#3. Nobody knows how long one is going to live.Also - the poll is skewed by people still alive.
#3. Nobody knows how long one is going to live.Also - the poll is skewed by people still alive.
So........75% are happy they took it early.
works for me
Also - the poll is skewed by people still alive.
4 bd / 3 bath / .35 acres
Problemishes is there's only 2 common rooms :
breakfast room - kitchen - family room all connect in a straight line no walls
Living room - formal dining is just another long room (14' × 30')
No delineations
None of the people who died before the break-even point were asked.
That doesn't seem fair.
You are correct, but there is one aspect of reaching full retirement age that does provide a step function increase for those who continue to work...once you reach FRA there is no longer a limit on how much you can earn without triggering a reduction in your retirement benefits.Further, if you're not completely savvy it would easy to think that at 65 and 70 (vs 62) there is a step function increase. Yes, taking it at 65 vs 62 gives you more money but so does taking it at 62.5, 63 or 64 (obviously not as great)
It's not like you get a big jump in benefit by waiting from 64.5 to 65 which I fear a lot of people might assume.
I suspect that a good number of that 75% are not truly aware of the consequences of their early claiming. After all, we're referring to the general public here.
Also - the poll is skewed by people still alive.
Not if it was done in Chicago.
-ERD50
I assume you meant that dead Chicagoans could vote.
But then, perhaps you meant that they kept getting their SS too.
From a personal perspective, this is "our" rational for SS withdrawal time ~65 (1 year prior to FRA. SS is based on my allotment. DW is too Young to consider yet, and simply easier not to.
......
I was bound and determined at a young age that Alpo wasn't going to be in my diet.
Not a single dead person now regrets taking it early . . . or late. They are dead.Also - the poll is skewed by people still alive.