When do you plan on taking Social Security?

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Originally Posted By: Wolf359

But that's 17 years away and Congress has a tendency to wait til it becomes a crisis to fix things. It's still considered the 3rd rail of politics so I think it'll get fixed.


Maybe in the next 17 years, a lot of baby boomers will die off and not be a huge burden on the system. Jus' sayin


Us baby boomers paid into that system for more years than those younger than us.

Just sayin'


Down here, the baby bloomers got free education, free health, and defined benefit retirement...Plus 58 retirement age.

Then when in power changed education to$60-$100k for a bachelor's Medicare levy plus compulsory private insurance, self contributory retirement savings, and have mocked retirement ages into the mid 60s...retrospectively for those of us already in the workforce.

And keep messing with the retirement savings rules every 2 years limiting contributions, limiting savings amounts before taxes kick in.

...while we pay taxes to fund them...just saing

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: grampi
I will have enough other income in retirement to hold off taking SS until I reach full benefit age, but it would take until I'm 74 before I'd make back the amount I would draw from 62 to 66 and 8 mos, and there's no guarantee I'll live to 74, and I will most certainly be physically more able to enjoy the extra money between the ages of 62 to 74 than I will after I'm 74. That's why I'm taking SS at 62...


No one has any guarantee that they'll live to a certain age. But on average, people are living longer than 84 once they hit retirement age.

Technically people are always more able to enjoy money at a younger age than an older age, that the difference between saving money for retirement and not.

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: grampi
I will have enough other income in retirement to hold off taking SS until I reach full benefit age, but it would take until I'm 74 before I'd make back the amount I would draw from 62 to 66 and 8 mos, and there's no guarantee I'll live to 74, and I will most certainly be physically more able to enjoy the extra money between the ages of 62 to 74 than I will after I'm 74. That's why I'm taking SS at 62...


No one has any guarantee that they'll live to a certain age. But on average, people are living longer than 84 once they hit retirement age.

Technically people are always more able to enjoy money at a younger age than an older age, that the difference between saving money for retirement and not.


You both make very good points. I still have a few decades to go, but my thought is take it early and enjoy it while you can, later on you're less likely to travel or have hobbies that cost money. Long term care insurance probably makes sense too.

 

[Mr Nice]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: grampi
I will have enough other income in retirement to hold off taking SS until I reach full benefit age, but it would take until I'm 74 before I'd make back the amount I would draw from 62 to 66 and 8 mos, and there's no guarantee I'll live to 74, and I will most certainly be physically more able to enjoy the extra money between the ages of 62 to 74 than I will after I'm 74. That's why I'm taking SS at 62...


No one has any guarantee that they'll live to a certain age. But on average, people are living longer than 84 once they hit retirement age.

Technically people are always more able to enjoy money at a younger age than an older age, that the difference between saving money for retirement and not.


You both make very good points. I still have a few decades to go, but my thought is take it early and enjoy it while you can, later on you're less likely to travel or have hobbies that cost money. Long term care insurance probably makes sense too.


dishdude,
I thought you were in your 50's...?
I'm confusing you with the other guy from Ohio.


Wolf,
The quality of life really goes down big time past 80 years old. You have to take the money as early as possible.

 

[jcwit]

Never!

 

[supton]

I'm only 41 so it hasn't been a burning question in my mind. My first thought is later on, like 67, but that'll be because I had to work later due to poor financial planning.

Honestly it's just too far out to make plans--I got at least 20 more years to go.

 

[Alfred_B]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: Nyogtha
Originally Posted By: Linctex
Originally Posted By: Wolf359

But that's 17 years away and Congress has a tendency to wait til it becomes a crisis to fix things. It's still considered the 3rd rail of politics so I think it'll get fixed.


Maybe in the next 17 years, a lot of baby boomers will die off and not be a huge burden on the system. Jus' sayin


Us baby boomers paid into that system for more years than those younger than us.

Just sayin'


Down here, the baby bloomers got free education, free health, and defined benefit retirement...Plus 58 retirement age.

Then when in power changed education to$60-$100k for a bachelor's Medicare levy plus compulsory private insurance, self contributory retirement savings, and have mocked retirement ages into the mid 60s...retrospectively for those of us already in the workforce.

And keep messing with the retirement savings rules every 2 years limiting contributions, limiting savings amounts before taxes kick in.

...while we pay taxes to fund them...just saing


Baby boomers... the most selfish, narcissistic generation in human history.

 

[Cujet]

Let's be practical. This forum is mostly men. Also, some of us men here on this forum have likely exposed to chemicals in technical fields. Men don't live as long as women. In some locations/states/countries, women outlive men by 8 years! In Russia, 12 years.

"IF" a man makes it to 65, there is only a 50% chance he will live to 82 years old. Said differently, today, an American man who makes it to 65 can expect to live 81.6

It's important to know that many males die early, for various reasons, including war, risk taking, murder and so on. It's important to remove those statistical deaths from life expectancy calculations.

While I hope to live a very long time, the fact that I have health issues does not bode well for me statistically.

Put another way, only about 80% of 65 year old men make it to 70. And only 14% of 65 year old men make it to 85.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
Let's be practical. This forum is mostly men. Also, some of us men here on this forum have likely exposed to chemicals in technical fields. Men don't live as long as women. In some locations/states/countries, women outlive men by 8 years! In Russia, 12 years.

"IF" a man makes it to 65, there is only a 50% chance he will live to 82 years old. Said differently, today, an American man who makes it to 65 can expect to live 81.6

It's important to know that many males die early, for various reasons, including war, risk taking, murder and so on. It's important to remove those statistical deaths from life expectancy calculations.

While I hope to live a very long time, the fact that I have health issues does not bode well for me statistically.

Put another way, only about 80% of 65 year old men make it to 70. And only 14% of 65 year old men make it to 85.


Which table are you looking at? This one gives out different numbers:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

According to that table based on 2014 data, your numbers are way off. 43% of 65 year old men make it to 85. And about 91% of men 65 make it to 70. That take also takes into account male and female lives. I suppose the numbers could be even better if you break it down between people who smoke, are obese or other underlying health problems. Those tables already take into account things like murder, cancer, accidents etc as they're a reflection of the odds of how much longer you can be expected to live once you reach that age. The older you are, the more likely it is that you'll live longer because you've managed to doge various death possiblities. For instance a 50 year old only has a life expectancy of 29.64, so maybe dead by 79.6. Life expectancy for a 30 year old is 47.86 so only 77.86.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted By: Wolf359


Which table are you looking at? This one gives out different numbers:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

According to that table based on 2014 data, your numbers are way off.


Way off? It shows a 65 year old MAN will make it to 82. I said both 82 and 81.6. The 81.6 number comes from a 2016 study. More than one recent studies show a DECLINE in American lifespan. Others show an increase. I tend to believe we, as a nation have health issues.


I'd like to get back on topic and not get wrapped around the axle with small statistical differences, as I don't think it matters. As a man, expecting to live to 85 is unreasonable in MY OPINION. The chances are equally high that early death awaits. Taking SS at the earliest possible opportunity is worthy of consideration.

Again, this forum is mostly men, and it's men to whom I'm speaking. And men who live in the deep south are particularly short lived.

 

[SHOZ]

I took mine as soon as I could at 62.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: Wolf359


Which table are you looking at? This one gives out different numbers:

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

According to that table based on 2014 data, your numbers are way off.


Way off? It shows a 65 year old MAN will make it to 82. I said both 82 and 81.6. The 81.6 number comes from a 2016 study. More than one recent studies show a DECLINE in American lifespan. Others show an increase. I tend to believe we, as a nation have health issues.


I'd like to get back on topic and not get wrapped around the axle with small statistical differences, as I don't think it matters. As a man, expecting to live to 85 is unreasonable in MY OPINION. The chances are equally high that early death awaits. Taking SS at the earliest possible opportunity is worthy of consideration.

Again, this forum is mostly men, and it's men to whom I'm speaking. And men who live in the deep south are particularly short lived.



Here's where statistics and individual results will vary. The rest of your numbers were way off. 43% of 65 year old men make it to 85. And about 91% of men 65 make it to 70. Not 80% of 65 year old men make it to 70. And only 14% of 65 year old men make it to 85 as you originally claimed.

