Yes, good point. If I set age of death to 89, filing at 70 is recommended. Anything lower than 89 I should file earlier.
Longevity is not great in my family, but I hope to beat the odds. But even if I get lucky, 89 would be impressive.
When To Take Social Security? Study takes a statistical approach.
- Thread starter latexman
- Start date
Yes, good point. If I set age of death to 89, filing at 70 is recommended. Anything lower than 89 I should file earlier.
Longevity is not great in my family, but I hope to beat the odds. But even if I get lucky, 89 would be impressive.
pb4uski
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
This site suggests that I'll live to 88, well beyond the breakeven point.
https://www.blueprintincome.com/tools/life-expectancy-calculator-how-long-will-i-live/
So if we agree that the breakeven point is 82, what will you do with the extra $ from 82 to 88? Lost my mom at 90. She didn't do much past 82. A little travel but she had plenty of cash with her age 62 SS check to fund what she needed.
Out-to-Lunch
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
He'll spend more before the break-even point because he knows he is covered whether he dies earlier or later!
Family history is not on my side, and my current health isn't either. The site above has me to 81. My plan was to start SS at 65, much like my DW did. DW is 6.5 years older than I am and will have close to what I will have in a SS benefit when I turn 65. So, survivor benefit isn't a consideration. If I knew I would live to my late 80s, I might delay it. Odds aren't on my side.
Telly
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2003
- Messages
- 2,395
If economic forecasting makes astrology look reputable, maybe longevity forecasting makes economic forecasting look reputable!
I took that quiz. Says 89 years for me. I can get a couple more years if I take up drinking (moderately).
But no male in my family, and for generations before, ever lived past 75. And the 75'er was an outlier.
DW has longevity in her family, except for those who died earlier. Sounds like a Yogi Bera-ism, doesn't it?
So my driver has been to try to keep DW in a good place, including after I'm just dust in the wind..... dude!
So that's switching to filing on my own record, at age 70. (I meet the criteria to do that).
YLMV (Your Lifetime May Vary)
I took that quiz. Says 89 years for me. I can get a couple more years if I take up drinking (moderately).
But no male in my family, and for generations before, ever lived past 75. And the 75'er was an outlier.
DW has longevity in her family, except for those who died earlier. Sounds like a Yogi Bera-ism, doesn't it?
So my driver has been to try to keep DW in a good place, including after I'm just dust in the wind..... dude!
So that's switching to filing on my own record, at age 70. (I meet the criteria to do that).
YLMV (Your Lifetime May Vary)
pb4uski
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Nailed it.
CRLLS
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Interesting. I ran that and came up with 90 years estimated life. However, it also said I had a 25% chance of living to 96. My current financial worksheet goes out to age 100. I may have to extend that a bit. I don't see accepting a Firecalc or any other retirement calculator at less than 95% success rate, while only using a 50% estimation of life expectancy. I know some people here do. I just can't imagine the consequences of outliving my money. It goes for DW too.
I took SS at age 70. However, I was in a special group. I filed for spousal benefits at age 66 and let my own benefits grow until I reached the maximum. That is no longer an option for younger people.
OK, I have been of the opinion that we would wait until I was 70 and she was 66 before starting SS. For the usual, more room for RMDs and a bigger check for my wife when I'm gone.
However I have recently been diagnosed with a health problem that is not causing any symptoms, but I had high white blood cell count and a bone marrow biopsy confirmed a problem. Over the last 10 months, two blood test the results have been normal. I ask what does that mean about my blood marrow, she said, you will be our patient for the rest of your life. If you have any of these symptoms, call us immediately. No treatment, just wait and watch. So, with that threat I'm going to start at the beginning of 2024 at 68yrs and 9mo.
I think I have seen that I should wait until Feb to get some type of credits, that I would otherwise have to wait until the next years to get added to my account. Anyone care to explain that for me?
