Is the Bear Market Causing Anyone to Consider Taking SS Earlier Than They Planned?

[daylatedollarshort]

It's been repeated many times on this forum. And in this very thread in post #82....

Post #82 is the straight math without assigning a probability factor to a future outcome.

 

[mamadogmamacat]

I will try one last time just for grins, please check post #82 one more time, in particular that last part.

its not too complicated especially since it negates your probability study by showing the fully discounted values still show one is better off waiting

this will probably still not convince you, so I'm done here and will now go finish feeding cat food to cats

 

[RunningBum]

I always tell myself I'll stay out of this topic, then someone says "always do this" or "never do that" or gives some really faulty reason for doing one or the other and I can't help myself. There are plenty of good reasons to do one or the other or somewhere in between, but also plenty of bad reasons given here at e-r.org.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

I will try one last time just for grins, please check post #82 one more time, in particular that last part.

its not too complicated especially since it negates your probability study by showing the fully discounted values still show one is better off waiting

this will probably still not convince you, so I'm done here and will now go finish feeding cat food to cats

I assume the "ETA" means edited to add so the post changed after I made my initial comment. With the probability pb4uski added in the results are almost identical, and don't factor in the probability of dying before 70 and collecting zero. The probability factor can change the results and since the future is unknown what factor to use is always going to be a guess at best.

I still don't see the need for the digs. I find these discussion more enjoyable and productive without having to insult anyone else's intelligence.

 

[pb4uski]

The ETA was in response to your post about the likelihood of social security benefits being reduced, which I thought was a fair point. While the math was fairly obvious, I just wanted to add it for the sake of completeness.

While you mentioned the possibility of dying before 70 you need to also consider the possibility of living long... especially for married couples where one spouse's benefit based on their own work record is much higher than the other, you need to consider joint mortality.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

The ETA was in response to your post about the likelihood of social security benefits being reduced, which I thought was a fair point. While the math was fairly obvious, I just wanted to add it for the sake of completeness.

While you mentioned the possibility of dying before 70 you need to also consider the possibility of living long... especially for married couples where one spouse's benefit based on their own work record is much higher than the other, you need to consider joint mortality.

I think that gets back to the idea of no one size fits all claiming age. A probability tree and results would be different depending on one's particular SS goals. Our goal is to maximize our estate value to our kids, so we considered likely age of death as an additional probability factor to type of analysis you posted. For households focusing on SS as longevity insurance, then early mortality wouldn't be an issue.

 

[Golden sunsets]

I always tell myself I'll stay out of this topic, then someone says "always do this" or "never do that" or gives some really faulty reason for doing one or the other and I can't help myself. There are plenty of good reasons to do one or the other or somewhere in between, but also plenty of bad reasons given here at e-r.org.

+1. It seems like we relitigate this topic once every 3 months or so. I’m not sure why some don’t accept that there is no one correct answer.

 

[joeea]

If I use a probability tree type analysis, I personally would use a 100% factor for the SS at 62 amounts and lower than 100% for age 70 so for me the age 62 would still win out.

Are you 62 today?

If not, why would you assign 100% probability to 62?
What probability do you assign to a meteor striking the earth in the next 3 years?

Probability trees are fun. Assigning probabilities is even more fun.

 

[Chuckanut]

The one thing that taking it early (62) has over the other options is if you die early at least you get something out of it.

IMHO, that kind of thinking can be used to justify a lot behavior that has poor long term outcomes.

It’s a very personal decision and nobody has the one best answer for everybody else. I will mention another option - starting SS at an age between 62 and 70.

 

[almost there]

Just something fun to talk about, as there is no right answer.
And if you could wait till 80 to draw SS. Someone would be on here
telling you why it's the only way to go. And how your an idiot for taking it one day
earlier.

 

[street]

IMHO, that kind of thinking can be used to justify a lot behavior that has poor long term outcomes.

It’s a very personal decision and nobody has the one best answer for everybody else.

Okay

 

[daylatedollarshort]

Are you 62 today?

Close enough that I doubt there will be big cuts before I start claiming. In 10 - 20+ years from now I'm not so sure, especially with the trust fund issue. That is the default path unless something changes. I'm guessing if there are cuts it is going to impact households with other resources more than those just getting by.

