# It Might Be Better to Take Social Security at 66 Instead of 70. Here's Why



## MULTIZ321 (Apr 29, 2019)

It Might Be Better to Take Social Security at 66 Instead of 70. Here's Why
By Mark Hulbert/ MarketWatch/ Retirement/ Barron's/ barrons.com

"Conventional wisdom about Social Security bites the dust—again.

As you undoubtedly already are well aware, most financial planners recommend that—so long as you can afford to do so—you should wait until age 70 to begin receiving your Social Security benefits. Your monthly payment in such an event will be 32% higher than if you begin receiving benefits at age 66. So long as you live to your early 80s, those higher monthly payments should make up for the foregone income over the four years from age 66 to 70.

I recently presented one argument for why conventional wisdom could be wrong. In this column I present another.

This additional reason traces to Social Security’s uncertain fate at the hands of our elected officials. If you take at face value some of the proposals being given serious consideration in Congress and in President Trump’s administration that reduce future Social Security benefits, then the financial planners could be giving the wrong advice to wait until age 70....."





How to decide when to dive into Social Security. Agence France-Presse/Getty Images


I'm not sure if you will be able to access this article without a paywall. I decided to post it to test the waters and determine if it would be available to all.


Richard


----------



## bluehende (Apr 29, 2019)

I get a paywall.


----------



## SmithOp (Apr 29, 2019)

I got a pay popup that I was able to close and read the article but it didn’t add much information to the decision I face this year when I turn 66, take my own or take spousal and delay until 70.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Apr 29, 2019)

bluehende said:


> I get a paywall.


Thanks for letting me know

Richard


----------



## DrQ (Apr 29, 2019)

I was able to read it, but I have not read Barron's this month.


----------



## DaveNV (Apr 29, 2019)

I got a paywall, but the window let me close it.  I was able to read the article.

I turn 66 this year.  I'm taking my retirement money while I can, because tomorrow isn't guaranteed.  And politically, I don't trust anybody. 

Dave


----------



## mjm1 (Apr 29, 2019)

I was able to access the article and appreciate you sharing it with us. Very good information to consider. 

Best regards.

Mike


----------



## bluehende (Apr 29, 2019)

DaveNW said:


> I got a paywall, but the window let me close it.  I was able to read the article.
> 
> I turn 66 this year.  I'm taking my retirement money while I can, because tomorrow isn't guaranteed.  And politically, I don't trust anybody.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the heads up.  It worked for me too.  It was so obvious I missed it.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 29, 2019)

My head has been spinning with all the financial stuff lately. My husband is definitely taking his at age 70 as he will have a slightly higher benefit than me. I will be 63 in a couple of months. My FRA is 66 + 4 months. FA said it would be good if I also wait until age 70 so so far that is the plan, but I can alter it a bit if I want, of course. I am no longer working. Husband retires the end of this year.

My husband will take his 401k and "slashed to all heck" pension in a lump sum and roll it over into an IRA.

The thing is everyone's situation is different. Depending on your assets you have to watch for the tax torpedo that can kick in if your income is too high from withdrawing IRA investments and so on, and when you hit 70 1/2 and have to take your RMD's. Then your SS can get taxed a lot.

Our plan so far is to take some of our income from our taxable accounts and a little from our Traditional IRA accounts - possibly not to exceed what NYS will not tax - which is $20,000 - then do some Roth conversions as well. With the increased standard deductions we will stay just under a certain income as to minimize taxes. Every little bit helps if we can minimize the taxes on SS and other income.

Then when we turn 70 - we each will be taking SS and the mandatory RMDs at 70 1/2 and hopefully our taxes will be at least a bit less.

I have always thought of Social Security as an annuity and we do not have any insurance annuities.

So- yeah- you can take SS early or at FRA or anytime in between 62 and 70, but you do have to look at your overall big financial picture and also factor in taxes.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 29, 2019)

I was able to read the article.


----------



## GetawaysRus (Apr 29, 2019)

The traditional saying is:  "Man makes plans and God laughs."

The corollary is:  "Man makes plans and then the government changes the rules."


----------



## Luanne (Apr 29, 2019)

DaveNW said:


> I got a paywall, but the window let me close it.  I was able to read the article.
> 
> I turn 66 this year.  I'm taking my retirement money while I can, because tomorrow isn't guaranteed.  And politically, I don't trust anybody.
> 
> Dave


That's what I did.  I took it at 62 when I retired.  Dh took his at 67, but he worked up until then.  Part of our reasoning was we wanted the money while we could still enjoy it.


----------



## DaveNV (Apr 29, 2019)

Luanne said:


> Part of our reasoning was we wanted the money while we could still enjoy it.



Exactly.  I'm going to continue working till at least the end of the year, (and maybe next year, not sure yet), but start collecting SS this year while I'm still working.

Dave


----------



## slip (Apr 29, 2019)

We both plan on retiring taking ours at 62. My wife turns 60 in a couple weeks and I turn 56 in June.


----------



## VacationForever (Apr 29, 2019)

It is anyone's speculation as to what will happen to resolve the Social Security shortfall.  We do know that if you need the money now, then start taking SS now.  The alternative is drawing down your savings which in itself will lose the ability to remain invested and grow.  

For us, it is a no brainer with our age gap.  My husband draws on his at 70 to maximize the amount for both himself and potential widow's benefits.  I start at 62 and will switch to his if I outlive him.  If he lives until 95, then we are at breakeven.  If he lives beyond 95, then we lose by my taking SS at 62.  Either way we win, either in terms of maximizing SS benefits or his longevity.


----------



## geist1223 (Apr 30, 2019)

Neither Patti or I have long lived families. I am 65 and have out lived my Dad by 4 years. So we both started at 62.


----------



## klpca (Apr 30, 2019)

We are just starting to think about this ourselves. My family lives forever (late 90's) husbands not so much but both of his parents are still alive in their mid-80's. That said, no one knows for sure. I still can't decide, but am leaning toward full retirement age for both of us. We are far more worried about health insurance at the moment (because my husband has had some health issues - and I trust no one in the gov't not to change the rules). We are also more focused on how to keep our expenses under control in retirement - looking at every item on the budget and deciding if it stays, goes, or gets adjusted.


----------



## Talent312 (Apr 30, 2019)

I took my SS benefit at age 62 for two reasons:
1. It added enuff to my pension so I could retire w/o drawing from IRA's.
_... 'cept for major ticket items, like a kitchen remodel._
2. As another poster said, make use of it while still ambulatory.
_... I calculated that I would be 82 B4 it would've paid me to wait._
.


----------



## tompalm (Apr 30, 2019)

I started at age 65 with the logic that saving and investing the money for five years would be a winning strategy if I die before age 90. Or the other factor is if the government changes the rules, I will take what I can get right now while I can get it. My math below is not perfect and figures are ballpark. Someone with a computer program can probably figure out better numbers. But the basic info below shows saving money between age 65 and 70 and paying yourself back can change your breakeven point and provide a lump sum of cash to my beneficiaries should I die early. The numbers below are for my account. I didn’t work 35 years and did not reach the max payout. 

Social Security invested at age 65 vs age 70

$2200 x 12 months x 5 years = $132,000 saved

$132,000 invested in a bond at 2.5% =$3300 year 

Age 70 to 90, bond should payout $33,000 additional funds

$132,00 + $33,000 or a total of $164,000 extra at age 90

age 70 pays $8000 / yr more than age 65 

at age 70, reduce $164,000 nest egg by $8000 yr so that payout is equal

20 years later nest egg is gone and 90 years old is my break even 
—————

Payout is based on highest 35 years


----------



## artringwald (Apr 30, 2019)

DW started hers at 66 and I was going to wait until 70, but when my Medicare Part B premium jumped 22% and hers stayed the same, I started taking it at 68. What I hadn't considered is that the COLA increases are much less that the Part B increases. SS will never decrease the net amount of the check due to Part B increases.


----------



## pedro47 (Apr 30, 2019)

This is a very nice article Richard.  I took my Social Security at age 66. I would have waited to age 70  if my doctors could have guaranteed, I could lived to see 70 and in good health. I am now in pretty good health.

Between the age 65 to 70, the human body goes through many changes, mostly they are not good. I am only speaking about me.

Here are some keys to have a good healthy life IMO.  Reduce your alcohol consumption  & red meat eating habits, walk more each day, go to Y, jump into the pool & swim,
stop smoking, eat good nutrition meals , add green & colorful vegetables to your diet, nuts and exercise. Exercise At least 150 minutes per week. These are my humble opinions only.

Also, you need to look at your family medical on both sides.


