[vtsnowedin]

As I'm coming up on age 62 in a few months I spent some time today at the social security web site determining when to start drawing mine. It seems like a no brainer to me to start as soon as possible unless you're in excellent health and have a family history of longevity on both sides.
For example (not my personal numbers) someone my age has a full retirement age of 66 and two months. Lets say at that age he will get $1333 per month. If he starts now at age 62 he only gets $1000 a month and it will not increase when he gets to 66+2m. 66+2m is 50 months away so by starting now he will have been paid $50,000. After that a person that waited to draw until 66+2m gains on him by $333 a month and dividing that into $50,000 you get 150 months for the two options to draw even. that would be age 78+8 mos.
78+8 is past my life expectancy especially considering the medications I'm already on and siblings that have past away before me.
Any thoughts or comments?
https://secure.ssa.gov/RIL/SiView.do

[Cog]

I've ran those same numbers for myself. I'm only 59. I've concluded that I will take it at 62. That's with knowing that most of the males in my family live into their late 80's. I believe it ends up being a wash no matter which decision you make.

Here is another factor to consider. If you aren't taking the $1000 at age 62, then it means you are getting the money from somewhere else. If that somewhere else is a 401K or IRA account, then you are depleting money that could be earning dividends in the stock market. If you look at it that way, you are better off taking the SS money early.

If you are still working then it makes more sense to wait as you are continuing to build up IRA's or 401K money.

Are you retired from work?

[vtsnowedin]

I've ran those same numbers for myself. I'm only 59. I've concluded that I will take it at 62. That's with knowing that most of the males in my family live into their late 80's. I believe it ends up being a wash no matter which decision you make.

Here is another factor to consider. If you aren't taking the $1000 at age 62, then it means you are getting the money from somewhere else. If that somewhere else is a 401K or IRA account, then you are depleting money that could be earning dividends in the stock market. If you look at it that way, you are better off taking the SS money early.

If you are still working then it makes more sense to wait as you are continuing to build up IRA's or 401K money.

Are you retired from work?

Yes and I get a monthly check plus health insurance for the two of us from my thirty years with state government.
If I want to build up investments I could take a good chunk of the Social security check and buy stock with it.

[Cog]

The health insurance is a very big deal. Unless you need the money to live on by all means invest what you don't need. Assuming of course you are out of debt. If you have debt get it paid off or down. Cutting monthly expenditures is key to retirement on either a fixed income or income from stock dividends. But you probably already know this.

[vtsnowedin]

The health insurance is a very big deal. Unless you need the money to live on by all means invest what you don't need. Assuming of course you are out of debt. If you have debt get it paid off or down. Cutting monthly expenditures is key to retirement on either a fixed income or income from stock dividends. But you probably already know this.

Ayup!

[Plantagenet]

I've looked at that also and the 62 option definitelyseems financially smarter, in spite of the fact that every financial pro says to wait to 70 if you can. I can only think of one reason to wait and that is if you mentally consider the SS to mainly be your "inflation adjustment" If you wait your monthly income bump ups up when you turn 66 or 70 or whenever you finally take it and that would be a comfort in your old age

[Outcast_Searcher]

As I'm coming up on age 62 in a few months I spent some time today at the social security web site determining when to start drawing mine. It seems like a no brainer to me to start as soon as possible unless you're in excellent health and have a family history of longevity on both sides.
For example (not my personal numbers) someone my age has a full retirement age of 66 and two months. Lets say at that age he will get $1333 per month. If he starts now at age 62 he only gets $1000 a month and it will not increase when he gets to 66+2m. 66+2m is 50 months away so by starting now he will have been paid $50,000. After that a person that waited to draw until 66+2m gains on him by $333 a month and dividing that into $50,000 you get 150 months for the two options to draw even. that would be age 78+8 mos.
78+8 is past my life expectancy especially considering the medications I'm already on and siblings that have past away before me.
Any thoughts or comments?
https://secure.ssa.gov/RIL/SiView.do

vtsnowedin, as a person who has made saving and investing a fundamental hobby/strategy throughout my life (from literally, age 10), this is an example of an issue I've given a fair amount of thought.

First, Kudos -- you are looking at this rationally, instead of emotionally. IMO, the vast majority of people let too much emotion about what is fair, right, what they wish/hope, etc. cloud the decision. The numbers don't care. Probability doesn't care.

Since the whole thing is set up to actuarily balance out, and since I presume the collective knowledge of said actuaries is better than 99.999% of armchair internet "experts" on such matters, it's pretty fair to assume that in the aggregate, it's a coin toss.

So, if you have MEANINGFUL data about your likely longevity and medical needs compared to Joe Average, then letting that make your decision makes sense. (Clearly, that data itself needs to be meaningful, and not based on emotion).

I also agree with Cog's point about the saving and investing favoring taking the money early. IF you have the means and willpower to use the SS funds to keep meaningfully higher tax deferred savings in your 401-K, etc., that has real value. (We're all subject to RMD's starting at 70.5, except for Roth IRA balances. And that's one area I don't trust government not to renege on. When more income is badly needed in coming decades, I'm not at all confident they won't change the rules on the Roth accounts, if push comes to shove).

The vast majority of people that have real financial problems are in a box (for whatever reasons) where they lack the resources to make choices like saving and investing significant sums. For those who have managed (for whatever reasons) to have those choices, over time -- tax advantaged investments are the best tool to maintain some control over one's circumstances that one can reliably have (IMO).

[Cog]

Thanks Plant for bringing up the inflation adjustment reason. There is also another reason to wait. There are only 13 states that tax social security. And of the ones who do they give you an exemption for part of that income from SS. All states tax dividends and profits from sales of stocks, at least to some extent.

But there are so many ways to shield your income with regard to the stock market, I would still go for social security at age 62.

*Edit: And thanks to Outcast_Searcher for bringing more to the conversation.

[vtsnowedin]

Having worked road construction there were a lot of winter days with nothing better to do then plot and compute your retirement. Seeing others decide to work past 65 because they had mortgages on two homes ,a boat, and a large RV always seemed like a poor plan to me.
When planning for the future you need to look at how your expenses will be different then they are while your working. Getting past mortgage, credit card and auto payments is a great start.
Then there are those expenses that go away when you stop working that you never had in your hands long or at all.
Take a biweekly paycheck with a gross of $2000.
The first thing I lost was the six percent that went into the State retirement fund. That,s $120 right there. Next you lose your share of social security and medicare tax combined that's 7.65% or $153. Then unless your very lucky you will be earning less after retirement so will be in a lower tax bracket, Just how much varies and your children will be grown and gone and no longer a tax deduction, Lets guess you will go from a combined state and federal income rate of 20% down to 10%. That will save you $200 a check.
Now you don't have to commute to work but of course you will still want to keep a vehicle just drive it less. Say 500 miles less in two weeks at 50 cents a mile total cost. Another $250
I don't know about you but when working out on projects I stop for coffee and lunch a lot and that adds up. Not so bad in the winter when you can brown bag it but lets say $10.00 a average workday over what it would cost you to eat at home retired. $100
Subtract all those out and you only have $1177 left of your original $2000 to turn over to the keeper of the checkbook on payday. That's 59% of the total. Make some overtime or drive further to work on your dime and you can get to 50% pretty quick.
Anyway I computed that if I could retire at half pay at age 51 that even if no other work showed up I'd be just as poor as I always had been for thirty years and not have to do all those early morning commutes.
It turned out that there was plenty of work at higher pay so I've been double dipping for ten years and am in the strongest position I've ever been in.

[Cog]

One way I have saved money is home cooked meals. When you and the wife both work, you are tired and don't feel like cooking so you get take out or microwave some crap you really shouldn't be eating. I've always enjoyed cooking so now I'm the full time cook since my wife has not yet retired(next June). So now my daily schedule is to do laundry, vacuum and clean, do dishes, and prepare the evening meal. The wife comes home relaxed(not facing any chores), I like cooking, we eat better for less money. Its a win in all the ways I can call a win.

[vtsnowedin]

There are only 13 states that tax social security. And of the ones who do they give you an exemption for part of that income from SS.

And of course Vermont is one of them. It looks like in my case next year with my wife still working 78% of my Social security will be taxable.
We might need to move down near one of the daughters.

[Plantagenet]

There are only 13 states that tax social security. And of the ones who do they give you an exemption for part of that income from SS.

And of course Vermont is one of them. It looks like in my case next year with my wife still working 78% of my Social security will be taxable.
We might need to move down near one of the daughters.

The Feds didn't formerly tax SS but they do now. AND there is a special Fed "windfall" tax on SS if you fall into a "special" category

It's scarey looking at retirement----SS isn't actuarily sound, pensions also have long term funding issues, and Mr Market giveth but also taketh away

[Pops]

My wife will probably outlive me by a stretch so I'll work as long as possible in order to max out the rockin chair for her benefit—provided SoSec survives the next few years—if not then I'm mouse wranglin forever. I like what I do and don't have to take a bunch of BS so I'm in no hurry to quit. As Mr Young said: "It's better to burn out than it is to rust"

I've always put independence over security so I don't could never have stuck around for a corporate or government retirement, too bad. As well, I never thought much of the idea to bust hump and save up just to keel over in retirement so I've not been a skinflint — and only occasionally a workaholic. Just choices, I'm good with em.

I've been self-employed since way back so essentially paying 12.5% for a couple decades into SoSec. I'm somewhat nervous about that, but hey, socialism is passé so whatever. We have only a modest amount of cash savings but we don't have many expenses (even after we can't get health insurance) and no debt so it amounts to several years bare bones living. We have a few bucks in real estate, last ditch. I expect it will be liquidated when DW moves in with DD upon my demise.

[vtsnowedin]

My wife is three years younger then I am so has to work a bit longer. I set up my state retirement to be unchanged until we are both gone so she has that as long as it lasts and it is one of the soundest retirement funds in the US.
The idea that the social security fund will not last has been around sense I was in high school and I never expected to collect anything now. I'm going to take it while the getting's good and not worry about it collapsing. If it did collapse the price of golf in Florida would take a real dive. As long as all us boomers are in the same boat I can deal with it.

[Newfie]

Everyone's financial and life style situation is different.

I took SS at 65 because we had agreed I would work until then. Our financial advisor suggested my Wife take it at the same time. 63.

Here are some resources that you may find helpful.

http://www.early-retirement.org
A whole forum dedicated to early retirement. Lots of good info here.

http://www.firecalc.com
Simply far and away the BEST retirement financial calculator. At first glance it's a bit simple minded. But look for the spreadsheet tabs at the top of the page. That's where the options and richness of the simulation is. Lots of stuff there to tweak your thought process.

[vtsnowedin]

Everyone's financial and life style situation is different.

I took SS at 65 because we had agreed I would work until then. Our financial advisor suggested my Wife take it at the same time. 63.

Here are some resources that you may find helpful.

http://www.early-retirement.org
A whole forum dedicated to early retirement. Lots of good info here.

http://www.firecalc.com
Simply far and away the BEST retirement financial calculator. At first glance it's a bit simple minded. But look for the spreadsheet tabs at the top of the page. That's where the options and richness of the simulation is. Lots of stuff there to tweak your thought process.

Thanks Newfie.

[Outcast_Searcher]

My wife will probably outlive me by a stretch so I'll work as long as possible in order to max out the rockin chair for her benefit—provided SoSec survives the next few years—if not then I'm mouse wranglin forever.

Pops, despite all the gloom and doom around here, as long as we don't have the "inflationary apocolypse" relatively soon, the good thing about SS is you can (mostly) count on that. It doesn't rely on the stock market. It doesn't rely on a high return from interest rates. It just requires government to keep functioning at the federal level, and most people to keep working.

The worst somewhat likely thing to happen is that around 2034 (they keep adjusting the date a bit), the surplus could run out -- if government does NOTHING to address the changing demographics. In the unlikely event congress does nothing (i.e. they don't want to keep their jobs. I just can't see that happening, even with those idiots), then SS would be on a paygo status, and you'd get about 79% of your benefit (I've seen that number fluctuate between about 77% and 79% over the years). So it's not like SS would just go away.

Imperfect as it is, SS is a very robust system, as government programs go.

[careinke]

Mine was pretty simple, Break even at 87, My grandfather died at 46, My dad died at 54 = TAKE IT AT 62!

Add to the fact, my wife is two years older than me, and they increased her benefits (I hate that term), by 30% As soon as I started drawing the money.

[Shaved Monkey]

Its a different system in Australia.
You have a private superannuation your employer put 9% in and you put what ever you want in at 15% tax in
All that is 0% tax out.
You can start getting it at about 60 depending on when you were born but can draw it earlier if you need it for some reason.(unemployment illness emergency etc.)
Then your government pension kicks in at 65 or upto 67 depending on when you were born.(conservatives want to make it upto 70 but hopefully it wont pass the senate)
You can get both so you never run out of money worst case you will have just the government one
Which my dad is on nearly $400 AUD a week for a single or its $300 a week for each couple.
He saves money on his.
My wifes sister has private and government
She gets about $750 a week and goes on 2 cruises a year.
She was a secretary and had about $180 g in super on retirement

Plus everyone gets free medical and cheap drugs

My wife and I will have both private and government

So much love for socialism its much greater than what Trump is visualising

[vtsnowedin]

Its a different system in Australia.
You have a private superannuation your employer put 9% in and you put what ever you want in at 15% tax in
All that is 0% tax out.
You can start getting it at about 60 depending on when you were born but can draw it earlier if you need it for some reason.(unemployment illness emergency etc.)
Then your government pension kicks in at 65 or upto 67 depending on when you were born.(conservatives want to make it upto 70 but hopefully it wont pass the senate)
You can get both so you never run out of money worst case you will have just the government one
Which my dad is on nearly $400 AUD a week for a single or its $300 a week for each couple.
He saves money on his.
My wifes sister has private and government
She gets about $750 a week and goes on 2 cruises a year.
She was a secretary and had about $180 g in super on retirement

Plus everyone gets free medical and cheap drugs

My wife and I will have both private and government

So much love for socialism its much greater than what Trump is visualising

How financially sound are the trust funds for those systems? And how is overall Australian government debt?