Collecting Social Security benefits at age 62

[youbet]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cme4oil The reason that I am taking social security at the age of 62, It is due to the government pension offset. Because my wife has a government's pension, any survivor benefit she might get would be eliminated to the GPO.

That's our situation and the path we took.

We've already finished the 8 year process and it worked out well. The incremental sum in our FIRE portfolio due to receiving and investing early SS payments for 8 years easily supports an increased annual withdrawal equal to the 62 SS vs 70 SS delta. (Thanks bull market!!) And DW gets some added protection because the money is there whereas 70 SS would evaporate if I die first.

Every situation seems to have its own unique strategy. The GPO/WEP crowd included.

[daylatedollarshort]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunset That only has effect at age 65, so not a reason to take SS at 62.

Ages 65 and below, but not above, would kick in the hold harmless.

[SumDay]

Quote:

Research. A lot of people talk about and believe that if 2 earners are going to get SS, the lower earner can take early, while the higher earner waits to 70. That gives the best survivor outcome as I understand it. That is what I am thinking of ding when the time comes so far. Will likely depend on other resources situation as that time gets here.

Luckily, when they changed the rules a couple of years back, the cut-off birthdate for doing this was 1/1/54. Luckily DH was born in 1953 and is 4 years older than I. So, I'll draw at 62, and he'll take 1/2 mine when he reaches FRA a couple of months later. His will sit on the back burner until he turns 70 and then his will kick in.

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort Ages 65 and below, but not above, would kick in the hold harmless.

I think the point was that the hold harmless might be a reason to take at 65 rather than later, but isn't a reason to take at 62.

[daylatedollarshort]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski I think the point was that the hold harmless might be a reason to take at 65 rather than later, but isn't a reason to take at 62.

If you look at my original post, I made a made a one sentence list with our reasons for taking at 62, of which hold harmless was one of many reasons, not the only reason.

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort If you look at my original post, I made a made a one sentence list with our reasons for taking at 62, of which hold harmless was one of many reasons, not the only reason.

Right, and the other reasons are sensible reasons for taking at 62 for those inclined to do so, but hold harmless is not a valid reason to take at 62 since you get the full advantage even if you wait until 65.... it might be a valid reason for taking at 65... but not 62.

[daylatedollarshort]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski Right, and the other reasons are sensible reasons for taking at 62 for those inclined to do so, but hold harmless is not a valid reason to take at 62 since you get the full advantage even if you wait until 65.... it might be a valid reason for taking at 65... but not 62.

I am not really interested in getting into a semantics argument over a one sentence list. The hold harmless provision will kick in for us by taking at 62.

[pb4uski]

Given it's a weak argument that is perfectly understandable.

[Sunset]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski Right, and the other reasons are sensible reasons for taking at 62 for those inclined to do so, but hold harmless is not a valid reason to take at 62 since you get the full advantage even if you wait until 65.... it might be a valid reason for taking at 65... but not 62.

Exactly why I stated it.
The reason I mentioned it, was because some folks reading this listing might not realize the hold harmless does not even start until age 65, and they would actually think they need to do it earlier.

[daylatedollarshort]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunset Exactly why I stated it. The reason I mentioned it, was because some folks reading this listing might not realize the hold harmless does not even start until age 65, and they would actually think they need to do it earlier.

I assumed most people here know they can't qualify for Medicare at 62.

[FANOFJESUS]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brucethebroker Early SS was an important part of my semi-retirement. No regrets. Would rather have that income now, rather than more later. (I do not have a pension nor millions to retire on, but live comfortably on modest investments, PT work, SS and life in a low cost of living area). IMO, there is most likely a 50/50 chance of dying before the break even point (in mid-late 70's), so, why not?

I heard the break even point is in the early eighties. I don't know if this is true.

[Perryinva]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort We took pensions at 55 and plan to take SS.... If we do decide for some reason we need longevity insurance, another option for us is to buy a private policy at age 80 or so as the prices are not too expensive at that age.

Where did you get that idea? Both LTC and Life Insurance are much higher or unobtainable at age 80! Otherwise everyone would wait intil they might need it to buy it!

[ShokWaveRider]

I am not eligible for FRA till I am 66 but SERIOUSLY considering taking SS at 65. If only for the Hold Harmless provision. My longevity based on family history and current health issues is not really conducive of me living into my 90's.

[daylatedollarshort]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perryinva Where did you get that idea? Both LTC and Life Insurance are much higher or unobtainable at age 80! Otherwise everyone would wait intil they might need it to buy it!