 

[street]

IMHO, that kind of thinking can be used to justify a lot behavior that has poor long term outcomes.

It’s a very personal decision and nobody has the one best answer for everybody else.

Okay and thanks.

 

[daylatedollarshort]

IMHO, that kind of thinking can be used to justify a lot behavior that has poor long term outcomes.

It’s a very personal decision and nobody has the one best answer for everybody else.

It is not a poor outcome if your main goal is if you die early at least you get something out of it, unless you are worried about running out of money as well.

 

[jazz4cash]

The ETA was in response to your post about the likelihood of social security benefits being reduced, which I thought was a fair point. While the math was fairly obvious, I just wanted to add it for the sake of completeness.

While you mentioned the possibility of dying before 70 you need to also consider the possibility of living long... especially for married couples where one spouse's benefit based on their own work record is much higher than the other, you need to consider joint mortality.

Is there a name for the analysis you provided in your post #82? I’ve seen it before but never really considered it. It seems like it’s no more than an AA modification but I like it. The one thing I see is everyone seems to be quite happy once they decide what to do so the ‘start at 62’ group is done thinking about it while the ‘wait till XX’ group has to continually justify that position.

 

[Chuckanut]

Okay and thanks.

Just my thoughts. They’re no better than others, but I think they work best for me. I enjoy reading the alternatives. Sometimes I even change my mind.

 

[Chuckanut]

Is there a name for the analysis you provided in your post #82? I’ve seen it before but never really considered it. It seems like it’s no more than an AA modification but I like it. The one thing I see is everyone seems to be quite happy once they decide what to do so the ‘start at 62’ group is done thinking about it while the ‘wait till XX’ group has to continually justify that position.

OTOH, the ‘start at 62’ group has the option to change their mind anytime in the next 8 years if their situation changes or they see a better way.

 

[almost there]

Cheers to all the future supercentenarians!

 

[pb4uski]

No name that I am aware of. We never hear from the started at 62 but lived to regret it though there are oodles of people that started at 62 and are now old and having trouble making ends meet. That said, it isn't a particularly critical retirement decision for us... the EPVs don't vary widely between 62 and 70.

 

[Chuckanut]

It is not a poor outcome if your main goal is if you die early at least you get something out of it, unless you are worried about running out of money as well.

That’s a point. But it isn’t my main goal. My main goal is to have lots of ‘party’ income as long as possible.

 

[almost there]

Shame on you for wanting to travel in your 60's rather than paying for life support in your 90's! Simply despicable.....

 

[RunningBum]

It is not a poor outcome if your main goal is if you die early at least you get something out of it, unless you are worried about running out of money as well.

Why would that be a goal? I can understand wanting to max out your inheritance if you think you have a shorter than average lifespan, but just to "get something out of it"? I have this picture of someone who took SS at 62 on their deathbed at a month before age 70, smiling and with their last breath saying "I beat them!"

 

[RunningBum]

No name that I am aware of. We never hear from the started at 62 but lived to regret it though there are oodles of people that started at 62 and are now old and having trouble making ends meet. That said, it isn't a particularly critical retirement decision for us... the EPVs don't vary widely between 62 and 70.

I don't bring it up because I don't want my dad rehashing a decision that can't be reversed, but he retired at 62 and immediately took SS. Now 84, they aren't having trouble making ends meet, but he does worry about mom needing memory care in the not very distant future, and the costs of that. A larger SS check would certainly do them better. I know they had enough in an IRA to bridge 62 to 70. Like I said, I don't know if he regrets it or even thinks it, but I do, because if they do run out I may be the one they turn to.

 

[jimbee]

Behavioral economics is hard.

 

[Just_Steve]

If your main goal is to avoid not getting any social security benefits in the event you die early, then you should indeed start collecting as soon as you can. And you should hope you don't die before 62. After you are dead, your survivors can say "He was wise to get some."

If you live into your 80s or longer, then you are giving up some money. But at least you'll always be able to say "Well sure, my checks are now about 57% of what they could have been if I waited until 70. But at least I got some."

And of course if you have a spouse that would prefer to have your maximum survivor benefits, well you won't be around to see any potential sorrow anyway.

If I leave my spouse that dependent on that amount of money between 62 or 70 then I have done something very wrong already.