Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 09-23-2017, 04:50 PM   #21
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
gayl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Diablo Valley (SF Bay Area)
Posts: 2,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunset View Post
You don't actually take 1/2 your ex's, as satisfying as that might sound
yeah .... meant half of what he's getting. It does make up for all those years of no child support though.
gayl is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 09-23-2017, 05:03 PM   #22
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Sunset's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Spending the Kids Inheritance and living in Chicago
Posts: 12,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by gayl View Post
yeah .... meant half of what he's getting. It does make up for all those years of no child support though.
Unlike in Canada,

I have a friend that is divorced and she can apply for sharing his CPP credits, so there, she actually ends up taking some of his Pension away from him and it goes to her.
Sunset is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2017, 05:03 PM   #23
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,803
I'm more concerned right now about the MAGI calculation that determines how much I'm going to have to pay in premium. I have a year to sort that out but I'm curious if there is anything I can do to mitigate the impact.
Another Reader is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2017, 05:23 PM   #24
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 11,383
No, you're getting the same SS benefit. You now have a new Medicare expense.
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2017, 06:20 PM   #25
Moderator
rodi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Diego
Posts: 12,280
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko View Post
They are related to me! I used to get $X for three full years before I turned 65. Now I get $X minus my Part B payment. I'm getting less money.
If I waited for SS till 65 I'd never have pocketed that difference.
But I'm still drinking right now so I'm open to other perspectives!!!
Um... not really. Presumably you were paying for medical insurance somewhere somehow prior to 65.

DH turned 65 this year and has been collecting since 62. Yes - his SS check went down because of the medicare part b deduction.... But we are no longer paying as much for insurance. (His part B, part D, and part F+ combined are much less than the HDHP HMO we were paying prior to medicare.)
__________________
Retired June 2014. No longer an enginerd - now I'm just a nerd.
micro pensions 6%, rental income 20%
rodi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2017, 07:55 PM   #26
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sarasota, FL & Vermont
Posts: 30,158
+1 Look at the net impact of SS and health insurance costs and I suspect that you will find that you have come out ahead once Medicare kicked in even though you monthly SS deposit was lower, your health insurance costs were alos lower..
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2017, 09:44 PM   #27
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Kerrville,Tx
Posts: 3,327
Quote:
Originally Posted by rodi View Post
Um... not really. Presumably you were paying for medical insurance somewhere somehow prior to 65.

DH turned 65 this year and has been collecting since 62. Yes - his SS check went down because of the medicare part b deduction.... But we are no longer paying as much for insurance. (His part B, part D, and part F+ combined are much less than the HDHP HMO we were paying prior to medicare.)
Even with the IRMA adjustments Medicare cost less than the before 65 policy (megacorp retiree). Then the megacorp changed from having their own policy, to a private exchange for Medigap and Part D and the like and set it up to provide the amount of subsidy directly to you, even without this the Medigap+Part D+ dental was somewhat less than the old company medigap+drug plan. If you are below 85k/160 (single and MFJ) I suspect you will pay a good bit less than before 65 since the hospital part is what was paid for the medicare tax all those years.
meierlde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2017, 04:58 AM   #28
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
+1 Look at the net impact of SS and health insurance costs and I suspect that you will find that you have come out ahead once Medicare kicked in even though you monthly SS deposit was lower, your health insurance costs were alos lower..
Well, again, I had zero HC costs before I turned 65 (I did, but DW's ex-employer was paying).

I fully appreciate your point.

My point was that there is a small advantage in taking SS at 62 as you get three years at a higher rate before Medicare begins to reduce your monthly payment. In my case it was about $7K in the bank for those three years. If I had had to pay for my HC that extra $20K per year would've helped nicely on that.

