Sunset
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
If you are married, and the higher earner, then this is less than optimal, especially as one out of a married couple will probably live long past the breakeven point.
Thinking About Taking Social Security at 62
- Thread starter FireCat
- Start date
If you are married, and the higher earner, then this is less than optimal, especially as one out of a married couple will probably live long past the breakeven point.
foxfirev5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,990
That's a good reason that posters should rely on.
Along the same lines as selling all your equities.
pb4uski
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
While I sold my equities, I never encouraged anyone to sell their equities... in fact even at the time I conceded that I wasn't sure if it was the right move but it was the right move for me... so I'm not sure what your point is.
Check with me in a year or two and we'll see how it all worked out.
In any event, I was lucky to be in a position where I didn't need equities... if it ends up that I was wrong then DD and DS will get less... but they'll never know.
Check with me in a year or two and we'll see how it all worked out.
In any event, I was lucky to be in a position where I didn't need equities... if it ends up that I was wrong then DD and DS will get less... but they'll never know.
Last edited:
foxfirev5
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 2,990
Yes. And a good reason for everybody to figure it out for themselves.
I can only give you my opinion if I was in your shoes...
1st... you have 2 years before you have to decide....
2nd.... you have access to your nest egg for 3 years if you "need" extra.
3rd.... you have 5 years of practice so far and appears you've done well...
And do understand the wanting to enjoy v/s save...
We would be pull out from the nest egg to just under the next tax bracket and review each year.
1st... you have 2 years before you have to decide....
2nd.... you have access to your nest egg for 3 years if you "need" extra.
3rd.... you have 5 years of practice so far and appears you've done well...
And do understand the wanting to enjoy v/s save...
We would be pull out from the nest egg to just under the next tax bracket and review each year.
Our plan precisely. Both healthy parents and in laws delayed filing which lends to similar strategy.
Kimo
Recycles dryer sheets
I will be 69 in January, one more year!!!!
JohnRM
Recycles dryer sheets
Just to maximize inheritance for kids
I'm 60 now, had been thinking to wait to collect. But COVID has changed my calculation because I have a severely compromised immune system, and if I get that it will probably end me. The money doesn't make that big of a difference because we are financially set, but I don't want to leave anything on the table. So I am in the unpleasant situation of taking SS at 62, thus gambling that I will die sooner rather than later. Then again... Life itself is a gamble.
I'm 60 now, had been thinking to wait to collect. But COVID has changed my calculation because I have a severely compromised immune system, and if I get that it will probably end me. The money doesn't make that big of a difference because we are financially set, but I don't want to leave anything on the table. So I am in the unpleasant situation of taking SS at 62, thus gambling that I will die sooner rather than later. Then again... Life itself is a gamble.
RunningBum
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 13,246
So once you collect SS you'll be in the 24% bracket, right? And that rate is scheduled to revert back to 28% in 2025 by law. That may or may not actually happen, but with all the extra debt being taken on with the coronavirus, I think it will. And what bracket would the survivor be in when the other dies? If it were me I'd be converting to the top of the 24% bracket, from what I know of your situation.
pb4uski
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I'm not so sure... for one thing it is more likely than not that rates will go up in the future so 22% might be as good as it gets. Secondly, if something happens to one or the other of you and you are single, that 22% is going to look pretty good too.
I'm in a similar situation and starting in 2021 once we no longer are subject to state income taxes we'll start doing 22% or maybe even more for those reasons.
Thanks to all for the thoughtful replies. I think we will wait until at least FRA for my DW and as far as Roth conversions go I am just not sure,It seems a good strategy might be to take the hit in taxes up to the 22 percent window each year until we run out of funds in our IRA's?
RetireBy90
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
One more doing conversions. I’m just into 22% bracket without any conversions, but I’m converting about $50K into 24% to get more taxes paid before 2025, and plan to move most to Roth by My 70th when I’ll apply for SS.
HI Bill
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2017
- Messages
- 2,556
As usual, this discussion comes down to longevity (unknown), SS solvency (unknown), future tax rates (unknown), future market returns (unknown), etc. If the spouse isn't going to benefit from a delayed start, and the tax rates are already high (leaving little room for ROTH conversions), then I really thing it's a wash. $3K or $5K per year is nothing compared with all of the other uncertainties.
If Congress doesn't 'fix' SS in the next 12 years, I will bite the bullet and start at 67, instead of 70, so my wife has a larger income if I predecease her.