Based on those 2014 numbers, 65 shows 82.8. But if you look at the numbers, there's a 45% chance that a 65 year old won't make it to 82. But there's a 55% chance they will.

So purely by the numbers, many financial advice columns will tell you to defer taking SS because on average, people are living longer the tables that SS uses. But there is a trend that it's starting to decline again. For instance, car accident deaths are up, that may be due to more people texting and distracted driving.

Basically by taking it early, it may be a bad financial move as people are living longer than the tables anticipate and if you need it later in life when other assets may be tapped out, there'd be no way to get anymore.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Mr Nice
Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: Wolf359
Originally Posted By: grampi
I will have enough other income in retirement to hold off taking SS until I reach full benefit age, but it would take until I'm 74 before I'd make back the amount I would draw from 62 to 66 and 8 mos, and there's no guarantee I'll live to 74, and I will most certainly be physically more able to enjoy the extra money between the ages of 62 to 74 than I will after I'm 74. That's why I'm taking SS at 62...


No one has any guarantee that they'll live to a certain age. But on average, people are living longer than 84 once they hit retirement age.

Technically people are always more able to enjoy money at a younger age than an older age, that the difference between saving money for retirement and not.


You both make very good points. I still have a few decades to go, but my thought is take it early and enjoy it while you can, later on you're less likely to travel or have hobbies that cost money. Long term care insurance probably makes sense too.


dishdude,
I thought you were in your 50's...?
I'm confusing you with the other guy from Ohio.


Wolf,
The quality of life really goes down big time past 80 years old. You have to take the money as early as possible.


Yep, how much income does one need when they're confined to a recliner?

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B


Baby boomers... the most selfish, narcissistic generation in human history.


I believe you're talking about millennials...Baby boomers are the last generation not afraid to work...

 

[supton]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B


Baby boomers... the most selfish, narcissistic generation in human history.


I believe you're talking about millennials...Baby boomers are the last generation not afraid to work...


They worked--but also partied like it would never end. Buying new cars, new homes, and not saving for the future. That's the complaint, not that they didn't work.

 

[Shannow]

Oz statistician was on the idjit box the other day (surprised that they let him actually), and was explaining the three card trick with regards to "average" life expectancy and the shifting retirement age in Oz.

Back in the day, the "average" included a lot of infant mortality, death in childbirth, and childhood/teenage illness/accidents.

Now these people are extending the "average", which is being used to limit services...when the age at which you fall off the perch isn't really getting extended...assuming you make it through these.

Point was these people are working, paying taxes, etc...then having their retirement age pushed back through the intentional manipulation of statistics.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
Let's be practical. This forum is mostly men. Also, some of us men here on this forum have likely exposed to chemicals in technical fields. Men don't live as long as women. In some locations/states/countries, women outlive men by 8 years! In Russia, 12 years.


why do married men die before their wives ?

because they want to...

 

[ZZman]

The reality is most Americans have to take it at 62 for financial reasons. They flat out need the money. They also might still need to work a part time job.

 

[DBMaster]

Originally Posted By: ZZman
The reality is most Americans have to take it at 62 for financial reasons. They flat out need the money. They also might still need to work a part time job.


If it takes using SS plus my savings (even plus a reverse mortgage) I'm not waiting until 65+ to retire. If I stay at the job I am in now I might not even make it to 62.

You do what you have to do. Each person's situation is unique unto them. What about the majority who have ZERO retirement savings? I cringe to think of what they will have to do to make it. Will they be taken from their jobs in body bags?

 

[UberArchetype]

This decision seems like a fairly obvious one for people seeing the forest for the trees. Sure, there are plenty of detailed reasons and statistics like health status and life expectancy tables telling you to wait. Benefit accrual makes delay seem attractive when running the numbers, and even the government seems to favor or push delay. I just always thought this was because they expected to keep overall payouts minimized at the high level by the simple fact that many people are going to die long before they collect much in the way of SS benefits, no matter when they start. This comes into sharper focus when they do things like pushing up the FRA, which is being considered once again. I don't see how delaying really helps anything but the Federal budget at the 40,000 ft. level.