However I have recently been diagnosed with a health problem that is not causing any symptoms, but I had high white blood cell count and a bone marrow biopsy confirmed a problem. Over the last 10 months, two blood test the results have been normal. I ask what does that mean about my blood marrow, she said, you will be our patient for the rest of your life. If you have any of these symptoms, call us immediately. No treatment, just wait and watch. So, with that threat I'm going to start at the beginning of 2024 at 68yrs and 9mo.
I think I have seen that I should wait until Feb to get some type of credits, that I would otherwise have to wait until the next years to get added to my account. Anyone care to explain that for me?
Romer
Recycles dryer sheets
the one thing I haven't seen discussed or in openssociaalsecurity.com is the potential 23% haircut in 2032-34.
That makes 67 better than 70 from my quick look until age 90. I am sure someone will look at that to validate it. In my situation, that is my full FRA plus spousal (50%) vs my wifes small SS (67-70) then 70 for me plus spousal.
I hope Congress fix that, but they don't seem to be able to solve anything these days- Not starting a political discussion just saying there is a good probability it won't be fixed. Then again if they want the older voting bloc they will fix it, so maybe 50/50.
What I am curious about is there any longer range analysis that shows IF they don't fix it that there would be another potential haircut later on, OR will the situation improve as the number of Boomers reduces over time?
So I don't get surprised, my long term plan assumes the 23% haircut and fixing it would become a bonus.
That makes 67 better than 70 from my quick look until age 90. I am sure someone will look at that to validate it. In my situation, that is my full FRA plus spousal (50%) vs my wifes small SS (67-70) then 70 for me plus spousal.
I hope Congress fix that, but they don't seem to be able to solve anything these days- Not starting a political discussion just saying there is a good probability it won't be fixed. Then again if they want the older voting bloc they will fix it, so maybe 50/50.
What I am curious about is there any longer range analysis that shows IF they don't fix it that there would be another potential haircut later on, OR will the situation improve as the number of Boomers reduces over time?
So I don't get surprised, my long term plan assumes the 23% haircut and fixing it would become a bonus.
SecondCor521
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
OSS handles it - check the checkbox at the top then look at the last item in the list at the top of the page. You can put in a year and an assumed benefit cut level in percentage terms. It can then do all the optimization math with that future cut in mind.
If they don't fix it, the 23% number is how much all current and future benefits would need to be reduced so that it would be revenue neutral on current FICA tax revenues. Presumably that is over the next 75 years of their projection period and includes whatever beneficial effect the Boomers aging off provides.
I likewise assume a 23% haircut in my benefits, but I do think they'll come up with some sort of changes that they will claim will help.
Midpack
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
There are options to account for a possible "haircut." The user can input the year the haircut would begin, and the % - if you don't want to use the default. Too many people overlook the additional options available when using OSS, repeated here below.
Attachments
Last edited:
Romer
Recycles dryer sheets
Thanks. I missed that and appreciate the long term view. It took me a minute to find the year and amount of reduction after checking the box.
looks like once I reach 66.5 years of age I am in the Green range. If I wait until 67, I am 99-99.4% PV depending on when my wife files and less than $10K PV from waiting for optimum.
The optimum PV of 99.9% is achieved once I reach 68. It then declines to a PV of 99.7% if I wait until age 70
All with a 23% haircut of course
So if I am reading it correctly, once I get to 66.5 years of age, it doesn't make a huge difference.
The Opitum strategy with a Haircut based on the program is:
Your spouse files for his/her retirement benefit to begin 9/2023, at age 62 and 5 months.
You file for your retirement benefit to begin 3/2030, at age 68 and 9 months.
Your spouse files for his/her spousal benefit to begin 3/2030, at age 68 and 11 months.
looks like once I reach 66.5 years of age I am in the Green range. If I wait until 67, I am 99-99.4% PV depending on when my wife files and less than $10K PV from waiting for optimum.
The optimum PV of 99.9% is achieved once I reach 68. It then declines to a PV of 99.7% if I wait until age 70
All with a 23% haircut of course
So if I am reading it correctly, once I get to 66.5 years of age, it doesn't make a huge difference.
