Poll:When will/did you draw from SSA

[grasshopper]

After a pseudo prostate cancer diagnosis months before my sixty-second birthday, I took my SSA benefits. Now I am thinking a redo, I have a few months to decide.

 

[Which Roger]

I will most likely wait until age 70 and let the larger social security payment serve as longevity insurance.

 

[harley]

Don't foresee needing the money so will just let it ride until age 70.

Nice way to put it. Since I don't need the money I'll be gambling against a horde of gov't actuaries. If DW and I die early, they win. Little Joe from Kokomo, baby needs a new pair of shoes!

 

[robnplunder]

I will most likely wait until age 70 and let the larger social security payment serve as longevity insurance.

One of the best reasons I've seen here ...

 

[Focus]

As for strategizing based on possible means testing, until there's some definite proposal this is too much a guessing game for me. Lot's of things are feared, or even suggested, that turn out not to come to pass. I'll try to worry more about the actual facts and less about the possible strawmen.

I'm with you. I can't help but cringe anytime I hear someone say that those 55 and over are OK, since I'm not in that "safety zone" yet.

For retirement planning purposes, I deduct 25% from my estimated Social Security payment to cover any of the potential negative scenarios. However, I'm not giving up that 25% without a fight.

I'm also planning to wait until 70, for all the reasons given in this timely New York Times article: "The Payoff in Waiting to Collect Social Security."

 

[daylatedollarshort]

We've run our numbers and our retirement plan works no matter which age either one of us takes SS. Taking at 62 keeps the net worth from dipping in the years between 62 - 70, so it evens out how much money the kids would inherit if something happened to us.

Taking SS later has the net worth the lower at 62 - 70, then rises sharply later on.

Realistically, when the time comes to decide, the kids should be out of school and self sufficient, so we will probably just do whatever saves the most on taxes.

 

[marko]

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.

+1. Get in now before they change the rules and/or rates. At least there's a chance we'd be grandfathered.

 

[Dawg52]

+1. Get in now before they change the rules and/or rates. At least there's a chance we'd be grandfathered.

That's the thing, no one really knows what might happen. I'm 59 and have planned on waiting until 65-66 age range. Will probably just see what it all looks like in 3 years.

 

[audreyh1]

+1. Get in now before they change the rules and/or rates. At least there's a chance we'd be grandfathered.

I seriously doubt that those who could be but are waiting to draw SS will be treated differently than those who are already drawing SS.

We don't know what we will do yet. Probably wait. But until DH turns 62, we won't waste any brain power on it.

 

[Danmar]

I seriously doubt that those who could be but are waiting to draw SS will be treated differently than those who are already drawing SS.

We don't know what we will do yet. Probably wait. But until DH turns 62, we won't waste any brain power on it.

Agree. In Canada changes were made to eligibility of Old age security that were based on birth dates. Eg someone born after a certain date was effected.

 

[Bart523]

I took SS at age 66 which is my FRA and I stopped working. My wife took hers at age 65 which is a year before her FRA and she receives spousal benefits on my earnings record. We will be living on SS, our investments and my wife's part-time earnings until she decides to quit her very part-time job which she does at home. Best decision I ever made to quit working at my profession.

 

[tmm99]

67 - because assuming I will live to be 92 yrs old, Firecalc and Fido both said I would be able to have more spending money from the get-go (retirement at either 58 or 60), compared to withdrawing it at age 63

 

[robnplunder]

Perhaps, this post can be sticky'd? I find the responses to be very helpful for others looking for an answer on when to start on SSA.

 

[gabrewer]

Haven't totally made up my mind, but I'm leaning toward sooner rather than later. Driving my logic is that longevity doesn't seem to run in my family. Grandfather died young, at 52; dad made it to 61. My uncle is in his late 70's, which is hopeful for me. Anyway, the actuaries at the Social Security administration are nobody's fools. Despite many things you might read about "breakeven analysis", the fact is that the longer you wait, the closer you are to "riding off into the sunset." SS knows that, and the odds are against you that you'll get a greater amount of money in total by waiting until an older age to take a larger monthly payment.

 

[Alan]

Perhaps, this post can be sticky'd? I find the responses to be very helpful for others looking for an answer on when to start on SSA.

Thanks for the suggestion, and since it is a very popular question that is often asked, we thought it might be better that the question be placed in FAQ Forum, with links to some of the more recent threads asking this question.

When I did a site search on "when to take SS" I received 10 pages of hits, so I only listed a few of them.

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f47/faq-archive-when-to-take-ss-69366.html#post1382896

 

[ABQ2015]

67 - because assuming I will live to be 92 yrs old, Firecalc and Fido both said I would be able to have more spending money from the get-go (retirement at either 58 or 60), compared to withdrawing it at age 63

Interesting. I ran similar calculations in Firecalc retiring at 60 and assumed that I lived to age 95. Results showed hardly any difference in annual "income" for withdrawing SS at 62, 63, 64, or 65. Withdrawing SS at age 66 added only about $1K a year to annual "income."

 

[OAG]

I selected 67 in the survey although it was 67.5. I took it initially at 62 but then repaid and restarted at 67.5. Did the payback/restart mainly to benefit the DW potentially. But now at 73 that seems to may have been a "false" reason as we are both chugging along just fine. We currently do not use SS as we "save" more per year than what the SS benefits are and unless one or both of us end up in a NH that money will go to kids and grandkids.

 

[robnplunder]

Interesting. I ran similar calculations in Firecalc retiring at 60 and assumed that I lived to age 95. Results showed hardly any difference in annual "income" for withdrawing SS at 62, 63, 64, or 65. Withdrawing SS at age 66 added only about $1K a year to annual "income."

My own "spreadsheet" calculation shows take the money at age 70 if I am to live past 82. If I were to die earlier than that, drawing SS at age 62 wins out. I voted for 70 for now (being an optimist, and more for DW who will most likely live past 82) but will see.

 

[seraphim]

DWs not getting SS, and mine will be minimal. It would tick me off if I decided to wait until 70 then died at 69, and since I don't really figure it into my retirement budget, I'll take it when it's available. It might cover the diesel in my pickup...

 

[jflynn4]

My decision (just turned 60 and been ER for 2+ years) will be based on how the ACA folds out over the next couple years. If the subsidies remain as they are (questionable) then I will likely wait until 65 to collect (since I'm managing my taxable income levels). If the subsidies dry up or seem that they're going to become means tested (which I think is very probable), then I will probably collect at 62 to offset the increased insurance costs.

 

[Alex in Virginia]

I took it at 65 (one year ago) because:
(1) at that point the SS monthly check would cover all my core expenses going forward
(2) given that I'll be banking all the proceeds for 3 years, it works better for me to have the accrued SS payments now to invest rather than wait for monthly checks after turning 67, and
(3) a bird in hand (i.e. collected SS payments) is worth a whole handful in the bush!

And that's my 2-cents worth...

Alex in Virginia

 

[youbet]

I started SS at 62 for DW's protection. She worked as a state employee and therefore has no SS of her own. Because of the fed gov GPO provision, she cannot collect SS based on my earnings record (ie, 50% of my SS). Therefore I started my SS at 62 and am investing the checks every month as they arrive. Should I predecease her, she'll have those invested dollars. If I had delayed SS and predeceased her (before I started collecting), she'd get nothing.

Many folks in situations where one spouse is impacted by GPO don't consider the fact that the GPO spouse can collect nothing of the other spouse's SS. It makes no sense to delay in this circumstance.

 

[F4mandolin]

I started SS at 62 for DW's protection. She worked as a state employee and therefore has no SS of her own. Because of the fed gov GPO provision, she cannot collect SS based on my earnings record (ie, 50% of my SS). Therefore I started my SS at 62 and am investing the checks every month as they arrive. Should I predecease her, she'll have those invested dollars. If I had delayed SS and predeceased her (before I started collecting), she'd get nothing.

Many folks in situations where one spouse is impacted by GPO don't consider the fact that the GPO spouse can collect nothing of the other spouse's SS. It makes no sense to delay in this circumstance.

I guess I don't understand this one. My UK wife is eligible for the 50% spousal SS and she didn't put anything into the system either. Is there something with this GPO provision that just forces this not to happen?

 

[braumeister]

Here's a pdf that explains how the GPO works in this situation:
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10007.pdf

 

[Sirka]

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.

+1
I took mine at 62