----------



## artringwald (Apr 30, 2019)

I'm 69 and I'm still putting more miles/year on my bicycle than DW puts on her car. My key to long life is exercising and eating a balanced diet.


----------



## geekette (Apr 30, 2019)

It is a tough decision for all.  I had planned to wait until 70 but I thought I would work longer than will be my case.  I have always thought I would take it when I need it, but that is now looking like sooner vs later.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 30, 2019)

artringwald said:


> DW started hers at 66 and I was going to wait until 70, but when my Medicare Part B premium jumped 22% and hers stayed the same, I started taking it at 68. What I hadn't considered is that the COLA increases are much less that the Part B increases. SS will never decrease the net amount of the check due to Part B increases.




Can you explain this further, please, if you don't mind? I was trying to explain this to our Financial Advisor last weekend, but I could not articulate it well. I would like to run this by him again.

Also, was the 22% increase you got in the Part B premium a significant amount of money? Isn't the Part B premium fairly low- like $135 or something like that? Are you saying the increase in SS benefits that you would get by waiting until age 70 would not offset the increase in Part B premiums?


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 30, 2019)

tompalm said:


> I started at age 65 with the logic that saving and investing the money for five years would be a winning strategy if I die before age 90. Or the other factor is if the government changes the rules, I will take what I can get right now while I can get it. My math below is not perfect and figures are ballpark. Someone with a computer program can probably figure out better numbers. But the basic info below shows saving money between age 65 and 70 and paying yourself back can change your breakeven point and provide a lump sum of cash to my beneficiaries should I die early. The numbers below are for my account. I didn’t work 35 years and did not reach the max payout.
> 
> Social Security invested at age 65 vs age 70
> 
> ...



I am not understanding this. And what are you living on while you invest your SS check?

Also, yes, the government can change the rules, but more than likely people of ages over FRA will be grandfathered in anyway. Of course, who knows?

Funny how many people with insurance annuities aren't bothered about handing over a ton of money to the insurance companies and waiting 10, 20 or 30 years to get their money each month. Yet they worry they won't get their SS money back. It's the same concept people.

This said, everyone has to do what they have to do. If you need the money, take it early. If you don't need the money, take it early and invest it and - heaven forbid- spend it or gift it!. If you don't need it presently, but will need it in the future, look at your individual situation, taxes, medical expenses, best guess on longevity, etc. and deal with it from that perspective.

There are a lot of factors to consider. And actually several of them could work for the same individuals. There are lots of options and just a matter of preference in many cases. Whatever the decision, it is the right one.

If you drop dead before collecting, well......people also die in their 50's, 40's, 30's and younger. They don't get their money back either.


----------



## pedro47 (Apr 30, 2019)

Sounds liked to TomPalm, has a good pension plan and he used that money to live on.
He used his social security funds to totally invest in mutual funds or stock for five years.
Also, he could be debt free no mortgage or credit card debts and in good health.

This person has a budget and loved  to save and see his money grow IMHO.


----------



## VacationForever (Apr 30, 2019)

tompalm said:


> I started at age 65 with the logic that saving and investing the money for five years would be a winning strategy if I die before age 90. Or the other factor is if the government changes the rules, I will take what I can get right now while I can get it. My math below is not perfect and figures are ballpark. Someone with a computer program can probably figure out better numbers. But the basic info below shows saving money between age 65 and 70 and paying yourself back can change your breakeven point and provide a lump sum of cash to my beneficiaries should I die early. The numbers below are for my account. I didn’t work 35 years and did not reach the max payout.
> 
> Social Security invested at age 65 vs age 70
> 
> ...


Absolutely great way to approach it quantitatively.


----------



## VacationForever (Apr 30, 2019)

mpumilia said:


> I am not understanding this. And what are you living on while you invest your SS check?



He did not invest his SS check.  He is looking at forgone money by not drawing on SS early and it came to about 90 years old before losing by taking at 65.


----------



## tompalm (Apr 30, 2019)

mpumilia said:


> I am not understanding this. And what are you living on while you invest your SS check?
> 
> Also, yes, the government can change the rules, but more than likely people of ages over FRA will be grandfathered in anyway. Of course, who knows?
> 
> ...



Living on rental income and a pension. Have not worked since 54 years old and could have waited longer to take social security, but took it at 65 and plan to save or invest the money.  The point is, if you can wait until age 70 to get social security, you can take it earlier and invest the money and do better.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 30, 2019)

I found this article about delaying SS and Medicare Part B premiums. It seems that delaying filing for SS always beat the additional Medicare Part B premium increases in the calculations they did.

https://thefiftypluslife.com/2017/07/can-delaying-social-security-equal-higher-medicare-costs/


----------



## Passepartout (Apr 30, 2019)

There is no single 'right' time for everyone to start collecting SS. For me, it was age 62. For DW it was at FRA age 65. Neither of us has regretted the choices we made. For those whose health is good and have a family history of long-lived ancestors who haven't saved/invested from an early age, 70 might be the right time to collect the highest amount for a more comfortable retirement.

It seems that the premise of the key article (e.g. get it while there's something to collect) shines a light on the feeling that 'Full Faith & Credit' might not have the deep reputation it once did.

Jim


----------



## Big Matt (Apr 30, 2019)

A couple of things to consider.
1) if SS is an important part of your retirement strategy then work until you are 70 and take it then.  If not, and you are retiring/retired, take it when you are first eligible.  The income can be invested in other investments.
2) Consider cashing out of your 401k/IRA rapidly keeping your tax bracket low at 59 and a half or when you want to stop working.  People are deferring tax today at very low (historically) tax rates.  You don't want to get stuck paying more in tax when you are older and can't afford it.  Again, you need to run the math on this one, but paying capital gains is much lower than the current tax rates and should remain that way long term. 
3) Start a legitimate business that can be used to optimize expenses.


----------



## pedro47 (Apr 30, 2019)

I also retired at age 54. Drew my first social security check at age 62. However, I went back to work part time at age 62 1/2. I Stop my SS check and repay every dollar back to social security. Worked 3 1/2 years and started growing social security again at age 66. My social security check increase about 8% each year that I did not collect SS.

My health was very good at age 66. The next year I develop high hypertension, diabetes, and some other medical problems.

Drawing Social Security to me is an individual decision.


----------



## pedro47 (Apr 30, 2019)

Big Matt, you are correct, start drawing your deferred 401A/IRA early to avoid been in a high tax bracket later in life. I hope , I am stating this correctly.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 30, 2019)

pedro47 said:


> Big Matt, you are correct, start drawing your deferred 401A/IRA early to avoid been in a high tax bracket later in life. I hope , I am stating this correctly.




That is correct. Also, doing Roth conversions before age 70 1/2 and paying the taxes early on so that your money in the Roth will grow and be tax free later in life. Also, if any money is leftover in the Roth your beneficiaries will inherit it tax free.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 30, 2019)

tompalm said:


> Living on rental income and a pension. Have not worked since 54 years old and could have waited longer to take social security, but took it at 65 and plan to save or invest the money.  The point is, if you can wait until age 70 to get social security, you can take it earlier and invest the money and do better.




But you are not factoring in taxes and leaving the higher SS check to the spouse, as well as having to live on it along with your investments in the future. And- there is no guarantee you will do better than 8% investing it. In fact, I doubt it.


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Apr 30, 2019)

DaveNW said:


> I got a paywall, but the window let me close it.  I was able to read the article.
> 
> I turn 66 this year.  I'm taking my retirement money while I can, because tomorrow isn't guaranteed.  And politically, I don't trust anybody.
> 
> Dave



I have to be 67 to get to my full retirement age for SS.  I’m thinking I might try and work till 66 and take it then.  But since that’s a ways off I will see what changes are made between now and then.


----------



## Luanne (Apr 30, 2019)

Sugarcubesea said:


> I have to be 67 to get to my full retirement age for SS.  I’m thinking I might try and work till 66 and take it then.  But since that’s a ways off I will see what changes are made between now and then.


I never really thought much about retirement, like when I would do it.  I might have worked longer than I did (I retired at 62) except that dh's job ended and we moved from California to New Mexico.  If dh had continued working, and we'd stayed where we were, I probably would have worked until at least 65.  But I was SO ready to leave.


----------



## VacationForever (Apr 30, 2019)

mpumilia said:


> But you are not factoring in taxes and leaving the higher SS check to the spouse, as well as having to live on it along with your investments in the future. And- there is no guarantee you will do better than 8% investing it. In fact, I doubt it.


But he did regarding the 8%, hence he used $8K difference per year in his calculations.  He is spending his SS checks when he starts drawing on it.

