Poll:When will/did you draw from SSA

[Buck2520]

I am leaning towards 62-64 at this time (56). My wife is eligible for the spousal amount (50% of mine at 66.5). So....the longer I wait the more she will get as well. I don't know how to figure out the difference (of how much she gets) year to year so I will have to sit down and see if I can come up with the numbers at some point.

If she waits for FRA, then she gets half of your amount at FRA. Does not matter when you take your SS as long as you have filed and she is FRA. If you continue to work the only way it affects her spousal amount is if your current wages increases the 35 year average total they use to figure your FRA amount. If she files for benefits before she reaches FRA, it will affect her amount.

from Soc Sec web site

A spouse can choose to retire as early as age 62, but doing so may result in a benefit as little as 32.5 percent of the worker's primary insurance amount. A spousal benefit is reduced 25/36 of one percent for each month before normal retirement age, up to 36 months. If the number of months exceeds 36, then the benefit is further reduced 5/12 of one percent per month.

For a spouse who is not entitled to benefits on his or her own earnings record, this reduction factor is applied to the base spousal benefit, which is 50 percent of the worker's primary insurance amount. For example, if the worker's primary insurance amount is $1,600 and the worker's spouse chooses to begin receiving benefits 36 months before his or her normal retirement age, we first take 50 percent of $1,600 to get an $800 base spousal benefit. Then we compute the reduction factor, which is 36 times 25/36 of one percent, or 25 percent. Applying a 25 percent reduction to the $800 amount gives a spousal benefit of $600. Thus, in this case, the final spousal benefit is 37.5 percent of the primary insurance amount.

 

[Tom52]

Not retired but expect to take SS at 66. If I can RE I have a CD ladder that we support DW & me till age 66 without touching IRA, 401K. There could be the ability to control income/maximize ACA subsidies and do some Roth conversions during the 4 years until I take SS at 66.

 

[MikeTN]

I started at 66. Would have liked to wait longer because at current low interest rates it seems like a good investment. However, my wife claims the spousal benefit and has health issues. Also, I made this decision in early 2009 when the market fell so much I did not want to have to sell any equities.

 

[imoldernu]

Began taking SS in 1998 at age 62, after being retired for 9 years.
... for tax purposes, and because we were doing better @ 7% in CD's.

Probably sounds odd to younger retirees, but back when we retired, we were collecting more than 12% on 1yr. CD's... of course, for a while, mortgage rates were around 14% at the same time. A very different era, but may help explain why many older retirees (80's) are also risk averse.

 

[Lcountz]

I am 57 YO single female, no kids.

Have one sibling (sister) , no kids.

Mom is alive and very well at 92.

Her brother-(my uncle) alive and well at 88. His wife is 85. They still fly all over the US and Europe. and maintain two homes in Michigan and NYC- not stay at home seniors!!!!!

Mom's two cousins on her mother's side died at 88 and 90.

Mom's mom died at 85.

Dad died at 70, but from lung cancer after lifetime of smoking. I don't smoke.


I'm not concerned with leaving a legacy for anyone, have a very nice nest egg I can more than live off til 70, and a pension that covers all my expenses with a LOT left over. Been retired almost a year and still have not tapped my 401K.

I will get an inheritance, but am not counting on it. If it comes, I will be grateful.

I plan to wait for SS til 70, in part to avoid ridiculous RMD's and taxes.

Of course, if things change, so will I!!!!!!

 

[Rustward]

When we "plan" (i.e. FireCalc, RIP, ORP, etc.) we use age 66 (my FRA and DW's FRA+1), but if things continue as they have been for the past several years, we will wait until we each turn 70. It's a little scary thinking about the increase in income from SS and RMD's, but it is not the worst thing that could happen.

 

[rescueme]

I reach FRA in January and will file/suspend at that time. In May, my wife reaches FRA and will claim a 50% spousal claim against me (restricted claim).

Each of us will file against our own records in four years, at age 70.

