W
WhodaThunkit
Guest
New column today. Bottom line: Married men and single women, wait as long as possible before beginning to draw SS. Married women, begin drawing SS as early as possible. The column gives more detail, of course.
WhodaThunkit, while you certainly don't have to get along with TH, you also don't have to continue this public sniping. You posted a good link, I enjoyed reading the article, and it makes me think. But that doesn't mean everyone's going to agree with you.WhodaThunkit said:Ah, yes . . . they're all part of the great worldwide conspiracy against you
WhodaThunkit said:So, suppose you are 62 YO, with a portfolio of a million, 60/40 stock/bonds, and a planning horizon of 33 years (to age 95 -- this is joint for you and the spouse, because of the survivor's benefit). According to the info I got from SS, my SS at age 62 is about 18,000 per year, and about 32,500 at age 70.
Case 1 -- begin taking SS at age 62. Firecalc says a WD of 44,500 (95%, 33 years), giving total cash of 44,500 + 18,000, which is 62,500.
Case 2 -- begin SS at age 70. At age 62, set aside a bridge in TIPS or a MM account to cover the 8 years to SS at age 70, which comes to 260,000, leaving 740,000 in the portfolio. Firecalc says 32,930, giving a total cash flow of 32,930 + 32,500, which is 65,430, beginning at age 62 (from the bridge money).
kate said:Just want to point out the BC center has also publicly said that without social security, many retirees would be destitute. In fact, with social security, many retirees are destitute.
WhodaThunkit said:Most people who come here are interested in information about SS. Burns is a well respected source, and he has published some new information. Consequently, I expected that many people who read this forum would also be interested in Burns's work, and might look at his current column.
"Bullies"? Yikes!WhodaThunkit said:So, I have incurred the disapproval of both forum bullies? You try getting over this, Nords -- Moderator permitting, I will post whatever I damn well choose to.
Thanks for the post. I used to be squarely in the "take it as soon as you can" camp. But as I've read more and analyzed various risks, I'm beginning to lean toward a straggled approach -- DW take it at 62 while I wait till later. Getting a larger COLA'd annuity is significant insurance against outliving your portfolio.WhodaThunkit said:New column today. Bottom line: Married men and single women, wait as long as possible before beginning to draw SS. Married women, begin drawing SS as early as possible. The column gives more detail, of course.
JPatrick said:You know, I really hate to bring this discussion down to the really boring level known as real life, but sometimes observations in realtime have some value.
My SS age is still a few years away, but since it has been at least visible on the horizon, I have been giving the "what age to draw" question a fair amount of thought. Like whoda and the bunny, I've broken out the Big 5 tablet and number two pencil which has provided me with numeric conclusions, which by the way don't coincide with those expressed earlier on this thread, (think age 63), but I have also used that silly old reseach trick of asking real people who have been there done that, what they woulda, shoulda done.
I've asked relatives, friends, friends of friends, dude in waiting rooms, and --well you get the idea. If I throw out the folks that need the bucks to survive along with the workaholics who truly don't need anymore money and concentrate on us everyday folks in the middle, I'd have to say I've never found anyone who regretted their decision. What was that decision? A bit like the national averages, however, I've never met anyone who retired before 65 and then elected to wait for the max benefit at 70.
Does that make them all stupid and deprived? Sure doesn't seem so.
Hardly scientific info, but talking to real people can be valid. Anyone here know a senior citizen who is beating themselves up for not waiting to collect til 70 or even 65?
Want to hear a real problem? How about the multitudes who are not maxing out their 401K's and/or using other retirement saving vehicles to fund their own future.
Think you could find someone who regrets the fail to save decision? Under every rock!
How about devoting some bandwidth to that one.
Thanks Kate. Losing those pups is tough isn't it.kate said:JPatrick, sorry about the loss of Molly. My condolences.
Kate (once the proud companion of Charlie, the German shepherd)
HaHa said:With complete respect to your opinion, I don't se that we are bandwidth constrained on this forum. Recently we have discussed, at length, such important topics as "How many TVs do you own?" "How many functioning computers do you have", etc. So there should be room for SS.
Some of us feel that SS will be "gravy", thus not particularly important. I disagree, to put it mildly. Just a moderate respect for life's exigencies should put us on notice that an ace in the hole could be really helpful at some point. Granted, this may not apply to some people, including military retirees, some feds, etc, who already have a whole handful of aces.
But if you are depending on the 60/40 mantra, or your own skills, then you could run dry. So social security is at least important enough to be seriously discussed, at length.
Ha