Is SS more than you expected?

[Mdlerth]

Sorry to keep you hanging for two days

What is WEP, please?

"Windfall Elimination Provision". It will reduce your SS benefit by a lot if it applies to you, but it won't apply to you if most of your lifetime earnings were subject to SS withholding.


https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/wep-chart.html#h0

 

[athena53]

Taking SS at 62, when you MIGHT actually enjoy it, or taking it at 70.5 and beyond, because by then, all you do is this?

I sure hope that's not my life at age 70- I'm only 4 years away! Between when DH turned 70 and when he died at 78, we took 2 major trips a year- Paris, Alaska (twice), Iceland, Croatia (including kayaking around the city walls), Scotland and a few other European cities. Because I was 15 years younger he had to skip some of the more rigorous expeditions, and enjoyed relaxing in the room after a day of sightseeing while I went off in search of more exercise, but he lived life to the fullest. I'm hoping I have many more miles left on my body!

 

[Spanky]

I sure hope that's not my life at age 70- I'm only 4 years away! Between when DH turned 70 and when he died at 78, we took 2 major trips a year- Paris, Alaska (twice), Iceland, Croatia (including kayaking around the city walls), Scotland and a few other European cities. Because I was 15 years younger he had to skip some of the more rigorous expeditions, and enjoyed relaxing in the room after a day of sightseeing while I went off in search of more exercise, but he lived life to the fullest. I'm hoping I have many more miles left on my body!

Sorry about your DH's passing. When did he claim his SS benefits? I guess claiming it at age 70 was more beneficial for surviving spouse.

 

[RunningBum]

Agreed that it's dependent on many factors. The break even point (FRA vs 70) is about 83, which is the average longevity of male. Apparently, most people on this forum think that they will exceed the average by a wide margin. Let's hope that they are right.

No, that's another fallacy. People don't necessarily think they will live older, they just are insuring in case they do. I have fire insurance on my house in case of a fire, not because I think I will have one.

Or put another way, I think there's a reasonable chance I'll outlive the average.

 

[Cut-Throat]

Agreed that it's dependent on many factors. The break even point (FRA vs 70) is about 83, which is the average longevity of male. Apparently, most people on this forum think that they will exceed the average by a wide margin. Let's hope that they are right.

How long is your overall retirement plan? Does it go past age 83?

 

[pb4uski]

No, that's another fallacy. People don't necessarily think they will live older, they just are insuring in case they do. I have fire insurance on my house in case of a fire, not because I think I will have one.

Or put another way, I think there's a reasonable chance I'll outlive the average.

Great analogy.

 

[W2R]

No, that's another fallacy. People don't necessarily think they will live older, they just are insuring in case they do. I have fire insurance on my house in case of a fire, not because I think I will have one.

Or put another way, I think there's a reasonable chance I'll outlive the average.

+1

I *think* I will live to around age 85, give or take a year or two. But with longevity in my family, I have insured that I will have income for many years longer than that.

Otherwise, it would be like going to the casino and betting all my money at the roulette wheel, because there is no way to know in advance how long any of us will live. Statistics aren't the whole story.

 

[athena53]

Sorry about your DH's passing. When did he claim his SS benefits? I guess claiming it at age 70 was more beneficial for surviving spouse.

DH claimed at 65; since he was born in 1938 that was his FRA. We'd also moved for my job and he was in B-to-B advertising, not an easy business for a 65-year old to find a new job. We didn't even think about maximizing Survivor benefits; I made the SS max for probably the last 30 years of my career and SS on my own record will be higher when I take it at age 70.

 

[Henry Lili]

If I collect at FRA it will cover just under 70%. My base case go financial plan assumes zero from SS. My best case assumes a 75% hair cut. I'm 52 and FIRED five years ago.

 

[Spanky]

How long is your overall retirement plan? Does it go past age 83?

To age 95 - just to be safe. The probability of reaching that age is quite small as both my grand father and father die in their 70s. If we assumed that we can outlive the average longevity and the government will honor their obligation, claiming SS at age 70 is the way to go. Even if you could live for a long time, could you trust the government to fulfill its promise? It's totally conceivable that the benefits would be cut prior to the projected big cut in 2034. In that case, collecting at 66 (or FRA) may be a better choice. Obviously, we do not know what will happen and can only count on our intuition.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

Way, Way More! We did not expect anything.

 

[Cut-Throat]

To age 95 - just to be safe.

And that is pretty much all you need to know why people delay S.S. to age 70...

 

[Timeisprecious]

Well, I'm 61 now and don't plan to retire until Jan. 31 of next year. However, my current plan is to begin taking SS when I'm 70. Based on my statement and spending estimates, it should cover over 94% of our expenses (including a bit of fun money). Once DW starts drawing a year later, it should exceed our expenses by over 20%.

 

[Wotfan2]

Planning on retiring in four years at the age of 59 1/2 and because of pensions me and the DW will start with about 85% replacement income out the gate. Then DW who's income has always been less than mine will start at 62 which will add about 20% replacement. I will start mine at FRA of 67 which will add an additional 32% replacement. I see not much benefit to waiting three years more for starting mine as the wife's benefit will only increase to mine at FRA if I pass first even if I wait to 70.

 

[joeea]

I see not much benefit to waiting three years more for starting mine as the wife's benefit will only increase to mine at FRA if I pass first even if I wait to 70.

