when to get social security

That would be it. The values would be 20,000 & 26,666 and 35,200.
 
rayvt said:
That would be it. The values would be 20,000 & 26,666 and 35,200.
Click to expand...

YOU CAN QUIBBLE about the exact numbers, meaning that I didn't give the exact number, but the quotes that I got from the SS administration are what I used. The SS admin uses lots of acrynyms to confuse people so that they have no idea what's going on. The paper I get from them stated what I would get if I took it at 62, and what I would get if I waited until I was 70. I based the calculations on those numbers. It is what it is. I'm no apologist for the SS administration.
 
Quibble? Not my intention.

SSA is pretty clear on this, IMHO. They give the exact formula, and for convenience the results of that formula at the age extremes.

When base amount is age 66 (NRA or FRA).
At age 62 is 25% less.
At age 70 is 32% more.
 
rayvt said:
Quibble? Not my intention.

SSA is pretty clear on this, IMHO. They give the exact formula, and for convenience the results of that formula at the age extremes.

When base amount is age 66 (NRA or FRA).
At age 62 is 25% less.
At age 70 is 32% more.
Click to expand...

Whatever you say.
 
rescueme said:
I'm going to direct you to ask the same question of "sscritic" on the BH forum:

Bogleheads :: Index

H/she is the recognized expert on all questions as related to SS and usually supplies your question with a detail answer, breaking down year by year, dollar by dollar and is very detailed in the analysis.

Rather than give you my opinion, I would rather you get the answer from a known "expert" on the subject...
Click to expand...

Could you be a little more specific as to the post that has this information. Its a huge website and even searching for sscritic leads to a huge number of posts.
 
I think the best advice I've seen about SS is to take it when you need it. Based on actuarial tables, it should all work out about the same for the "average" person.

If you don't need it, then you have the luxury of "running the numbers" to see if there is some potential "edge" you can get, based on your own circumstances (family longevity vs. current illness, spousal benefits, taxes, etc. etc.).

I often give thanks that we've set up our finances in such a way that I can delay taking my SS. My main reason in doing so is to "lower" my income as I convert traditional IRAs/401(k) to Roth IRAs. By doing this, my intent is to "smooth" out my taxable income over my life time. Only time will tell if this was a good plan or not. My secondary reason is an "insurance" policy for DW. The longer I wait to take SS, the larger her survivor benefits will be. We intentionally structured my pension to provide more current income at the cost of lower survivor benefits. The delayed SS hedges that bet.

If circumstances change, my plan can change. I try to review our situation on a yearly basis. Full disclosure: DW started her SS at 62 just to "hedge" our bets that we would ever receive SS.:whistle:
 
HsiaoChu said:
Could you be a little more specific as to the post that has this information. Its a huge website and even searching for sscritic leads to a huge number of posts.
Click to expand...

Just post your question rather than digging around for something close. S/he really is very good at providing a detailed response with citations.
 
I started taking mine at 63. Since I draw a federal pension the amount of SS I can draw is limited by "Windfall Profits Elimination" rules. I have it set up to go to a savings account that I can use for play money.
 
Sigh............same typical innumeracy as all these articles.

Ignore the time value of money, ignore inflation, consider a dollar now to be the same value as a dollar 8 years away.

Get breathlessly excited at discovering that you can get ten dimes for merely one dollar!!!!!

Ignore the clear words of the SSA: "SS benefit payments at any age between 62 and 70 are actuarially equal. At 62 you collect for more years therefore smaller payment, at 70 you collect for fewer years therefore larger payments. The total lifetime benefits are the same no matter when you start."
 
rayvt said:
Ignore the clear words of the SSA: "SS benefit payments at any age between 62 and 70 are actuarially equal. At 62 you collect for more years therefore smaller payment, at 70 you collect for fewer years therefore larger payments. The total lifetime benefits are the same no matter when you start."
Click to expand...
Assuming you're talking about single-life SS benefits, true. When talking about other combinations, it may not be.
 
Has anyone looked at taking SSN at 62, saving it...with the express intent of paying it back at age 67 to get the higher monthly benefit? That way if we don't make it to 67, we have at least been paid something and if we do live to 67, we can use it to "buy" ourselves a greater benefit. Of course this only works if a person doesn't actually need it to live on at age 62. Don't know a lot about how this "piece" of it works or if it is a dollar for dollar pay back.
 