While I have run the scenarios over the years using various forecast programs which showed this was the best option for us, it was also confirmed as the best way to maximize future SS benefits by running software made available on Monday (Veteran's Day) through the sponsorship of Kiplinger's: Kiplinger - Interstitial and Socal Security Solutions.

The projected break even point for our plan is age 78 (for those who are wondering). Then again, break even points are not that important to us. Our plan is to leave the largest possible estate (value) for our disabled son, along with ensuring we reduce our 70.5 RMD's to the extent we can before we reach that point in our lives.

And if we (either/or) don't live that long? So what; money was made for the living, not the dead. If we on this forum didn't think we would have a decent number of years in retirement I'm sure that we would have not saved/invested and planned as we did (or are) in preparation for the future.

BTW, if I was single I would probably take it at 62. There's no advantage to waiting for a single person. Bring a spouse (and even young childern) into the mix opens up a lot of possibilities that must be explored in order to make the correct decision that meets with your - and their needs.

 

[48Fire]

... and why?

I am only 53, but plan on taking it at 62. I have always been in favor of a quick nickel rather than a slow dime. If it helps supplement some additional traveling or a new vehicle, then that will be icing on the cake. Someone would have a hard time convincing me that the break-even point of 90 years old (?) is worth waiting for, if I make that at all.

 

[Khan]

62.
Because my pension decreased as of 62nd birthday.
I also don't think I'm going to make it to 80.

 

[misanman]

DW and I are the same age. She started at 62. I tagged along with a spousal benefit at 66. Will switch to my full benefit at 70. Figure the monthly increase in SS amount is equivalent to $4,000 in invested capital.

 

[Tandemlovers]

If she waits for FRA, then she gets half of your amount at FRA. Does not matter when you take your SS as long as you have filed and she is FRA. If you continue to work the only way it affects her spousal amount is if your current wages increases the 35 year average total they use to figure your FRA amount. If she files for benefits before she reaches FRA, it will affect her amount. from Soc Sec web site A spouse can choose to retire as early as age 62, but doing so may result in a benefit as little as 32.5 percent of the worker's primary insurance amount. A spousal benefit is reduced 25/36 of one percent for each month before normal retirement age, up to 36 months. If the number of months exceeds 36, then the benefit is further reduced 5/12 of one percent per month. For a spouse who is not entitled to benefits on his or her own earnings record, this reduction factor is applied to the base spousal benefit, which is 50 percent of the worker's primary insurance amount. For example, if the worker's primary insurance amount is $1,600 and the worker's spouse chooses to begin receiving benefits 36 months before his or her normal retirement age, we first take 50 percent of $1,600 to get an $800 base spousal benefit. Then we compute the reduction factor, which is 36 times 25/36 of one percent, or 25 percent. Applying a 25 percent reduction to the $800 amount gives a spousal benefit of $600. Thus, in this case, the final spousal benefit is 37.5 percent of the primary insurance amount.

Thank you for posting this.

My spouse is nine years older than I am, and is planning to collect SS at his full retirement
age of 66, about five years from now. I will be collecting SS on his record.

I have not found an online calculator that is useful in calculating a break even point, presumably
because of the difference in our ages. The T Rowe Price calculator had an error message that
said they were working on including scenarios like ours.

Your quote from The SS website gives me a much better idea of what we can expect.

Thanks again!

 

[LinCella]

Mine won't be large as I worked for a city government for most of my work years that provides a pension and therefore did not pay into SS. So I figure at 62, get the money and have a nice lunch every now and then. It won't be for another 8 years so I'll have to watch my pennies as far as eating at restaurants goes for now.

 

[LinCella]

48Fire - ditto!

 

[Al in Ohio]

I'm 60 and plan on retiring next year when I am 61. I would like to take SS at 66 (FRA), or even later. But I'll probably take it starting at 62.

I expect SS to be means-tested somewhere down the road. And I expect anyone with sufficient assets to contemplate ER - including most of the people on this board - to be adversely affected.

I seriously doubt any means testing would occur without risk of another American Revolution. Its much more likely to be non cola in the future, but closer to 2031 when it turns upside down.

 

[haha]

I seriously doubt any means testing would occur without risk of another American Revolution. Its much more likely to be non cola in the future, but closer to 2031 when it turns upside down.

Well off older Americans are not going to revolt. There has never been a revolution of old folks in the streets. And America has never had and IMO will never have an Army or other right wing coup.

Ha

 

[ziggy29]

It depends on a number of factors for us, mostly depending on how long my wife wants to keep active in ministry, and to some extent, if I choose to work a significant number of hours in the future, how long I choose to do that. If she wants to keep working past 2027 (when I turn 62), I'm sure I'll probably delay taking it. But if she wants to hang it up before 2027, chances are better I'll take it at 62.

Of course, there's no assurance in my case that taking it at 62 will still be an option for me. I suspect it will be, but I might take more of a benefits haircut than currently planned.

 

[Al in Ohio]

Well off older Americans are not going to revolt. There has never been a revolution of old folks in the streets. And America has never had and IMO will never have an Army or other right wing coup.

Ha

I mean a revolution in terms of extreme grass roots political pressure the likes as never before been witnessed.

 

[ziggy29]

Well off older Americans are not going to revolt. There has never been a revolution of old folks in the streets. And America has never had and IMO will never have an Army or other right wing coup.

I don't want this to go off the political rails, but "old people" won't have to revolt, most likely, because most proposed reforms leave current recipients and those above a certain age (usually 55+) unscathed. That said, there could still be stealth "means testing" increases, such as increasing the percentage of SS that is taxable. And since the current law doesn't index that to inflation, there already is a form of "bracket creep" in terms of the percentage of SS being taxed for most folks anyway.

 

[scrabbler1]

I answered 67, my FRA, because that is what I have included in my ER plan. SS is one of my 3 "reinforcements" which await me once I turn ~60 and make my income a lot easier to manage (not that it is very tough now). The other 2 items are unfettered access to my IRA and my frozen company pension. I suppose I will run the numbers more once I turn 60 and begin tapping into the first of them (the IRA).

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Our current plan has us taking it at 62. I don't want to use up our own assets from 62 - 70. I'd rather take the money and run, and have it under our control sooner rather than later. If we wait there is more of a chance that future benefits might be cut or means testing implemented.

However, if we have to pay extra in taxes by going for 62, we might delay. Our plan works at any age from 62 on, so we don't really need to decide until the time comes.

 

[Options]

I don't want this to go off the political rails, but "old people" won't have to revolt, most likely, because most proposed reforms leave current recipients and those above a certain age (usually 55+) unscathed. That said, there could still be stealth "means testing" increases, such as increasing the percentage of SS that is taxable. And since the current law doesn't index that to inflation, there already is a form of "bracket creep" in terms of the percentage of SS being taxed for most folks anyway.

+1

 

[RunningBum]

BTW, if I was single I would probably take it at 62. There's no advantage to waiting for a single person. Bring a spouse (and even young childern) into the mix opens up a lot of possibilities that must be explored in order to make the correct decision that meets with your - and their needs.

Isn't a "no-commission annuity" an advantage? I view waiting the 8 years as insurance against greatly outliving the mean.

 

[bjorn2bwild]

FRA/70 - seems like a logical compromise for us.
When conditions change, I shall change my mind.

 

[calmloki]

62 - my rental income is not taxed by SS - unearned income - neither does it increase our SS monthly check. Result was that I get about enough to feed our cat, or pay my personal health insurance, but not both. SS is supposedly actuarially equal whenever you take it, so since my kin aren't especially long-lived and the future (means testing? alien attack? sharknado?) is unknown I grabbed it ASAP.

 

[meierlde]

I mean a revolution in terms of extreme grass roots political pressure the likes as never before been witnessed.

Actually there was one in the late 1980s a catastrophic medicare plan was proposed Here is a link to a pdf of the details: content.healthaffairs.org/content/9/3/75.full.pdf
It lasted 18 months and was pulled, because it was to be paid for by a tax on medicare recipeints. There was a huge hue and cry over this resulting in the repeal. It should be noted that this was Regan's idea as well.