The Opitum strategy with a Haircut based on the program is:
Your spouse files for his/her retirement benefit to begin 9/2023, at age 62 and 5 months.
You file for your retirement benefit to begin 3/2030, at age 68 and 9 months.
Your spouse files for his/her spousal benefit to begin 3/2030, at age 68 and 11 months.
Attachments
OP
OP
latexman
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Today itself, an interesting and pertinent article on Social Security Timing was published at Early Retirement Now. ERN looks at several scenarios to the age old question of when to claim SS. It is different and independent of the study in this thread. I especially liked the dynamic representation (blue lines) of claiming at 70 vs. claiming at 62 of the cohorts from back-testing the different strategies. It helps one see that answer to when to claim SS is - it depends!
Like the United Income's study, ERN's is pure math and finance, and it ignores the emotional influence of the individuals particular situation, like expected longevity, anticipated SS fixes, etc.
I thought some that replied here might like to read this different viewpoint. I did!
Like the United Income's study, ERN's is pure math and finance, and it ignores the emotional influence of the individuals particular situation, like expected longevity, anticipated SS fixes, etc.
I thought some that replied here might like to read this different viewpoint. I did!
Last edited:
TheWizard
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Same fer me, divorced spouse benefit from 2016 to 2020, then age 70 SS on my own account.
Free money from the government is good...
TheWizard
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
I'm moderately amused by his first example of a retired couple, both 35 years old.
I mean, some ophthalmologists have barely completed their advanced training by 35 years old.
But anyway, carry on...
Montecfo
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Just as an aside, I do not think It is a static 23%. The same factors which create the shortfall will also be worsening it I assume.
Having said that, I believe it will be fixed once there is no other option.
I believe we have already reached the point of no other option and neither Party has the will (or the votes) to do anything. The longer "they" wait, the worse the "solution".
Raise FRA to 68 (for those under age 55 or 58)
Use the highest 38 yrs of earnings vs the highest 35
Drop the earnings cap
SecondCor521
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Can we please keep this thread focused on when to take Social Security, which is personable and actionable, and not focus on how to fix Social Security, which is political and (unless there are future members of Congress here) not within our sphere of control?
street
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2016
- Messages
- 9,631
One thing is for sure if you take it at 62 or if you wait till 70. The amount of money to each person from SS at 82 years of age is ~ the same total amount of money regardless of, if you started at 62 or 70.
My opinion is there are so many other things to look at when to take SS other than receiving more money at about the age 82 years old. Making more money at 82 isn't high on my list because most of us wouldn't need SS at any time to live a great life.
My opinion is there are so many other things to look at when to take SS other than receiving more money at about the age 82 years old. Making more money at 82 isn't high on my list because most of us wouldn't need SS at any time to live a great life.
Last edited:
harley
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Can someone still do this? Or did they change the rules and get rid of this option?
pb4uski
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
It was phased out. It only applies to people born before January 2,1954.
Last edited:
harley
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Yeah, that's what I thought. I seldom miss out on free money. In this case, missed it by < > that much.
pb4uski
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Agree on the first part that you receive the same total benefits from claiming through 82. What you are missing is that because you'll make more money from 82 onwards means that you can prudently spend more from your savings from when you retire until you turn 82. It works out to be about 9.5% more annually.
Let say you retire at 62 with $1 million and SS of $35,000 a year at 62 or $62,000 at 70 and assume a 4% SWR. If you take at 62 you can spend $75,000 annually ($35,000 SS and 4% of $1,000,000). Alternatively, let's say you put 8 years of SS at 70 of $62,000 annually or $496,000 in a side fund to replace SS from 62 to 70, and apply 4% WR to the remaining $504,000 and withdraw $20,160 annually from savings. That and the $62,000 from the side fund for the first 8 years and from SS after that means that you can safely spend $82,160, an additional 9.5% annually.
Similar threads
- Locked
