Triple_Se7en
$50 Site Donor 2024
I waited until 66 and now I can collect fully and still earn as much as I want working in Schools Transportation sector. I don't need Medicare B plus supplemental, due to Blue Cross coverage by school district.
Social Security
- Thread starter grampi
- Start date
- Status
I retired at 56, grabbed SS at 62...As for Medicare, I just pay the $115 for part B....People who use spread sheets and worry about financial crap just die before their time...The idea is to go into retirement with zero debt...
Here is my take on when to start collecting;
Are you a gambling person with all the decades of money that you poured into the Social Security System?
I mean if it wasn't a government run program you most likely would have millions by now.
Anyway, if you want a sure thing, I say start collecting at age 62 in order to start getting back the decades upon decades of contributions you made. If you die, what the heck, depending if you have a spouse or not, the government keeps the money, not like its going to be passed on to your kids.
After pouring money in for your whole life, the government expects you to die at around the age of 77/79 if you start collecting at age 62 that would be the break even point for getting the most amount of money back.
So, if your a gambler, sure, wait until 67/68 to start collecting and assume you will live to 82/83 in order to get the money back that you contributed by not collecting at 62. Of course if you do live that long, at that point you will start coming out significantly ahead for every year you live past that.
Doesnt make sense to me. Dont get me wrong, I was torn by the decision but heck, who knows how long you will live past 62?
So if you are able to start collecting right away, keeping in mind that you have to pay for health insurance until 65, which with the ACA is not hard for people with lower incomes to do until 65, and keeping in mind after 65 you will need supplemental health ins, you get to use the huge amount of money that you put into the SS system while you are alive and be able to enjoy it.
If you wait to 67 who the heck knows if you are going to live to 82/83 or whatever to get the same amount of money back then if you collected at 62.
There are other options as well, start collecting at 62 and maybe get yourself a part time job that you would enjoy, work 20 hours a week, get company health insurance until 65, lots of options and not any one option best for everyone.
Disclaimer, I am NOT expert, just my thoughts and what one person does does not apply to everyone, many options and MANY factors to take into account. By all means, not everyone is in the same position to do the same thing, nothing wrong with waiting for the MAX payout if that is what one is comfortable with.
I guess the part that drives me nuts is some of the articles you read in the press, writers presenting themselves as knowing what is best for everyone, without explaining the benefits of start collecting at 62/63 for those that can afford it.
They always say people live longer then they expect, yet the facts are, the average male lives until 78 ish. I know we dont like to think so, but those are the facts.
Are you a gambling person with all the decades of money that you poured into the Social Security System?
I mean if it wasn't a government run program you most likely would have millions by now.
Anyway, if you want a sure thing, I say start collecting at age 62 in order to start getting back the decades upon decades of contributions you made. If you die, what the heck, depending if you have a spouse or not, the government keeps the money, not like its going to be passed on to your kids.
After pouring money in for your whole life, the government expects you to die at around the age of 77/79 if you start collecting at age 62 that would be the break even point for getting the most amount of money back.
So, if your a gambler, sure, wait until 67/68 to start collecting and assume you will live to 82/83 in order to get the money back that you contributed by not collecting at 62. Of course if you do live that long, at that point you will start coming out significantly ahead for every year you live past that.
Doesnt make sense to me. Dont get me wrong, I was torn by the decision but heck, who knows how long you will live past 62?
So if you are able to start collecting right away, keeping in mind that you have to pay for health insurance until 65, which with the ACA is not hard for people with lower incomes to do until 65, and keeping in mind after 65 you will need supplemental health ins, you get to use the huge amount of money that you put into the SS system while you are alive and be able to enjoy it.
If you wait to 67 who the heck knows if you are going to live to 82/83 or whatever to get the same amount of money back then if you collected at 62.
There are other options as well, start collecting at 62 and maybe get yourself a part time job that you would enjoy, work 20 hours a week, get company health insurance until 65, lots of options and not any one option best for everyone.
Disclaimer, I am NOT expert, just my thoughts and what one person does does not apply to everyone, many options and MANY factors to take into account. By all means, not everyone is in the same position to do the same thing, nothing wrong with waiting for the MAX payout if that is what one is comfortable with.
I guess the part that drives me nuts is some of the articles you read in the press, writers presenting themselves as knowing what is best for everyone, without explaining the benefits of start collecting at 62/63 for those that can afford it.
They always say people live longer then they expect, yet the facts are, the average male lives until 78 ish. I know we dont like to think so, but those are the facts.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Leo99
. You have to remember that half the people have less than average intelligence.
That's not how average is calculated - need to present a little more intelligent argument when talking about other people's low intelligence.
. You have to remember that half the people have less than average intelligence.
That's not how average is calculated - need to present a little more intelligent argument when talking about other people's low intelligence.
Originally Posted by Alfred_B
Originally Posted by Leo99
. You have to remember that half the people have less than average intelligence.
That's not how average is calculated - need to present a little more intelligent argument when talking about other people's low intelligence.
Poster likely doesnt even know the difference between leptokurtic and platykurtic
distributions.
