Need help convincing Sugar Mama

[f35phixer]

To not have me take my SS at 62....

Pensions:
Sugar Mama = state employee = 7100/month take home = 85,200 COLA adjusted and health care taken out for life, full survivor benefits, reduced don’t have the amount for either pension.

Slug Daddy = federal employee = 1700/month take home= 20,400 Cola adjusted and health care taken out for life, full survivor benefits

Total year = 105600, expenses ~80k / years

Mama and Daddys IRA’s 2.2Mil total, no Roth’s yet, waiting till I retire in Dec 2020 to start Roth conversions, we made to much (MAMA made to much ;-)

SS 62/66 8 months/70 for Mr. Slug: month 1993/2817/3605, year 23900/33800/43260

So my fidelity roll over dividends for last three years in December is 2017-44.8k, 2018- 51k, 2019-32.5k
Also getting 880/month bond dividends

My TSP (I’m 62 ) I could move over to L Fund income and start a monthly check of XXX > 23900 as an example

I could take the dividends from fidelity and move them into our accounts to use as we see fit
.
My thought is either one of these is better than taking the SS at 62 which she wants me to do.

Thoughts please

 

[calmloki]

I recognized some of those words, but have no idea what

"SS 62/66 8 months/70 for Mr. Slug: month 1993/2817/3605, year 23900/33800/43260"

means. That probably just means I'm no help. I'm sure some federal/state employee types will sign in who habla your retirement.

 

[pb4uski]

Start out at opensocialsecurity.com

It is a neat tool that calculates not only what your would receive if you are alive to receive it but also, based on mortality tables, the likelihood that you will be alive to receive it. Check the Advanced Options box at the top. I use 2017 Preferred Non-smoker mortality and a real discount rate of ~2%.

But putting aside any adjustments resulting from your pension, it is basically giving up $1,993 a month for $96 months... or $191,328... to receive $19,344 a year, plus COLA adjustments, for life.... ignoring the COLA that is a payback of about 10 years... or from 80 onwards it is all gravy.... the average age is beyond 80.

Some will say... but, you'll have more to spend in years where you can travel and all if you take earlier... but probably not true in your case since you have plenty.

 

[pb4uski]

I recognized some of those words, but have no idea what

"SS 62/66 8 months/70 for Mr. Slug: month 1993/2817/3605, year 23900/33800/43260"

means. That probably just means I'm no help. I'm sure some federal/state employee types will sign in who habla your retirement.

I think all that he is saying is that he expects to receive $1,993/month if he claims at 62, $2,817 per month if he claims at age 66 and 8 months and $3,605 if he claims at age 70.

The other amounts are just annual amounts (rounded).

 

[RetiredAtThirty-eight]

Given your situation, it probably doesn't matter much either way. Without knowing how long you will each live it's impossible to calculate anyway.

I say, flip a coin. Seriously.

 

[jazz4cash]

L Fund Income is a GREAT fund. A sleeper. Everyone is obsessed with the G fund but L income is much better IMO. You never really stated why you don't want to start SS at 62. Looks like you don't need it. It might be counter productive to your plan to do roth conversions.

 

[pb4uski]

Yes... for evey $1 you receive in SS it will be 85c of low cost Roth conversions that you cant's do.

DW keeps wanting to take her SS and that is the reason that I use to convince her to hold out until her FRA.... she'll be capped at half of my PIA at her FRA since she was a SAHM so there is no use to her deferring beyond her FRA... but I will miss that extra headroom for low cost Roth conversions.

 

[statsman]

I gotta stop visiting these threads. Seems to be a common theme in recent months. DW and I have a solid retirement set up, but the numbers being tossed out these days makes me wonder.

Congrats. I doubt you will suffer financially regardless of what you decide on SS.

 

[compounder]

I gotta stop visiting these threads. Seems to be a common theme in recent months. DW and I have a solid retirement set up, but the numbers being tossed out these days makes me wonder.

I concur.

 

[Murf2]

I concur.

I concur completely.

Murf

 

[target2019]

In concurrence with those who contributed.

 

[Amethyst]

Do you mean the numbers are higher than you'd expect, or lower?

I gotta stop visiting these threads. Seems to be a common theme in recent months. DW and I have a solid retirement set up, but the numbers being tossed out these days makes me wonder.

.

 

[statsman]

Do you mean the numbers are higher than you'd expect, or lower?

Higher than ours. By a significant amount. And a lot of the new postings are in that stratosphere.

 

[f35phixer]

Start out at opensocialsecurity.com

It is a neat tool that calculates not only what your would receive if you are alive to receive it but also, based on mortality tables, the likelihood that you will be alive to receive it. Check the Advanced Options box at the top. I use 2017 Preferred Non-smoker mortality and a real discount rate of ~2%.

But putting aside any adjustments resulting from your pension, it is basically giving up $1,993 a month for $96 months... or $191,328... to receive $19,344 a year, plus COLA adjustments, for life.... ignoring the COLA that is a payback of about 10 years... or from 80 onwards it is all gravy.... the average age is beyond 80.

Some will say... but, you'll have more to spend in years where you can travel and all if you take earlier... but probably not true in your case since you have plenty.

Just got latest SS forecast for Daddy monthly 1993/2817/3605.

using default has daddy taking at 67 9 Mama at 70 for total of 1.3 Mil
Put in your advanced options has Mama taking at 62 1 and daddy at 70 for a total of 930K ??

