I finally made my SS decision.

[Bestwifeever]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by braumeister 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunningBum 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunningBum 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by braumeister I think you're both right. Just two ways of looking at the same set of numbers. Hardly worth arguing over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunningBum 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fritz 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...

[marko]

Hi folks. Marko here
Hey I didn't mean to set off a big discussion over what I intended to be an idle observation .

In no way did I mean to imply that my view was to be a consideration on when to take SS and I thought I clearly said so in one of my posts

Maybe I'm misinformed, misguided or just plain stupid (I've been all three many times before) but all I know is that for the first three years of taking SS before age 65 , my monthly benefit was $225 higher than it is now. But I'm apparently missing something....again, not the first time.

So, sorry if I took the thread off track. No harm was intended

[fritz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunset 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...

Retired and paid for (much cheaper) healthcare policies before ACA was available, and also while on ACA. SS is used for everyday expenses (still manipulating income for ACA subsidy).

[RunningBum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marko Hi folks. Marko here Hey I didn't mean to set off a big discussion over what I intended to be an idle observation . In no way did I mean to imply that my view was to be a consideration on when to take SS and I thought I clearly said so in one of my posts Maybe I'm misinformed, misguided or just plain stupid (I've been all three many times before) but all I know is that for the first three years of taking SS before age 65 , my monthly benefit was $225 higher than it is now. But I'm apparently missing something....again, not the first time. So, sorry if I took the thread off track. No harm was intended

You clearly claimed at least twice that it was an advantage of taking SS at 62, which, if true, sure as heck does sound like it would be something to consider when taking SS. That's what I took issue with.

No worries, I'm done with this. Others can do what they want with the information.

[marko]

Quote:

Originally Posted by RunningBum You clearly claimed at least twice that it was an advantage of taking SS at 62, which, if true, sure as heck does sound like it would be something to consider when taking SS. That's what I took issue with. No worries, I'm done with this. Others can do what they want with the information.

I'll certainly be more careful in the future .

[Horseback]

Hi, I am going to get my SS at 70 next month. That increases my tax because my RMD is also due now. Can I transfer my SS benefits as assets to my adult child and not pay tax on it?

[Sunset]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horseback Hi, I am going to get my SS at 70 next month. That increases my tax because my RMD is also due now. Can I transfer my SS benefits as assets to my adult child and not pay tax on it?

When you get it, did you specify you want it to start at age 70, or did they push you to take the 6 month cash bonus (effectively getting it at 69.5) ?

As for the transfer question, I don't think so... otherwise transfer it to your grandchildren and they can pay zero tax ? See the problem with that ?

[joeea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mathjak107 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 .

"biggest bang for the buck" isn't a reason?

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horseback Hi, I am going to get my SS at 70 next month. That increases my tax because my RMD is also due now. Can I transfer my SS benefits as assets to my adult child and not pay tax on it?

Nope.

[sjwil1]

Question for those knowledgeable about SS. I am 8 years older than my wife and she won't have enough credits for her own SS. What would be my best strategy? I believe I ran a calculation once that told me to delay mine till 70 and she would get half of mine at age 62, does that sound right? Any info on this is helpful, thanks.

[pb4uski]

She will get SS based on her work record plus the excess of 1/2 of your SS at your FRA over her SS at her FRA. If she takes at 62 the part based on her work record will be discounted because she is taking SS before her FRA.

Check out SS Analyze.