national average.

Are you picking one year before FRA because you will be medicare at 65 years old?

 

[ShokWaveRider]

Are you picking one year before FRA because you will be medicare at 65 years old?

Yup.

 

[Alan]

While reading this thread I am watching a documentary about people in their 100’s.

The program started by saying that in 1917 George V started a tradition of sending a card to everyone on their 100th birthday. That year he sent 24 cards. So far this year (October) the Queen has sent over 6,000.

We are both in our 60’s so as an insurance policy I, with the much larger SS benefits, plan on taking mine at age 70. If we both die before our mid 80’s then so be it, that’s life (or death).

 

[gerntz]

All this also assumes the spousal benefit aspect is irrelevant.

 

[Lcountz]

I see the OP is 'Gone travelling"...I THINK it's the same guy who was on this board months ago with a similar story...in addition to no friends, wanting to move to the midwest, and liking to "watch people" in the mall....

Is it that person?


I'm not even on these boards that much and I thought I'd read this story before.....obviously SOMEONE caught it but I don't think I've seen it mentioned

The replies are still worth reading even if it WAS a troll!!!!!

 

[REWahoo]

I see the OP is 'Gone travelling"...I THINK it's the same guy who was on this board months ago with a similar story...in addition to no friends, wanting to move to the midwest, and liking to "watch people" in the mall....

Is it that person?

Ding! Ding! Ding!

No more phone calls folks, we have a winner!

 

[RunningBum]

That's freaking hilarious! I wonder if there's a grain of truth in his story, that he did get fired from a government job. If only he'd have put the same effort into work as he does his trolling...

 

[imoldernu]

From retirement @ age 53, to age 62, living expenses were coming from savings. At age 62 the SS $$$ sure looked good. Now, nearing age 82, no complaints.
Not too good at math, and maybe left some on the table, but nearly a half million $$$ smoothed the in between years. No regrets.

oops... Late again to the party...

 

[bobandsherry]

March 5, 2004: 10,295.55
March 5, 2009: 6,594.44
Percent change: (37.76%)

In 2004 there were 33 days where the 5 year Dow return has been lower than (25%).

Error in your % of change, it's actually (35.94%).

You did find an absolute period to period drop, However that wasn't a sustained drop of over 25% for that 5 year period.

Also, the drop on 3/5/09 was really short lived as well, recovering back to the 3/5/04 level in Nov 2009. It's all about timing in the market for sure.

 

[Tailgate]

The market is unknown, your LE is unknown. There is no 'answer', only a process to use to make a decision.

-ERD50

Well said!

 

[braumeister]

I see the OP is 'Gone travelling"...I THINK it's the same guy who was on this board months ago with a similar story

Nice catch!

At some point he will run out of nearby Starbucks with their unique IP addresses and won't be able to register a new account here, but you have to admire his tenacity.

 

[Lsbcal]

I started taking SS in 2010. Then I invested what I would have spent if no SS in Bitcoins. DW is amazed.

P.S. I really did take SS at age 64. Not for everyone though.

 

[FrugalLady]

While I am a long ways from 62, I am already debating whether I should take SS at 62 (or slightly thereafter) or pull from my Rollover Traditional IRA until I am 70 and then take SS. My problem is that I was a really good saver in my 401K/IRA. Maybe too good of a saver, because financial calculator's show that if I don't touch it, my Rollover IRA balance will be very large by the time I reach 70.

I'm concerned that if I don't start drawing my IRA down early in my 60's, I will be forced to take large RMD's when I am 70.5 that will push me out of the 15% tax bracket and will make more of my SS taxable. I would like to have some ability to manage my taxable income and tax bracket once RMD's start.

I guess I have one other option....I can do IRA to Roth conversions. Thankfully, I have many years to consider my options.

 

[HadEnuff]

While I am a long ways from 62, I am already debating whether I should take SS at 62 (or slightly thereafter) or pull from my Rollover Traditional IRA until I am 70 and then take SS. My problem is that I was a really good saver in my 401K/IRA. Maybe too good of a saver, because financial calculator's show that if I don't touch it, my Rollover IRA balance will be very large by the time I reach 70.

I'm concerned that if I don't start drawing my IRA down early in my 60's, I will be forced to take large RMD's when I am 70.5 that will push me out of the 15% tax bracket and will make more of my SS taxable. I would like to have some ability to manage my taxable income and tax bracket once RMD's start.

I guess I have one other option....I can do IRA to Roth conversions. Thankfully, I have many years to consider my options.

and in that time the rules will change back and forth, so your best course of action won't be clear until the time comes. In the meantime, put as much money away as you can, tax deferred.

 

[joeea]

Life expectancy for females is 81.2 years and for males, it's 76.4 years. You might be able to beat the stat, however.

Those are life expectancies at birth.

More appropriate for planning purposes in this form is the life expectancy based on your current age.

Here's an actuarial table that SSA uses (which most agree currently underestimates longevity, but hasn't been revised in a while):
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

For every 100,000 males born, almost 35% live past the age of 85. And upon reaching 85, they would still have an average of almost 6 years remaining.

And if you have wealth, your changes for increased longevity are increased on average.

 

[ERD50]

I see the OP is 'Gone travelling"...I THINK it's the same guy who was on this board months ago with a similar story...in addition to no friends, wanting to move to the midwest, and liking to "watch people" in the mall....

Is it that person?


I'm not even on these boards that much and I thought I'd read this story before.....obviously SOMEONE caught it but I don't think I've seen it mentioned

The replies are still worth reading even if it WAS a troll!!!!!

That's funny! Do you have a link to the alter ego post?

No matter, a few of these trolls have started some good conversations. As long as we get something out of it, who cares if they were having some twisted fun?

Can't quite understand what would be fun about this, but it takes all kinds I guess.

-ERD50

 

[redshift]

Blue collar guy

 

[ERD50]

Blue collar guy

Well, he is gone travellin' as well (not sure what happened, I suppose the offending posts were deleted), but other than that, I don't really see the connection.

Oh well, those who know (appropriately) won't say, so unless some obvious clues come to light, it will probably remain a mystery.

-ERD50