# Why claiming Social Security early could be more popular than ever this decade



## MULTIZ321 (Jan 7, 2020)

Why claiming Social Security early could be more popular than ever this decade.










						Why claiming Social Security early could be more popular than ever this decade
					

Here's why more retirees may choose to take their payouts at age 62, even with a permanently reduced benefit.



					www.usatoday.com
				





Richard


----------



## Brett (Jan 8, 2020)

MULTIZ321 said:


> Why claiming Social Security early could be more popular than ever this decade.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



so boomers believe SS benefits are going to be reduced in the future


----------



## pedro47 (Jan 8, 2020)

Thanks, nice article.
How much  interest is our government earning off SS monthly and where is the   Money going ?


----------



## Brett (Jan 8, 2020)

pedro47 said:


> Thanks, nice article.
> How much  interest is our government earning off SS monthly and where is the   Money going ?




I'm not sure one could say the federal government is "earning" interest from social security
But there is an "actuarial deficit" in the "trust fund" that will have to be dealt with at some point in the future


----------



## easyrider (Jan 8, 2020)

After overthinking the " when to collect " issue, it became clear that the break even point for us is just under 80. We think we can invest this better now versus at 80. Many of the people we know begin to go into the dwindles after 80 and have problems by 85 keeping track of everything. I only know a very few people that lived past 86. 

Bill


----------



## TheTimeTraveler (Jan 8, 2020)

Deleted.



.


----------



## bbodb1 (Jan 8, 2020)

FWIW: I think a growing number of people are realizing what a pain in the ________ work is in most cases.  Unless you are one of the fortunate few who have a job you really like, why would you want to work any longer than you absolutely have to?

There is far too much of this country (and the world if budget allows) to see and explore.  My biggest reason for wanting to retire at 62 and not a day later is there are things I will hopefully still be able to do at 62 that I am less likely to be able to be at 67 (or 70 or whatever).  I may still work a small job when I retire - if I can find one that suits me and one I enjoy - as I would like to continue to invest whatever SS income I receive.  

It may be a poor financial move on my part, but I do not want to spend my life working.


----------



## WinniWoman (Jan 8, 2020)

Health insurance is the real issue. You will need to use the SS check to pay the health insurance premiums .


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Jan 8, 2020)

WinniWoman said:


> Health insurance is the real issue. You will need to use the SS check to pay the health insurance premiums. College costs and health care premiums have prevented us from retiring early.



This could be the real issue. Many Americans were laid off prior to 65, have been scraping by and need the income to live.

I also have a friend who took early social security because they have a developmentally disabled adult child who will receive more social security once they start drawing it. The aggregate numbers came out better to take earlier than to wait.


----------



## uaremymuse (Jan 8, 2020)

WinniWoman said:


> Health insurance is the real issue. You will need to use the SS check to pay the health insurance premiums .



I pay with a credit card because I’m not taking SS until
I have to. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## uaremymuse (Jan 8, 2020)

bbodb1 said:


> FWIW: I think a growing number of people are realizing what a pain in the ________ work is in most cases. Unless you are one of the fortunate few who have a job you really like, why would you want to work any longer than you absolutely have to?
> 
> There is far too much of this country (and the world if budget allows) to see and explore. My biggest reason for wanting to retire at 62 and not a day later is there are things I will hopefully still be able to do at 62 that I am less likely to be able to be at 67 (or 70 or whatever). I may still work a small job when I retire - if I can find one that suits me and one I enjoy - as I would like to continue to invest whatever SS income I receive.
> 
> It may be a poor financial move on my part, but I do not want to spend my life working.



Retire overseas in a good country and you’ll do much better. Panama is one of those countries. Great health care and much less expensive to live there. Lots of Americans and safe. Lots of discounts for US retirees also. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## AnnaS (Jan 9, 2020)

I took early retirement this year and receive a small pension from work (a cut since I am not "retirement age").  I worked p/t the last 28 years - only had dental and eye glasses so basically no medical (worked F/T a few years before the kids, etc.).

I now babysit my 4 grandchildren (two sons) 3-4 days a week.  They are not going to daycare if we (both set of grandparents) can help out and we can.  I was not giving up medical/full time benefits/great salary...

I will be collecting my SS as early as they allow me to - 62 hopefully?  I do have a few years.  Of course, if anything happens to hubby, I will have to get my own medical until I reach 65  

My sister, two brother-in-laws and my best friend were all under the age of 60 (47, 47, 54 and 59).  I want to have a few (a lot more of course) healthy years where I can enjoy life.

Someone I know just recently retired mid 70s.  For years she talked about getting more money at retirement age and planning on traveling more, etc. etc. Well she did retire but can barely walk and has already started having falls.  She can barely use her hands from arthritis too.  

Each person must do what is best for them financially and health wise - we don't know what the future holds.  Hopefully the decision works to our advantage


----------



## bogey21 (Jan 9, 2020)

My bottom line is that it is a crap shoot speculating on your life expectancy...

George


----------



## geekette (Jan 9, 2020)

uaremymuse said:


> Retire overseas in a good country and you’ll do much better. Panama is one of those countries. Great health care and much less expensive to live there. Lots of Americans and safe. Lots of discounts for US retirees also.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


yeah, but, that's the end of seeing friends and family.   And either sell everything or pay a whopping bill to ship belongings.

I dunno.  The right call for some people, but I am not among them.


----------



## uaremymuse (Jan 9, 2020)

geekette said:


> yeah, but, that's the end of seeing friends and family. And either sell everything or pay a whopping bill to ship belongings.
> 
> I dunno. The right call for some people, but I am not among them.



We all end up making tough decisions every day of our lives and most decisions are not perfect ones. Best of luck. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sandy VDH (Jan 9, 2020)

I have been travelling for the last 35 year, just in case I can't when I am later in life.  I think I am at around 50 countries, but still more to go, and more places to see.


----------



## cgeidl (Jan 10, 2020)

We have been very fortunate to be able to travel to 106 different countries over the past 59 years. We retired at 57 and never look back and regretted that decision. We took our Social Security as early as we could which was age 62 and invested it. We are now 80 and our average return was 10 1/2% on our Social Security money per year. I don’t think that waiting until while we were 70 would have provided us as much income and assets. it would be a real math problem for me to figure it out. I have never seen an article that showed for different way to return investing your Social Security and taking it at an early age compared to what you would get at age 70.


----------



## bogey21 (Jan 10, 2020)

If you earned 10½% you are ahead of the game.  My understanding is that if you delay taking Social Security until age 70, your benefit only increases 8%...

George


----------



## clifffaith (Jan 10, 2020)

I took SS last January at age 63. We figured that was best in our situation since Cliff is 18 years older.


----------



## VacationForever (Jan 10, 2020)

bogey21 said:


> If you earned 10½% you are ahead of the game.  My understanding is that if you delay taking Social Security until age 70, your benefit only increases 8%...
> 
> George


It is not a true 8% increase.  It takes the sum of money that you did not take between 62 to 70 and add that up and divide up for when you start at the age of your withdrawal until about 80 years old, and the COLA for the 8 years and call it 8%.


----------



## gresmi (Jan 13, 2020)

easyrider said:


> After overthinking the " when to collect " issue, it became clear that the break even point for us is just under 80. We think we can invest this better now versus at 80. Many of the people we know begin to go into the dwindles after 80 and have problems by 85 keeping track of everything. I only know a very few people that lived past 86.
> 
> Bill




Bill, I agree with you and believe that the income would be more useful now as opposed to at 80 y.o.