I was referring to a private annuity:

https://www.immediateannuities.com/

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Perryinva If you can afford to delay filing and are married, it is by far best annuity money can buy. Younger people seem to think that death is always around the corner at age 70. Once you hit 60, 20-25 more years, if you are healthy, seem right around the corner. If you are always going to be in the 12% bracket and lower, and never pay fed or state tax on your SS, or if it is a small amount, like $1k/mo, then take it at 62. Why not? If you have health issues and realistically think you will not live to age 80 or 90, then take it at 62 and spend it. If you cannot stand the thought of actually using the money you have saved and invested for retirement in order to assure you a higher no sequence risk income, and the amount left to your heirs must be at the max always, then take it at 62. But when in the 22% and up bracket, especially if you have a pension, and know that you will always pay tax on “only” 85% of your SS, and you have a veryblarge percentage saved in tax deferred, & actually want to USE your investments to enjoy life more plus make sure your less investment saavy surviving spouse has a maximum income in case of your death, (but you expect to live past 85 anyway, ) then it makes more sense to delay filing. I’ve run Firecalc, RIP and others as well as my own calculations and delaying allows me to have roughly a $4-5k/yr net higher income from day one at age 62, compared to taking it at age 62. But in my case, SS would go from a bit more than $25k/yr, to around $42-43k/yr at 69-70. The tax money I save from age 70 and up, from the lower RMDs and the higher income at a lower taxed amount, means we are not at all dependent on my investments for living money. Between both our pensions and SS alone we are above $100k. If my investments drop from 1.3M to 1M in order to delay, with $500k of it Roth and after tax, then having RMDs on only $500k is a cake walk tax wise. And I can invest with more confidence since I can ride out anything without taking a lifestyle hit. Break even means nothing. I am surprised so many here on this forum even bring that up. Breaking even is betting on yourself to die early. Once you are dead, it matters not. If you live, it matters. I also am surprised so many here say things like “I want to keep my savings, because what it they cut SS, I would be at the short end of the stick”. Seriously? Does anyone really think the chances of losing their SS is greater than lising a major part if their savings in the stock market? How absurd. If you are conservatively invested in CDs and such, so you can’t lose it, then it is easy to show that delaying allows a net higher income immediately because money is fungible, and there is no sequence of risk. It is amusing that so many people say “it is actuarially neutral, so it doesn’t if you take it early”. If it is actuarially neutral, then why not take it later ? It makes no difference, right? The fact is, SS is actuarially neutral for the entire popluous. Are YOU the same demographic as the average person? Do you have average health, average weight, average education, living conditions etc etc? Or below average so you don't expect to make it to 82? I doubt it on here. I know I am blessed to be born the way I was, and how I have faired over the last 60 years. I am a prime candidate to live to 90, especially considering past generations. It all depends on many many factors.

After you have been here for while, you may discover that this is only one of many head-scratchers that you will encounter.

Ha

[golfnut]

Very interesting thread here. Turned 62 last year and still not collecting ss. Got some bad news about my best friend who is 6 months younger than me - found out he has stage 4 lung cancer. He never smoked and worked out all the time and both his parents lived well into their 90s.

Before he was diagnosed, we discussed when we would take ss and he was in the 70 yr old camp. Me-always figured anywhere from 62 to fra. since I was a smoker, did not work out much and my parents lived to early mid 80s.

Guess what I am sayin' here is - life can throw a mean curve ball at you. Pray for my buddy!

[Sunset]

Quote:

Originally Posted by daylatedollarshort I assumed most people here know they can't qualify for Medicare at 62.

You are right folks should know that they cannot qualify for Medicare at age 62.
Just like they should know they cannot qualify for hold harmless at age 62.
Nor at age 63.
Nor at age 64.

[Sunset]

Quote:

Originally Posted by golfnut Very interesting thread here. Turned 62 last year and still not collecting ss. Got some bad news about my best friend who is 6 months younger than me - found out he has stage 4 lung cancer. He never smoked and worked out all the time and both his parents lived well into their 90s. Before he was diagnosed, we discussed when we would take ss and he was in the 70 yr old camp. Me-always figured anywhere from 62 to fra. since I was a smoker, did not work out much and my parents lived to early mid 80s. Guess what I am sayin' here is - life can throw a mean curve ball at you. Pray for my buddy!

Wow, did you two hang out together a lot ?

[golfnut]

We have been friends since we were 9 yrs. old. Same grammar school, roomies in college. both were cabbies, conductors and bus drivers for the cta.


He is my son's godfather and I was his best man.

[Eagle43]

I took it at 62, since my father passed at 67 and never got 36 checks. I've received 12 years of SS checks. I just looked at my R M D and the IRS projects me for 22.4 more years, IIRC. I hope they're right.