REWahoo
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give
Life expectancy was longest – 97.0 years – in the 78634 ZIP code in Hutto, Texas (near Austin)...
Hutto, home of the "Hutto Hippos" (high school mascot).
Life expectancy was longest – 97.0 years – in the 78634 ZIP code in Hutto, Texas (near Austin)...
This is funny!
I put in all the information for my BIL, as best as I could, and it gave him a life expectancy of 72. He's currently 76, and I did use his correct birth year.
Not really surprising, since he has a very unhealthy lifestyle, but the fact that the calculator ignored his actual age was amusing.
I have done similar with my father on other calculators in the past. They all had him dead in his early 70's. (Heavy smoker his whole life, underground coal miner for 40 years, very unhealthy lifestyle). He lived to age 84 and died at home from a AAA bursting.
Dead man walking concept.
I did a tax return that rejected as the taxpayer was deceased according to the IRS. I had the job of calling the client and saying " I figured out why you never got your stimulus money "
It has taken 2 years to get this guy all his money . IRS insisted that social security had marked him deceased, but not so, they had been regularly paying out his social security . The mistake was annoying enough , but the fact the IRS would not correct it was unconscionable.
.
My parents both made it to 80 despite similar lifestyle issues. While I'm skeptical about the possibility of extreme longevity, my planning assumes that I will live longer than average.I have done similar with my father on other calculators in the past. They all had him dead in his early 70's. (Heavy smoker his whole life, underground coal miner for 40 years, very unhealthy lifestyle). He lived to age 84 and died at home from a AAA bursting.
While I'm skeptical about the possibility of extreme longevity, my planning assumes that I will live longer than average.
So he could have collected SS and not done tax returns for the rest of his life, bet the IRS would have corrected his death then.
In my case, the Social Security Administration predicts my life expectancy to be to 83. My own assumption is about 5 years longer than that.While knowing some guesstimate of our departure date can be useful, without knowing the statistical characteristics of the distribution around the mean, you really don't know much. For example, if some calculator puts the average age of death for someone with your characteristics at 83, you still don't have much of a grasp of the probability of passing at 83.
Agree, I seldom see anyone mentioning taking it at 62 and investing it. Even at a small 3%. Then comparing to taking it at 70. We just assume it will all get spent in the same year taken. Just an observation.
Agree, I seldom see anyone mentioning taking it at 62 and investing it. Even at a small 3%. Then comparing to taking it at 70. We just assume it will all get spent in the same year taken. Just an observation.
That is the NPV, right? If so, you are missing a major point of delaying. What is the difference if I live to be 100? I ran some spreadsheet a few years ago, so the numbers aren't quite current, but the difference between taking at 62 and taking at 70 with 2% inflation and 5% investment return and no benefit cuts gives me a difference of over $600K at age 100. I'm looking for the best deal based on mortality tables, I'm looking for the best longevity insurance.I ran some average SS numbers for a couple with similar benefits in opensocialsecurity, factoring in a potential haircut and the mortality tables. The biggest difference I could find from the recommended to other claiming strategies was a lifetime amount of $39K.
That is the NPV, right? If so, you are missing a major point of delaying. What is the difference if I live to be 100? I ran some spreadsheet a few years ago, so the numbers aren't quite current, but the difference between taking at 62 and taking at 70 with 2% inflation and 5% investment return and no benefit cuts gives me a difference of over $600K at age 100. I'm looking for the best deal based on mortality tables, I'm looking for the best longevity insurance.
A 25% cut in 2034 lowers the difference but it's still nearly $350K.
Worst case, dying right before my 70th birthday, I lose out on some $200K but I'm done spending money or being conscious, so what do I care?
You're still missing the point. Check the mortality table box to change it to "Assumed Age at Death" = 100. I get a present value difference of $305K. The $600K number I posted before was future value.I used opensocialsecurity.com which says they include a default discount rate based on 20 year TIPS, as pb4uski noted in the post above your post.
You're still missing the point. Check the mortality table box to change it to "Assumed Age at Death" = 100. I get a present value difference of $305K. The $600K number I posted before was future value.
I'm not saying that taking SS at 70 is worth $305K more than 62. What I'm showing is an indication of the value if I live exceptionally long, which is pertinent to me because I see SS as longevity insurance. That's me. I know others have different priorities.
Just a point of clarification, in my last post I used opensocialsecurity and whatever return it defaults to (20 year TIPS, I guess) rather than my spreadsheet's higher return in my previous post.I'm not missing your point nor am I disagreeing with you. You asked if I used NPV and I replied I used the default discount rate in opensocialsecurity. I said in my earlier post those with different circumstances and assumptions will get different results. You are using around 20 years more than the standard mortality tables and a higher earnings on your money. If I changed my mortality to 200 years I would get an enormous difference in claiming ages results.
You're still missing the point. Check the mortality table box to change it to "Assumed Age at Death" = 100. I get a present value difference of $305K. The $600K number I posted before was future value.
I'm not saying that taking SS at 70 is worth $305K more than 62. What I'm showing is an indication of the value if I live exceptionally long, which is pertinent to me because I see SS as longevity insurance. That's me. I know others have different priorities.
I don't think it's silly at all. How else do you assess the value of longevity insurance? If 100 is absurd, use 90. openss tells me I'd come out $150K ahead. Still worth it to me. And more meaningful to me than the $39K number.She's not missing the point. WADR, I think looking at it to an attained age of 100 is a silly way to look at it and using mortality tables is preferable, but it is a free country so look at it however you want to.
I don't think it's silly at all. How else do you assess the value of longevity insurance? If 100 is absurd, use 90. openss tells me I'd come out $150K ahead. Still worth it to me. And more meaningful to me than the $39K number.
Instead of acknowledging the longevity point, the responses were on assumed investment return rates, so it's not a stretch for me to think my point was missed.
I ran some average SS numbers for a couple with similar benefits in opensocialsecurity, factoring in a potential haircut and the mortality tables. The biggest difference I could find from the recommended to other claiming strategies was a lifetime amount of $39K. I have pointed this out before, but since we rehash the same arguments over and over again here it is again - shopping at Grocery Outlet saves the average family $3K a year (per checkbook.org), so over a 30 year retirement $90K ($147K invested at 3%).
I took SS at 62 and shop at Grocery Outlet for my longevity protection.
ETA - Oops - My initial numbers didn't include a future benefit reduction.