If Congress doesn't 'fix' SS in the next 12 years, I will bite the bullet and start at 67, instead of 70, so my wife has a larger income if I predecease her.
tryintom
Confused about dryer sheets
Im a newbee and just read and follow online. Question what is DW?
around here we just toss everything into a big bucket and when the tax man comes around we just pay the taxes and live off whats left...
so if I look at it a little harder it seems my SS check is used to pay the tax man and I have to add a bit more at the end of the year... so the IRS just seems to like my SS check better than I do.... at least somehow my taxes are getting paid... but it takes around $100K/yr to play as hard as we play....
so if I look at it a little harder it seems my SS check is used to pay the tax man and I have to add a bit more at the end of the year... so the IRS just seems to like my SS check better than I do.... at least somehow my taxes are getting paid... but it takes around $100K/yr to play as hard as we play....
perez99
Recycles dryer sheets
DW = Dear Wife
RetireBy90
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
RetireBy90
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
One note, I did a spreadsheet to show IRA conversions each year and projected a 6% return on remaining IRA balance, it took a while with the annual 6% top up to get it all converted. Might want to rain some numbers to see where it leaves you after 2025 and at the year you face RMDs.
Out of Steam
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2017
- Messages
- 1,669
On the great Social Security question, I plan to split the difference and take it at 65. I will reevaluate when I get there.
SonofCohoes
Recycles dryer sheets
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2016
- Messages
- 150
Me at 62, DW at 70.
FireProoof
Dryer sheet wannabe
I' sure what you did makes some sense but honestly I couldn't follow it. What I can see (and I consider a fatal flaw) is you took 8 years of "stashing" and subtracted it from the million. It's fine to ignore inflation (sort of) but you have provided no return on assets when the social security is taken early. That is you have compared the return that social security gives you for delaying to no return at all. Invest the early social security for a 4% return (after inflation; I've learned my lesson) and you get much different results.
Sunset
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I feel there is always value in leaving some money in the IRA, for the reason that late in life a person can have large medical expenses.
Once the expenses get large enough they generate a large deduction, which can be used to offset the taxes for taking a big chunk of money, example $20K out of the IRA, making that withdrawal tax free.
For that reason, I'd personally leave up to $250K in an IRA rather than drain it dry, unless I could drain it for no taxes or a low tax rate.
SevenUp
Full time employment: Posting here.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2014
- Messages
- 882
Wife, as in Dear Wife.
Given that, you can probably figure out DH.
DS is ambiguous, because it could be spouse or son.
See Acronyms and Slang Frequently Used on the Forum
Old Microbiologist
Recycles dryer sheets
I took mine at 62 but we had a few other reasons. My wife is only eligible to get half mine as she is short of the 40 quarters but she is also 5 years older than I am so was 67 when I turned 62. She receives half of my full pension as if I were her age. Weird but this is what we are getting. Given the political pressures constantly talking about getting rid of SSA benefits, means testing, or trimming, I felt it prudent to take what I could at the earliest time possible. With national debt exceeding $30 trillion and if interest rates go up at all the government cannot pay the interest let alone the debt on the massive debt which continues to grow. Only austerity is left as a tool unused by the government to try and reign in this insane spending. Austerity will begin with SSA and Medicare and it is only a matter of when not if as both political parties are saying similar things. The payroll tax rollback is a direct attack on both SSA and Medicare designed to force failure and early changes. I don't trust either party to keep the interests of the people in mind so I expect the worst. Working for the government for 40 years taught me that as well. I was very adept at forecasting doom and gloom in the military through dark times (post-Vietnam) and later when funding shifted towards buying expensive toys (F-35, etc.) and/or expensive personnel training programs (SOF). Left understated are the Veteran's benefits and programs which are woeful and extremely neglected yet are becoming massive problems with permanent disabilities, especially mental health which isn't cheap. All of that is woefully underfunded so more debt is coming. The same for the COVID-19 relief. The toll on the economy is still forthcoming and will affect benefits at some point. It has to.
Additionally, I spent part of my career working on a project in the early -70's looking at longevity of retired military and it is bad. Back then in 1972 the mean age of death was 47 for a military retiree. It has; of course, gone up since due to massive lifestyle and training changes but the military life still takes a huge toll on longevity. That actuarial program actually was the driving force behind the big changes in the military lifestyle but I already see many rolling back to the way it was before a sour operational tempo doesn't permit the luxury of nice easy training. Now soldiers have back to back combat tours and it is "normal" now to have 6 or more years of combat before retiring. I think each year of combat reduces your life expectancy by as much as 10 years depending on injuries and experiences. There is probably an upper limit t the damage but it is huge. We have never seen soldiers before with this many years of combat stress so it is a whole new ball game. But, even training itself takes a huge toll which is hard to estimate. Having spent my entire adult life in the military with several years in combat zones AND having been exposed to the data, I am fully aware of the statistical issues. I was also Special Forces for several years as well as being a helicopter pilot before becoming a microbiologist and my work with high consequence biothreat agents in ABSL-4 conditions sure doesn't help. On top of all of that no male in my family has lived past age 82 and my father and my grandfather on my father's side both died at age 76. On my mother's side they do a bit better but 82 is the max there. The women, on the other hand, often live to be 100 and my mother died this year at age 95. So, given our genetics and lifestyle paybacks you have to factor that in as well. The government runs these numbers and is pretty good at minimizing financial liability. This affects how they set up programs and is in part the driving force behind efforts to reduce benefits or change retirement age. So, given I have an arguably poor chance of living past age 76 and the program itself is always in constant jeopardy we decided to take it as soon as possible. You situation is different as is everyone's.