I'm sure some will ask "why would you do that"? In reference to my post above. But when one thinks about it: ...who else can you give about $100K (20K X5 years of SSN payments from age 62 to 67)...to (meaning you pay back everything you received since age 62) ....and get an almost $2,000 a month (or better) income stream for life? Better than any annuity I have looked at the last 4 years. To get that with current annuities you'd have to give the annuity company close to $500,000 since most allow you only a 4% to 5% withdrawal (without huge penalties!). Just a thought.
 
Sheesh, the take it at 62, save/invest it and pay it back (usually at 70, not 67) is one of many SS options written about at length, both on this forum and elsewhere. A Google search should pull up dozens of links.
 
sheehs1 said:
Has anyone looked at taking SSN at 62, saving it...with the express intent of paying it back at age 67 to get the higher monthly benefit? That way if we don't make it to 67, we have at least been paid something and if we do live to 67, we can use it to "buy" ourselves a greater benefit. Of course this only works if a person doesn't actually need it to live on at age 62. Don't know a lot about how this "piece" of it works or if it is a dollar for dollar pay back.
Click to expand...

Odd that you ask that. In fact, here's my spreadsheet, which you can plug your own numbers & assumptions into.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlyWRtMroxvgdDI2MlY0UDR4WFRQRFE0Tkw0d19pTnc&hl=en
 
sheehs1 said:
I'm sure some will ask "why would you do that"? In reference to my post above. But when one thinks about it: ...who else can you give about $100K (20K X5 years of SSN payments from age 62 to 67)...to (meaning you pay back everything you received since age 62) ....and get an almost $2,000 a month (or better) income stream for life? Better than any annuity I have looked at the last 4 years.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, yes. As long somebody is a match for the conditions it's a good deal.
IF you saved all the SS payments you've received since age 62, and
IF you didn't have any significant amount of W-2 wage income after 62, and
IF you want to buy a SPIA between ages 67 and 70, and
IF you want the SPIA income to be a specific amount that the SSA will determine (not more, no less----that exact amount), and
IF you want your spouse to get 50% payments after you die (you can't pick any other beneficiary and you can't make it a single-life annuity with higher benefits).

THEN it's a good deal.

Problem as I see it ----- this describes an infinitesimal number of people.

Also, it's a person who could retire at 62, and didn't need the SS money at age 62, so they were able to save it all. But this pretty much describes somebody who is financially independent & financially astute. But if they didn't need the monthly SS checks at 62, they probably also don't need the SS checks (albeit larger) at age 67. So why would they find it desirable to do this?
 
Thanks REWahoo and rayvt....I am 55.... so am a few years away from having to make the decision.
To answer your question rayvt :
Also, it's a person who could retire at 62, and didn't need the SS money at age 62, so they were able to save it all. But this pretty much describes somebody who is financially independent & financially astute. But if they didn't need the monthly SS checks at 62, they probably also don't need the SS checks (albeit larger) at age 67. So why would they find it desirable to do this?

Perhaps someone who may not need the social security payments to pay bills but wants to "get into the system" before they make changes for "new" people entering the system....recognizing they can change anything they want to change. Perhaps also one that may be able to live off K1 income (not W2 earned income) from a family business but would like to save the SSN to buy herself a bigger monthly benefit in the event the K1 income doesn't continue - some protection against this I suppose. ...Using it to help pay medical bills instead of money it took so long to save, possibly leaving children some money....as it looks like they will need it. There are a multitude of reasons for someone possibly planning to or wanting to perhaps think about doing it this way...
I suppose it would be a year by year thing...depending on which factors come into play.
Question: If a person is able to do it...would it be a smart thing to do?
Thank you for the link...I have plugges in my numbers and printed it out! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
Spousal Benefits Social Security ?
2 3
Replies
63
Views
4K
Gumby
Gumby
J
  • Locked
Another analysis: Why Early Social Security Provides the Greatest Spousal Benefit
4 5 6
Replies
127
Views
7K
Dtail
D
G
Future Opt Out Lump Sum tax checkbox
Replies
2
Views
303
pb4uski
pb4uski
J
Easy Social Security question
Replies
8
Views
1K
Sunset
Sunset
G
Early Retirement SS Benefits Reduction due to Income earned questions.
Replies
8
Views
869
glasswave
G

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom