Suze Orman SS payments advice

[pb4uski]

You can calculate an ROI for the decision to defer based on differential cash flows... I'm not sure it means much but you can do it. Below is an example based on 100 PIA at FRA of 66 and 132 at 70.

Obviously, the IRR is negative until you reach the breakeven point and then improves the longer that you live.

Age	SS at 66	SS at 70	Diff	IRR
66	100	0	(100)	NM
67	100	0	(100)	NM
68	100	0	(100)	NM
69	100	0	(100)	NM
70	100	132	32	NM
71	100	132	32	NM
72	100	132	32	NM
73	100	132	32	NM
74	100	132	32	NM
75	100	132	32	NM
76	100	132	32	-9.8%
77	100	132	32	-7.0%
78	100	132	32	-4.8%
79	100	132	32	-3.1%
80	100	132	32	-1.7%
81	100	132	32	-0.5%
82	100	132	32	0.5%
83	100	132	32	1.3%
84	100	132	32	2.0%
85	100	132	32	2.6%
86	100	132	32	3.1%
87	100	132	32	3.5%
88	100	132	32	3.9%
89	100	132	32	4.2%
90	100	132	32	4.5%
91	100	132	32	4.8%
92	100	132	32	5.0%
93	100	132	32	5.2%
94	100	132	32	5.4%
95	100	132	32	5.6%
96	100	132	32	5.7%
97	100	132	32	5.8%
98	100	132	32	6.0%
99	100	132	32	6.1%
100	100	132	32	6.2%

 

[Perryinva]

You’re right. It doesn’t mean much! An IRR of 4.5%@90 is hardly a reason, but it exists as a possibility.

 

[pb4uski]

I dunno... 4.5% on a 25 year US government bond would be looking pretty good right now. Various longevity calculators suggest that either DW or I will live to early 90s.

 

[Perryinva]

But by that age it really won’t make that much difference on that amount for yourself. Heirs, yes, yourself, meh.

 

[harley]

I dunno... 4.5% on a 25 year US government bond would be looking pretty good right now. Various longevity calculators suggest that either DW or I will live to early 90s.

Most reasonable longevity calculators show that I should have died years ago.

 

[RunningBum]

But by that age it really won’t make that much difference on that amount for yourself. Heirs, yes, yourself, meh.

A lot of people here think they'll be spending less once they are done traveling or doing other active things, but you might want/need a private nurse, or want to live in a nicer care facility.

 

[finnski1]

But your feeling makes your number completely worthless. Nominal numbers do keep things "simple." But between the always changing levels of inflation and investment returns, I've never lived through a period where "nominal numbers" held, with the exception of very short periods of time.

Why would you ignore inflation and earnings in your analysis? That's not what happens in the real world.

Perhaps you don't like algebra, perhaps you didn't read the original post.
In either case the original question was about the following statement:


"That when you start taking SS at age 70, when you hit your early 80s your total payments will be more than if you started getting a lower benefit at age 62"


My numbers that you think are worthless are the same as pb4uski in post #4.


If you like to talk about anecdotal stories of someone taking it at 62 and investing it to change their "break even" age then you can just as easily envision someone taking it early and investing badly and greatly reducing the break even point.
Also inflation is a moot point in the equation because ss adjusts for inflation whether you took it at 62 or 70 or some point in between,

 

[Perryinva]

A lot of people here think they'll be spending less once they are done traveling or doing other active things, but you might want/need a private nurse, or want to live in a nicer care facility.

I agree, and currently @62.25, plan on delaying until age 69. My point was that an estimated ROI of 4.5% doesn’t occur until age 90, so that small a return on an about 30% portion of just your SS isn’t going to be any great shakes compared to the other benefits of spousal survival income, preferential tax treatment, and larger COLA/inflation protection. Especially when the increase in relative dollars vs percentage is considered. Delaying for the percentage when its a difference of $12.5k@62 vs $22k@70 isn’t THAT big a deal compared to $27k@62 vs $48k@70 despite the same % gain. It’s a lot easier mentally (for me anyway) to delay for an over $20k compounding lower taxed income increase than for a less than $10k one. Especially if muted returns for the next 6 years occur. And as has been mentioned, one can always change their mind at any time and even claim 6 months retroactive if need be.

 

[ShokWaveRider]

I would love to take my SS as would DW, but "Computer Says No", so does ACA, (At least in it's current form).

 

[finnski1]

I would love to take my SS as would DW, but "Computer Says No", so does ACA, (At least in it's current form).

The ACA has certainly added another consideration for when to start taking ss, as if it weren't enough of a decision already for many folks.

 

[Montecfo]

I have to partially take back whatI said. I remember now that someone pointed out to me that there are plenty of people that regard the bottom line balance as more important than income, as they have so much income that the only real objective is to maximize the estate for future generations. Something like that would never be on my mind.

Funny though how if you make a decision that maximizes your estate it is maximizing spendable funds, whether you call those funds "income " or something else.

Stated differently, at every point prior to break even, do you think you have maximized income because your income is higher for one year than it would have been had you begun at 62?

Surely not.

 

[Montecfo]

You can calculate an ROI for the decision to defer based on differential cash flows... I'm not sure it means much but you can do it. Below is an example based on 100 PIA at FRA of 66 and 132 at 70.

Obviously, the IRR is negative until you reach the breakeven point and then improves the longer that you live.