The other things which was very unexpected to me is our entire financial plan for retirement turned out to be amazingly wrong. We live entirely on our pensions and even then can't spend it all. We saved and have over $500k in cash sitting idle. We have $850k in various IRA's and equity accounts which my wife Day Trades with. She is earning roughly $90k a year just Day Trading and all of it is sitting in the accounts. Because we retired to Hungary which has excellent and cheap medical care our medical expenses are lower than what we would be paying for our Part B premiums which I declined so have lost my military retiree medical coverage which is useless overseas anyways. Hungary also has no property or death taxes. Our living expenses are more or less constant and under $3k a month including a full time employee. So, we could have waited and received more money but it isn't a real factor as it turned out. Things may change though and I am somewhat apprehensive that all of my pensions could disappear should the US go bankrupt and implement the Great Reset thus cancelling the entire debt by closing the Federal Reserve and it's 5 private banks making the debt magically go away except all those treasuries everyone bought will become valueless. It would be a disaster to the world's economy and explains why so many countries are stepping away from using American dollars. If they decide to do something like that then all other programs will be reset as well. Will it happen? I doubt it but I am fearful it might. Fearful enough to start moving all our cash into Swiss Franc accounts here in Europe.
Additionally, I spent part of my career working on a project in the early -70's looking at longevity of retired military and it is bad. Back then in 1972 the mean age of death was 47 for a military retiree. It has; of course, gone up since due to massive lifestyle and training changes but the military life still takes a huge toll on longevity. That actuarial program actually was the driving force behind the big changes in the military lifestyle but I already see many rolling back to the way it was before a sour operational tempo doesn't permit the luxury of nice easy training. Now soldiers have back to back combat tours and it is "normal" now to have 6 or more years of combat before retiring. I think each year of combat reduces your life expectancy by as much as 10 years depending on injuries and experiences. There is probably an upper limit t the damage but it is huge. We have never seen soldiers before with this many years of combat stress so it is a whole new ball game. But, even training itself takes a huge toll which is hard to estimate. Having spent my entire adult life in the military with several years in combat zones AND having been exposed to the data, I am fully aware of the statistical issues. I was also Special Forces for several years as well as being a helicopter pilot before becoming a microbiologist and my work with high consequence biothreat agents in ABSL-4 conditions sure doesn't help. On top of all of that no male in my family has lived past age 82 and my father and my grandfather on my father's side both died at age 76. On my mother's side they do a bit better but 82 is the max there. The women, on the other hand, often live to be 100 and my mother died this year at age 95. So, given our genetics and lifestyle paybacks you have to factor that in as well. The government runs these numbers and is pretty good at minimizing financial liability. This affects how they set up programs and is in part the driving force behind efforts to reduce benefits or change retirement age. So, given I have an arguably poor chance of living past age 76 and the program itself is always in constant jeopardy we decided to take it as soon as possible. You situation is different as is everyone's.
The other things which was very unexpected to me is our entire financial plan for retirement turned out to be amazingly wrong. We live entirely on our pensions and even then can't spend it all. We saved and have over $500k in cash sitting idle. We have $850k in various IRA's and equity accounts which my wife Day Trades with. She is earning roughly $90k a year just Day Trading and all of it is sitting in the accounts. Because we retired to Hungary which has excellent and cheap medical care our medical expenses are lower than what we would be paying for our Part B premiums which I declined so have lost my military retiree medical coverage which is useless overseas anyways. Hungary also has no property or death taxes. Our living expenses are more or less constant and under $3k a month including a full time employee. So, we could have waited and received more money but it isn't a real factor as it turned out. Things may change though and I am somewhat apprehensive that all of my pensions could disappear should the US go bankrupt and implement the Great Reset thus cancelling the entire debt by closing the Federal Reserve and it's 5 private banks making the debt magically go away except all those treasuries everyone bought will become valueless. It would be a disaster to the world's economy and explains why so many countries are stepping away from using American dollars. If they decide to do something like that then all other programs will be reset as well. Will it happen? I doubt it but I am fearful it might. Fearful enough to start moving all our cash into Swiss Franc accounts here in Europe.
Similar threads
