Poll: If you or your DW have started SS, how much did starting SS increase your spending and/or quaity of life?

[jebmke]

No change.

 

[yakers]

No SS for me, early CSRS federal employee, tiny ($250 m0) for DW who was mosty a teacher with no SS.

 

[anethum]

I notice that most people who have commented so far have a pension. I have no pension. I retired at 57 and lived entirely on my savings until this year when I turned 70 and began to receive a sizeable Social Security payment. I could probably live on it, if necessary. Even without Social Security until this year, I ended up with more in savings/investments than I started with at retirement. The majority of my AGI in recent years consisted of Roth conversions. Things worked out pretty well with getting substantial ACA premium subsidies until Medicare began, and doing Roth conversions thru age 69.

 

[Healthy Lifestyle]

I am delaying SS for 3 more years until 70.
However, I am confident that the additional income will allow me to sleep well and spend more freely.

 

[jollystomper]

Since she started SS, my wife's SS income has been 7% of our total income. So it has been negligible - nice to have, but not earth-shattering. This will change and be more significant when I start my SS in the future.

 

[braumeister]

If I didn't have the SS income, nothing would really need to change in my lifestyle. But having it means I don't even have to think about any possible changes, and that contributes great peace of mind.

 

[Winemaker]

We took OSS's advice and had DW take SS at 65, while I hold out to 70. We still eat filet mignon and we belong to several wine clubs in Napa. To each, his own. Life is exceptional.

 

[friar1610]

My wife and I both took SS at 62. Most of the time we bank/invest it as my pension covers all but the most extraordinary expenses. That said, if I could walk that dog back, I’d wait until FRA or 70 for the sole purpose of providing a larger survivor benefit for her if I go first. If we had the higher monthly SS checks now (as I’m over 70) I’m not sure it would make much, if any difference in the way we live day-to-day.

Barring a real catastrophe, my wife will still be fine on what she’ll have to live on as a single but if I’d been smarter I would have waited.

 

[Plantman]

My wife took hers at 62 and it allowed me to go to part time work for several years before I retired and started collecting mine. We didn't change our spending habits but it did free up more together time for us.

 

[Koolau]

I voted significant after starting SS four years ago at age 70.
During the gap years prior to 70, I withdrew some from tax-deferred for spending as well as Roth conversions
Nowadays, I have excess income most months from my pension/annuity+ SS which I invest in my growing taxable account, so zero (or negative) withdrawal rate.

I don't keep track of my spending in retirement, so I can't say whether I've increased spending significantly in the past four years, but I'd say my QoL is a bit better, knowing my finances allow me to do whatever I reasonably want to...

I don't track spending either. I just monitor the balance in the check book(s). If one gets low, I have my 401(k) send me more money. It's not a particularly disciplined approach, but it w*rks and I don't want to w*rk at being retired.

 

[Koolau]

Since she started SS, my wife's SS income has been 7% of our total income. So it has been negligible - nice to have, but not earth-shattering. This will change and be more significant when I start my SS in the future.

Yeah, my DW's SS is only a bit over a $Grand/month and she started at 62. Since I waited to 70 and had nearly full SS, it was truly significant. I'm still in awe after 7 years. (Heh, heh, but I'm still not flying first class - please help me before I save even more money!!)

 

[Teacher Terry]

It didn’t have much of an impact because due to WEP it’s only 469/month. I waited until 65 to take it.

 

[Midpack]

No change for us. I just started collecting SS this year, after retiring 13 years ago - so it’s been part of the plan all along that I’d withdraw more before claiming SS than after. We’ve been very fortunate to have more passive income than needed even before taking SS. And DW won’t claim until 2026. I guess we should be spending more…

I’d swear I’ve heard the OP note “money is fungible” several times over the years?

 

[pb4uski]

... I’d swear I’ve heard the OP note “money is fungible” several times over the years?

I have, which is why I am delaying until 70 and we are living off of my small pension, DW's SS and our retirement savings, but don't understand why you mention it.

DW's SS is minor and doesn't change what we spend one iota so we are Not at All. Even when we start my SS I doubt that it will make much change... so between Negligibly and Not at All once I start my SS.

 

[Dtail]

Fiance has been on SSDI since we met. I voted Negligibly as it comes into play a little bit. I am more of the camp that it is mostly fungible money. However there was also an upper limit of WR% which I was willing to withdraw.
My current thought is to take mine between 66 and 70 depending on a bunch of factors.

 

[pb4uski]

So after almost a full day, it seems SS results in no or negligible change in spending for ~2/3rds of respondents and huge or significant impact on spending for ~1/5 of respondents... and notably a huge impact for only ~2%. Not surprising to me, but inresting nonetheless.

P.S. I just recently noticed that for this new platform that it marks the OP of a thread... that is a nice addition and will save me some scrolling.

 

[Texas Proud]

OK... have not started SS but I can say that when I do start it I will not be spending more than I am spending now...

And my quality of life will probably not change due to SS...

I plan to wait until 70 to start SS... it is a no brainer for me... DW is 10 years younger and has NO SS wages...

 

[Fermion]

For the people whose quality of life did not change due to SS, is it that you had already considered it in your financial planning or is it that you worked longer than possibly necessary such that SS would have no real impact on your finances? If the latter, do you ever consider lost years of possible retirement as a hit to quality of life? Have you lost out on the opportunity to do X because you didn't have time in your retirement before you were too old to comfortably do X?

Or here is a more concrete example. Say one person retired in 2018 because they knew they would have SS available to supplement their retirement funds. They took a trip to France and toured Notre-Dame. Have great memories.

Another person same age, worked until 2020 so that SS would not be a factor. This person is not able to have memories of Notre-Dame before it was partially destroyed by fire.

Is this missed opportunity a hit to quality of life and the memories lost or is quality of life defined as something else?

 

[pb4uski]

For us I guess it is similar to the former, we had confidence that we had plenty of retirement funds to fund our retirement and since money is fungible it didn't matter to us if we spent from retirement savings or from cash inflows like SS.

I think in retrospect that any of us who think we will end up dying rich arguably worked too long, but there was no way to know that at the time.

 

[old medic]

This is similar to what we did, started SS at 62 and our pensions early with 100% survivorship.

Can't vote just yet, but hoping its gonna make a big improvement in our lives.

 

[Dash man]

I began SS two months before age 65, largely because I’d been diagnosed with heart disease and figuring I may as well get it while I can. While it didn’t change our lifestyle at all, it did provide some benefits. We’ve been doing large Roth conversions, so SS is paying for Medicare including the large IRMAA payments and taxes for the conversions. By the time DW begins SS in two years at age 70, our Roth conversions will be complete and IRMAA will fade away. It will allow us to increase charitable giving.

 

[grasshopper]

Our plans were always to wait until 70 to take SS. Ms G was chief breadwinner, but I wasn't far behind. Two months before I turned 62, I got my prostate cancer diagnosis. I decided to take SS at 62. Well 12 years later my cancer has been a nothing burger, and we have used SS for bucket list trips to the Galapagos, safari to Africa, Alaska, 6 cruises, 5 trips to the Mediterranean, and domestic travel. We could have done travel without SS, but we wouldn't feel the same comfort level that we feel now.

 

[marko]

We both took SS at 62. It did not change our quality of life or change our spending.

It did change our portfolio withdrawal amount for the better.

Three years later, Medicare further reduced our portfolio withdrawals by about another $28,000 per year.

I never really thought about the total amount "saved" until OP asked the question just now. Just never added it up. Altogether, about $100k per year pre-tax that we no longer withdraw.

 

[youbet]

We are fortunate enough that our two mostly COLA'd pensions and my social security fully cover our spending. Alternatively, a 4% draw on our portfolio would also fully cover our spending. The young wife is not eligible for her own SS and, due to the GPO, does get a spousal benefit and will not get a survivor benefit. So when I go, the social security goes away entirely. I took SS at 62 to preserve more of the portfolio for her use after I'm gone; a form of insurance if you will. It didn't change our spending at all.

Almost identical circumstances here although I suspect ours are perhaps somewhat smaller pensions and correspondingly lower spending than you folks. But, the same strategy regarding SS.

 

[Koolau]

P.S. I just recently noticed that for this new platform that it marks the OP of a thread... that is a nice addition and will save me some scrolling.

Yes, I really like that feature. Agree that it saves scrolling and it's valuable info for me.