Originally Posted by Leo99
. You have to remember that half the people have less than average intelligence.
That's not how average is calculated - need to present a little more intelligent argument when talking about other people's low intelligence.
Poster likely doesnt even know the difference between leptokurtic and platykurtic
distributions.
I don't think the sort of distribution makes a difference in the sentiment being expressed.
You can be 100% accurate on your critique of his stats and still 100% miss what was said.
There are tens of millions of stupid people. Soon to be a couple of hundred million stupid people as our population grows but our education and other endeavors have diminished returns.
Originally Posted by Alfred_B
Originally Posted by Leo99
. You have to remember that half the people have less than average intelligence.
That's not how average is calculated - need to present a little more intelligent argument when talking about other people's low intelligence.
You can be 100% accurate on your critique of his stats and still 100% miss what was said.
There are tens of millions of stupid people. Soon to be a couple of hundred million stupid people as our population grows but our education and other endeavors have diminished returns.
Originally Posted by Alfred_B
Originally Posted by Leo99
. You have to remember that half the people have less than average intelligence.
That's not how average is calculated - need to present a little more intelligent argument when talking about other people's low intelligence.
I've already weighed all of the pros and cons over when to start taking SS and I've decided to take it at 62. My wife and I will have enough other sources of retirement income coming in that we don't need to wait until full retirement age before we start taking it. Like others have said, regardless of family history, tomorrow is gauranteed for no one...
Originally Posted by alarmguy
Anyway, if you want a sure thing, I say start collecting at age 62 in order to start getting back the decades upon decades of contributions you made. If you die, what the heck, depending if you have a spouse or not, the government keeps the money, not like its going to be passed on to your kids.
After pouring money in for your whole life, the government expects you to die at around the age of 77/79 if you start collecting at age 62 that would be the break even point for getting the most amount of money back.
So, if your a gambler, sure, wait until 67/68 to start collecting and assume you will live to 82/83 in order to get the money back that you contributed by not collecting at 62. Of course if you do live that long, at that point you will start coming out significantly ahead for every year you live past that.
Doesnt make sense to me. Dont get me wrong, I was torn by the decision but heck, who knows how long you will live past 62?
If you wait to 67 who the heck knows if you are going to live to 82/83 or whatever to get the same amount of money back then if you collected at 62.
By all means, not everyone is in the same position to do the same thing, nothing wrong with waiting for the MAX payout if that is what one is comfortable with.
I guess the part that drives me nuts is some of the articles you read in the press, writers presenting themselves as knowing what is best for everyone, without explaining the benefits of start collecting at 62/63 for those that can afford it.
They always say people live longer then they expect, yet the facts are, the average male lives until 78 ish. I know we dont like to think so, but those are the facts.
I believe you mean well but I think some of your numbers are off which can affect the entire calculation you've just made.
It's one thing to talk about the average age being 78, but when you hit 62, you have an expected 20 years of life life, so it's actually 82. From birth you might be expected to average 78, but by making it to 62, it means you've beat out all those that died between 0-62 and the odds of living longer increase for every year that you make it through. Based on the chart I posted earlier, you probably have a better than 50% change of making it to 80. Only about 18% make it to 90 though.
It's basically a gamble either way. This is the difference between macro and micro. From the macro view, it's a safer gamble to take it later because the tables all say that you will live on average longer than the SS# use. Their numbers are actually outdated, it's supposed to be set up to be neutral when you take it, but people are actually living longer so from the macro view, it's safer to wait longer. However as we all said, if your health isn't good and you're gambling that you're going to die earlier than average, then taking it at 62 would make sense. It's just that the odds are that you will lose that gamble and have less in retirement.
I'm also not a fan of the mentality that you should take it early because you want to get the most out of because you paid into it. That has a high chance of burning you later when you live longer than you think. I've paid car insurance, homeowners insurance all these years too and I don't expect to get anything out of it either.
Anyway, if you want a sure thing, I say start collecting at age 62 in order to start getting back the decades upon decades of contributions you made. If you die, what the heck, depending if you have a spouse or not, the government keeps the money, not like its going to be passed on to your kids.
After pouring money in for your whole life, the government expects you to die at around the age of 77/79 if you start collecting at age 62 that would be the break even point for getting the most amount of money back.
So, if your a gambler, sure, wait until 67/68 to start collecting and assume you will live to 82/83 in order to get the money back that you contributed by not collecting at 62. Of course if you do live that long, at that point you will start coming out significantly ahead for every year you live past that.
Doesnt make sense to me. Dont get me wrong, I was torn by the decision but heck, who knows how long you will live past 62?
If you wait to 67 who the heck knows if you are going to live to 82/83 or whatever to get the same amount of money back then if you collected at 62.
By all means, not everyone is in the same position to do the same thing, nothing wrong with waiting for the MAX payout if that is what one is comfortable with.
I guess the part that drives me nuts is some of the articles you read in the press, writers presenting themselves as knowing what is best for everyone, without explaining the benefits of start collecting at 62/63 for those that can afford it.
They always say people live longer then they expect, yet the facts are, the average male lives until 78 ish. I know we dont like to think so, but those are the facts.