In our case, we did factor in leaving the higher SS check to surviving spouse, hence my husband takes his at 70 while I take mine at 62.  We estimate that his SS benefits will cover about 30 years.


----------



## jimf41 (Apr 30, 2019)

There is an easy way to figure this out and it doesn't involve FA's or SS "experts" or calculators. If you take the money at 62 your break even point will be just about 80. One simple question resolves the whole dilemma. Do you want to have more money between 62 and 80 or more money after you turn 80? I have longevity in my family but nobody who lived past 85 had a particularly adventuresome or expensive life. I voted for the 18 years where I could and and still am enjoying it the most.

As an example my wife and I bought Vespa scooters about 10 years ago. We've had a ball on these things. We've taken them on trips to New England and driven all over the country roads on Long Islands north shore. My bride is having some balance problems and had to give hers up last year. She really misses it but she had 10 years riding it because we had the extra money to buy them. If I'd waited till 66 or 70 she never would have had the experience, we just wouldn't have had the extra money.

Life is not a dress rehearsal, best enjoy it as fully as you can as soon as you can.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 30, 2019)

jimf41 said:


> There is an easy way to figure this out and it doesn't involve FA's or SS "experts" or calculators. If you take the money at 62 your break even point will be just about 80. One simple question resolves the whole dilemma. Do you want to have more money between 62 and 80 or more money after you turn 80? I have longevity in my family but nobody who lived past 85 had a particularly adventuresome or expensive life. I voted for the 18 years where I could and and still am enjoying it the most.
> 
> As an example my wife and I bought Vespa scooters about 10 years ago. We've had a ball on these things. We've taken them on trips to New England and driven all over the country roads on Long Islands north shore. My bride is having some balance problems and had to give hers up last year. She really misses it but she had 10 years riding it because we had the extra money to buy them. If I'd waited till 66 or 70 she never would have had the experience, we just wouldn't have had the extra money.
> 
> Life is not a dress rehearsal, best enjoy it as fully as you can as soon as you can.




Yes- but this applies to the money you saved during your working years also. If you have the assets you can still enjoy life BEFORE you decide to take SS.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 30, 2019)

VacationForever said:


> But he did regarding the 8%, hence he used $8K difference per year in his calculations.  He is spending his SS checks when he starts drawing on it.
> 
> In our case, we did factor in leaving the higher SS check to surviving spouse, hence my husband takes his at 70 while I take mine at 62.  We estimate that his SS benefits will cover about 30 years.



I was always bad at math so I have a mental block on this one.

So I get his example: He takes SS at age 65 and invests the $2200 monthly SS check for 5 years until age 70 and eventually by age 90 he has $164,000, meaning he did not touch it. At age 70 he started using his SS check to live on I assume.

The other example- starting SS at age 70, which makes it $8000 more per year than it was at age 65 he says at age 90 he would have nothing left. But- what if at age 70 you took the extra $8000 more per year you were getting- living on the rest or spending it- and invested or saved it for 20 years? Then you would have $160,000 in that scenario all things being equal and that is just putting it in a money market fund.


So then it really doesn't matter when you take it- unless you die early. Am I getting this right? Maybe I am missing something. As I said- math is not my forte'.


----------



## VacationForever (Apr 30, 2019)

mpumilia said:


> I was always bad at math so I have a mental block on this one.
> 
> So I get his example: He takes SS at age 65 and invests the $2200 monthly SS check for 5 years until age 70 and eventually by age 90 he has $164,000, meaning he did not touch it. At age 70 he started using his SS check to live on I assume.
> 
> ...


Look at it in a different way.  Because he takes SS at 65, he does not need to tap into his savings/investment during the 65 to 70 years of age and he lets the investment grow at 2.5% per year.  He is not investing his SS check but rather he does not need to de-invest.

90 yo is the breakeven / tipping point.  It means that he will be financially worse off by drawing SS at 65 if he lives beyond 90.

If your FA does his job properly he should also have done this exercise for you and your husband.  Personally I wonder why he asked both of you live off savings and wait to draw SS at 70.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 30, 2019)

VacationForever said:


> Look at it in a different way.  Because he takes SS at 65, he does not need to tap into his savings/investment during the 65 to 70 years of age and he lets the investment grow at 2.5% per year.  He is not investing his SS check but rather he does not need to de-invest.
> 
> 90 yo is the breakeven / tipping point.  It means that he will be financially worse off by drawing SS at 65 if he lives beyond 90.
> 
> If your FA does his job properly he should also have done this exercise for you and your husband.  Personally I wonder why he asked both of you live off savings and wait to draw SS at 70.




The reason is because of the tax torpedo that will hit at 70 1/2 when we have to start taking mandatory RMD's.
He wanted us at first to use our taxable brokerage account to live off of (for 0% capital gains- again re taxes) until I pointed out that there were a lot of bond funds/etf's in there- not all. He did miss that. He wants us to keep a lot of the bond funds as we get older.

So he said to take a little from the brokerage account and a little from our traditional IRA's. (we could take just $20,000 from those to stay under the NYS tax) and then also do Roth conversions. Goal being to lower our RMD's in our 70's and beyond.

He said a lot of people are very surprised when in their 70's their SS checks start getting taxed a lot. This is his strategy to help with that.

As for the exercise regarding taking SS, I told him we planned for my husband to take it at age 70 and he agreed. Then he asked me if I would consider waiting until age 70 and I told him I would if he thought it was a good idea/or we could afford it. I of course, could decide to take it earlier, but I probably would not until at least my full retirement age. We can't live off one SS check anyway. Or even 2 reallywhen I factor in we have to pay the health insurance for me and Medicare for my husband, which he estimates could be a total of $1000 per month in premiums. (makes me sick).

Meanwhile, I still have the issue with my 2018 wages not being posted with SS so I will patiently wait until the end of the year to see what happens with that.


----------



## artringwald (Apr 30, 2019)

mpumilia said:


> Can you explain this further, please, if you don't mind? I was trying to explain this to our Financial Advisor last weekend, but I could not articulate it well. I would like to run this by him again.
> 
> Also, was the 22% increase you got in the Part B premium a significant amount of money? Isn't the Part B premium fairly low- like $135 or something like that? Are you saying the increase in SS benefits that you would get by waiting until age 70 would not offset the increase in Part B premiums?



One could say that if you take SS early and invested it, the funds and the gains from taking it early could match what you'd earn by delaying. Of course that depends on how long you live. At some point it's break even. When I decided to wait, I hadn't realized that my part B premiums might go up. It wasn't a significant amount, $105 to $135/month, but it was enough to swing me to start SS right away. However, the following year, COLA went up and Part B hardly changed, so we're both paying $135.50 now.


----------



## bluehende (Apr 30, 2019)

Another consideration would be the favorable treatment of capital gains.  It might be better to delay SS and use capital gains for expenses.  I have been doing this for years booking gains that I have no tax liability.  When I have to book our 401k earnings I have no doubt my tax liability will be much higher.  The more income I can book now the better.  I have been fairly aggressive and realize I probably have not been aggressive enough.  When I want to maintain market exposure I just buy something else.


----------



## VacationForever (Apr 30, 2019)

artringwald said:


> One could say that if you take SS early and invested it, the funds and the gains from taking it early could match what you'd earn by delaying. Of course that depends on how long you live. At some point it's break even. When I decided to wait, I hadn't realized that my part B premiums might go up. It wasn't a significant amount, $105 to $135/month, but it was enough to swing me to start SS right away. However, the following year, COLA went up and Part B hardly changed, so we're both paying $135.50 now.


The SS hold harmless rule only applies when COLA increase is less than Medicare increase.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 30, 2019)

bluehende said:


> Another consideration would be the favorable treatment of capital gains.  It might be better to delay SS and use capital gains for expenses.  I have been doing this for years booking gains that I have no tax liability.  When I have to book our 401k earnings I have no doubt my tax liability will be much higher.  The more income I can book now the better.  I have been fairly aggressive and realize I probably have not been aggressive enough.  When I want to maintain market exposure I just buy something else.




That is exactly what our FA told us and one reason he wants us to do it that way, though he somewhat altered it because of the bond funds in our brokerage acct. Also, I have a Dividend fund in our account that I hesitate to withdraw from. Not sure what to do with that but when the time comes I will ask him more about it. We have a Value stock fund in there also that I guess we could liquidate, though it is not that much money.

Any extra cash we have has to be set aside for when we move to possibly put towards our next home in case we do not have enough money from the sale of our current house.

I have to keep playing the lottery. I am not greedy. I just want $1000 per week for life. LOL!


----------



## SmithOp (Apr 30, 2019)

This is a good discussion bringing up important issues to consider.  I appreciate everyones input since I’m approaching 66 end of this year, its making me weigh all options.

Fidelity has some free calculators to model retirement and SS income.

https://www.fidelity.com/calculators-tools/retirement-calculator/overview

Considerations:
Longevity / Health
Quality of life
Future Tax burden
Future investment rates
Future of SS payouts
Passing savings along to heirs
Marital status


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## MULTIZ321 (Apr 30, 2019)

Should I begin collecting Social Security
at age 62 when I retire or at age 67, which
is my full retirement age? 


https://www.investopedia.com/adviso...cial-security-age-62-when-i-retire-or-age-67/


Richard


----------



## VacationForever (Apr 30, 2019)

mpumilia said:


> I have to keep playing the lottery. I am not greedy. I just want $1000 per week for life. LOL!



$52K per year is not much.  Are you sure you did not mean $1K per day?


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 30, 2019)

VacationForever said:


> $52K per year is not much.  Are you sure you did not mean $1K per day?




LOL! I said I wasn't greedy! I do those $2.00 scratch offs one per month and i believe they are $1000 per week for life.


----------



## geekette (Apr 30, 2019)

mpumilia said:


> The reason is because of the tax torpedo that will hit at 70 1/2 when we have to start taking mandatory RMD's.



Tax torpedo?  If you have enough stashed away for RMDs to be scary, how much easier is converting to Roth going to be, when you have to pay that tax?

No torpedo coming for me.   RMDs are unlikely to be more than I was planning to take out anyway.


----------



## Talent312 (Apr 30, 2019)

geekette said:


> Tax torpedo?  If you have enough stashed away for RMDs to be scary, how much easier is converting to Roth going to be...?



DW currently does RMD's, but most of her stuff is in a Roth, so it's just annoying.
Converting just wasn't going to get us enuff additional $$ for us to pull the trigger.
We withhold enuff from the RMD's to cover the additional tax, so not scary at all.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 30, 2019)

geekette said:


> Tax torpedo?  If you have enough stashed away for RMDs to be scary, how much easier is converting to Roth going to be, when you have to pay that tax?
> 
> No torpedo coming for me.   RMDs are unlikely to be more than I was planning to take out anyway.



It's because 2 SS checks,  2 Mandatory RMDs, plus I have an inherited IRA that requires RMDs- not a lot but still... 

"How much easier is converting to Roth going to be when we have to pay that tax?" I mean, it is not easy- just have to do it. I wasn't planning on doing this initially, but the FA says to do it. Not ALL of our IRA money, just enough to stay under a certain income between the conversions and the IRA/brokerage withdrawals we will live on for each of the 4 years leading up to age 70 1/2. (husband will have 4 years until he is 70 when he retires the end of this year). Bring the IRA balances down as much as we can- won't eliminate the taxes later on, of course, but will help

I am not an accountant and I do not understand a lot of this. This is why I hired him. He is a CFP. At some point- like with a doctor- you have to have some element in trust in someone who is the professional and you are not.

This all said, I do a lot of mental gymnastics trying to understand it all and I do ask him a lot of questions. I have access to him all year and going past that I can always pay him by the hour for more advice or put him on a retainer. He said he would help me with the withdrawals when the time comes if I am uncertain what and how to do. 

He does not have our assets. He would just look at what we have and help me out so I can do the withdrawals myself.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Apr 30, 2019)

Like TimeSharing - one size does not fit all. Deciding when to take Social Security is dependent on too many individual factors.

Under certain situations, an argument could be made that taking Social Security at 62 is a good decision when you don’t need it to grow to achieve the necessary Spend for you and spouse.

Delaying SS to convert more IRA to Roth to take advantage of tax rates can be a good decision. We are doing this.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 30, 2019)

Speaking of which- our FA did not know the answer to this question- but does anyone know if the RMD's from an Inherited IRA are counted towards your total required RMD's from your own IRA after age 70 1/2? Or must those still be taken separately as I do now?

The FA said he suspected they must still be taken separately and I am assuming so as well. My brother had asked me about it- I never thought about this, but it is something else I need to know. Actually, I am thinking our investment company must know the answer to this.


----------



## VacationForever (Apr 30, 2019)

mpumilia said:


> Speaking of which- our FA did not know the answer to this question- but does anyone know if the RMD's from an Inherited IRA are counted towards your total required RMD's from your own IRA after age 70 1/2? Or must those still be taken separately as I do now?
> 
> The FA said he suspected they must still be taken separately and I am assuming so as well. My brother had asked me about it- I never thought about this, but it is something else I need to know. Actually, I am thinking our investment company must know the answer to this.


From my understanding, inherited IRA RMDs are separate from your own IRA RMDs.  You have to meet both requirements.


----------



## pedro47 (Apr 30, 2019)

If I was in my twenties again. I would saved all my money in a Good ROTH Account.

I would not purchase U S Saving Bonds. Remember you must calmed the interest, when you cash them in and that is taxable income.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 30, 2019)

pedro47 said:


> If I was in my twenties again. I would saved all my money in a Good ROTH Account.
> 
> I would not purchase U S Saving Bonds. Remember you must calmed the interest, when you cash them in and that is taxable income.




They did not have Roth IRA's years ago. But for our son, I had him start one. In fact, we funded it a bit for him when he was 16 and on up and working. Now-as an adult he puts 5% of his pay into the company 401k and a little money into the Roth every month. I keep trying to get him to put more into the Roth- max it out if possible. But he has not done so as he has no interest in handling his finances. SMH....

When the Roth's came out we immediately switched to funding them. My husband is funding his this year instead of his HSA since he is on Medicare and his company was a pain about funding it- too complicated-long story- he could have but we chose to avoid doing it this last work year, but at least he could do the Roth and 5% into his 401k, though I am not sure he will get the match since he plans to leave the end of the year and the match is usually done in February.

Our savings bonds have been coming due and we have been reinvesting the proceeds in I Bonds now. They are all in electronic format. I converted the savings bonds- EE- all years ago. What a job that was!


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 30, 2019)

Good article FA has on his website regarding the tax torpedo.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/29/will-the-tax-torpedo-blow-up-your-retirement.html


----------



## am1 (Apr 30, 2019)

I do not know much about social security.  Should the government do away with spousal benefits?  The world is a lot different now then before.  Or allow it but split the working spouses amount in half to pay the non working/lower earning spouse.  Or some formula where they get added together and split.  Seems like a money drain for both spouses to collect off of ones contribution.


----------



## WinniWoman (Apr 30, 2019)

am1 said:


> I do not know much about social security.  Should the government do away with spousal benefits?  The world is a lot different now then before.  Or allow it but split the working spouses amount in half to pay the non working/lower earning spouse.  Or some formula where they get added together and split.  Seems like a money drain for both spouses to collect off of ones contribution.



My opinion has always been that only people who work and pay into the system should get SS. Not a non working spouse* EXCEPT* when the spouse with the SS dies, the other spouse should be able to collect it.

It always irks me that a non working spouse can collect half of their spouses' SS- an amount that is sometimes higher than another persons' who worked all their life!

Ex: A woman married to a high earning man. The woman never had to work. Yet she can collect 1/2 of his SS and he collects his. 

Meanwhile, lots of women have worked all their lives, as well as their husbands. 

That woman who never worked can be collecting more $ than the working woman!


----------



## Patri (Apr 30, 2019)

mpumilia said:


> Ex: A woman married to a high earning man. The woman never had to work. Yet she can collect 1/2 of his SS and he collects his. That woman who never worked can be collecting more $ than the working woman!


But perhaps the woman who did not work, and took care of the kids, made it better financially for the family. No childcare or work wardrobe, and less eating out. If she would have had a low income job, it is a no-brainer to stay home.


----------



## Luanne (Apr 30, 2019)

mpumilia said:


> My opinion has always been that only people who work and pay into the system should get SS. Not a non working spouse* EXCEPT* when the spouse with the SS dies, the other spouse should be able to collect it.
> 
> It always irks me that a non working spouse can collect half of their spouses' SS- an amount that is sometimes higher than another persons' who worked all their life!
> 
> ...


But then you also need to think about the woman who didn't work, not because she didn't "need" to but because she stayed home to raise the family.  Or, she was in a job where she didn't pay into Social Security.  She probably doesn't have a pension. So her spouse dies and now she has nothing?


----------



## clifffaith (Apr 30, 2019)

Cliff took SS when he retired from aerospace at age 68; he is now 81. Both of his parents lived into their early 90s, so I expect the same for him. I turned 63 in December and took my first SS check in January. We closed our window coverings business at the end of October, so this is my first year of retirement. Because of our 18 year age difference we just decided that for me to wait could end up leaving money on the table if Cliff dies “early”.


----------



## VacationForever (Apr 30, 2019)

mpumilia said:


> My opinion has always been that only people who work and pay into the system should get SS. Not a non working spouse* EXCEPT* when the spouse with the SS dies, the other spouse should be able to collect it.





Luanne said:


> So her spouse dies and now she has nothing?



No one is saying the surviving spouse gets nothing.  See the first statement by MaryAnn.


----------



## geekette (Apr 30, 2019)

Women get screwed if spousal benefits go away.  Pregnancy alone is a dent in an otherwise upwardly career, and caretaking in general falls to the female spouse, whether it be the kids or parents.  Unless unpaid work gets SS credit, I am a no on doing away with spousal benefits. 

I have no dog in this fight, my SS will be much higher than my ex-husb, but I never interrupted my career to have kids and didn't have as many ladder-climbing barriers that others face and left workplaces that were not good for me.


----------



## bluehende (Apr 30, 2019)

pedro47 said:


> If I was in my twenties again. I would saved all my money in a Good ROTH Account.
> 
> I would not purchase U S Saving Bonds. Remember you must calmed the interest, when you cash them in and that is taxable income.



We just went through this.  When I started in a savings plan this was an option that you could get delivered to you.  This was before the tax benefit of a 401k.  It was a matching program and most investments could only be withdrawn under special circumstances.  I was 22 and figured it was better to have it delivered to me.  40 yrs later they had amassed to a pretty sum.  We cashed them in over 4 yrs when we wanted to consolidate finances in case something bad happened and since they were getting to the point of not earning interest.  Of course these are very much first world problems to have.  Just a few more moles in the wac a mole game of taxes.


----------



## artringwald (May 1, 2019)

am1 said:


> I do not know much about social security.  Should the government do away with spousal benefits?  The world is a lot different now then before.  Or allow it but split the working spouses amount in half to pay the non working/lower earning spouse.  Or some formula where they get added together and split.  Seems like a money drain for both spouses to collect off of ones contribution.



I would not have been able to put in the long hours I did, and make the advancements I did if DW didn't stay home, raise the kids, and run the household. She wasn't employed, but she certainly did work hard. I think she fully deserves the SS benefit she gets, even though it's only 50% of my benefit. On the taxes returns each year I put her occupation as domestic engineer.

On the other hand, it doesn't seem fair that Johnny Carson was married to 3 different women for at least 10 years. Each of those women were eligible to claim 50% of his SS benefit.


----------



## VacationForever (May 1, 2019)

No offence to all homemakers.  I worked hard, climbed the career ladder and I was also a divorced mother for many years of that.  I did not interrupt my career to raise my son but instead utilized the financial resources that I obtained from working hard and hired help along the way to help raise my son.  It can be done.


----------



## am1 (May 1, 2019)

artringwald said:


> I would not have been able to put in the long hours I did, and make the advancements I did if DW didn't stay home, raise the kids, and run the household. She wasn't employed, but she certainly did work hard. I think she fully deserves the SS benefit she gets, even though it's only 50% of my benefit. On the taxes returns each year I put her occupation as domestic engineer.
> 
> On the other hand, it doesn't seem fair that Johnny Carson was married to 3 different women for at least 10 years. Each of those women were eligible to claim 50% of his SS benefit.



That is great and your social security would be split with your wife.  It should be based on the contributions and when.  Your wife should get some.  Half of yours if you have been married your working career and you should get half.  That way there would be no need for survival benefits.  Set a fixed age of when payments start and millions would be saved on paying accountants fir that advice.


----------



## tompalm (May 1, 2019)

Regarding survivor benefit - When the spouse has social security income and that money is saved, she is better off with a large lump sum than to take a higher survivor benefit.  The what if’s get difficult to figure, but having two people collect SS for a long period of time would produce more cash than a spouse collecting higher survivor benefit at age 70.


----------



## WinniWoman (May 1, 2019)

Patri said:


> But perhaps the woman who did not work, and took care of the kids, made it better financially for the family. No childcare or work wardrobe, and less eating out. If she would have had a low income job, it is a no-brainer to stay home.




I have nothing against someone staying home. Hell- I wish I could have. But that has nothing to do with whether or not you should be entitled to Social Security.


----------



## WinniWoman (May 1, 2019)

Luanne said:


> But then you also need to think about the woman who didn't work, not because she didn't "need" to but because she stayed home to raise the family.  Or, she was in a job where she didn't pay into Social Security.  She probably doesn't have a pension. So her spouse dies and now she has nothing?



I am not saying the woman would not be entitled to her husband's social security IF he dies. She certainly should be. I am saying while he is collecting his, she should not be entitled to also collect an amount that is 1/2 of his as well.

Think of it this way, with that line of thinking, the women who worked and ALSO had to still do the homemaking and child rearing and so forth- then THEY too should be able to collect their own and half of their husbands'. They had two jobs! In fact- the men that worked- they still had to be the handyman around the house and help with the kids, maybe handle the finances at home, whatever and so forth. So maybe they, too should get half their wive's SS as well as their own!

Just because you choose to stay home and have responsibilities has nothing to do with getting Social Security. This said, I do think in the situation where a spouse that worked dies, the other spouse who also worked should continue to get both checks as a beneficiary until he/she too passes on. The deceased spouse worked long and hard to earn it.


----------



## vacationhopeful (May 1, 2019)

Think I should develop a website for "Arranged marriages for singles over 62" to increase their Social Security checks. 

And I STILL blame the federal change in the US defined pension vesting rule from 10 years to 5 years of work which started on January 1, 1983. I was 3 months shy of a pension at an oil company ... in corporate financial systems. And I had been to all 5 owned and operated US refinaries in the prior 3 years. Their plants were running full blast. 

Five year vesting was the DEATH of private pension plans ... IHMO. 

The Federal, State and Local government should be MADE to FUND their pension plans, too.


----------



## Patri (May 1, 2019)

artringwald said:


> I would not have been able to put in the long hours I did, and make the advancements I did if DW didn't stay home, raise the kids, and run the household. She wasn't employed, but she certainly did work hard.


You said this very well. The thought entered my mind in my post, but I couldn't articulate it.



VacationForever said:


> No offence to all homemakers.  I worked hard, climbed the career ladder and I was also a divorced mother for many years of that.  I did not interrupt my career to raise my son but instead utilized the financial resources that I obtained from working hard and hired help along the way to help raise my son.  It can be done.


You did extremely well, and it was a must choice for you. For those fortunate to have options, some do not want others raising their children. I know people who are far from well off, choosing to have the mom (occasionally the dad) stay home with the kids. 
SS is complex. The intent is that no one is penniless in their old age. There are so many situations, it cannot be equal or necessarily fair to everyone. I think benefits have expanded tremendously since it was rolled out in 1935. And you can't put the cat back in the bag once it's out.


----------



## klpca (May 1, 2019)

artringwald said:


> I would not have been able to put in the long hours I did, and make the advancements I did if DW didn't stay home, raise the kids, and run the household. She wasn't employed, but she certainly did work hard. I think she fully deserves the SS benefit she gets, even though it's only 50% of my benefit. On the taxes returns each year I put her occupation as domestic engineer.
> 
> On the other hand, it doesn't seem fair that Johnny Carson was married to 3 different women for at least 10 years. Each of those women were eligible to claim 50% of his SS benefit.


Art, thank you for acknowledging the contribution that your wife made to your career. 

I stepped off of the corporate ladder after our second child was born but continued to work part time. This was a conscious decision - my mom worked full time+ when we were growing up. I longed for a mom who picked me up from school to go home, not staying in after school care. I hated watching the caregivers watching the clock, I hated my mom picking us up at the last possible minute. Every day. I was determined that my kids wouldn't have to do that. I worked very hard during those years  - I did it for my husband, my kids, and kids whose mom's had to go to work. In addition to doing everything around the house, I probably spent a good 20 hours a week volunteering at the school, church, and scouting. Luckily my husband was a good provider, and I am thrifty so we squeaked by although we camped on vacations instead of going to Hawaii, lol.

Now that we are doing our retirement planning, I am very aware of the financial cost of that decision. My husband has 3 times the amount of retirement savings as me. His social security is about 50% higher. If we didn't have a solid marriage and if we didn't live in a community property state, these things could be very damaging to me financially. I hadn't considered that when I stopped working full time. I don't know that I would have done anything different, but the reality of what that cost me is sobering. I know of a couple who is divorcing and there's another area where a non-working spouse can lose because her contribution to the marriage is not quantifiable. (Although a good attorney can level that particular playing field).

And I agree about the multiple wives situation. You should be able to pick your favorite, lol.


----------



## bluehende (May 1, 2019)

Maybe it is the old guy from a different era in me, but I look at my marriage as a partnership.  My wife took a career that insured her income would be low to have the advantage of being home and raising the kids.  Albeit, since it was a home day care she was far from a stay at home Mom.  Every penny brought into the household was never considered mine or hers.  It was our income.  Why should our combined SS not be considered a partnership.  We both paid into it to have a certain benefit including increases to her SS should I not be able to provide a higher income.  Even if my wife never worked it would be our decision how the partnership works, but the asset known as SS should be shared.  Could not a stay at home spouse call it unfair if their efforts allow their spouse to earn an income that puts them above the income to earn the maximum benefit.  Just curious if you would also throw widows off of Medicare?

PS   To think a complex and huge program like SS could be 100% fair to everyone is unrealistic.  I have always loved the quote


"  Don't let perfection be the enemy of good "


----------



## talkamotta (May 1, 2019)

My husband I are both second marriages but we both work  for the same  company with a pension.  Yeah for us.  His first wife died early of breast cancer and he decided to retire at 49.  He got his full pension with 30 years.  I retired at 57 with a full pension.  I got a divorce when I was 39.  For so many years with my rental properties, 5 kids, I was always in a low tax bracket.    I would have worked longer but my back was killing me, climbing ladders, working on the floor, etc.  I had fallen off a roof a few years back and had 12 inch rods in my back.  It was time for  me to leave but I also got ssdi.  Husband took SS at 62. We got married at 60 and we are now 65.   We figured it would take 12 years to make up the difference between the age of 62 to 66.  We both had  money in a 401k that we have moved over to something very secure and wont touch until the 70.5 mark.  Husband was in the guard for 28 years so he gets a small pension but we also get Tricare.  And our company we retired from gives us each $2600 /year for anything medical, so our medicare premiums are paid.  It makes me shake my head when these new wantabe presidential canidates say medicare for all.   Insurance for senior citizens is not cheap.  I do have some regrets that I forward to my children.....maximize that ROTH, they say you will be in a lower tax bracket when you get older....not true....if you did things right.  My dad (depression baby)  put money in the freezer,  didnt pay taxes on that.  Maybe that wasnt so dumb after all.  But I do wished I would have put more money in non tax defferred accounts.  You save alot of money and then when you want to pull it out you are taxed at the 22% doesnt seem quite right.  We live off our monthly income now and seem to put money away each month.  We travel quite alot but we have always been frugal and I cant see us changing our ways even if we dont necessarily need to be.  We are like the book the Millionaires Next Door.  I never was a financial genius,  I just put money away every month, wasnt wasteful and worked very hard.  I worry for my children, they wont get pensions, they will have rental properties and I made sure they had good educations and they make good money.  Medical care costs will be an issue.  The company I retired from provided medical care for me and my family without any premiums.  They now charge premiums to their employees but its pretty cheap.  They are maximizing their ROTHs but that wont be enough.


----------



## talkamotta (May 1, 2019)

klpca said:


> Art, thank you for acknowledging the contribution that your wife made to your career.
> 
> I stepped off of the corporate ladder after our second child was born but continued to work part time. This was a conscious decision - my mom worked full time+ when we were growing up. I longed for a mom who picked me up from school to go home, not staying in after school care. I hated watching the caregivers watching the clock, I hated my mom picking us up at the last possible minute. Every day. I was determined that my kids wouldn't have to do that. I worked very hard during those years  - I did it for my husband, my kids, and kids whose mom's had to go to work. In addition to doing everything around the house, I probably spent a good 20 hours a week volunteering at the school, church, and scouting. Luckily my husband was a good provider, and I am thrifty so we squeaked by although we camped on vacations instead of going to Hawaii, lol.
> 
> ...


I was able to stay home for a while during the time when my kids were younger.  I worked hard at home than I ever did at a job.  If it wasnt for my network of stay at home moms.... getting my children to the soccer games and me picking them up.  Life would have been much harder for me.


----------



## bluehende (May 1, 2019)

talkamotta said:


> I was able to stay home for a while during the time when my kids were younger.  I worked hard at home than I ever did at a job.  If it wasnt for my network of stay at home moms.... getting my children to the soccer games and me picking them up.  Life would have been much harder for me.



I worked in research and my wife as I said had a day care.  I made 3 to 4 times her salary and there is not one day I would have traded places.  She loved it.  I would have had to be institutionalized.


----------



## Luanne (May 1, 2019)

mpumilia said:


> I am not saying the woman would not be entitled to her husband's social security IF he dies. She certainly should be. I am saying while he is collecting his, she should not be entitled to also collect an amount that is 1/2 of his as well.


Sorry, I mis-read (or didn't read thoroughly) your first statement.


----------



## am1 (May 1, 2019)

What about for people who choose not to work for pay but both parents stay at home to look after the children?  Or single parents who have to stay at home?  Maybe anyone should be able to pay into social security regardless if they work or not.  That seems the fairest of them all.  

The current system seems to offer a better ROI for married couple where one does not work.


----------



## DancingWaters (May 1, 2019)

In my situation, because I have a small pension I can only have PART of my husbands social security.  
I can’t have 100 percent of my pension and 100 percent of social security.   Women with other types of jobs can have ALL their pension and get ALL of their social security......hmmmm


----------



## VacationForever (May 1, 2019)

DancingWaters said:


> In my situation, because I have a small pension I can only have PART of my husbands social security.
> I can’t have 100 percent of my pension and 100 percent of social security.   Women with other types of jobs can have ALL their pension and get ALL of their social security......hmmmm


This is a good explanation as to why there is WEP and GPO.  It seems pretty fair to me.

https://www.aarp.org/retirement/soc...s/what-is-the-windfall-elimination-provision/

https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/questions-answers/pension-social-security-spouse/


----------



## WinniWoman (May 2, 2019)

DancingWaters said:


> In my situation, because I have a small pension I can only have PART of my husbands social security.
> I can’t have 100 percent of my pension and 100 percent of social security.   Women with other types of jobs can have ALL their pension and get ALL of their social security......hmmmm




Deleted. As vacationforever posted above.


----------



## Snazzylass (May 4, 2019)

VacationForever said:


> No offence to all homemakers.  I worked hard, climbed the career ladder and I was also a divorced mother for many years of that.  I did not interrupt my career to raise my son but instead utilized the financial resources that I obtained from working hard and hired help along the way to help raise my son.  It can be done.


Yes, but SHOULD it be done? Yeah, I did it too, but I never wanted to be a poster child for single moms. And, I don't really mean to call you out. Actually, I'm a little surprised that the OP even thought of the idea of non-working spouses should not receive SSI. The thought never occurred to me.

Get married. Have kids. And, have choices! That's the American way! My daughter-in-law is just graduating and about to start her career as a teacher. I'm super stinkin' proud of her. Still, I hope that she can stay home full-time with their future kiddos one day. My other daughter-in-law is blessed to not need to work. I enjoy working. I tried to figure out a way to stay home with my babes but it wasn't in the cards. And, my FA says I'll be just fine! I've been told that for years.

So, yeah, it's possible but I'm still 100% behind someone keeping the home fires burning  So, if a woman makes the sacrifice for her family, yes! You earned your SSI. SSI is not just a retirement program. It is disability and for the benefit of those who depend on your paycheck. It's been a big, big help to a lot of people over the years.


----------



## VacationForever (May 4, 2019)

Snazzylass said:


> Yes, but SHOULD it be done? Yeah, I did it too, but I never wanted to be a poster child for single moms. And, I don't really mean to call you out.



Call me out all that you want.  I have always wanted a career and my circle of friends are all similar.  I do not have any close friends who have chosen to be a homemaker over work.  We are all proud of our career achievements, which are also what we identify ourselves with.  In fact I was terrified to retire because it meant I would lose my identity.  We could well afford to retire years ago but giving up my work was hard.  My sister has 3 kids with her husband and she is also very successful in both work and as a mother.  Her kids, 2 boys and a girl, were all in the gifted program in school.  They graduated from university in the Math and Science field and they now all have successful careers. 

People make choices and being a stay at home mother was one that I would never have chosen.  Again, no offence to those who choose to be a stay at home mother.  It is just not for me.


----------



## bbodb1 (May 5, 2019)

VacationForever said:


> Call me out all that you want.  I have always wanted a career and my circle of friends are all similar.  I do not have any close friends who have chosen to be a homemaker over work.  *We are all proud of our career achievements, which are also what we identify ourselves with.  In fact I was terrified to retire because it meant I would lose my identity*.  We could well afford to retire years ago but giving up my work was hard.  My sister has 3 kids with her husband and she is also very successful in both work and as a mother.  Her kids, 2 boys and a girl, were all in the gifted program in school.  They graduated from university in the Math and Science field and they now all have successful careers.
> 
> People make choices and being a stay at home mother was one that I would never have chosen.  Again, no offence to those who choose to be a stay at home mother.  It is just not for me.



@VacationForever 

I have not read all of this thread, but in passing through this morning I saw the bolded quote.
Read in a certain light, that is a very sad statement (when work defines a person).  Might you elaborate a bit more on what you mean here?


----------



## Snazzylass (May 5, 2019)

Agreed! Just sayin' we need not tell those who make other choices what they should do too.

I am very successful in the business world but not all are wired like us. I can't say my boys would have been better off if I could have stayed home. I don't think that at all. But that's not true for all kids.

My own parents promoted the myth to my brothers that their wives should work. It is utter garbage. And they always held up my sister and I with our bad marriages as an example. On the other hand, I have a couple of male friends who married well and became "house husbands" while their wives' careers flourished. Now they can enjoy their golden years together after successfully raising their kids. Do what works for you and your marriage


----------



## DancingWaters (May 5, 2019)

I agree my job defined me as a person. I was a stay at home mom til my youngest was in fourth grade. Then I got a job in a school, went to college to be a teacher and loved all of it.  I guess after years of taking care of the house and kids I was ready for something else. I found getting away from everybody needing my help, since I didn’t work, was refreshing! Atleast, I was getting paid for helping someone.  I loved my classroom, students and coworkers.  I loved learning myself!!  I was valued, and quite successful. I was a part of a group of people that worked together to create educated young people. We poured our lives into the kids. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to happen when you stay home.  When I retired I regretted that decision because I missed the daily self worth and common thread with the staff.  I regret I didn't get more years in for retirement, though my husband said he’s glad I was home to raise the kids. My pension is only for 20 years, so I miss the big money. So I am disappointed I didn’t start teaching sooner, I’m 65 now, I was getting too old to continue. It was a dream that ended too soon.  I do still work part time in a school and substitute teach. About 20-25 hours a week.  Our kids turned out very successful!! So, I guess I was a good teacher at home too!


----------



## rickandcindy23 (May 5, 2019)

I felt so sorry for my real mother-in-law, the one that raised my husband.  She died at 71 in 1997.  She never made much money and social security was not good to her.  She was not married long enough to get Rick's dad's social security.  They didn't get married until well after the first two boys were born (long story).  

She was a beautiful soul, a hard-working woman whose husband left her with three boys to raise with a $60 monthly stipend to do it.  As her husband moved on with another woman, literally married her two days after their divorce was final, she struggled to make ends meet and dealt with depression.  She had horrible self-esteem and never worked a good job, until she was well over 50. 

She did house cleaning and picked up odd jobs, cleaned nursing homes, etc.  She was a hard worker.  

She didn't drive until Rick taught her.  She was 56, when he taught her to drive.  She bought a small car, a Chevy Vega, used, and she found new independence as a driver.  She started babysitting for a family that was very generous and when their kids got older, the mother got her a job at the Montesorri school the kids attended.  She suddenly made $10K a year and was ecstatic.  This was about 1984. 

Too bad she was so bad at driving her car.  She literally drove the wrong way on Speer Blvd downtown.  I don't know how she turned there, but people stopped and allowed her to make a u-turn.  She stopped driving downtown, which was good.  She just drove to the grocery store and church after that.


----------



## VacationForever (May 5, 2019)

bbodb1 said:


> @VacationForever
> 
> I have not read all of this thread, but in passing through this morning I saw the bolded quote.
> Read in a certain light, that is a very sad statement (when work defines a person).  Might you elaborate a bit more on what you mean here?



Nothing sad about it at all.  Women are no different from men, where we thrive on our achievements.  Whether you look at politicians, CEOs etc... everyone in those positions is proud of their career achievements - men and women.  I was very successful at work and even worked expatriate assignments managing IT for the company and through it all, my son came with me and attended international schools.  My work and travel broadened our horizon. I travelled internationally for work and he came along on some of them.  He spent time in Beijing, London and Hong Kong and has fond memories of all the cities he got to visit.


----------



## Talent312 (May 5, 2019)

I spent 30 years doing one thing. I guess that defined me.
But after I retired 2 years ago, I re-defined myself, in a way that I find quite enjoyable.


----------



## bogey21 (May 5, 2019)

artringwald said:


> I would not have been able to put in the long hours I did, and make the advancements I did if DW didn't stay home, raise the kids, and run the household. She wasn't employed, but she certainly did work hard..



I not only agree with this but walked the walk.  I had one of those 24/7 jobs and out of necessity my ex-wife (20 years younger than me) was in the same position.  When we got divorced after over 20 years being married she was 45 and I was 65.  Although not an attorney I handled my own divorce.  Her hot shot attorney defiantly told me she should get $3,500 a month from my pension.  I politely told her she was nuts.  I insisted that she get $5,000 per month and a 50% Survivor Annuity if I die first which is likely.  That was 19 years ago.  Do the math $5,000 x 12 x 19 to date and probably another 20 years of the same as she is only 64 today.  I felt then, and still feel today, that she earned every penny of it...Any wonder why we are still great friends...

George


----------



## geekette (May 5, 2019)

bbodb1 said:


> @VacationForever
> 
> I have not read all of this thread, but in passing through this morning I saw the bolded quote.
> Read in a certain light, that is a very sad statement (when work defines a person).  Might you elaborate a bit more on what you mean here?


This is extremely common.  not at all a new concept.  But women didn't used to get to have that, it used to be reserved for men.  

Note that most people that meet you ask what you do for a living.   Some people get to do exactly what they want and are completely fulfilled.  I got to have that.  Far from sad, I got to make a difference in the world and keep on learning.   

I find that in many cases, what one chooses to do for pay aligns very well with their talents and personalities.  It is only sad when that is not the case, when one works a job that eats their soul.


----------



## Patri (May 5, 2019)

geekette said:


> Far from sad, I got to make a difference in the world and keep on learning.


Every job makes a difference in the world.


----------



## WinniWoman (May 6, 2019)

I never felt my job defined me at all. I did it well as that was where my talents were, however humble. I needed the money and I did what I had to do. I was well liked and a good and reliable and loyal employee.

But I always felt the "real" me was separate from it and it was just a job. Then again I am an introvert, though most people would beg to differ when they meet me. I am more of a spiritual type and I know for certain that I am who I am inside- not what I do for a living out in the world to make money. I am not competitive at all either.

My mom loved to work and she took great pride and loved the attention she got from work. She always talked about work, also, which made me and my dad nuts. I never could understand it. To me, it was irrelevant in the big scheme of things.

But one thing she always said to me was not to stress about work (although she most certainly did!) because "...in the end they won't even know your name..."' and that stuck with me- that as much as she loved it- even SHE knew it really did not matter in the end.

I try to get this across to my brother as well, who most definitely defines himself by his career and reputation. He can retire but still has not.

Also, when people ask me what I would want to do in retirement to "make a difference" I tell them I already did all that- I worked in health care and I did enough and have no need to do anymore. Now I am just me and I just live.


----------



## bluehende (May 6, 2019)

mpumilia said:


> I never felt my job defined me at all. I did it well as that was where my talents were, however humble. I needed the money and I did what I had to do. I was well liked and a good and reliable and loyal employee.
> 
> But I always felt the "real" me was separate from it and it was just a job. Then again I am an introvert, though most people would beg to differ when they meet me. I am more of a spiritual type and I know for certain that I am who I am inside- not what I do for a living out in the world to make money. I am not competitive at all either.
> 
> ...



I would hope that any one aspect or event in my life would not define me.  I was a research biochemist that worked in a group that actually increased food production world wide.  My ego allows me to believe I did good work.  It provided the world with more food, my company with a ton of profits, and me with a good living.  Having said that I still think the most important "work" I ever did was volunteering in youth organizations.  I was a scout leader and coach for many years.  Over the years I have had significant contact with over 600 children.  I meet many of these kids later in life that remember specific interactions.  It is very humbling.  I hope my leagacy is as a smart guy that worked hard and was a good role model for a lot of kids that had little to no male role models.