Age	SS at 66	SS at 70	Diff	IRR
66	100	0	(100)	NM
67	100	0	(100)	NM
68	100	0	(100)	NM
69	100	0	(100)	NM
70	100	132	32	NM
71	100	132	32	NM
72	100	132	32	NM
73	100	132	32	NM
74	100	132	32	NM
75	100	132	32	NM
76	100	132	32	-9.8%
77	100	132	32	-7.0%
78	100	132	32	-4.8%
79	100	132	32	-3.1%
80	100	132	32	-1.7%
81	100	132	32	-0.5%
82	100	132	32	0.5%
83	100	132	32	1.3%
84	100	132	32	2.0%
85	100	132	32	2.6%
86	100	132	32	3.1%
87	100	132	32	3.5%
88	100	132	32	3.9%
89	100	132	32	4.2%
90	100	132	32	4.5%
91	100	132	32	4.8%
92	100	132	32	5.0%
93	100	132	32	5.2%
94	100	132	32	5.4%
95	100	132	32	5.6%
96	100	132	32	5.7%
97	100	132	32	5.8%
98	100	132	32	6.0%
99	100	132	32	6.1%
100	100	132	32	6.2%

I have always thought of delaying as purchasing an annuity. And in post 30, that seemed pretty attractive. But above it certainly does not.

 

[youbet]

Perhaps you....... perhaps you....... If you.......

WTF?

 

[ShokWaveRider]

Mind you, if interest stay non existent, and Stock Market Returns are flat or keep declining, it may be OK to take SS and still take advantage of ACA subsidies.

 

[pb4uski]

+1 I look at deferring to age 70 as a decision to buy a COLA-adjusted annuity benefit. I forgo $75/month beginning at age 62 for 8 years... so I forgo $7,200 ($75/mo * 12 * (70-62) years).

Then beginning at age 70 I receive $57/month (extra) for life, COLA adjusted. That is a 9.5% payout rate. ($57 * 12 months)/$7,200 paid for life annuity. Pretty sweet deal.

I have always thought of delaying as purchasing an annuity. And in post 30, that seemed pretty attractive. But above it certainly does not.

I think it still is attractive.

As noted above, the payout rate is 9.5% for 8 year deferral from 62 to 70. For 4 years of deferral from FRA at 66 to 70, the payout rate is 8% ($32/year extra divided by giving up 4 years at $100). And in both cases those are COLA adjusted annuities.

For comparison, the payout rate for a 70 yo male in FL according to immediateannuities.com is 6.9%.

So deferring SS is a much better payout that commercially available fixed annuities and the COLA adjusted benefits is a big ol'cherry on top

 

[finnski1]

WTF?

I posted a reply telling you my analysis to the OP statement /question.
I also mentioned how my numbers agree with post #4.
I explained how my numbers are not "worthless", at least to me and all you can come up with is "WTF"


Did you not read the OP, post #4 and my full response in post #82?

 

[SnowballCamper]

 

[finnski1]

 

[youbet]

I posted a reply telling you my analysis to the OP statement /question.
I also mentioned how my numbers agree with post #4.
I explained how my numbers are not "worthless", at least to me and all you can come up with is "WTF"


Did you not read the OP, post #4 and my full response in post #82?

What you did was make several inferences about me using the expressions "Perhaps you....... perhaps you....... If you......."

 

[Montecfo]

I think it still is attractive.

As noted above, the payout rate is 9.5% for 8 year deferral from 62 to 70. For 4 years of deferral from FRA at 66 to 70, the payout rate is 8% ($32/year extra divided by giving up 4 years at $100). And in both cases those are COLA adjusted annuities.

For comparison, the payout rate for a 70 yo male in FL according to immediateannuities.com is 6.9%.

So deferring SS is a much better payout that commercially available fixed annuities and the COLA adjusted benefits is a big ol'cherry on top

Yes, I do see that part. The ok insurance element with cola.

I view SS as longevity insurance in general. So I tend to want to defer in order to maximize "coverage" and create room for Roth conversions.

So to me it seems the decision to take SS now or later is driven largely by considerations other than what may be "best" for SS in isolation. I think this thread is evidence of same.

 

[pb4uski]

+1 leaving room for higher Roth conversions before 70 is a big part of my reasoning... in case something happens to ne and DW gets thrown into a higher tax bracket.

 

[lonnie]

If you knew the year you will die, then you could pick the perfect age for beginning social security. Otherwise, you are just making your best guess. Delaying the start of payouts is a bet on living longer and us a kind if insurance in case you do.

 

[67walkon]

Without reading every comment, I believe it depends.

My circumstances allowed me to retire at age 63. My wife was 58. I could take SS on her account when she turned 62 and delay mine until age 70. I did and now get over $3,500 a month after they take Medicare out. I'm quite happy with that number and if I die sooner than I would prefer, my wife will benefit. I'm 70.5 and it was a good decision for me and my wife.

On the other hand, my younger brother died last year, 32 days after turning 62. He took SS early and got one payment. Very sad.

I think each of us has to make a decision based on our personal circumstances. Right now, $3500+ a month is pretty sweet but not a game changer.

 

[statsman]

My circumstances allowed me to retire at age 63. My wife was 58. I could take SS on her account when she turned 62 and delay mine until age 70.

I believe they have eliminated that option for anyone born after 1954 (or something like that). I'm sure someone will come along and correct that information.

 

[CardsFan]

Well, I guess we have confirmed, again, that "when to take social security" is the most discussed, and controversial topic here.

And the CORRECT answer is: