If you are not working, why would someone wait until 70 to collect Social Security?

[ivinsfan]

OP are you still there, was this a real life question you had, or I'm just getting the feeling you're like the teacher who posts an essay question just to see what happens?

After all, you do say that you have "time to kill".

[mathjak107]

we can still do restricted application since we are of age .

my wife was collecting since 62 . she just stopped her benefit at her fra and will let it grow to 70 .

when she is 70 i will be 68-10 months . i will file restricted application for 1/2 hers . at 70 i will take my own and since 1/2 mine is more than her full she will get a 4500.00 dollar adder to hers when i file .

that plan came out of the new fidelity in house tool they have for optimizing ss. it is not an on line tool

[scrabbler1]

I am living on my non-retirement assets as I have been for the last 8 years. When I turn ~60, which is 6-7 years from now, I will be able to tap into my "reinforcements," which I define as unfettered access to my IRA, (the first one), my frozen company pension (at 65), and SS (which I can begin using at 62, if I need to).


But my FRA for SS is 67 which is how I have added it to my long-term plan. My financial picture only improves once I begin my 60s, not that it is in any trouble right now. I will also become eligible for Medicare at 65 so my health care costs should decline compared to the ACA plan I have now.


A few things I will review frequently going forward are: (1) my health, as I was diagnosed with diabetes last year, something which may reduce my life expectancy in the long-term. (2) If I happen to need access to a large, lump-sum amount, then only my IRA and current investments could provide that, not SS or the frozen pension. I could see at some point buying out my brother's half of my dad's house when he passes away although my dad is in good health at age 85. Reducing my portfolio this way would put some pressure on me to begin taking SS.

[Greg V]

For me it's not about getting the maximum possible payout. That's something I can't really control, anyway. DW will probably outlive me (she's 4 yrs younger) and waiting until 70 to claim SS maximizes her survivor benefit; income that is COLA'ed and not dependent on investment returns. A secondary reason is longevity insurance...but that's not nearly as important as Reason #1.

Do your own analysis and make your own choice. There's plenty of good ideas in this thread to get you started.

[Joylush]

What is wrong with my thoughts on this?

I won't ever need SS.

I'm thinking it makes more sense to take it early so my own assists can continue to accrue. I can leave them to my heirs. Can't do that with SS that hasn't been taken.

[travelover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joylush ........I won't ever need SS.............

I doubt that I'll need it either, but I don't know for sure. And it would really, really suck to need it and be limited to my partial age 62 payout.

[Joylush]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover I doubt that I'll need it either, but I don't know for sure. And it would really, really suck to need it and be limited to my partial age 62 payout.

You don't know for sure so your concern is certainly valid. I do know for sure. So I don't see how it makes any sense to spend my own assets which can continue to grow and be saved and passed along after death by waiting to take social security benefits which once not taken are lost forever and at the expense of my other assets.

[travelover]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joylush You don't know for sure so your concern is certainly valid. I do know for sure. So I don't see how it makes any sense to spend my own assets which can continue to grow and be saved and passed along after death by waiting to take social security benefits which once not taken are lost forever and at the expense of my other assets.

Great. You have your answer. I have no ability to predict the future, I can only hedge my bets.

[ChrisC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by misanman DW claimed at 62 and I picked up the spousal benefit at 66. Then I switched to my full benefit at 70 and she switched to a spousal benefit on my record. (I realize that this approach is now restricted). We have a substantial TIRA so have been trying to spend it down while delaying SS. I have looked at it as purchasing an annuity at attractive rates. Also wanted to "shift" income to SS because of it's tax advantages. Also doing Roth conversions as we are able. Not sure how well this has worked since TIRA balance has "balooned" and RMDs will still be an issue. I guess at least it's been minimized to some extent. My SS benefit is $3450/mo and DW's is $906. I guess I'm happy with how this worked out but only time will tell if it was the optimal solution.

We'll be doing the same here. With our pensions, we have enough to sustain our lifestyles and will always be, at minimum, in the 25 percent federal tax bracket. Our balances in tIRAs and 401Ks will likely result in tax torpedo land once RMDs start for us in 6 years. Started Roth conversions before we became SS eligible. Once eligible for SS, we've delayed; I'll take my WEP-reduced SS benefits next year at 63, wife will file a restricted application and apply for spousal benefits on my record and then file at 70 for her SS retirement benefits. (Wife got grandfathered under the new SS rules to file a restricted application.) I figure this provides us with an extra space to do the Roth conversions up to the 28 percent bracket. Delaying SS benefits for my wife until she hits 70, who will be the biggest SS retirement recipient in our family with longevity genes running high in her family, makes sense to us.

