Another reason to claim Social Security at 62

[GenXguy]

Not sure of your age, but by the time I hit 62 I had seen:
-College classmate by of cancer at 45
-Another classmate die by his own hand at 60
-several co-workers die before they were 60, mostly cancer, some accidents
-my parents suffer debilitating ailments starting in their late 70s
-my own wife die at 54.

My sample of one says your assertion is no more valid than my sample of one. Things happen and we're not statistically average as individuals, only in the aggregate.

Yeah, I don't get how someone to say it's not that difficult to live to be 80 based on some statistic of the average when so many never come close. It was certainly difficult/impossible for those you listed.

Not sure I'd call it living, more like surviving. To live is to be independent and in relatively good to excellent health. To enjoy dining out and no worries about the prices. To buy those things you've denied yourself and now able to enjoy before that time is over.

Good health is important, but there's more to "living" than just being a consumerholic and spending money buying things you don't need and dining out. Some people don't really care to dine out that often, including me, especially after prices have doubled, where it's not a good value, even if you can afford it.

Just my opinion, but to me we could help our current SS only people by increasing it beyond average SS benefit, and by eliminating all SS from the calculation so that only those with "other income" reaching those limits (beyond SS) start getting SS taxed.

The SS only people receiving the average benefit of $1782.74 are already not taxed since they wouldn't meet the minimum threshold that I mentioned here: Another reason to claim Social Security at 62 I think single American citizens should also receive SS benefits and Medicare part A for free, even if they haven't paid into them. After-all, spouses who never worked can collect SS based on their spouse's SS despite never working themselves.

However, because of what I consider to be a serious flaw in the law, with those thresholds not getting indexed to inflation over many years, at some point, inflation will take them into the taxable income bracket as well. But past attempts to fix the problem haven't gone anywhere. I agree it makes more sense to help struggling seniors than the continued give-ways to the able bodied.

 

[Murf2]

I didn’t mean to pry into their affairs. So I apologize if I did.

It’s just that it’s more complicated than just when you die. You’re dead, so of course the money doesn’t do you any good.
I’m trying to hold off until 70 for my wife’s benefit. We were both fairly low wage earners.
The difference on my SS between 62 & 70 will almost double my wife’s survivor’s benefit.
I realize everyone knows that but it bears repeating.

 

[motley]

I think single American citizens should also receive SS benefits and Medicare part A for free, even if they haven't paid into them.

Single person here. Hard pass on the "I'm entitled to free stuff" mentality.

 

[shotgunner]

The SS only people receiving the average benefit of $1782.74 are already not taxed since they wouldn't meet the minimum threshold that I mentioned here: Another reason to claim Social Security at 62 I think single American citizens should also receive SS benefits and Medicare part A for free, even if they haven't paid into them. After-all, spouses who never worked can collect SS based on their spouse's SS despite never working themselves.

Medicare Part A is free, at least as far as premiums are concerned. We pay monthly premiums on Part B and Part D.

Part A does have a big deductible should you be admitted to a hospital, currently $1687. The deductible is not an annual deductible like the Part B deductible, you get hit with that $1687 bill each and every time you are hospitalized. It's a good idea to purchase a Medicare Supplement policy if you go the traditional Medicare Part A and B route.

 

[Flieger]

I didn’t mean to pry into their affairs. So I apologize if I did.

It’s just that it’s more complicated than just when you die. You’re dead, so of course the money doesn’t do you any good.
I’m trying to hold off until 70 for my wife’s benefit. We were both fairly low wage earners.
The difference on my SS between 62 & 70 will almost double my wife’s survivor’s benefit.
I realize everyone knows that but it bears repeating.

For some reason I thought the survivor's benefit caps at PIA amount.....

Flieger

 

[Murf2]

You know, I think you’re right! Sorry about that!

 

[Murf2]

You know, I think you’re right! Sorry about that!

Keep in mind​

The rules are different for survivor benefits. A widow or widower whose spouse waited until 70 to file for Social Security is entitled to the full amount the deceased was getting — including the delayed retirement credits — so long as the surviving spouse has reached full retirement age.

I guess I’m getting confused. I’ll just have to outlive her!

 

[Chuckanut]

It's not a flaw nor is anyone being punished. It is income, just like any other income, and in this country we pay taxes on income. You are correct, however, that the conservative approach to retirement planning is to assume that 85% of your benefit will be taxed.

Actually, given the current tax rates, most of the people I know who get SS don’t pay much if any taxes on it. They are stuck in the 0% and maybe the next bracket. Most don’t have the income. The few that have high income have Roth accounts and things like tax favored investments that shelter income.

Then there are people like me with a descent income and not enough tax shelters. You can think me the next time you pass a sign that says “Your Tax Dollars at Work”.

 

[Chuckanut]

I didn’t mean to pry into their affairs. So I apologize if I did.

It’s just that it’s more complicated than just when you die. You’re dead, so of course the money doesn’t do you any good.
I’m trying to hold off until 70 for my wife’s benefit. We were both fairly low wage earners.
The difference on my SS between 62 & 70 will almost double my wife’s survivor’s benefit.
I realize everyone knows that but it bears repeating.

You reasoning makes sense for your situation. In fact it makes so much sense, I am thinking I might add you to my list of dangerous radicals who invest this site.

 

[Texas Proud]

It's not a flaw nor is anyone being punished. It is income, just like any other income, and in this country we pay taxes on income. You are correct, however, that the conservative approach to retirement planning is to assume that 85% of your benefit will be taxed.

Do not want to get too political, but that money already was taxed when it went in... I can see where they can say the 50% match was not taxed and tax that (IIRC that was done first)...

Now, I do know there are a lot of places with double taxation... but usually two entities... like dividends... the company paid taxes (well, maybe) and you pay taxes (well, maybe also lol)...

 

[Texas Proud]

My father took it at 62 and literally dropped dead at 73 while on the 18th hole of a golf course. Good thing he did not wait until 70.

So in your other post he had a living wife.... so she now probably has a lower SS payment because of it...

If he were single, 100% correct...

 

[Gumby]

Do not want to get too political, but that money already was taxed when it went in... I can see where they can say the 50% match was not taxed and tax that (IIRC that was done first)...

Now, I do know there are a lot of places with double taxation... but usually two entities... like dividends... the company paid taxes (well, maybe) and you pay taxes (well, maybe also lol)...

I think I explained above why 85% of the money you receive from SS every month represents earnings on your contributions and was never taxed. The other 15% of your monthly check represents the return of your contributions (that is, the money on which you were taxed and paid in), and it is not taxed for anyone. This is not political; it's math.

 

[rembrandt]

So in your other post he had a living wife.... so she now probably has a lower SS payment because of it...

If he were single, 100% correct...

He always was a selfish man...

 

[Flieger]

Keep in mind​

The rules are different for survivor benefits. A widow or widower whose spouse waited until 70 to file for Social Security is entitled to the full amount the deceased was getting — including the delayed retirement credits — so long as the surviving spouse has reached full retirement age.

I guess I’m getting confused. I’ll just have to outlive her!

Ok, I'll check that. My plan was always at FRA and not waiting any longer because I didn't think her amount would go any higher. Thanks!

Flieger

 

[Out of Steam]

Yeah, I don't get how someone to say it's not that difficult to live to be 80 based on some statistic of the average when so many never come close. It was certainly difficult/impossible for those you listed.

Social Security's actuarial tables say that, as of 2021, 10% of men who were born in the corresponding years will be dead at 50, 20% at 62, and 25% at 65. The corresponding number for age 80 is 55%. I recognize that these percentages are larger than a higher net-worth group such as this one will see.

By the same table, the annual probability of death for a male is 1% at age 56. These are not small probabilities of death before 65, never mind 80.

 

[levindb]

Social Security's actuarial tables say that, as of 2021, 10% of men who were born in the corresponding years will be dead at 50, 20% at 62, and 25% at 65. The corresponding number for age 80 is 55%. I recognize that these percentages are larger than a higher net-worth group such as this one will see.

By the same table, the annual probability of death for a male is 1% at age 56. These are not small probabilities of death before 65, never mind 80.