----------



## easyrider (Jan 13, 2020)

WinniWoman said:


> Health insurance is the real issue. You will need to use the SS check to pay the health insurance premiums .



One of my self employed friends said that Medicare wanted him to collect SS at 65 which was about a year off his fra. He thought this was less costly than paying his private policy so he signed up for SS.

Bill


----------



## VacationForever (Jan 13, 2020)

easyrider said:


> One of my self employed friends said that Medicare wanted him to collect SS at 65 which was about a year off his fra. He thought this was less costly than paying his private policy so he signed up for SS.
> 
> Bill


Are you saying that he was unaware that these are 2 separate events?


----------



## easyrider (Jan 13, 2020)

VacationForever said:


> Are you saying that he was unaware that these are 2 separate events?



What do you mean ? He paid for private insurance and at 65 he signed up for Medicare and SS because the Medicare cost and SS loss until his fra was less than his private insurance. 

Bill


----------



## VacationForever (Jan 13, 2020)

easyrider said:


> What do you mean ?


You can start Medicare at 65 and not collect Social Security until after that, 66, 67, 68, 69 and 70...


----------



## easyrider (Jan 13, 2020)

VacationForever said:


> You can start Medicare at 65 and not collect Social Security until after that, 66, 67, 68, 69 and 70...



Sure, a person can wait until 70 but would want medical insurance, imo. His SS is used to pay his Medicare so he doesn't have private medical insurance anymore is the gist of it.

Bill


----------



## VacationForever (Jan 14, 2020)

easyrider said:


> Sure, a person can wait until 70 but would want medical insurance, imo. His SS is used to pay his Medicare so he doesn't have private medical insurance anymore is the gist of it.
> 
> Bill


I don't think we are understanding each other.  He was paying for private medical insurance and then switched to Medicare at 65.  His medical cost would drop substantially as a result.  He did not need to withdrawal his SS then.  He could wait until his FRA or after.  Unless you are saying that since he was self employed up until 65, with Medicare he immediately stopped work and as a result he needed an income, he then filed for SS to pay for his Medicare.


----------



## BobSc (Jan 14, 2020)

The government and social security "experts" like those at Harvard want you to die before you ever claim social security.
That's why they advocate waiting. 

In fact of the 78 million born during the boomer cohort years of 46 to 63, over 5 million have already died.
Lucky Social Security will not have to pay any benefits to those 5 million.

They want you to wait as long as possible to start collecting benefits and if you do live long enough to claim benefits, they want you to die as soon as possible, thus limiting payouts.

An interesting exercise is to take the amount of benefits you expect to receive at age 62 until a full retirement age of say 66 or even 70 and add them up.
It could be as much as $50,000 or more that you will receive during those years. 

Then figure out the annual amount of your benefits at age 70 (which increase 8% per year until you claim benefits - in 4 years it would be about 32% more than your age 66 benefit). 

Then subtract the early retirement age benefit from the age 70 benefit to calculate the difference. 

Then divide the $50,000 (or whatever it is in your case) by the difference in benefits and see how many years you will have to live beyond age 70 in order to get the $50,000 you  gave up by not claiming early. 

Generally you will have to live at least until age 90 in order to break even. 
If you die sooner you will leave money on the table.

(There are other factors to consider before making a decision. For example if you claim at age 62 but continue working then a portion of your benefits could be penalized. That will have an impact on the calculations above. At age 66 or 67 or whatever your full retirement age is you can earn without penalties.)


----------



## Brett (Jan 14, 2020)

BobSc said:


> The government and social security "experts" like those at Harvard want you to die before you ever claim social security.
> That's why they advocate waiting.
> 
> In fact of the 78 million born during the boomer cohort years of 46 to 63, over 5 million have already died.
> ...




The "break even" point is actually less than 90 but yes, waiting to claim social security can increase one's lifetime benefits
*https://www.fool.com/retirement/2019/09/21/how-your-social-security-break-even-age-affects-wh.aspx*


----------



## easyrider (Jan 14, 2020)

VacationForever said:


> I don't think we are understanding each other.  He was paying for private medical insurance and then switched to Medicare at 65.  His medical cost would drop substantially as a result.  He did not need to withdrawal his SS then.  He could wait until his FRA or after.  Unless you are saying that since he was self employed up until 65, with Medicare he immediately stopped work and as a result he needed an income, he then filed for SS to pay for his Medicare.



He is self employed and still working. He has plenty of money and assets. He probably switched because it was better coverage for less money and used SS to pay the Medicare because it was easier for him, imo.

Bill


----------



## AnnaS (Jan 15, 2020)

BobSc said:


> The government and social security "experts" like those at Harvard want you to die before you ever claim social security.
> That's why they advocate waiting.
> 
> In fact of the 78 million born during the boomer cohort years of 46 to 63, over 5 million have already died.
> ...




I say this all the time............the government/social security want and hope people die before collecting.

I just realized there is no edit link.  I was going to edit/correct my post - I did not add the family members "passed" before 60.  No biggie


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Jan 15, 2020)

AnnaS said:


> I say this all the time............the government/social security want and hope people die before collecting.
> 
> I just realized there is no edit link.  I was going to edit/correct my post - I did not add the family members "passed" before 60.  No biggie


Hi Anna.

The Edit link is Time Sensitive. Depending on when you posted, if you are still within the time-window,
Down at the bottom of your post in the lower Lefthand corner adjacent to the word Report will be Three small period dots and a down-arrow. Click on the dots and "Edit" will pop up. Click on "Edit" and make your changes. Then click on Save and you're finished.

Richard


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Jan 15, 2020)

CalGalTraveler said:


> This could be the real issue. Many Americans were laid off prior to 65, have been scraping by and need the income to live.
> 
> I also have a friend who took early social security because they have a developmentally disabled adult child who will receive more social security once they start drawing it. The aggregate numbers came out better to take earlier than to wait.



That is my concern, I hope and pray I can stay at my company till 65 for the insurance.  My financial planner has run the numbers and tells me if I retire and have to purchase insurance on my own a big chuck of my savings will go toward insurance.


----------



## bbodb1 (Jan 15, 2020)

For better or worse, this is the general plan we've come up with:

At 60, I can take teacher retirement.  I'll do this but go find another job in a different segment of the working world. 
I'm going to 'retire' at 62 and pull SS. 
We'll invest every cent of SS I get (not sure how we'll invest this but perhaps a Roth IRA - the investment vehicle is still to be determined).
All of these funds will be invested.  
The wife will continue to work (she has decent health insurance).
I'll 'work' enough to make at (or below) the max income one can make without having to pay back anything to SS. 
We will continue to contribute to our HSA.  
Both of us will 'retire' at 65 and stop working all together (if not before). 
At present, we figure retire at 65 and see if the wife's HI policy would be less expensive to pick up for one year before we become Medicare eligible.   

One reason I wanted to post this is due to the fact that articles suggesting a person work as long as they can to maximize SS benefits are correct - to an extent.
They never take into account that a person could invest these funds and likely do better over the same time period.


----------



## easyrider (Jan 15, 2020)

bbodb1 said:


> They never take into account that a person could invest these funds and likely do better over the same time period.



Dave Ramsey did.

Bill


----------



## farinc (Jan 15, 2020)

BobSc said:


> The government and social security "experts" like those at Harvard want you to die before you ever claim social security.
> That's why they advocate waiting.
> 
> In fact of the 78 million born during the boomer cohort years of 46 to 63, over 5 million have already died.
> ...


cant the ROI change dramatically if you choose a spouse or child as a beneficiary of your SSN?


