Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-18-2018, 09:11 AM   #81
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Rianne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Champaign
Posts: 3,455
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rksolid View Post
I didn't read all the responses, but I punched the numbers and have consider taking at 62 no matter if I need it or not. The difference between taking at 62 and 70 is a extra 14k if I live to 82. SS can not be inherited once you died it's over. So why not take at 62 bank or invest the money which will offset the 14K. The money then can be inherited or given to charity. Why let the government keep what you and your employers have paid? There's no guarantee how long one will live.
I like that scenario. If I wait until 70 and die at 71, what have I gained? An entire work life contributing to SS and so little returned. You can calculate $$ all you want but you cannot calculate the time you have left to spend it. Yes, there are statistical data using past survival rates, but like the stock market, there are no guarantees for the future.
__________________
"If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.
Rianne is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 04-18-2018, 09:12 AM   #82
Recycles dryer sheets
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 170
For anyone interested, please review the graph below to visualize the breakeven point for taking SS at 62, 66, and 70..... Also, the two "cross over points" A and B

Whether taking SS at 62 or 66, is considered "actuarially neutral" and you receive the same amount over time up to age 77

Taking it at 67 or 70 is also considered "actuarially neutral" and you will receive the same amount over time until you are 83
Attached Images
File Type: png SSI-BreakEvenGraph.png (95.9 KB, 93 views)
DatumPoint5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2018, 09:18 AM   #83
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 11,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rksolid View Post
I didn't read all the responses, but I punched the numbers and have consider taking at 62 no matter if I need it or not. The difference between taking at 62 and 70 is a extra 14k if I live to 82. SS can not be inherited once you died it's over. So why not take at 62 bank or invest the money which will offset the 14K. The money then can be inherited or given to charity. Why let the government keep what you and your employers have paid? There's no guarantee how long one will live.
If you live past the breakeven, you can have more to spend and/or leave to your heirs/charity. I figure if I die early I'm going to leave plenty behind anyway. It's the potential of outliving my assets that I'm more worried about. No guarantees, but taking SS early only sets up the scenario to leave more behind if you die before the breakeven point.
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2018, 09:21 AM   #84
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
RunningBum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 11,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rianne View Post
I like that scenario. If I wait until 70 and die at 71, what have I gained?
You're dead, so you won't be around to think about it. This goes back to my "really, what happens if" question a few days ago.
RunningBum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2018, 10:16 AM   #85
Full time employment: Posting here.
googily's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 660
I'm planning on splitting the difference--my intent is to take my DH survivor benefit at 60 and then mine at 70. Depending on how much longer I work, taking the survivor benefit at 60 is about the same as my benefit at 69, and there will also be two small pensions.
googily is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2018, 10:22 AM   #86
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Tampa
Posts: 8,561
Potentially the most debated topic here. If the tax laws/deeper means testing happens, that could sway the decision for more of us.
__________________
TGIM
Dtail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2018, 10:23 AM   #87
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sarasota, FL & Vermont
Posts: 30,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by pb4uski View Post
The difference between 65 and FRA/66 is probably about 6.67% or so.... so if FRA benefit is $1,000 a month then a year earlier is probably $933.... so by giving up a year's worth of payments at $11,196 you'll get $804/year of COLAed benefits for the rest of your life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShokWaveRider View Post
The Actual Numbers are: FRA = $2,304pm, 65 = $2,150 the difference is $154pm = $1848pa. So my Break even rate is 14 years. So I will be 79 (if I am lucky) by the time I break even.
So I was pretty close... $2,304/$1,000*$933=$2,150... spot on... and $804/pa/$1,000*$2,304=$1,852 vs $1,848.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2018, 10:29 AM   #88
Dryer sheet aficionado
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: mandan
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rianne View Post
I like that scenario. If I wait until 70 and die at 71, what have I gained? An entire work life contributing to SS and so little returned. You can calculate $$ all you want but you cannot calculate the time you have left to spend it. Yes, there are statistical data using past survival rates, but like the stock market, there are no guarantees for the future.
Data for survival rates take in genetics, a fatal accident either your fault or some else can't be calculated.
Rksolid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2018, 10:30 AM   #89
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sarasota, FL & Vermont
Posts: 30,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunningBum View Post
If you live past the breakeven, you can have more to spend and/or leave to your heirs/charity. I figure if I die early I'm going to leave plenty behind anyway. It's the potential of outliving my assets that I'm more worried about. No guarantees, but taking SS early only sets up the scenario to leave more behind if you die before the breakeven point.
+1 I'm an averages player. Based on our family history, general health and socio-economic state it is quite likely that we will live beyond the BEP than die before the BEP, in fact, far beyond the BEP. Even if we don't, our heirs will inherit a very nice sum. And then there is the entire joint life aspect. I view it as buying a COLAed annuity on installments.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2018, 12:31 PM   #90
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
GravitySucks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Syracuse
Posts: 3,039
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rksolid View Post
I didn't read all the responses, but I punched the numbers and have consider taking at 62 no matter if I need it or not. The difference between taking at 62 and 70 is a extra 14k if I live to 82. SS can not be inherited once you died it's over. So why not take at 62 bank or invest the money which will offset the 14K. The money then can be inherited or given to charity. Why let the government keep what you and your employers have paid? There's no guarantee how long one will live.
Before I knew I may be eligible for survivor benefits I asked my heirs (DD1 & DD2) if they'd rather probably inherit a bit more or possibly have me needing to move into their basement at 80. They both picked inherit less. So I figured I'd wait till 70.
Survivors at 60 makes it moot unless I have a major health issue pop up.
GravitySucks is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2018, 12:34 PM   #91
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sarasota, FL & Vermont
Posts: 30,062
If DM asked me that is what my response would too.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2018, 01:01 PM   #92
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Chicago West Burbs
Posts: 1,940
If you take SS @ 70 and die before the breakeven point, you wont know it.