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joylush You don't know for sure so your concern is certainly valid. I do know for sure. So I don't see how it makes any sense to spend my own assets which can continue to grow and be saved and passed along after death by waiting to take social security benefits which once not taken are lost forever and at the expense of my other assets.

(emphasis mine) Wow, I was once told that the only things that were sure in life were death and taxes. I guess we can amend that to say that the only things that are sure in life are, death, taxes, and Joylush's retirement income. Just teasing and I'm glad you have a retirement income that you feel is absolutely bulletproof.

[Joylush]

Quote:

Originally Posted by travelover Great. You have your answer. I have no ability to predict the future, I can only hedge my bets.

Yes, I do have my answer that I'll never need it. I'm trying to figure out if there is something I'm missing in my thought process. So far I'm not seeing how it makes sense to forgo the SS at the expense of spending my own assets which if not used continue to grow and belong to me/my heirs. Everyone's situation is definitely different.

[RunningBum]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joylush What is wrong with my thoughts on this? I won't ever need SS. I'm thinking it makes more sense to take it early so my own assists can continue to accrue. I can leave them to my heirs. Can't do that with SS that hasn't been taken.

When are you going to die, and how well are your investments going to do?

If you wait until 70 to take SS, from that point on you get a larger SS check and are able to starting leaving more of your assets alone to accrue. Unless you did really well investing the extra assets in the early years, eventually you will make up for the 8 years when you used more of your assets between 62-70, and crossover to having more assets to leave to your heirs by taking the larger SS payment at 70. Put together a spreadsheet for your situation, including your estimated rate of return. That crossover point may come later than you believe you are likely to stay alive, or it could be that you'll invest well enough that you'll never hit a crossover point. There is no absolute right way unless you magically know the answers to my first two questions.

[Joylush]

Quote:

Originally Posted by W2R (emphasis mine) Wow, I was once told that the only things that were sure in life were death and taxes. I guess we can amend that to say that the only things that are sure in life are, death, taxes, and Joylush's retirement income. Just teasing and I'm glad you have a retirement income that you feel is absolutely bulletproof.

I'm very conservative and a master of analyzing doomsday scenarios. So I guess you can say I've reached a comfort level that gives me enough confidence to make that assertion.

Surely you can envision a scenario where you would feel confident saying the same? It would be interesting to hear what others feel they would have to have net worth-wise and/or in income producing assets at a certain age to feel confident they wouldn't need social security.

I guess you could say I've been technically retired for a couple years already (since 52). Portfolio/assets continue to grow because I don't spend nearly close to what I earn. I don't see that changing. I've done the calculations.

[LARS]

Skimmed thread so perhaps someone else mentioned this: assuming you're receiving an Obamacare subsidy, it is a strong financial incentive to not claim SS until 65 and Medicare as SS will increase income for subsidy purposes (unless I am mistaken).


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

[Sunset]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joylush I'm very conservative and a master of analyzing doomsday scenarios. So I guess you can say I've reached a comfort level that gives me enough confidence to make that assertion. Surely you can envision a scenario where you would feel confident saying the same? It would be interesting to hear what others feel they would have to have net worth-wise and/or in income producing assets at a certain age to feel confident they wouldn't need social security. I guess you could say I've been technically retired for a couple years already (since 52). Portfolio/assets continue to grow because I don't spend nearly close to what I earn. I don't see that changing. I've done the calculations.

If I had 1MM more than I do now, I'd feel fine taking SS early and missing out on the expected extra $$ at the breakeven point.
The 1MM more would be far more than the difference, but to cut it closer would be not as comfortable.

[Sunset]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivinsfan OP are you still there, was this a real life question you had, or I'm just getting the feeling you're like the teacher who posts an essay question just to see what happens? After all, you do say that you have "time to kill".

I wondered the same thing, but perhaps he is out pounding the pavement or checking out apts and is too busy right now.

[Joylush]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sunset If I had 1MM more than I do now, I'd feel fine taking SS early and missing out on the expected extra $$ at the breakeven point. The 1MM more would be far more than the difference, but to cut it closer would be not as comfortable.

Do you mean 1 million more than you have now? Unfortunately it's impossible to know what your comfort level is without knowing what you have now.

You could have 5 million now so 6 million would make you feel safe in taking the SS early. Or you could have 1 million, no debts etc...meaning 2 million would work for you. And of course your age would be a factor too.

I seem to have been mocked a bit at my assertion that I won't need SS but that's not entirely fair without knowing my personal situation.

Thus I was curious to know what might make others confident in feeling the same.

[gerntz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forced to Retire 1) First, I don't trust the government. They may decide to cut benefits for future retired folks who start collecting sometime in the future. Are you absolutely sure that your benefits will be 8% a year higher per year when you finally collect? Maybe they will change the rules. (I think it would be easier for them to cut benefits of people who have not started collecting.)

I don't fully trust the government, but apparently more so than you as I don't think eight more years of trust by waiting till 70, vs. 62, is a significant trust level difference. Also, how old you are to day might impact this trust as someone 55, 58, 60 today might be more likely to not think the government will pay out whereas some 69 feels it will pay them off. JMO. And being married, it benefits the surviving spouse by waiting assuming our level of government trust, while not full, is sufficiently accurate. Note that our decision isn't ONE (person) Waiting, as you propose, but two.

[karen1972]

to me its a simple answer, my family has always lived well beyond the 82 years the SS is calculated on. My great grandma lived to 95... and my father turned 80 this year as is still working and looks and acts like most 60 year olds. Thus its a bet I live until at least 90 and therefore will beat the odds and get more in payout. If my health started to fail, then I would re-consider.

[fritz]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fritz It all depends on what you'd like to do in retirement. Retirement is as individual as fingerprints. Possibly increase your annual spending - betting on a larger SS check to cover it with the 8% increases, etc, etc, etc...... My wife and I both took SS @ 62. We are very fortunate to not require SS in order to retire. Together we pull close to what I'd get at 70 - this will last until one of us passes (think about that).... She worked very little and 1/2 of my SS is larger than hers. This keeps our investment withdrawals to a minimum. Helps us with the ACA subsidies. Paid little to no Federal taxes for 7 years in retirement so far (but don't pull from retirement accounts). The day will come though, and we have a tentative plan. Not pulling on investments allows us to leave them to accumulate for the future (anticipate inflation, unfavorable SS adjustments, and leaving inheritances). Studies (believe Kitches) have shown that if retirement money is left invested conservatively, while pulling SS early (instead of waiting until 70), the breakeven is beyond 85 years of age. I ran the numbers for us, and our stash should grow to where the withdrawal on those extra accumulated funds will outperform the extra SS we'd get (and we'd still have the extra funds that generate it to pass on to our children when we die (unlike SS that goes away when we do). We all think we're gong to live into our 90's, but actuarial statistics don't favor it.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joylush I'm very conservative and a master of analyzing doomsday scenarios. So I guess you can say I've reached a comfort level that gives me enough confidence to make that assertion. Surely you can envision a scenario where you would feel confident saying the same? It would be interesting to hear what others feel they would have to have net worth-wise and/or in income producing assets at a certain age to feel confident they wouldn't need social security. I guess you could say I've been technically retired for a couple years already (since 52). Portfolio/assets continue to grow because I don't spend nearly close to what I earn. I don't see that changing. I've done the calculations.

I've included my earlier post for your review in case you didn't see it. When people have asked me about taking Social Security, I've always said, "If you're confident you won't need it, consider taking it. If you aren't sure, you might want to wait".

I made the reference in my earlier post to taking SS at 62 (both wife and I) as we don't need it to retire. Leaving the equivalent amount of funds to grow in our IRAs should provide more than enough funds to replace the amount of difference between my SS @ 62 and @ 70 (in the 8 year difference).

You can verify this for yourself with an investment calculator (see attached link). Input the amount you're getting monthly for SS, choose your investment growth percentage (I used 7.5% as I average more than this now).

Investment Calculator - daveramsey.com

Then take the difference of your SS at 62 and at 70 and withdraw it from the total figure on the investment calculator - using this calculator.

https://www.calcxml.com/calculators/...-last?skn=#top

This should work successfully single as well a married couples (last 30+ years). As I also stated earlier - retirement is as individual as fingerprints and this isn't considered ideal for everyone.