----------



## geekette (Jan 15, 2020)

farinc said:


> cant the ROI change dramatically if you choose a spouse or child as a beneficiary of your SSN?


You don't get to choose beneficiaries for your SS, it ends with you.   You can do that with your actual financial accounts.


----------



## CalGalTraveler (Jan 15, 2020)

Bird in the hand mentality? We received a $3000 insurance check for a payout of an accident. However the damages were double that amount. I think it was to lure people to accept it as the payout.

Of course if your are still working it doesn't make sense to take early payouts because you will lose much of it to taxes and forfeiture.


----------



## WinniWoman (Jan 15, 2020)

easyrider said:


> Dave Ramsey did.
> 
> Bill




This past weekend I again asked our FA about me taking SS before age 70. (Hubby is waiting until then also and that is a given as he will have the higher check). He said absolutely not. That I should look at it as an insurance policy (which I do- like an annuity) and take it at age 70. The 8% increase he said is real and it would be hard to get a better , safe return than that investing ourselves.

He obviously looks at our entire financial picture specifically, so this advice is not for everyone.

Obviously, if someone really has no money and needs SS to live on than they should take it when they need to.


----------



## easyrider (Jan 15, 2020)

WinniWoman said:


> This past weekend I again asked our FA about me taking SS before age 70. (Hubby is waiting until then also and that is a given as he will have the higher check). He said absolutely not. That I should look at it as an insurance policy (which I do- like an annuity) and take it at age 70. The 8% increase he said is real and it would be hard to get a better , safe return than that investing ourselves.
> 
> He obviously looks at our entire financial picture specifically, so this advice is not for everyone.
> 
> Obviously, if someone really has no money and needs SS to live on than they should take it when they need to.



You are right in that every ones situation is different. After really thinking about it we decided to take my wifes SS at 62 and mine probably at FRA or 70. She will be able to collect more by taking a part of mine when I do collect and if I die she would get my entire benefit. Her argument is that it doesn't matter as we have life insurance so we might as well take it at 62. 

Bill


----------



## turkel (Jan 15, 2020)

Father died at 58 thanks but regardless of need( which won’t exist ) I‘ll take mine at 62. Wait till 70, not a chance.

Too each their own and no FA will change my mind since I am a firm believer that each individual is their own best adviser mistakes included.


----------



## AnnaS (Jan 15, 2020)

MULTIZ321 said:


> Hi Anna.
> 
> The Edit link is Time Sensitive. Depending on when you posted, if you are still within the time-window,
> Down at the bottom of your post in the lower Lefthand corner adjacent to the word Report will be Three small period dots and a down-arrow. Click on the dots and "Edit" will pop up. Click on "Edit" and make your changes. Then click on Save and you're finished.
> ...



Thank you Richard.  Did not realize this.


----------



## VacationForever (Jan 15, 2020)

Sugarcubesea said:


> That is my concern, I hope and pray I can stay at my company till 65 for the insurance.  My financial planner has run the numbers and tells me if I retire and have to purchase insurance on my own a big chuck of my savings will go toward insurance.


I think the question is whether you can afford to pay for it on your own and still have enough retirement savings left to live on for the rest of your retirement.  I retired at 53 which means paying for private health insurance for 12 years.  I put it in our budget.


----------



## cman (Jan 15, 2020)

bbodb1 said:


> My biggest reason for wanting to retire at 62 and not a day later is there are things I will hopefully still be able to do at 62 that I am less likely to be able to be at 67



I'm thinking the same thing. At 62, I'm still active and healthy. I can still do the things that I want to do. At 72, I just don't see myself hiking Diamond Head, or kayaking the Grand Canyon. To use a football analogy, we're in the 4th quarter of life. I'm planning on about 8 years of "active" living. After that, I guess I'll have to readjust my expectations.


----------



## bjones9942 (Jan 16, 2020)

My break even point is at age 78.  Given that I already have heart and lung issues at 62, it doesn't make much sense to delay collecting.  Now that I'm living in México, my SS payment will more than meet my monthly expenses and my investments will be able to fund my travel plans.


----------



## zinger1457 (Jan 16, 2020)

One reason to delay SS is that many using ACA for their healthcare coverage (until Medicare kicks in) have to manage their income closely to stay below the MAGI limit so that they qualify for a subsidy.  Adding SS into the equation would take away the subsidy for most, that can easily add up to $10K or more a year.


----------



## geekette (Jan 16, 2020)

zinger1457 said:


> One reason to delay SS is that many using ACA for their healthcare coverage (until Medicare kicks in) have to manage their income closely to stay below the MAGI limit so that they qualify for a subsidy.  Adding SS into the equation would take away the subsidy for most, that can easily add up to $10K or more a year.


That gets to be a tough one, because, remember, if one is eligible for ACA subsidy, it is counted as income.  So the choice is between taking actual income or getting taxed on "income" never received.  Obviously, money in an account is spendable on anything, while subsidy creates income that is earmarked as healthcare spending.

Personally, I would not be trying to stay below a certain income level only to be taxed as if you received more.  I would find it more stressful to avoid actual income, but that's just me.    If a person is happy living on the subsidy level, rock on, but best to get ducks in a row and not have expenses that are going to blow that plan.


----------



## VacationForever (Jan 16, 2020)

geekette said:


> That gets to be a tough one, because, remember, if one is eligible for ACA subsidy, it is counted as income.  So the choice is between taking actual income or getting taxed on "income" never received.  Obviously, money in an account is spendable on anything, while subsidy creates income that is earmarked as healthcare spending.
> 
> Personally, I would not be trying to stay below a certain income level only to be taxed as if you received more.  I would find it more stressful to avoid actual income, but that's just me.    If a person is happy living on the subsidy level, rock on, but best to get ducks in a row and not have expenses that are going to blow that plan.


There is no tax on ACA subsidy.


----------



## geekette (Jan 17, 2020)

VacationForever said:


> There is no tax on ACA subsidy.


There is.  I was hit by it.  It is as if you received that money as income and sent it to ins co.  If your income is so low that the subsidy changes nothing, then it changes nothing.

eta....   actually, I think my issue is that my income went above subsidy level and may have triggered a penalty.  It's not clear if it was the subsidy or cost sharing, but it was definitely the health insurance issue that nailed me unexpectedly.


----------



## VacationForever (Jan 17, 2020)

geekette said:


> There is.  I was hit by it.  It is as if you received that money as income and sent it to ins co.  If your income is so low that the subsidy changes nothing, then it changes nothing.
> 
> eta....   actually, I think my issue is that my income went above subsidy level and may have triggered a penalty.  It's not clear if it was the subsidy or cost sharing, but it was definitely the health insurance issue that nailed me unexpectedly.


I took the maximum subsidies, both for premium and cost sharing, and kept my income below the ceiling and I was not hit with any tax or payback.

If your income goes above the stated estimated income and ceiling, you have to pay back the subsidies for premium but not cost sharing.


----------



## SmithOp (Jan 17, 2020)

If your income is more than 400% of Federal Poverty Level - FPL you have to pay back the subsidy, its added to your tax bill but not a tax per se. It's all calculated on form 8962.

If you sign up for ACA be very careful telling them what your income will be, too low and you repay part of the premium tax credit PTC.

Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk


----------



## Brett (Jan 17, 2020)

SmithOp said:


> If your income is more than 400% of Federal Poverty Level - FPL you have to pay back the subsidy, its added to your tax bill but not a tax per se. It's all calculated on form 8962.
> 
> If you sign up for ACA be very careful telling them what your income will be, too low and you repay part of the premium tax credit PTC.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk




correct, if your income is higher then a % of the ACA premium is added back to taxes, not "taxed"


----------



## zinger1457 (Jan 17, 2020)

geekette said:


> That gets to be a tough one, because, remember, if one is eligible for ACA subsidy, it is counted as income.  So the choice is between taking actual income or getting taxed on "income" never received.  Obviously, money in an account is spendable on anything, while subsidy creates income that is earmarked as healthcare spending.
> 
> Personally, I would not be trying to stay below a certain income level only to be taxed as if you received more.  I would find it more stressful to avoid actual income, but that's just me.    If a person is happy living on the subsidy level, rock on, but best to get ducks in a row and not have expenses that are going to blow that plan.



The ACA subsidy is not counted as income, it's treated as a tax credit, the difference with other tax credits is you're allowed (but not required) to take the credit during the year and have it sent to your insurance company if your estimated income qualifies.  If you collect a subsidy throughout the year and at the end of the year your actual income exceeds the ACA MAGI limit or it exceeds what you estimated at the beginning of the year then you have to pay back all or part of the subsidy. If your actual income is lower at the end of the year then you receive an addition tax credit deduction.


----------



## geekette (Jan 17, 2020)

zinger1457 said:


> If your actual income is lower at the end of the year then you receive an addition tax credit deduction.


I like this part for those who lost their job during the year or are gig workers, etc.


----------



## WinniWoman (Jan 17, 2020)

geekette said:


> That gets to be a tough one, because, remember, if one is eligible for ACA subsidy, it is counted as income.  So the choice is between taking actual income or getting taxed on "income" never received.  Obviously, money in an account is spendable on anything, while subsidy creates income that is earmarked as healthcare spending.
> 
> Personally, I would not be trying to stay below a certain income level only to be taxed as if you received more.  I would find it more stressful to avoid actual income, but that's just me.    If a person is happy living on the subsidy level, rock on, but best to get ducks in a row and not have expenses that are going to blow that plan.



This sounds like me. I am stressing about this trying to stay below a certain income and how it will all play out. Ok- so yeah- we are right now living just on our savings account. I am not sure what the plan is after the first 6 months of this year, other than more of the same. But then the FA is talking small Roth conversions.

Then when I go on the website for the ACA insurer I can put in income anywhere from $30,000 to $40,000 to get a  subsidy and also a cost sharing subsidy. At $45,000 only a subsidy- not a cost sharing subsidy. Right now I paid for 2 months of retiree medical insurance at $545 per month out of our HSA account. The ACA plans would be anywhere from $103-$228 per month for a Silver Plan.

Hubby's Part D plan premiums come out of the HSA account. We paid his Medicare Part B and Plan G premiums out of pocket on credit cards. He also has an HRA account his employer will fund with $60 per month and when I start Medicare will do the same for me as long as I have at least a Part D plan through their broker. We figure we would use that money to reimburse ourselves forr dental care, copays, out of pocket prescriptions or even to reimburse ourselves for a some of the Medicare Part B premiums if anything.

Can you believe you are not allowed to pay Medicare supplement premiums out of an HSA? I wonder what the rationalle for that stupid rule is? I mean- you can pay Medicare Advantage premiums and Part D and Part B from an HSA or HRA! And my husband's HRA allows Medicare supplement plans to be paid out of it I think. I don't get it.

But back to the ACA-I am not sure what to do. I mean- it is obvious there is a savings with the ACA plan. But I am not smart enough to understand the tax implications later on. The whole thing gives me a headache and is giving me grief when I just want to enjoy my life and deal with my move to our new house and community. I am so sick of dealing with it all it isn't even funny.

Bad enough we have to make a bunch of calls and do more work to change our current plans to the new state. Then to make another decision...ugh...


----------



## VacationForever (Jan 17, 2020)

WinniWoman said:


> This sounds like me. I am stressing about this trying to stay below a certain income and how it will all play out. Ok- so yeah- we are right now living just on our savings account. I am not sure what the plan is after the first 6 months of this year, other than more of the same. But then the FA is talking small Roth conversions.
> 
> Then when I go on the website for the ACA insurer I can put in income anywhere from $30,000 to $40,000 to get a  subsidy and also a cost sharing subsidy. At $45,000 only a subsidy- not a cost sharing subsidy. Right now I paid for 2 months of retiree medical insurance at $545 per month out of our HSA account. The ACA plans would be anywhere from $103-$228 per month for a Silver Plan.
> 
> ...


One loophole in the ACA system is that if you submit estimated income as in the lowest bracket and get full subsidy and cost sharing, and you end up with higher income, you only need to pay back some or all of the premium subsidy but not the cost sharing subsidy.  You actually can come out way ahead.


----------



## klpca (Jan 17, 2020)

Interesting thread. My family (maternal) lives forever - my grandparents were 97 and 98 when they passed. Everyone else is still alive - all going strong in their late 70's and 80's. On my paternal side, most live well into their late 80's. So my worry is about outliving our assets (very low probability) and coupled with my thrifty nature I hesitate to take benefits early. I see the break even points, and the benefit payout differences - hundreds of thousands of dollars if I live in to my 90's - and I can't embrace taking the early payout. Luckily I have a few more years to think about it. I'm still on the fence.


----------



## farinc (Oct 30, 2020)

What am I missing?  If you take SSN at 62 vs 70, don't those 8 years of income more than offset the higher monthly payment if you wait until 70 even if you live into your 80s?


----------



## Brett (Oct 30, 2020)

farinc said:


> What am I missing?  If you take SSN at 62 vs 70, don't those 8 years of income more than offset the higher monthly payment if you wait until 70 even if you live into your 80s?



not necessarily 
https://www.aarp.org/retirement/planning-for-retirement/info-2018/social-security-suze-orman.html


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Oct 30, 2020)

This is a <very> complex issue. There is no right answer.

As to SS proper there are curves calcualted that show the breakeven is in the early 80s. If you live longer, you will get less total if you take early. The  you have to figure your risk profile, and your other sources of income. Everybody is different.

And then there is the tax aspects.  Very, very complex.


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Oct 30, 2020)

WinniWoman said:


> Health insurance is the real issue. You will need to use the SS check to pay the health insurance premiums .



This is why I have to work to 65 or close to it, so that I don't spend all of my retirement money on insurance... I pay $65 a month to cover my whole family right now and next year it's only going up to $73 a month, I could not purchase insurance this cheap anywhere else... My company pays 95% of the employees premiums because they do no like turnover


----------



## WinniWoman (Oct 30, 2020)

Sugarcubesea said:


> This is why I have to work to 65 or close to it, so that I don't spend all of my retirement money on insurance... I pay $65 a month to cover my whole family right now and next year it's only going up to $73 a month, I could not purchase insurance this cheap anywhere else... My company pays 95% of the employees premiums because they do no like turnover



Good employer!

I ended up switching to an ACA plan for me this year ( and for half of next until I am 65 in June). So happy I did. Silver Plan $40 per month. Very low copays if any and no deductible or referrals needed! Yes it’s an EPO but I can live with that for the short time on it. Everywhere around here accepts it. Heck it’s better than Medicare! COBRA PPO plan was costing me $547 per month and a high deductible. And what a bigger waste of money it would have been because when COVID hit you couldn’t even see a doctor here if you wanted to! 

 But you have to be low income, of course, for ACA. I will have to pull money out of my IRA before the end of the year to meet the minimum income requirements or else be thrust onto Medicaid.

My husband was thinking of getting a part time job at a hardware store next year but I told him to wait until 2022 until this whole health insurance thing is settled out. Don’t want to show any more income.


----------



## pedro47 (Oct 30, 2020)

Brett said:


> I'm not sure one could say the federal government is "earning" interest from social security
> But there is an "actuarial deficit" in the "trust fund" that will have to be dealt with at some point in the future


Guess who use surplus monies from the "Trust Fund?"


----------



## PigsDad (Oct 30, 2020)

pedro47 said:


> Guess who use surplus monies from the "Trust Fund?"


We would be crossing over into a political discussion if someone answers this.  May I suggest we not?

Kurt


----------



## VacationForever (Oct 30, 2020)

farinc said:


> What am I missing?  If you take SSN at 62 vs 70, don't those 8 years of income more than offset the higher monthly payment if you wait until 70 even if you live into your 80s?


You are not missing anything.  Hence even on the SS website it talks about breakeven age.  If I take mine at 62, my breakeven age is around 80.  If I die before I reach breakeven age, I come out ahead.  If I leave beyond, then I "lose".  In my case, it is a no brainer, I will start at 62.  Since my husband is quite a few years old than me, I am likely to switch to survivor benefits, i.e. his SS, before I turn 80.  He waited until he turned 70 to start his SS so that it was at the max.


----------



## Brett (Oct 30, 2020)

pedro47 said:


> Guess who use surplus monies from the "Trust Fund?"



I'm guessing the federal government


----------



## Icc5 (Oct 31, 2020)

I know every situation is different.  Both my wife and I worked for the same company which we had pension plans and insurance.  After 43 years I got tired of problem solving for people that didn't care.  I retired at 62 and started taking SS and went on my wife's health plan.  She is a few years younger and we decided to see how it worked out for me.  It has been great so she retired at 61 with 42 years in.  We were able to get onto the retiree health plan that paid 75% compared to 80% when working.  When I hit 65 I went on Medicare plus the retiree insurance.  This year my wife hit 65 so both of us on Medicare and because of that our retiree insurance drops down to $50 a month for each of us because Medicare now pays first before retail clerks retiree plan.  
My wife will wait 5 more years before going on SS.  We saved and planned all our life's and between investments,401k's, Roth's and other income we are better off then ever.  We also have always planned to help our kids and are able to give them $15,000 each a year to help.  So far they like us have been able to stay living in California.  I realize how much luck had to do with our circumstances.  Over all our years at work our pay was below others in Silicon Valley but we always had the good benefits and we're building up our pensions.
We also bought houses when we were 26 and 21 and saw the values grow so when we married we were able to really move up and live in a great area.  Our kids would never be able to afford houses here except in our planning they will inherit this house and enough funds that they too should be able to end up here.  Because of planning we haven't ever missed out on anything,have owned in 4 timeshare companies for about 30 years and us and our kids have been able to see much of the world and now our Granddaughter gets to see even more with us.
Bart


----------



## pedro47 (Oct 31, 2020)

COVID-19 IMHO, is causing many folks to take Social Security  benefits at 62 because they  are  afraid that this pandemics is going to be worst in 2021,


----------



## kckaren21 (Oct 31, 2020)

geekette said:


> eta....   actually, I think my issue is that my income went above subsidy level and may have triggered a penalty.  It's not clear if it was the subsidy or cost sharing, but it was definitely the health insurance issue that nailed me unexpectedly.



This happened to my friend, too. She made more money than expected, and that made her ineligible for the ACA subsidy she had gotten all year. She ended up owing $8,000 on her tax return, paying back the subsidy. Beware!


----------



## SmithOp (Oct 31, 2020)

kckaren21 said:


> This happened to my friend, too. She made more money than expected, and that made her ineligible for the ACA subsidy she had gotten all year. She ended up owing $8,000 on her tax return, paying back the subsidy. Beware!



Correct, the cutoff is 400% of Federal Poverty Level FPL, if you hit 401%, pay it all back.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## VacationForever (Oct 31, 2020)

SmithOp said:


> Correct, the cutoff is 400% of Federal Poverty Level FPL, if you hit 401%, pay it all back.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


You don't need to repay share of cost subsidy given for silver plans, only need to repay the premium.


----------



## geekette (Nov 1, 2020)

pedro47 said:


> COVID-19 IMHO, is causing many folks to take Social Security  benefits at 62 because they  are  afraid that this pandemics is going to be worst in 2021,


For some, their job went away and is not coming back.   Probably for others, health issues they already  have make them wary of getting out there.   I would expect a smattering of those that were ready to retire and pandemic just pushed the date up.


----------



## Talent312 (Nov 1, 2020)

If I had worked past 62 to raise my SS income, there'd be two issues:
1. Eight years of missed SS payments, which I'm not sure I'd last long enuff to cover.
2. If I did pass the breakeven point (80), I doubt the extra $$ would matter much.

Wait, there's one more. So, make that three issues:
1. Eight years of missed SS payments. 2. Not needing the the extra $$, and...
C. I'd have to keep working... which I did not want to do.
.


----------



## uaremymuse (Nov 1, 2020)

Talent312 said:


> If I had worked past 62 to raise my SS income, there'd be two issues:
> 1. Eight years of missed SS payments, which I'm not sure I'd last long enuff to cover.
> 2. If I did pass the breakeven point (80), I doubt the extra $$ would matter much.
> 
> ...



Even though I don't need SSN, number 3, I came to the same conclusion on items 1 and 2. I guess the decision is made more complicated when people wish to include the tax implications of the additional income tax that it may create if they have other income sources at the same time that they begin taking their SSN.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 1, 2020)

Talent312 said:


> If I had worked past 62 to raise my SS income, there'd be two issues:
> 1. Eight years of missed SS payments, which I'm not sure I'd last long enuff to cover.
> 2. If I did pass the breakeven point (80), I doubt the extra $$ would matter much.
> 
> ...


I only have 18 years of SS contribution, 17 years of 0s - I was working 15 of those years, just not in the US.  Like you, I am not going back to work.  My contributions were still high enough that my PIA is more than half my husband's PIA so I will claim at 62 against my own SS contribution.


----------



## pedro47 (Nov 1, 2020)

Talent312 said:


> If I had worked past 62 to raise my SS income, there'd be two issues:
> 1. Eight years of missed SS payments, which I'm not sure I'd last long enuff to cover.
> 2. If I did pass the breakeven point (80), I doubt the extra $$ would matter much.
> 
> ...


Talent312, working steady keeps the mind & body active, keep on moving on.
Plus, working daily keep you out of trouble at home. LOL


----------



## geist1223 (Nov 1, 2020)

VacationForever said:


> I only have 18 years of SS contribution, 17 years of 0s - I was working 15 of those years, just not in the US.  Like you, I am not going back to work.  My contributions were still high enough that my PIA is more than half my husband's PIA so I will claim at 62 against my own SS contribution.



Have you checked into drawing from the Country you worked in for 15 years? Also USA has treaties with some Countries covering this issue. Have a friend drawing a little from Germany, more from Canada, and more from USA. I think there is a treaty that limits how much he can draw between the 3.


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 1, 2020)

geist1223 said:


> Have you checked into drawing from the Country you worked in for 15 years? Also USA has treaties with some Countries covering this issue. Have a friend drawing a little from Germany, more from Canada, and more from USA. I think there is a treaty that limits how much he can draw between the 3.


It was like a 401K account and you withdraw the lump sum when you no longer live there.


----------



## Rjbeach2003 (Nov 1, 2020)

bogey21 said:


> If you earned 10½% you are ahead of the game.  My understanding is that if you delay taking Social Security until age 70, your benefit only increases 8%...
> 
> George


No 8% per year.   I waited until 70 1/2 to maximize mine.  I was still working and drawing another State retirement.  I am an independent Salesman and have been for nearly 40 years.  Also someone wrote about knowing a woman who waited until her mid 70's to take SS.  You should know that the monthly benefit doesn't grow after 70 so there is no point in waiting.  

My recommendation for what it's worth is to review your options with a reputable financial planner.  There are many decisions to make and if you make the wrong one, you will live it till you die.  They can take into account you health history and your families.  Also your financial needs  both now and at a later date.


----------



## Rjbeach2003 (Nov 1, 2020)

easyrider said:


> Sure, a person can wait until 70 but would want medical insurance, imo. His SS is used to pay his Medicare so he doesn't have private medical insurance anymore is the gist of it.
> 
> Bill


You can still take medicare regardless of when you take SS.  If you do buy the medicare advantage insurance you will have to pay for that.


----------



## Rjbeach2003 (Nov 1, 2020)

BobSc said:


> The government and social security "experts" like those at Harvard want you to die before you ever claim social security.
> That's why they advocate waiting.
> 
> In fact of the 78 million born during the boomer cohort years of 46 to 63, over 5 million have already died.
> ...


I did the calculations for myself and found that the break even point from age 66 was about 5-6 years, so significantly earlier than 90.  I also just ran the figures for someone born in 1958, turning 62 this year, earning $60,000 in final year.  Their benefit would be $1169.  If they wait until they are 70, using the same $60,000 the monthly  benefit would be $2286.

So each person should investigate their own case, don't simply do what someone else has done.


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 1, 2020)

Rjbeach2003 said:


> I did the calculations for myself and found that the break even point from age 66 was about 5-6 years, so significantly earlier than 90.  I also just ran the figures for someone born in 1958, turning 62 this year, earning $60,000 in final year.  Their benefit would be $1169.  If they wait until they are 70, using the same $60,000 the monthly  benefit would be $2286.
> 
> So each person should investigate their own case, don't simply do what someone else has done.


Unlike government pension where they use the final year or best 3 years of pay, Social Security uses the highest 35 years of contribution, adjusted for inflation.  Final year earnings does not determine SS payout.


----------



## SmithOp (Nov 1, 2020)

geist1223 said:


> Have you checked into drawing from the Country you worked in for 15 years? Also USA has treaties with some Countries covering this issue. Have a friend drawing a little from Germany, more from Canada, and more from USA. I think there is a treaty that limits how much he can draw between the 3.



The treaties allow foreign income to be treated the same as SS income for federal tax purposes, but States may tax it as ordinary income. For instance CA does not tax SS income, but will tax Canadian or German old age pension.

My father collected his UK OAP, he liked that extra income.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## simpsontruckdriver (Nov 2, 2020)

Rjbeach2003 said:


> You can still take medicare regardless of when you take SS.  If you do buy the medicare advantage insurance you will have to pay for that.


As I have said in my Medicare posts, you won't pay for a Medicare Advantage Plan with Prescription Drugs (MAPD) when you also take Medicare Parts A & B when you turn 65. Medicare Part-A (in-patient and hospice) is $0 if you've worked at least 40 quarters since you were 18. Part-B (outpatient doctor, diagnostics, labs, and PT) is just under $145/month as of today. Some MAPDs have a premium, but most are $0 premium. Some MAPDs pay part of your Part-B premium, and MAPDs can be either HMO (referrals for specialists) or PPO (pay more for out-of-network). On the other hand, a Medicare Supplement's "network" is anyone who will take Medicare, their premiums + required Part-D (drugs) is $75+ per month + $145/month Part-B.

TS


----------



## Talent312 (Nov 2, 2020)

Rjbeach2003 said:


> ... I also just ran the figures for someone born in 1958, turning 62 this year, earning $60,000 in final year.  Their benefit would be $1169.  If they wait until they are 70, using the same $60,000 the monthly  benefit would be $2286...


... Less 8 years of collecting $1169 (=$486,304), not including COL adjustments... 
... It would take ~8.37 years to make up the difference, which may or may not happen.

Anecdote:
One my ex's aunts retired from a bank at age 70... She died eggsactly six months later.
Another aunt lived until age 95. IOW, its a crapshoot. I decided not to wait it out.
.


----------



## geekette (Nov 2, 2020)

VacationForever said:


> Unlike government pension where they use the final year or best 3 years of pay, Social Security uses the highest 35 years of contribution, adjusted for inflation.  Final year earnings does not determine SS payout.


Correct.  And anyone can go check their estimates at any time.


----------



## TheTimeTraveler (Nov 2, 2020)

.

Many folks figure holding off until age 70, and always use financial tables as if they were going to plan for that.   One think to keep in mind is that the check goes up about 8% a year for each year that you hold off between 66 and 70.  

So, why not 67, 68, or 69 instead?  Greed?  Maybe, maybe not.

Another tidbit;   If one can wait until 70 then they are likely not hurting financially anyways.

Finally:   Money isn't everything, but is sure does help!  The question as to when to begin accepting will go on forever.......



.


----------



## pedro47 (Nov 2, 2020)

Can anyone guarantee you will live to the age of seventy (70).


----------



## geist1223 (Nov 2, 2020)

Started drawing as early as possible. If I live to 70 I will set a record for males in my family.


----------



## geekette (Nov 2, 2020)

pedro47 said:


> Can anyone guarantee you will live to the age of seventy (70).


Sure, on my 70th birthday.


----------



## WinniWoman (Nov 2, 2020)

pedro47 said:


> Can anyone guarantee you will live to the age of seventy (70).



Can anyone guarantee that you will not? The risk is not that you will die early. The risk is that you won’t and will live a long life.

If you die early and did not collect SS yet, you won’t care. You’ll be dead.  If you live to a nice ripe old age and collect SS later there’s a good chance you’ll be liking those larger monthly payments. 

Especially if you have no pension and are not rolling in dough. Then again if you really need money it makes sense to collect ASAP. Also, if you are rich it probably makes sense to just take it early. Why wait? It’s play money anyway. 

It’s the people in between that need to strategize and also take taxes into consideration as well as future Medicare premiums.

Everyone’s situation is different and their strategy for when to start collecting  SS will vary.


----------



## easyrider (Nov 2, 2020)

geist1223 said:


> Started drawing as early as possible. If I live to 70 I will set a record for males in my family.



I'm probably waiting until 70 unless I decide I need the money now. This way the SS amount will eventually be higher for my wife whether I live or die before 70. So far I am the longest living man of my family on my dads side. They all croaked in their 40's of heart disease. I have set the record, lol. 

I am helping her spend her SS. We bought ebikes and fun stuff with her SS. She started collecting at 62.

Bill


----------



## Brett (Nov 3, 2020)

WinniWoman said:


> Can anyone guarantee that you will not? The risk is not that you will die early. The risk is that you won’t and will live a long life.
> 
> If you die early and did not collect SS yet, you won’t care. You’ll be dead.  If you live to a nice ripe old age and collect SS later there’s a good chance you’ll be liking those larger monthly payments.
> 
> ...



probably why most people start collecting SS at their 'full retirement age"
https://www.stltoday.com/business/i...cle_8e8b175b-2de3-5945-bca8-cfe623d4fd67.html


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Nov 3, 2020)

VacationForever said:


> I only have 18 years of SS contribution, 17 years of 0s - I was working 15 of those years, just not in the US.  Like you, I am not going back to work.  My contributions were still high enough that my PIA is more than half my husband's PIA so I will claim at 62 against my own SS contribution.



I have pulled my ss report every year for the past 5 years and I knew that I had enough years in but as I was looking this year, I see that I have now eliminated the 4 years that had zeros with income, since *Social Security* calculates your average indexed monthly earnings during the 35 years in which you earned the most.


----------



## geekette (Nov 3, 2020)

Sugarcubesea said:


> I have pulled my ss report every year for the past 5 years and I knew that I had enough years in but as I was looking this year, I see that I have now eliminated the 4 years that had zeros with income, since *Social Security* calculates your average indexed monthly earnings during the 35 years in which you earned the most.


Yes, it is so much fun when you have the full record filled out, and then the lowest years start dropping out of highest 35.    Every kid should start their FICA record as young as possible.    Wherever life takes you, get official wages on the record every year.   Upgrade the non-zeroes starting at age 50.     However longer one works at higher than earliest annual income, while deferring taking the benefit, the better set towards maximizing the eventual benefit payment.  

I used to think I would work until 70.  Then I realized what a life suck that was.   There is some happy medium Sweet Spot Retirement Age between those.   It's not that I won't work again, but I don't want the stress mill again.   I don't have to make a lot of money to offset those early very low earning years and continue to improve my eventual monthly income via SS payment to me.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Nov 3, 2020)

To do planning, you need to have facts. The first thing you need to do is to download the SS Benefit Calculator for your computer.

www.ssa.gov

and fill it out. Then you can start running different scenarios.

For more fun, go to the 1040 instruction booklet and print out the instructions for calculating the taxable portion. See how much, and at what rate, you SS will fall into.

Another small land mine. SS going up at 8% per year is true, but also less than true. Why? Medicare. At age 65, you can start Medicare. But you pay for Plan B coverage, and each year the Plan B coverage goes up. However, if you are already on SS the amount is limited to to the amount of the annual COLA, or less. If you aren't already on SS you pay the full freight of any cost hike. So if the cost runs more than the annual COLA, then you will need to deduct the difference between the COLA and the higher Medicare rate, from the 8%. So you may end up with the full 8% or less. 

Lots and lots of games involved. . .


----------



## TravelAmore (Nov 3, 2020)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> To do planning, you need to have facts. The first thing you need to do is to download the SS Benefit Calculator for your computer.
> 
> www.ssa.gov
> 
> ...



But do I need Medicare Part B? If my employer retirement plan includes full medical and I sign up for Medicare Part A, do I need Part B and Part D (employer insurance includes drug plan also)?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Nov 3, 2020)

TravelAmore said:


> But do I need Medicare Part B? If my employer retirement plan includes full medical and I sign up for Medicare Part A, do I need Part B and Part D (employer insurance includes drug plan also)?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



You may not need it. Everybody's situation is different. As I posted earlier, it's a very, very complex subject. 

I will add, you need to plan ahead - far ahead. If one waits to the last minute, one will end up with very few choices, mostly bad. . . .


----------



## pedro47 (Nov 3, 2020)

I had a friend who worked for Costco p/t who was 90 + in years. He retired in the last part of 2019..
I guess working in your later years; is go for some people


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (Nov 3, 2020)

Here's some long-term considerations.
#1. Taxes. So do you want to pay taxes in retirement, or do you want to dodge as much as possible? I make no value judgement, but that is the most important question you must decide, as far in advance as possible.
   a. You don't care about taxes. Any method of investing is fine.
   b. You do care about taxes. Then you should be stuffing as much as you can in IRA/401Ks, and convert them to Roths on a steady basis. You must have them converted by them time you start Social Security, otherwise, converting will kick your SS tax rate up. Like an old car repair ad said, "Pay me now, or pay me later. Later will be much more." 
#2. Do you have pensions? If so, your tax decisions are already made for you. Pay taxes. Doing Roth conversions will help with taxes, but won't keep you out of the tax brackets.
#3. Debt status. You should start Social Security at zero debt. Debt is a killer on a fixed income.
#4. Do you like working? If you really like what you do, postponing SS is no big deal. If you hate your job, it's a different matter entirely.
#5. Medicare starts at age 65. Can you afford medical coverage before age 65?
#6 Are you willing to spend money as "bridge money" between retirement age and starting SS? Just because you retire does <not> mean that you have to start taking SS. Two totally different questions. But if you wait to take SS, you will have to bridge the difference out of your own savings. 
#7. If you have pensions, when do they start? Most likely, they will not increase if you don't start them on their starting date.


----------



## slip (Nov 3, 2020)

Brett said:


> probably why most people start collecting SS at their 'full retirement age"
> https://www.stltoday.com/business/i...cle_8e8b175b-2de3-5945-bca8-cfe623d4fd67.html



This says most people start collecting at 62 and not the FRA.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...popular-age-to-take-social-security/35928543/


----------



## controller1 (Nov 3, 2020)

Brett said:


> probably why most people start collecting SS at their 'full retirement age"
> https://www.stltoday.com/business/i...cle_8e8b175b-2de3-5945-bca8-cfe623d4fd67.html



Are you suggesting the article indicates most people start collecting Social Security at their full retirement age? Because the article does not say such.


----------



## Brett (Nov 3, 2020)

controller1 said:


> Are you suggesting the article indicates most people start collecting Social Security at their full retirement age? Because the article does not say such.



apparently more people take social security at the earliest age possible (62) compared to the 'full retirement age" (66)
maybe those people think they will not live longer than average or maybe they think social security will eventually go bankrupt


----------



## SusanRN (Nov 3, 2020)

bogey21 said:


> If you earned 10½% you are ahead of the game.  My understanding is that if you delay taking Social Security until age 70, your benefit only increases 8%...
> 
> George


8% per year.  Would have beaten the market in the last few, unless you were very astute.


----------



## SusanRN (Nov 3, 2020)

Yes, you're guessing on your future health, finances, job security, etc.  
   I traveled all over the world from age 19 through 55, spending money I could enjoy now, but I am very glad I did.  Now, at 68 I have difficulty walking, so exploratory travel is out.
   I worked half-time through July at a job I genuinely liked.  Only quit because I got a new disagreeable boss.  I'm claiming SS in January at 69, 2 months, which puts me close to the max.  I wanted the extra 8%/yr because I see SS as guaranteed income.
   I learned last month that ex-husband -- just turned 70  -- has dementia severe enough to now require nursing home "memory care" unit.  I never would have guessed from his history or his family's history. He was still semi-practicing law -- was supposed to have a jury trial this month!
   Our ability to prognosticate our futures is limited....


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 3, 2020)

SusanRN said:


> 8% per year.  Would have beaten the market in the last few, unless you were very astute.


8% growth includes the Social Security income, i.e. the principle amount, which you forgo by not taking early.


----------



## geekette (Nov 4, 2020)

Brett said:


> apparently more people take social security at the earliest age possible (62) compared to the 'full retirement age" (66)
> maybe those people think they will not live longer than average or maybe they think social security will eventually go bankrupt


FRA varies, mine is 67.  Dad's was 65.  My older sibs have FRA between 66 and 67.   Our FRAs are getting farther away from age 62, while Dad's decisions would have been different based on that fact.


----------



## elaine (Nov 4, 2020)

we're planning to do a hybrid. DH 4 years older than me will take at 62 (2 kids still in college) and then we'll try to wait until I'm 66.


----------



## Talent312 (Nov 4, 2020)

elaine said:


> We're planning to do a hybrid. DH 4 years older than me will take at 62 (2 kids still in college) and then we'll try to wait until I'm 66.



So that means you get to work four years longer... Lucky you.
Seriously, I retired at 62, but DW retired at 67... 
She liked the $3K cash bonuses they gave her each Christmas too much
_... and still misses them.
._


----------



## Blues (Nov 4, 2020)

I haven't yet seen anybody mention one of the best free Social Security planning websites -- http://opensocialsecurity.com/

Also, as mentioned upthread, deciding when to retire from working and when to claim Social Security are two separate decisions.  Too many people conflate the two.


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 4, 2020)

VacationForever said:


> 8% growth includes the Social Security income, i.e. the principle amount, which you forgo by not taking early.


I never thought of it this way.  Sounds like what they are doing is taking the payments you have skipped and giving them back to you in small increments added to your basic Normal Retirement Age Benefit and calling it interest.  Am I right about this...

George


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 4, 2020)

bogey21 said:


> I never thought of it this way.  Sounds like what they are doing is taking the payments you have skipped and giving them back to you in small increments added to your basic Normal Retirement Age Benefit and calling it interest.  Am I right about this...
> 
> George


Exactly right!


----------



## PigsDad (Nov 4, 2020)

bogey21 said:


> I never thought of it this way.  Sounds like what they are doing is taking the payments you have skipped and giving them back to you in small increments added to your basic Normal Retirement Age Benefit and calling it interest.  Am I right about this...


You can also think of it like any annuity -- the longer it is before you are to start receiving payments, the larger the payment will be.

Kurt


----------



## #1 Cowboys Fan (Nov 4, 2020)

I will work (or collect vacation time) for the next 8 weeks----right up until we complete our move from Maine to SC, then in January 2021 start collecting.

I will be considered exactly 65.   (Both SS and Medicare)

Those are both Financial decisions, as well as logistics decisions for me.

Everyone has to decide THEIR path................

Pat


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Nov 5, 2020)

geekette said:


> Yes, it is so much fun when you have the full record filled out, and then the lowest years start dropping out of highest 35.    Every kid should start their FICA record as young as possible.    Wherever life takes you, get official wages on the record every year.   Upgrade the non-zeroes starting at age 50.     However longer one works at higher than earliest annual income, while deferring taking the benefit, the better set towards maximizing the eventual benefit payment.
> 
> I used to think I would work until 70.  Then I realized what a life suck that was.   There is some happy medium Sweet Spot Retirement Age between those.   It's not that I won't work again, but I don't want the stress mill again.   I don't have to make a lot of money to offset those early very low earning years and continue to improve my eventual monthly income via SS payment to me.



I need to work a few more years, as I lost my pension from my previous company due to their bankruptcy.  If I can save enough, I would like to go out when I turn 64 and I can use my company's to bridge into retirement.


----------



## joestein (Nov 5, 2020)

Blues said:


> I haven't yet seen anybody mention one of the best free Social Security planning websites -- http://opensocialsecurity.com/
> 
> Also, as mentioned upthread, deciding when to retire from working and when to claim Social Security are two separate decisions.  Too many people conflate the two.


Not necessarily.   If you earn over a 18K you benefits are reduced by a $2 earned/$1 reduction of benefit.

Why claim benefits if you work and the benefits will be reduced?

Joe


----------



## joestein (Nov 5, 2020)

Sugarcubesea said:


> I need to work a few more years, as I lost my pension from my previous company due to their bankruptcy.  If I can save enough, I would like to go out when I turn 64 and I can use my company's to bridge into retirement.



What about the pension guarantee company?


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Nov 5, 2020)

joestein said:


> What about the pension guarantee company?



My former companies pension was sent to the PBGC, but because it had an aggregate shortfall of $944 million. The PBGC sent letters to all employees stating that since it was so under funded that the most each employee will get is 10% of what they were entitled to. So yes, I will get something but it will just be about 100 a month


----------



## joestein (Nov 5, 2020)

Sugarcubesea said:


> My former companies pension was sent to the PBGC, but because it had an aggregate shortfall of $944 million. The PBGC sent letters to all employees stating that since it was so under funded that the most each employee will get is 10% of what they were entitled to. So yes, I will get something but it will just be about 100 a month





Sugarcubesea said:


> My former companies pension was sent to the PBGC, but because it had an aggregate shortfall of $944 million. The PBGC sent letters to all employees stating that since it was so under funded that the most each employee will get is 10% of what they were entitled to. So yes, I will get something but it will just be about 100 a month




Sorry to hear that.   Very unfair to you and all the former employees.


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Nov 5, 2020)

joestein said:


> Sorry to hear that.   Very unfair to you and all the former employees.



Yes, it sure was very unfair.  The real bummer is that I worked for this company the bulk of my career and they did not offer a 401K plan because they had the pension, so I got a late start in having the opportunity to fund a 401K and I have been maxing it out every year for the past 7


----------



## sue1947 (Nov 5, 2020)

joestein said:


> Not necessarily.   If you earn over a 18K you benefits are reduced by a $2 earned/$1 reduction of benefit.
> 
> Why claim benefits if you work and the benefits will be reduced?
> 
> Joe


Actually, I think the point of the comment was the other direction.  You don't have to collect SS when you retire; you can wait.   You can spend down from other sources while getting a guaranteed 8% return on your SS benefit.  As an example; pulling money from a regular IRA and/or rolling some over into a Roth allows you to maximize that option which also reduces the amount of your RMD (required min distribution) at age 72.   The latter can be a real tax surprise and needs to be part of any retirement planning.


----------



## Rjbeach2003 (Nov 5, 2020)

geist1223 said:


> Started drawing as early as possible. If I live to 70 I will set a record for males in my family.


I have a good friend who told me when he reached 62 he had lived longer than either of his parents.  He had to quit work before that as he had had 2 heart attacks and a stroke.  He did have a teacher's retirement package as well.  He just turned 74.
Everything about picking a retirement age is so personal.  It's best to run all the options, taking into account your financial situation etc.  
In my case I am an independent commission salesman.   A couple of years before the 2008 crash I filed for a public retirement that I had been vested in since 2006.  In 2006 I lost my major accounts and my income fell by 70% overnight.  Turned out in that instance it was good that I took it, as after the 2008 crash the fund dropped significantly and my monthly payout would have been significantly less.

Because my wife retired from public education and had 30 years vested she was able to take her payments as well.  That allowed me to keep working and defer my SS until 70.  I am now 74.  When my wife reached 66 she began to draw 50% of what my SS would have been at 66 and deferred drawing on her account until 70.  

So while our situation wouldn't fit everyone I thought it might be helpful to share it to help others.


----------



## SusanRN (Nov 7, 2020)

VacationForever said:


> 8% growth includes the Social Security income, i.e. the principle amount, which you forgo by not taking early.


Correct. I should have included the information that in my case I am collecting a deceased spouse's SS while mine grows, which is why waiting makes sense.


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 7, 2020)

Sugarcubesea said:


> The PBGC sent letters to all employees stating that since it was so under funded that the most each employee will get is 10% of what they were entitled to.



The PBCG is next to worthless for employees.  Their real benefit is taking over Pension Liabilities of Companies using Bankruptcy to reorganize.  Usually employees and creditors get screwed...

George


----------



## VacationForever (Nov 7, 2020)

SusanRN said:


> Correct. I should have included the information that in my case I am collecting a deceased spouse's SS while mine grows, which is why waiting makes sense.


It absolutely makes sense in your situation.  It is often repeated that SS grows 8% every year and beats the market, hence one should wait until 70 to collect is misleading.  Because the forgone principal is added back, the amount is 8% higher each year.  Hence taking early vs. taking at 70 has a breakeven point at about 80.


----------