If you take SS @ 70 and live to 95, you'll be thankful. Having a few extra guaranteed $$ to support the higher costs of life is a good thing IMO.
CRLLS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2018, 01:20 PM   #93
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sarasota, FL & Vermont
Posts: 30,062
Good point. Now that we have that settled.....
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2018, 09:30 PM   #94
Full time employment: Posting here.
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 955
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRLLS View Post
If you take SS @ 70 and live to 95, you'll be thankful. Having a few extra guaranteed $$ to support the higher costs of life is a good thing IMO.
Well, no. Actually that higher SS at 90-95 just means I can go to Monaco for 8 weeks a year instead of merely 7.

What's a few extra $$ going to buy you at 95? A better grade of gruel in the nursing home?

That's not my plan.
The plan is not to just barely get by. The plan is for the SS benefit to be lost in the roundoff.
rayvt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2018, 06:34 AM   #95
Dryer sheet aficionado
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: mandan
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by GravitySucks View Post
Before I knew I may be eligible for survivor benefits I asked my heirs (DD1 & DD2) if they'd rather probably inherit a bit more or possibly have me needing to move into their basement at 80. They both picked inherit less. So I figured I'd wait till 70.
Survivors at 60 makes it moot unless I have a major health issue pop up.
It's not all about inheritance, the difference between 62 and 70 is less than couple hundred a month. If you don't need the money invested it and the difference of 14k will be almost even. Why leave money on the table if you die before 70 all you hard work will be for nothing. If you don't need it before 70 I highly doubt you'll be short of money. Even at minimum your retirement is 12K a year that's 96k in 8 yrs that can be invested, even at bank rate it will be over a 100k. If you wait and collect 15K a years at 70, that's it. I take it at 62 still get 12k a year but have a bonus 100k in the bank to use. You hold out for 300.00 extra a month, if I take out 300.00 a month from my 96k saved it will take me 26.6 yrs without interest to deplete the 96K.
Rksolid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2018, 06:39 AM   #96
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Florida's First Coast
Posts: 4,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rksolid View Post
It's not all about inheritance, the difference between 62 and 70 is less than couple hundred a month. If you don't need the money invested it and the difference of 14k will be almost even. Why leave money on the table if you die before 70 all you hard work will be for nothing. If you don't need it before 70 I highly doubt you'll be short of money. Even at minimum your retirement is 12K a year that's 96k in 8 yrs that can be invested, even at bank rate it will be over a 100k. If you wait and collect 15K a years at 70, that's it. I take it at 62 still get 12k a year but have a bonus 100k in the bank to use. You hold out for 300.00 extra a month, if I take out 300.00 a month from my 96k saved it will take me 26.6 yrs without interest to deplete the 96K.
This depends. in my case the difference was over $1000pm
__________________
"Never Argue With a Fool, Onlookers May Not Be Able To Tell the Difference." - Mark Twain
ShokWaveRider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2018, 06:43 AM   #97
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Tampa
Posts: 8,561
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShokWaveRider View Post
This depends. in my case the difference was over $1000pm
Same here.
__________________
TGIM
Dtail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2018, 07:07 AM   #98
Dryer sheet aficionado
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: mandan
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dtail View Post
Same here.
The math works the same, instead of 96k, you'll have way more. My thing is why leave money on the table. You and your employers paid the government for this benefit. This has been deducted from your checks. For me I will have 44 yrs of investing into SS when I retire @ 60. If you die the government keeps YOUR investment. They key work is that if you don't need it before 70 you've done well and most likely won't run out of money. My difference between $886 from 62-70. If I take at 62 by 70 I will have 187K, at 70 I can draw 2800.00, if I withdraw 886.00 per month it will take 21 years to deplete 187K that puts me at 91yrs old
Rksolid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2018, 07:17 AM   #99
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sarasota, FL & Vermont
Posts: 30,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rksolid View Post
It's not all about inheritance, the difference between 62 and 70 is less than couple hundred a month. ....
That is totally wrong. At 62 you get ~75% of your FRA and at 70 you get ~132% of your FRA, so your benefit at 70 is 176% of your age 62 benefit.

Unless your FRA benefit is only $350/month, the difference is much more than a couple hundred a month. If one's FRA was $1,000/month then the difference would be $570/month.
__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-20-2018, 07:24 AM   #100
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
pb4uski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Sarasota, FL & Vermont
Posts: 30,062
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rksolid View Post
The math works the same, instead of 96k, you'll have way more. My thing is why leave money on the table. You and your employers paid the government for this benefit. This has been deducted from your checks. For me I will have 44 yrs of investing into SS when I retire @ 60. If you die the government keeps YOUR investment. They key work is that if you don't need it before 70 you've done well and most likely won't run out of money. My difference between $886 from 62-70. If I take at 62 by 70 I will have 187K, at 70 I can draw 2800.00, if I withdraw 886.00 per month it will take 21 years to deplete 187K that puts me at 91yrs old
You messed up your numbers somewhere. The break-even point between 62 and 70 is in your early 80s..... the BEP is long before 91.


__________________
If something cannot endure laughter.... it cannot endure.
Patience is the art of concealing your impatience.
Slow and steady wins the race.

Retired Jan 2012 at age 56
pb4uski is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are you starting retirement with a high starting WR? Carpediem FIRE and Money 42 05-15-2017 11:09 AM
Chart of Withdrawal Rate - Success Rate - Yrs Retired Midpack FIRE and Money 28 10-05-2013 11:02 AM
Understanding the relation between Trade Deficits and Budget Deficits kyounge1956 Other topics 20 03-09-2011 11:41 AM
So, do you feel your age? Act your age? Like your age? vickko Life after FIRE 84 04-10-2010 01:47 PM
between 55 and 59 and the 10% early withdrawal penalty albundyz FIRE and Money 23 10-12-2007 06:38 AM

» Quick Links

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:27 PM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.