And i am a non smoker, healthy except high cholesterol. mom died from aneurysm, but dad is 87 and still breaks his age playing golf and being active,,,

what am i missing PB??

 

[jber1907]

Compromise and take at 64 and invest it aggressively to get more than the 8% return. Money now is better than maybe getting money later.

 

[rothlev]

Do you mean the numbers are higher than you'd expect, or lower?

seriously, you cannot tell that these numbers are astronomically high for some of us that live in the real world.

 

[racy]

Just got latest SS forecast for Daddy monthly 1993/2817/3605.

using default has daddy taking at 67 9 Mama at 70 for total of 1.3 Mil
Put in your advanced options has Mama taking at 62 1 and daddy at 70 for a total of 930K ??

And i am a non smoker, healthy except high cholesterol. mom died from aneurysm, but dad is 87 and still breaks his age playing golf and being active,,,

what am i missing PB??

Under the advanced option, one can also test various death ages. If you have longevity in your family it might be worth checking out.

 

[Time2]

Do you mean the numbers are higher than you'd expect, or lower?

Median US income is ~$60k, if I add his numbers correctly (very coded) I get ~$250k. His SS Question is what they call a "first world problem".

 

[ERD50]

I gotta stop visiting these threads. Seems to be a common theme in recent months. DW and I have a solid retirement set up, but the numbers being tossed out these days makes me wonder.

Congrats. I doubt you will suffer financially regardless of what you decide on SS.

I concur.

I concur completely.

Murf

Higher than ours. By a significant amount. And a lot of the new postings are in that stratosphere.

seriously, you cannot tell that these numbers are astronomically high for some of us that live in the real world.

So?

As long as your expenses are in line with your projected income, you can retire. What difference does it make if someone else has more than you? Hint: someone else will always have more than you!

A high percentage of the people world-wide could be saying the same about you!

-ERD50

 

[eytonxav]

Seems straight forward to me. If you don't need the money, let it ride and keep increasing until 70, or maybe a little sooner if the money is somehow needed earlier.

 

[smalltownguy1]

Delay one tax year and run the numbers for Roth conversion.
Then run the numbers for delaying 2 years and run the conversion again.

 

[Perryinva]

In situations like this, there is insufficient information because no one should base their decision entirely on the math, unless they have no choice. Since then they have no choice, the math is all there is. How old is SM? Will she get SS or is she WEP? How important is leaving the largest amount to heirs or charities or supporting elder parents or sluggo kids or disabled kids etc, etc? What is her reason to have you start @62 vs your reason to delay?

Its been said a thousand times here, there is no right or wrong answer. Just valid or not valid reasons. But personally, I agree with you based on what you have written. We have no need or desire to maintain maximum portfolio at all times. I saved it, to use it, not leave it to someone. Using it means spending some when the time is right. To me, the time is right. I plan on spending from that until I decide I want to claim DW made her choice to claim at 62. I cannot claim until next year at 63, made too much this year on severance. That would be $30k/yr @63. We have pensions as well that pay all the bills, so the long term safe thing for us, since mine is way more than double hers, is to max it in case I croak first for her, but live off my portfolio as if I already was drawing the max. Spending an added $200k over 5-6 years isn’t going to affect using the “wealth” one bit and has the benefit of better Roth conversion and possible long term insurance.

I also couldn’t tell whether the poster meant too high or too low. I really don’t care, but reading here about others investing often makes me think I must have been clueless to only be in the 5% club, regardless of how that measures in the US or world wide. Seems like if you don’t have at least $5M, you are small potatoes. Not pointing at anyone or any posts, just the matter of fact wealth numbers here. Similarly, if you cross post to C-D retirement forum, if you have $1M, you are an evil capitalist. So it’s all relative.

 

[Out-to-Lunch]

Just got latest SS forecast for Daddy monthly 1993/2817/3605.

using default has daddy taking at 67 9 Mama at 70 for total of 1.3 Mil
Put in your advanced options has Mama taking at 62 1 and daddy at 70 for a total of 930K ??

And i am a non smoker, healthy except high cholesterol. mom died from aneurysm, but dad is 87 and still breaks his age playing golf and being active,,,

what am i missing PB??

I am guessing that the big difference in $ value was from changing the discount rate.

To make comparisons, you should really change one variable at a time. I would suggest keeping the discount rate the same, and only changing between the default mortality table and whatever mortality table is closest to your real situation. (Sounds like 2017 Preferred Non-smoker mortality is appropriate for you.)

 

[jollystomper]

So?

As long as your expenses are in line with your projected income, you can retire. What difference does it make if someone else has more than you? Hint: someone else will always have more than you!

A high percentage of the people world-wide could be saying the same about you!

-ERD50

Agree, with one difference: A high percentage of the people world-wide are saying the same about you!

 

[pb4uski]

Just got latest SS forecast for Daddy monthly 1993/2817/3605.

using default has daddy taking at 67 9 Mama at 70 for total of 1.3 Mil
Put in your advanced options has Mama taking at 62 1 and daddy at 70 for a total of 930K ??

And i am a non smoker, healthy except high cholesterol. mom died from aneurysm, but dad is 87 and still breaks his age playing golf and being active,,,

what am i missing PB??

Hard to tell... what inputs and selections did you use in the Advanced Options? Especially for discount rate and mortality.