Then there are the old dead horse arguments about taking it at 62 (tax advantages, not drawing from your portfolio etc) but no need to go there.
__________________
Living well is the best revenge!
Retired @ 52 in 2005
marko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2017, 06:35 AM   #29
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 11,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko View Post
My point was that there is a small advantage in taking SS at 62 as you get three years at a higher rate before Medicare begins to reduce your monthly payment. In my case it was about $7K in the bank for those three years. If I had had to pay for my HC that extra $20K per year would've helped nicely on that.
Your point is incorrect. If you got a govt pension that started at 65 and it happened to be added to your SS check, would you say that taking SS at 62 is bad because you get so much less from 62 to 65?
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2017, 06:57 AM   #30
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,466
i just filed this month for mine at age 65 .

i do some consulting work part time so i made to much to file earlier .but starting january i can earn up to 45k and give nothing back since there are special rules for the year you will be fra .
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2017, 08:24 AM   #31
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sarasota, FL & Vermont
Posts: 30,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko View Post
Well, again, I had zero HC costs before I turned 65 (I did, but DW's ex-employer was paying).

I fully appreciate your point.

My point was that there is a small advantage in taking SS at 62 as you get three years at a higher rate before Medicare begins to reduce your monthly payment. In my case it was about $7K in the bank for those three years. If I had had to pay for my HC that extra $20K per year would've helped nicely on that.

Then there are the old dead horse arguments about taking it at 62 (tax advantages, not drawing from your portfolio etc) but no need to go there.
Your numbers make no sense.

Where you say that you get 3 years at a higher rate I presume that you are saying that you get 3 years, 63-65, where your SS is not reduced for Medicare Part B premiums of $134/month in 2017 (but were $104.90/month in 2016 and 2015)... so at best, you didn't have $4,125 taken out over the 3 years.... where does $7k come from?

Once you turn 65, you'll have to pay Part B premiums whether you are collecting SS or not so I don't see where collecting early has any benefit there since even if you start at 62 when you turn 65 you start paying the standard Medicare Part B rate.... you are not protected from Medicare Part B increases in excess of the SS benefit COLA until you are on Medicare.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2017, 09:38 AM   #32
Recycles dryer sheets
ducky911's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunset View Post
OP - is that what the Maximize My SS program said to do ?
If not why did you differ ?
Max My ss...well it maters how you input ie age you will die, tax laws changing...ect

Base on my guess input they recommend to wait until 70...but looking at the details it was a close decision so I went the fun route.
__________________
You've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?
Retired July '11 investments 60/40 in very low cost index and mutual funds, balance once a year at best.
ducky911 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2017, 10:02 AM   #33
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunningBum View Post
Your point is incorrect. If you got a govt pension that started at 65 and it happened to be added to your SS check, would you say that taking SS at 62 is bad because you get so much less from 62 to 65?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
Your numbers make no sense.

Where you say that you get 3 years at a higher rate I presume that you are saying that you get 3 years, 63-65, where your SS is not reduced for Medicare Part B premiums of $134/month in 2017 (but were $104.90/month in 2016 and 2015)... so at best, you didn't have $4,125 taken out over the 3 years.... where does $7k come from?

Once you turn 65, you'll have to pay Part B premiums whether you are collecting SS or not so I don't see where collecting early has any benefit there since even if you start at 62 when you turn 65 you start paying the standard Medicare Part B rate.... you are not protected from Medicare Part B increases in excess of the SS benefit COLA until you are on Medicare.
Maybe I'm making too fine a point on this.
I took SS at 62 but this had nothing to do with it. Instead I just found it an interesting perspective.

Yes, my $4K was for typical beneficiaries at $134/mo. I actually pay $187+ due to my income; that's the $7K (more like $8K at current premiums) $225X36

All I know is that from age 62 to 65 I was getting $X each month. Now, at age 65 I'm getting $X minus about $225 a month ($187 Part B plus Part D). I consider this my "new net" amount. With that, I just view getting that extra $225 for 36 months as a bonus. If I had considered it at the time, I'd have put that extra $225 away each month and normalize my "net" back then.

At the end of the day, I was getting a higher benefit for three years that I wasn't paying Medicare. Not complaining nor is it an item for consideration when determining when to take SS, just a perspective that I recently viewed as an interesting bonus payment. My cost went up, that's all.
__________________
Living well is the best revenge!
Retired @ 52 in 2005
marko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2017, 10:06 AM   #34
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sarasota, FL & Vermont
Posts: 30,158
You obviously don't get it.

If you were not yet receiving SS, how much would you pay for Part B and Part D given your income? My educated guess is that it would be $225/month whether you are receiving SS retirement benefits or not so it isn't really an item to be considered.

There was no "bonus"... whether you were receiving benefits or not you would have paid $0 until Medicare and $225/month once Medicare begins.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2017, 10:08 AM   #35
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,466
exactly . it is irrelevant . i fail to see any logic in this .
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2017, 10:21 AM   #36
Moderator Emeritus
Bestwifeever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 17,762
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko View Post
They are related to me! I used to get $X for three full years before I turned 65. Now I get $X minus my Part B payment. I'm getting less money.
If I waited for SS till 65 I'd never have pocketed that difference.
But I'm still drinking right now so I'm open to other perspectives!!!
This reasoning sounds like people who purposely have too much withheld for taxes and then feel like they got a bonus when they get a tax refund.

But to the OP, DH and I also took SS at our FRA.
__________________
“Would you like an adventure now, or would you like to have your tea first?” J.M. Barrie, Peter Pan
Bestwifeever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2017, 10:24 AM   #37
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,466
or those that are so afraid of investing because things can fall. yet even if they fell 50% ,over time they would still have a higher balance than hiding out in bank cd's .
mathjak107 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2017, 10:37 AM   #38
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sarasota, FL & Vermont
Posts: 30,158
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bestwifeever View Post
..... But to the OP, DH and I also took SS at our FRA.
The various calculators out there suggest that DW start at her FRA and that I wait until I am 70. DW's FRA benefit is about 28% of my FRA benefit because she was a SAHM.

We'll either do that or each start at our FRA (she is 9 months older than I am).
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2017, 10:48 AM   #39
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
gayl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Diablo Valley (SF Bay Area)
Posts: 2,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
or those that are so afraid of investing because things can fall. yet even if they fell 50% ,over time they would still have a higher balance than hiding out in bank cd's .
I have no fear of investing. I do have a fear of not having enough money to live in a luxurious LTC facility should I ever need that. And I am self funding my LTC, as I see no value in paying LTC premiums for service that I may never use. Perhaps OP does not have a defined benefit pension plan with a COLA. Or perhaps it is so low it is irrelevant. We are all different. In my particular situation it makes sense to wait until 70 as do get to half of whatever my ex's SSA grant is at 66. Those not in that donut hole, that would be born after 1954, do have additional questions to go through. And I'm glad to see that you did.
gayl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2017, 10:48 AM   #40
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 2,284
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko View Post
Good for you! One of the smaller overlooked benefits of taking it at 62 is that you get three years of not getting dinged for Medicare B. $134 a month (or more for some of us) extra.
Doesn't that really depend on how you are paying for health insurance now? SS benefits are considered in MAGI so it's could be taking benefits now puts you over the level of MAGI income for subsidy, far more than the $134/mo MedB costs.

And not clear how someone counts that as a benefit as they are going to be paying for insurance coverage somehow before they could draw Medicare. I'd think once on Medicare their health care coverage costs would drop.
bobandsherry is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Another decision to be made... trapperjohn FIRE and Money 3 10-10-2013 10:09 PM
Decision Made brewer12345 Young Dreamers 63 03-10-2013 10:17 AM
What is the best and/or worst financial decision made by.... Trex FIRE Related Public Policy 17 10-16-2011 10:44 AM
since i made the decision to ER ppl are noticing im more relaxed retiringat50 Life after FIRE 34 03-22-2008 06:38 PM
Anyone made this decision? SpaceTraveler FIRE and Money 21 06-04-2005 07:31 PM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:39 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.