Please understand that those people that did not live to age 62 do not have any choices to make about when to take SSA benefits. It is morbid to think in those terms, but those people do not matter when making YOUR OWN decision of when to take your benefits.

At age 62 to age 68, only about 2% of men do not live another year...according to that SSA Actuarial Table. At age 69 to 73 about 3% do not live another year. The annual probability of death increases at a faster rate after age 74, but there are no SSA choices to make after you are age 70.

One has to decide if their own personal goal is to maximize what they get from the government, maximize what they leave for their heirs/charities, or maximize what their partner/spouse has to live on. If one has no heirs and/or has no partner, then there fewer things to focus on. While you may spend more during your Go-Go years, you will probably spend quite a bit in those No-Go years. Your travel budget will slowly decrease while your medical budget and LTC expenses will be much higher in your later years.

Is it more important to sit in the front of the plane, or is it more important to have fresh diapers each day?

 

[motley]

How good your nursing home is has IMO as much if not more to do with luck than money (available rooms). So I'll take the front of the plane, thanks.

 

[RetiredHappy]

How good your nursing home is has IMO as much if not more to do with luck than money (available rooms). So I'll take the front of the plane, thanks.

Actually no, there is a ranking of nursing homes on the Center of Medicare and Medicaid site.

 

[GenXguy]

Single person here. Hard pass on the "I'm entitled to free stuff" mentality.

But remember, spouses can get it for free despite paying nothing into it. So, seems only fair for single people also.

 

[GenXguy]

I think single American citizens should also receive SS benefits and Medicare part A for free, even if they haven't paid into them.

Medicare Part A is free, at least as far as premiums are concerned. We pay monthly premiums on Part B and Part D.

Actually, that is incorrect. It is not free for single people who never paid into it. They have to pay into it 40 quarters to get premium free Medicare Part A. If they haven't paid in at all or haven't met a required theshhold, the premium for Medicare Part A is $505 per month.

 

[shotgunner]

Actually no, there is a ranking of nursing homes on the Center of Medicare and Medicaid site.

When the time comes you need Skilled Care you most likely won't get to choose, You might wait many months for a bed to become available in any facility within reasonable driving distance to your loved ones.

 

[RetiredHappy]

When the time comes you need Skilled Care you most likely won't get to choose, You might wait many months for a bed to become available in any facility within reasonable driving distance to your loved ones.

If you are stuck with a Mediare Advantage HMO plan or Medicaid, then you have no choice because there is a limited list of nursing homes that they will pay for. However, if you are on a Supplement plan, which pays for the first x number of days, you can pick and choose, and if that period runs out and you are now private pay, you can pick the best ones out there. When you live in a big city, there are many options. Now, if you live in rural or small town, then it is more limited.

 

[shotgunner]

Actually, that is incorrect. It is not free for single people who never paid into it. They have to pay into it 40 quarters to get premium free Medicare Part A. If they haven't paid in at all or haven't met a required theshhold, the premium for Medicare Part A is $505 per mo

Actually, that is incorrect. It is not free for single people who never paid into it. They have to pay into it 40 quarters to get premium free Medicare Part A. If they haven't paid in at all or haven't met a required theshhold, the premium for Medicare Part A is $505 per month.

Will you not have 40 quarters under your belt when you retire? How many people do you know that didn't when they retired?

 

[RetiredHappy]

Will you not have 40 quarters under your belt when you retire? How many people do you know that didn't when they retired?

There are people who work odd jobs and under the table, they have a hard time getting the 40 quarters because they want to skip paying taxes and FICA, ignoring the fact that paying into SS is beneficial for them.

 

[Murf2]

Actually no, there is a ranking of nursing homes on the Center of Medicare and Medicaid site.

This was brought to my attention on this forum a couple of years ago. We were trying to place my in-laws.
Went through the rankings on the MediCare website.
Much to my surprise some of the more well thought of, expensive places scored pretty poorly.
Our unimpressive looking local home scored very well.
We’ve had them there 18 months now . My wife and I continue to be very happy with their care.

The MediCare website was very helpful and I recommend checking it first, if your needing info.