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

[lem1955]

My civil union partner took her SS at 64.5 in order to have more financial independence. We didn't think we would ever be able to marry. It helped us both emotionally. Meanwhile, our WR averaged ~5.5% while I held out to 70 to take my SS. We were able to marry in 2013 and we did. So this month I'll receive my first SS deposit and my wife will get a small spousal boost. Hoping SCOTUS doesn't take anything from us. It will piss us off more than hurt us financially, if they do.

 

[Perryinva]

Like most here it was just a change of where funds came from. So no change, really.

With our pensions, we took less than my FRA amount from retirement funds for living expenses. The original idea was to draw down some retirement funds until I filed @70. DW took it at 62. No debate. She wanted it.

Once I hit FRA, though (66/8), and I REALLY realized that filing @FRA meant I would have over $130k extra, (after taxes) before age 70, I fell in to the “I can do better investing the funds now” camp, rather than to wait for a higher SS, as the higher Spousal @FRA, if I died first, with current assets, was plenty for her.

No regrets, and current invested funds is more than 50% higher than when I retired in 2019. My earnings on just the untapped funds that were set aside for the “delay until 70” purpose, has already extended the breakeven point past age 92, and I still have 2 1/2 years to collect before age 70. We never felt like we would be BTD types, but we are now, for many things, especially travel.

 

[Exchme]

Like most here it was just a change of where funds came from. So no change, really.

With our pensions, we took less than my FRA amount from retirement funds for living expenses. The original idea was to draw down some retirement funds until I filed @70. DW took it at 62. No debate. She wanted it.

Once I hit FRA, though (66/8), and I REALLY realized that filing @FRA meant I would have over $130k extra, (after taxes) before age 70, I fell in to the “I can do better investing the funds now” camp, rather than to wait for a higher SS, as the higher Spousal @FRA, if I died first, with current assets, was plenty for her.

No regrets, and current invested funds is more than 50% higher than when I retired in 2019. My earnings on just the untapped funds that were set aside for the “delay until 70” purpose, has already extended the breakeven point past age 92, and I still have 2 1/2 years to collect before age 70. We never felt like we would be BTD types, but we are now, for many things, especially travel.

As pb4uski has explained before, unless you are all stocks, you are dong an apples/oranges comparison as you did not keep your risk level constant over time. You could have set aside bonds (best is TIPS) to spend down while you wait for SS. That keeps your lifetime risk constant since deferring SS gives you more inflation-adjusted, guaranteed income, so you can take more risk with the rest of your money without increasing the risk to your retirement. I recommend the background explanations on Mike Piper's excellent opensocialsecurity.com.

 

[MarieIG]

We are waiting until 70 to take SS. I do not believe that it has made any difference to our quality of life thus far. Postponing might improve our quality of life later (i.e. have a larger income stream towards a retirement community as noted by Harlee, or towards LTC if necessary.)

Regarding spending, (other than taxes) the difference would be the source of funds spent, rather than the amount.

 

[Shanky]

SS did not change spending at all. My presumption is most people establish a spending level tied to their total savings with less taken from savings once SS starts,

 

[YellowSubmarine]

SS did not change spending at all. My presumption is most people establish a spending level tied to their total savings with less taken from savings once SS starts,

Exactly, my SS at 70 and DW at 63only changed the logistics of our funding channels. I always considered SS to be the cherry on top. As I grew up, there were so many demagogues tell us young folk that SS will not be here for us. Hence, it was never a part of my retirement strategy. Sorry, I fell for it...'what a fool believes'. No complaints, we long for nothing except good health; and the nasty folks made us stronger financially.

 

[Flyfish1]

DW's car died a few weeks before her SS started - my SS will be delayed a few years more.
We ended up leasing a car for a variety of reasons, mainly because we have strong cash flow. Anyways , her first SS checked was deposited this week, and her first lease payment is next week!

 

[Teacher Terry]

When I originally answered my answer was it didn’t matter because the amount was so small. Now with the passage of the social security fairness act my SS has tripled and is making a real difference in my life.

 

[ElizabethT]

It's windfall money for us, on top of our normal WR of 2.5%, which already provided for a nice life.

• We just traded up to a fancier, country club-type gym.
• We joined a golf club. Not a country club, but definitely a club, just a bit less fancy.
• We're buying his 'n hers new cars; one this year, one the next.
• We buy front row seats for pretty much every event we attend.
• We dine out pretty much every Fri-Sat-Sun, generally after a live theater or social event. We probably spend more on the wine than food, as we are not big eaters. We just enjoy the energy the weekend delivers.

And still chunks of the new SS $$$ remain unallocated. We are enjoying this problem.

 

[athena53]

I was 63 when DH died and not taking SS, so I filed for the Survivor benefit, which was 100% of his. No change in household income. I filed on my own record at 69 and it doubled. I'm giving more to charity and putting more in the grandchildren's 529 plans; there wasn't really any other category where I wanted to spend more.

 

[bfc]

My wife and I both retired at 56 taking "early buyouts" at each of our respective employers that we knew were coming and which we positioned ourselves for. We started taking soc sec at 62 as we broke out the numbers to financially breakeven which would be in our 80's. We are now in mid-70's. Fortunately, we had both saved and funded 401Ks and regular savings accts so we had the resources to do it. Collecting at 62 was either we spend our own money down or spend money we put into ss and we decided to spend the ss money and have our little nest egg plus paid off home for children, grandchildren and charity.

We both knew too many people who waited to retire until 65 or thereabouts and then passed away shortly after retiring at 65 and had started collecting soc sec at 65. Includes my wifes sister who passed away at 66, 1 yr after starting to collect soc sec. Some other work buddies waited until age 70 to retire and wammo, passed away shortly thereafter collecting minimal amounts of social security.

For us, I think we made the correct decision.
Regards to all,

bc

 

[robnplunder]

As I grew up, there were so many demagogues tell us young folk that SS will not be here for us.

Just last year, one of my ex-golf buddies told me to take it as soon as possible because it "will" go away. I ignored it. Killing SS is a political suicide. We are in good hands (I could not find the "cynical" smiley).

 

[audreyh1]

I use my annual portfolio withdrawal after expected taxes we will pay to gage how much I can spend in the coming year.

SS will add to that, so it certainly will increase the available spending money.

At least for DH’s SS the plan is to match it with QCDs essentially neutralizing the additional income. So yes spending more but not on ourselves.

 

[thatguy]

24 years into my retirement, DW's age 70 SS has just started. We're gonna adjust.