Social Security

[supton]

Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by atikovi
What if they discover the aging gene in the next ten years and everybody lives to 200 or more? Then you're screwed if you started collecting at 62.

Possibly--don't forget, SS is supposed to track inflation. What do they call it, COLA? Cost of living adjustment?

Now, if everyone started living to 200, somehow overnight, yeah things would have to change... not sure that is keeping anyone awake at night though.


Well trust me I've retired for 13.5 years and it doesn't. I don't care what they tell you.

It hasn't gone up in 13.5 years? Same amount as in 2003?

 

[atikovi]

Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
Originally Posted by supton
Originally Posted by atikovi
What if they discover the aging gene in the next ten years and everybody lives to 200 or more? Then you're screwed if you started collecting at 62.

Possibly--don't forget, SS is supposed to track inflation. What do they call it, COLA? Cost of living adjustment?

Now, if everyone started living to 200, somehow overnight, yeah things would have to change... not sure that is keeping anyone awake at night though.


Well trust me I've retired for 13.5 years and it doesn't. I don't care what they tell you.

It hasn't gone up in 13.5 years? Same amount as in 2003?


It's 2020 now, Pops.

 

[supton]

Originally Posted by atikovi
It's 2020 now, Pops.

Doah! right you are, math fail on my part.

 

[JeffKeryk]

Originally Posted by oldhp
And the older you get the less money one needs. That's one reason I took it at 62. No regrets.

That depends on a lotta things...
Health care, housing and especially elderly care can be huge costs.

 

[SeaJay]

Originally Posted by supton


Don't forget, 12.4% of everyone's paycheck (minus anyone getting paid under the table) are paying money into the system. [It does apply to only the first $137,700 of one's taxable income, so there's that.]


Depends how you look at it. SS tax taken out of gross pay that is reported to the IRS is 6% and change. The employer pays the other half of the tax directly. If he didn't have to pay, I suppose your gross pay might have been higher if you want to look at it that way. But for sure, 12% of pay is given to the gov't one way or the other.

 

[jalf]

I started taking my SS the month I turned 62. No regrets. It's all a roll of the dice anyway. If you get run over by a bus the day before your age 70 max benefits are due to begin, then Uncle Sam wins and you lose. Or if you get diagnosed with a fatal disease at age 71 and live for three more years, Uncle Sam wins again. Besides, I've always thought that one could have the best of both worlds by (1) taking SS at age 62; and (2) investing any funds-not-needed-right-now in a low-cost S&P 500 or mid-cap stock fund.

 

[Cujet]

Originally Posted by atikovi
What if they discover the aging gene in the next ten years and everybody lives to 200 or more? Then you're screwed if you started collecting at 62.


In a way, that's a great point. Healthy men can live well into their 90's AND the advent of (let's call it) gene therapy could keep people from aging as quickly. You might be surprised to learn that aging only takes out about 5% of men. However, those of us with health issues for which there is no cure, are going to be damaged by disease, to the point of no recovery. The list of such health problems is nearly endless.

Nearly all of us knew someone who "if it weren't for the {___________} (disease, problem, condition) , he'd be fine and would still be around" . Insert the condition of your choice in the space above.

It's not just aging, it's infection from super bacteria + virus, cancers, heart/circulatory diseases, Alzheimer's/brain, endocrine/diabetes/thyroid, respiratory/lung, digestive and external factors. Cure rate for the above? Near enough to zero in real world terms.

Also in real world terms, cancer and circulatory problems are responsible for 2/3 of deaths of men every year after age 55.

 

[Vikas]

If you don't need the money, you wait. If you need the money, you don't.

Now if you are of the type "I want to extract the maximum from gummint", then it becomes complicated.

On the other hand, if you treat social security paycheck as longevity and inflation adjusted insurance scheme, the decision is simple and easy.

 

[Lapham3]

Some work longer because they enjoy it. Some keep on because they have few other interests. Others may keep on because the large unknown about the future cost of health care as the politicos keep fooling around. I'd suggest folks take a look at what a decent heath care supplemental policy costs in retirement. That's a rather large number that subtracts from that age 62-65 SS and other investments and still very substantial even in later full retirement and onward.

 

[Job]

If you take it at 62 you always have the option of giving the money back later and you then get the amount for the new age. Some of these come on sites are probably asking to take your ss money and invest it. The main point is they want to manage your money and get commissions for getting you signed up. Then there is spousal benefits etc that not everyone is aware of. By and large when someone is spending big money advertising they re doing it for their gain not yours.

 

[Mr Nice]

Originally Posted by JunkdrawerDog
My wife and I both took ours at 62. Short of waiting til your full retirement age I am not aware of any way to increase your benefit. As another poster said, it is what it is.


Take it at 62 and enjoy the money while you're still healthy.

 

[henni]

https://opensocialsecurity.com/

Excellent open source calculator

 

[CKN]

I filed at 62. I have been getting checks for a year now. I maxed out my contributions quite a few years. So even taking it at 62-the amount I receive is good. I have to live to 80 years of age to hit my "break even point" verses waiting until I was 65 to collect.

The kicker is health insurance premiums-they totaled $6,900.00 for last year-of course that comes with a $6,000 deductible.

No subsidizes either.

 

[Leo99]

Originally Posted by grampi
Maybe some of you who are drawing SS can answer a question for me. I am always hearing these ads on the radio for these consultants who claim they can maximize your SS benefits, and that there are thousands of pages of info in the SS guide on all of the rules and guidelines for they system. I plan on taking my benefit right at age 62 and I see no way to increase my amount of benefit other than waiting longer to take it. Is that the ONLY way to increase my retirement benefit?


Probably. You have to remember that half the people have less than average intelligence. It can get a little complicated if one spouse is a lot younger than the other, one makes a lot more money than the other, etc. If it's just you, it's pretty straightforward. I'm seeing a guy next week to map things out for my wife and me. We're both going at 62.

 

[javacontour]

Using the advanced calculator options, filling in expected age at death, if you expect to die at 70, file for benefits as soon as possible, like 62 years 1 month.

If you expect to live to 86 or later, wait until age 70. - Well at least for me, your mileage may vary.

Of course, no one really knows. We have longevity in my family. If we don't die in our 20s, we tend to live to 90+ years of age, with a few 100+ year olds.

I did not check the box for expected Social Security cuts when I ran the advanced options.

Assuming a cut in 2034 of 23% it moves up some of the optimum dates for retirement (for me) for ages less than 86, but jumps from just under age 68 to age 70 once I try an age at death of 86 or greater.

Originally Posted by henni
https://opensocialsecurity.com/

Excellent open source calculator

 

[Wolf359]

I always found this chart interesting. Basically at 62, you have an expected life expectancy of about 20 years. But you probably don't have more than a 1% chance of making it to 100 and less than a tenth of making it to 105. And for a male, pretty much a 0% chance of making it 112 out of 100,000 people, although if you do make it to that age, you've got a life expectancy of a year at that point.

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

 

[NormanBuntz]

I retired at age 53 and waited until age 66 to receive SS benefits. When I ran the numbers, waiting one more year for age 67 (my full retirement age) would have taken me 14 years to recoup the one year of missed benefits. That's why I didn't wait. Just an example. Everybody's case is different.

 

[NO2]

If you work while taking social security, and are under 70 years old, your SS payments are taxed up to an effective 75% or so. If you are in good health, you can usually work, so why not work until you are 70 and than take the maximum payment at that point. You might also earn some additional SS credits if you are under the max. You should still take Medicare when you turn 65.

If your health is poor it is a completely different calculation. There are even more variables for people who are divorced or widowed, worked for the government or railroad at one time or another, or are clergy.

 

[pkunk]

Originally Posted by grampi
I have already decided to take my benefit at age 62. Is there anything I can do, a certain way to apply for my benefit, that would increase the amount I get, or is waiting longer to take it the only way of increasing my benefit?

I found this. I've yet to go to my SS office to see if it's true.

 

[wtd]

I'm taking mine at 62 because tomorrow is not guaranteed. While my family has good longevity on my mother's side, it doesn't on my father's side. I already have a couple of health issues at age 52 so I don't see any reason to wait. I also have a Gov't pension that pays all of my bills and a decent TSP to fall back on.

Obviously everyone's financial situation is different so what works for one may not work for someone else.