I finally made my SS decision.

[pb4uski]

+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..

 

[meierlde]

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.

 

[marko]

+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.

 

[RunningBum]

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?

 

[mathjak107]

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 .

 

[pb4uski]

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.

 

[ducky911]

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.

 

[marko]

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?

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.

 

[pb4uski]

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.

 

[mathjak107]

exactly . it is irrelevant . i fail to see any logic in this .

 

[Bestwifeever]

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.

 

[mathjak107]

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 .

 

[pb4uski]

..... 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).

 

[gayl]

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.

 

[bobandsherry]

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.

 

[Bestwifeever]

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).

Ah, that reminds me that although I technically took SS at my FRA, I actually took half of DH's and am letting mine grow til I'm 70--complicated being in this grandfathered age window where we can do this. I worked part time many years when our kids were still at home so did not have high earnings, but my SS will be around $300 a month higher than my spousal amount by 70 vs the $100 a month less at my FRA. Not a big deal. The calculators suggested DH file and suspend til 70 too but he/we didn't want to do that.

 

[mathjak107]

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).

our biggest bang for the buck has always been 70 .but quite frankly i see no reason to wait that long and spend down more assets .

i waited until 65 because i have a little consulting job 1 day a week and i made to much to file early .

65 decreases our dependency on markets a bit and increases our bet on longevity a bit so it was a good balance . i can earn a lot more with no give back in the year i will be fra so 65 was good .

we start to see more than 30k a year in two weeks .

 

[marko]

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.

Yeah. Not the first time I've been told that I don't get it!!!
No worries. I'm sure I'm missing it.

 

[braumeister]

I think you're both right.
Just two ways of looking at the same set of numbers.

Hardly worth arguing over.

 

[RunningBum]

I think you're both right.
Just two ways of looking at the same set of numbers.

Hardly worth arguing over.

Sorry if I'm too argumentative, but this is a place to help with making informed decisions on retirement issues. I don't think it's right to let flawed logic and statements stand. I'd hate to see anyone make a decision based on that. Maybe I shouldn't care what others do. But I also know I can be wrong, so I challenge such statements to see if it can be backed up to show that it's not flawed, to change my way of thinking.

There are many valid reasons for taking SS at 62, but claiming that you get 3 higher years before medicare reduces it is just flat wrong. This is not to argue against taking SS at 62, just to say that this is simply not a valid factor in the "when to take SS" decision.

If you think marko was right that this actually gives an advantage to taking SS at 62, please explain your logic.

 

[GalaxyBoy]

DW filed at age 62 and I couldn’t convince her otherwise. We really don’t need it at this time but she’s convinced her life expectancy isn’t long and we should take it while the getting is good. The first check arrives the third Wednesday of next month and it WILL be nice to have a check coming in, in addition to her small pension (which doesn’t quite cover her health insurance).

 

[mathjak107]

Sorry if I'm too argumentative, but this is a place to help with making informed decisions on retirement issues. I don't think it's right to let flawed logic and statements stand. I'd hate to see anyone make a decision based on that. Maybe I shouldn't care what others do. But I also know I can be wrong, so I challenge such statements to see if it can be backed up to show that it's not flawed, to change my way of thinking.

There are many valid reasons for taking SS at 62, but claiming that you get 3 higher years before medicare reduces it is just flat wrong. This is not to argue against taking SS at 62, just to say that this is simply not a valid factor in the "when to take SS" decision.

If you think marko was right that this actually gives an advantage to taking SS at 62, please explain your logic.

i tend to agree . there is so much in the way of myth ,mis-information and old wives tales that get passed around that i always try to nip anything i am sure of is wrong in the bud .

 

[braumeister]

Sorry if I'm too argumentative, but
...
If you think marko was right that this actually gives an advantage to taking SS at 62, please explain your logic.

No apology needed.

I didn't say marko was right; I said I think you're both right. From your viewpoint you have a firm argument that can't be gainsaid.

From marko's viewpoint, his opinion has merit, based on his assumptions.

All I said was that it's not worth arguing over. Everyone here is intelligent enough to figure it out.

 

[fritz]

I think you're both right.
Just two ways of looking at the same set of numbers.

Hardly worth arguing over.

Sorry if I'm too argumentative, but this is a place to help with making informed decisions on retirement issues. I don't think it's right to let flawed logic and statements stand. I'd hate to see anyone make a decision based on that. Maybe I shouldn't care what others do. But I also know I can be wrong, so I challenge such statements to see if it can be backed up to show that it's not flawed, to change my way of thinking.

There are many valid reasons for taking SS at 62, but claiming that you get 3 higher years before medicare reduces it is just flat wrong. This is not to argue against taking SS at 62, just to say that this is simply not a valid factor in the "when to take SS" decision.

If you think marko was right that this actually gives an advantage to taking SS at 62, please explain your logic.

I agree with braumeister - it's all in the way one looks at it.

Marko's comment of three years without Medicare deductions from 62-65 for those taking SS at 62, is like receiving a larger "net" SS check - when compared to after age 65 when your "net" check is forever reduced by Medicare part "B" (unless you elect to opt out of Medicare part "B").

Both DW and I took SS @62. Didn't count it as part of our retirement planning, and see it as not having to spend down that amount of our investments annually. Went on Medicare last year and DW will early next year. My SS is now forever reduced by Medicare, and DW's will be shortly. Guess you could say we're living Marko's comments.

Yes, Medicare is cheaper than our individual healthcare polices B/4 and while on ACA, which makes it well worth the smaller SS check. Paid individual policies since retiring at 58/57. Nice to have SS payments from 62-65 to offset those policy costs, but would gladly have accepted reduced checks to get on Medicare early...

 

[Sunset]

I agree with braumeister - it's all in the way one looks at it.

Marko's comment of three years without Medicare deductions from 62-65 for those taking SS at 62, is like receiving a larger "net" SS check - when compared to after age 65 when your "net" check is forever reduced by Medicare part "B" (unless you elect to opt out of Medicare part "B").

Both DW and I took SS @62. Didn't count it as part of our retirement planning, and see it as not having to spend down that amount of our investments annually. Went on Medicare last year and DW will early next year. My SS is now forever reduced by Medicare, and DW's will be shortly. Guess you could say we're living Marko's comments.

Yes, Medicare is cheaper than our individual healthcare polices B/4 and while on ACA, which makes it well worth the smaller SS check. Paid individual policies since retiring at 58/57. But don't see what this has to do with Marko's comments. Whether or not it's an advantage is all in how you look at it.

Actually the way I look at it is your SS check got BIGGER.
Had you paid the healthcare polices B/4 and while on ACA from your SS money you put in the bank.

I hope you paid the health care bills the right way...