No, that's incorrect.

 

[ckelly78z]

I have practiced "flinty self denial" all of my life to afford to FIRE at 62. I will take SS the first chance I get to help make life exciting. My health dictates that I take advantage of my younger years to see the sights, and enjoy life, rather than waiting until 70 to finally start living. I have no plans of living an active life past 81-83 years old. My pension, and 401K will cover any expenses.

 

[wmc1000]

Waiting until 70 to claim will result in higher payments from then on but IF SS takes a haircut in 2034 my spreadsheet shows that if I die at 75 and DW lives to 95 the cumulative SS totals only increaes by $9000.

If we both make it to 95 the cumulative increases by $53,000 - not enough IMO to wait.

I do agree that it would be significantly more if SS doesn't get a haircut but since it is more than we thought it would be we decided to take it at FRA.

 

[Cut-Throat]

I have practiced "flinty self denial" all of my life to afford to FIRE at 62. I will take SS the first chance I get to help make life exciting. My health dictates that I take advantage of my younger years to see the sights, and enjoy life, rather than waiting until 70 to finally start living. I have no plans of living an active life past 81-83 years old. My pension, and 401K will cover any expenses.

Absolutely ! .... If your assets are not large enough to enjoy life in your 60s, then taking S.S. early is a good move.

 

[joeea]

I will take SS the first chance I get to help make life exciting. My health dictates that I take advantage of my younger years to see the sights, and enjoy life, rather than waiting until 70 to finally start living.

If you can't start living without claiming your SS benefits, then that makes sense.

I have no plans of living an active life past 81-83 years old.

Do you plan to stop living? Or just giving up on being active?

Either way, I find that rather sad.

 

[joeea]

Waiting until 70 to claim will result in higher payments from then on but IF SS takes a haircut in 2034 my spreadsheet shows that if I die at 75 and DW lives to 95 the cumulative SS totals only increaes by $9000.

There's a lot of "IFs" in that particular scenario.

If we both make it to 95 the cumulative increases by $53,000 - not enough IMO to wait.

If you don't care about $53,000, then it likely won't matter what you decide.

I do agree that it would be significantly more if SS doesn't get a haircut but since it is more than we thought it would be we decided to take it at FRA.

I wouldn't bet on a haircut actually happening. But then I wouldn't knowingly throw away $53k either.

 

[Jeffman52]

Today my son and I skied bottomless powder; 110" of fresh new snow after 4 days of storms in the Sierras around Lake Tahoe. I am maxing out my SS to my best advantage.

Love top SKI. Tahoe is one of my fav areas to ski. Were you guys at Heavenly?

7.5 ft of snow last week.Bet the powder was awesome!!!

 

[kite_rider]

Glad to see some other ER.org folks out skiing! What a great winter! One other option is to retire early enough to have the energy to 'earn your turns' - no lift ticket required . Been skiing powder all week and yesterday was fantastic! I'd post a pic if I could figure out where to host it.

Call me a skeptic, but just about every article I've ever read (for at least a decade now) says that the 'trust fund' will be exhausted exactly on the year I'm eligible for regular benefits. Here's one, but it's the same as all the rest;

https://www.aarp.org/retirement/soc...w-much-longer-will-social-security-be-around/

There is a lot of speculation about what will happen then, but I wouldn't be surprised if the benefits were not 'means tested' in some way meaning that those who saved and invested are not going to get much (or even anything). So I guess I'm not expecting much. Can you blame me?

 

[skipro33]

Love top SKI. Tahoe is one of my fav areas to ski. Were you guys at Heavenly?

7.5 ft of snow last week.Bet the powder was awesome!!!

This was at Sierra At Tahoe. I used to work there as an instructor, then Ski Patrol a few years back. My login name here; skipro33 stands for Ski Pro 33. Ski instructors were called ski pros, just like golf instructors are called golf pros. 33 was my locker # at the instructor's locker room.

 

[Wotfan2]

No, that's incorrect.

According to SSA, a widow or widower, at full retirement age or older, generally gets 100 % of the workers basic amount at FRA. This amount would be reduced if taken prior to FRA by either the worker or the spouse. This is a quote straight from the SSA website and all available brochures that I have been able to locate in the past 4 years. I have found no other documents or contradictory statements by SSA that claim otherwise. If you can provide more information than just a statement I would appreciate being able to look at it.

 

[Wotfan2]

Glad to see some other ER.org folks out skiing! What a great winter! One other option is to retire early enough to have the energy to 'earn your turns' - no lift ticket required . Been skiing powder all week and yesterday was fantastic! I'd post a pic if I could figure out where to host it.

Call me a skeptic, but just about every article I've ever read (for at least a decade now) says that the 'trust fund' will be exhausted exactly on the year I'm eligible for regular benefits. Here's one, but it's the same as all the rest;

https://www.aarp.org/retirement/soc...w-much-longer-will-social-security-be-around/

There is a lot of speculation about what will happen then, but I wouldn't be surprised if the benefits were not 'means tested' in some way meaning that those who saved and invested are not going to get much (or even anything). So I guess I'm not expecting much. Can you blame me?

According to my research the trust fund as you call it wont be exhausted, it just means the reserve (or excess) funds will be depleted. There will still be assets available to pay retirees but may be less than currently being distributed. Of course this will depend upon someone in the legislature actually doing the right thing and making the hard decisions in the next few years to fix it.