I believe you mean well but I think some of your numbers are off which can affect the entire calculation you've just made.
It's one thing to talk about the average age being 78, but when you hit 62, you have an expected 20 years of life life, so it's actually 82. From birth you might be expected to average 78, but by making it to 62, it means you've beat out all those that died between 0-62 and the odds of living longer increase for every year that you make it through. Based on the chart I posted earlier, you probably have a better than 50% change of making it to 80. Only about 18% make it to 90 though.
It's basically a gamble either way. This is the difference between macro and micro. From the macro view, it's a safer gamble to take it later because the tables all say that you will live on average longer than the SS# use. Their numbers are actually outdated, it's supposed to be set up to be neutral when you take it, but people are actually living longer so from the macro view, it's safer to wait longer. However as we all said, if your health isn't good and you're gambling that you're going to die earlier than average, then taking it at 62 would make sense. It's just that the odds are that you will lose that gamble and have less in retirement.
I'm also not a fan of the mentality that you should take it early because you want to get the most out of because you paid into it. That has a high chance of burning you later when you live longer than you think. I've paid car insurance, homeowners insurance all these years too and I don't expect to get anything out of it either.
I took it at 62 with the plan to save it all, invest it, and then pay back ss and start at a higher age for more benefits. I ended up spending all the money as fast as it comes in. If you can possibly save the money you get, and don't lose it, paying it back to ss and taking a higher benefit is a great plan.
Originally Posted by grampi
I've already weighed all of the pros and cons over when to start taking SS and I've decided to take it at 62. My wife and I will have enough other sources of retirement income coming in that we don't need to wait until full retirement age before we start taking it. Like others have said, regardless of family history, tomorrow is gauranteed for no one...
I agree and I started taking it early too
I posted my reasons a few posts before this one.
Again, everyones situation is different, I too have other sources of income and SS is a nice perk, however it is a program forced on the American people by our Congress (who doesnt take part in it) and since it is, I want to make sure I get back what I put in plus interest.
Pretty much accepted fact that means if retiring at 62/63 you already have to live to 78 or as wolf says new average is 82, since I have other income I want to make sure I get my money back.
At the same time, I am sure it makes solid sense to wait as long as possible or, work a part time job and collect at the same time. Many options and no one option is good for everyone.
To me, its gambling to wait until later, gambling that I am going to live to 78 or as wolf says, 82 (hope wolf is correct if I made it to this age that odds are in my favor that my new average is 82! *L*) I dont feel like leaving my hard earned money for someone else to benefit from, doesnt make sense, again, since I am in the situation to do so. I can also invest the money I receive if I chose.
Also, taking it early, you get to enjoy life more, as much as some dont want to think about it once your around the age or 62ish you are lucky you have 15 years of a good life ahead of you, after that, chances are you will not be able to enjoy things as much anyway no matter how long you live.
I've already weighed all of the pros and cons over when to start taking SS and I've decided to take it at 62. My wife and I will have enough other sources of retirement income coming in that we don't need to wait until full retirement age before we start taking it. Like others have said, regardless of family history, tomorrow is gauranteed for no one...
I agree and I started taking it early too
I posted my reasons a few posts before this one.
Again, everyones situation is different, I too have other sources of income and SS is a nice perk, however it is a program forced on the American people by our Congress (who doesnt take part in it) and since it is, I want to make sure I get back what I put in plus interest.
Pretty much accepted fact that means if retiring at 62/63 you already have to live to 78 or as wolf says new average is 82, since I have other income I want to make sure I get my money back.
At the same time, I am sure it makes solid sense to wait as long as possible or, work a part time job and collect at the same time. Many options and no one option is good for everyone.
To me, its gambling to wait until later, gambling that I am going to live to 78 or as wolf says, 82 (hope wolf is correct if I made it to this age that odds are in my favor that my new average is 82! *L*) I dont feel like leaving my hard earned money for someone else to benefit from, doesnt make sense, again, since I am in the situation to do so. I can also invest the money I receive if I chose.
Also, taking it early, you get to enjoy life more, as much as some dont want to think about it once your around the age or 62ish you are lucky you have 15 years of a good life ahead of you, after that, chances are you will not be able to enjoy things as much anyway no matter how long you live.
Last edited:
Yeah, I had a kid later in life, so, giving up my day job before FRA isn't really an option, so taking social security before FRA would be pointless as I'd get nothing.
I have life insurance in case I pass away before FRA, to take care of college and so forth...
What I could do is take my government employee retirement early and go back to work in the private sector, or even go back to work for the state government, which is allowed* in Texas. However, if you work longer before retiring, your annuity increases approximately 1.5% per year.
* - your annuity cannot be contributed to or increase if you retire and subsequently go back to state government employment.
I have life insurance in case I pass away before FRA, to take care of college and so forth...
What I could do is take my government employee retirement early and go back to work in the private sector, or even go back to work for the state government, which is allowed* in Texas. However, if you work longer before retiring, your annuity increases approximately 1.5% per year.
* - your annuity cannot be contributed to or increase if you retire and subsequently go back to state government employment.
- Status