----------



## klpca (May 6, 2019)

bluehende said:


> I would hope that any one aspect or event in my life would define me.  I was a research biochemist that worked in a group that actually increased food production world wide.  My ego allows me to believe I did good work.  It provided the world with more food, my company with a ton of profits, and me with a good living.  Having said that I still think the most important "work" I ever did was volunteering in youth organizations.  I was a scout leader and coach for many years.  Over the years I have had significant contact with over 600 children.  I meet many of these kids later in life that remember specific interactions.  It is very humbling.  I hope my leagacy is as a smart guy that worked hard and was a good role model for a lot of kids that had little to no male role models.


I was recently chatting with young woman who was in one of my Girl Scout Troop's years ago, and she told me that but she remembered me telling her to try a new food at least three times before deciding that you didn't like it. I don't actually remember saying it, but it's definitely one of my mantras so I'm positive it was said. I'm secretly thrilled that somebody was listening.


----------



## WinniWoman (May 6, 2019)

bluehende said:


> I would hope that any one aspect or event in my life would not define me.  I was a research biochemist that worked in a group that actually increased food production world wide.  My ego allows me to believe I did good work.  It provided the world with more food, my company with a ton of profits, and me with a good living.  Having said that I still think the most important "work" I ever did was volunteering in youth organizations.  I was a scout leader and coach for many years.  Over the years I have had significant contact with over 600 children.  I meet many of these kids later in life that remember specific interactions.  It is very humbling.  I hope my leagacy is as a smart guy that worked hard and was a good role model for a lot of kids that had little to no male role models.




That's great! My husband also was a Scout leader and he loved it! Still today he sometimes bumps into some of his former scouts around town. 

For me,  I worked in different aspects of healthcare- in management and also marketing. I was in home health care for the longest stretch, making sure people got the help at home they needed. It was very stressful most times. It had it's challenges, but it also had it's rewards, resulting in many thanks/appreciation from some of the patients (not all!).

But the bottom line is I did it for the salary (as did most of my coworkers)- even though we are not talking a big salary. If I didn't need to work, I would not have. I'd be lying if I said otherwise. 

I feel the most important work I ever did was being a homemaker and a mom and a partner to my spouse. Not easy feat while working full time as many women (and men) know.


----------



## bbodb1 (May 6, 2019)

I would like to add some more on this subject but for now I am rushed for time.  But this part of your quote:



geekette said:


> ....  It is only sad when that is not the case, when one works a job that eats their soul.



...I strongly agree with.  I think it is the case that (many) more people end up with jobs such as your describe in the quoted post above Geekette than do those who find their way to a career filled with personal meaning. 
Congratulations to both VacationForever and you for being among those who found a career in where you found (and continue to find) meaning.  It is a (too) rare thing in my experience.


----------



## dropngo (May 6, 2019)

Just want to share these information on SS spousal benefits.  Last year (2019), last chance for those born in 1953 as they hit their retirement age at full 66 to file a restricted application!

Social Security is incredibly complicated, and it gets even more complex when there are two of you. How and when each of you takes benefits can affect your income as a couple by hundreds of dollars a month, yet, according to Employee Benefit Research Institute's 2018 Retirement Confidence Survey, only 23% of workers actually try to maximize their benefits by planning when to claim Social Security.

*How much can I receive in spousal benefits?*

You can get a maximum of 50% of the amount your spouse would receive in benefits at his or her full retirement age. You cannot get half of your spouse's benefits plus your own, so it only makes sense to take spousal benefits if yours are less than half of your spouse's.

*When should I take Social Security spousal benefits?*

As with other Social Security retirement benefits, you can begin taking them at age 62*, but if you do so, you will receive them at a permanently reduced rate, which is a percentage based on the number of months up to your full retirement age. If you wait to take spousal benefits until your full retirement age, you can receive 50% of the amount your spouse would receive at his or her full retirement age, even if he or she took benefits early at a reduced rate.

Waiting past your full retirement age will not net* you more in spousal benefits.*

*What's a restricted application?*

Some people are allowed to take a spousal benefit while delaying their own benefits (and letting them grow to their maximum amount) until age 70. For example, if you are eligible, you could take half of your spouse's benefit, let your own grow until you are 70, and then switch to your larger benefit.

You may only file a restricted application if you were born before Jan. 2, 1954**. You also must have reached your full retirement age, and your spouse must already be collecting his or her own benefit

*What happens to our benefits when one of us dies?*

As a surviving spouse, you can receive 100% of your deceased spouse's benefits once you reach your full retirement age, or reduced benefits as early as age 60. If you had been taking the 50% spousal benefit, it would stop and you would begin receiving survivor's benefits. Again, if you claim benefits -- including survivor's benefits -- before reaching your full retirement age, they will be reduced and may be subject to the earnings test.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/applying6.html


----------



## am1 (May 6, 2019)

dropngo said:


> Just want to share these information on SS spousal benefits.  Last year (2019), last chance for those born in 1953 as they hit their retirement age at full 66 to file a restricted application!
> 
> Social Security is incredibly complicated, and it gets even more complex when there are two of you. How and when each of you takes benefits can affect your income as a couple by hundreds of dollars a month, yet, according to Employee Benefit Research Institute's 2018 Retirement Confidence Survey, only 23% of workers actually try to maximize their benefits by planning when to claim Social Security.
> 
> ...




If spousal benefits were eliminated as well as survivor benefits how much would that save?  Or how much could benefits be increased or payments decreased?  Obviously cannot do it overnight as people have built it into their retirement plans but overtime could offer huge savings.


----------



## bluehende (May 6, 2019)

am1 said:


> If spousal benefits were eliminated as well as survivor benefits how much would that save?  Or how much could benefits be increased or payments decreased?  Obviously cannot do it overnight as people have built it into their retirement plans but overtime could offer huge savings.




My guess is that the people with no income going on other social safety net programs would eliminate the huge part.


----------



## VacationForever (May 6, 2019)

am1 said:


> If spousal benefits were eliminated as well as survivor benefits how much would that save?  Or how much could benefits be increased or payments decreased?  Obviously cannot do it overnight as people have built it into their retirement plans but overtime could offer huge savings.


I am for elimination of spousal benefits since there are no contributions made into the SS funds for a non-working spouse.  However, elimination of survivor benefits is absolutely wrong.  What is the surviving spouse or children going to live on?


----------



## dropngo (May 6, 2019)

am1 said:


> If spousal benefits were eliminated as well as survivor benefits how much would that save?  Or how much could benefits be increased or payments decreased?  Obviously cannot do it overnight as people have built it into their retirement plans but overtime could offer huge savings.



IMO SS spousal benefits are essential for all us working class households...besides, that’s $ that we’ve paid into with our own labor. If you’re a surviving spouse, you’ve dedicated your life to support your family and you should be entitled to the $ that your family’s wage earner saved for his/her family. If the government wants to save that payout for something else,  it’ll probably not increase SS payments, probably wind up in welfare programs or illegal immigrants programs lol


----------



## TravelTime (May 6, 2019)

Patri said:


> But perhaps the woman who did not work, and took care of the kids, made it better financially for the family. No childcare or work wardrobe, and less eating out. If she would have had a low income job, it is a no-brainer to stay home.



The government system is inherently unfair.


----------



## TravelTime (May 6, 2019)

VacationForever said:


> No offence to all homemakers.  I worked hard, climbed the career ladder and I was also a divorced mother for many years of that.  I did not interrupt my career to raise my son but instead utilized the financial resources that I obtained from working hard and hired help along the way to help raise my son.  It can be done.



I do not have kids but I am from the working women's generation where we did not expect special treatment. There was no Me Too movement in the 1980s and 1990s. Frankly, I never experienced any discrimination in the work force and I was in high paying positions. In about the mid 2000s, I noticed things changing. Progressive big companies (like the one I worked at - Microsoft) were trying to be female friendly. So they started talking about and focusing on women's issue. At that point, I finally felt that being a woman was a deficit. I feel it is better to not focus on gender and allow the best and the brightest to duke it out.


----------



## VacationForever (May 6, 2019)

TravelTime said:


> I do not have kids but I am from the working women's generation where we did not expect special treatment. There was no Me Too movement in the 1980s and 1990s. Frankly, I never experienced any discrimination in the work force and I was in high paying positions. In about the mid 2000s, I noticed things changing. Progressive big companies (like the one I worked at - Microsoft) were trying to be female friendly. So they started talking about and focusing on women's issue. At that point, I finally felt that being a woman was a deficit. I feel it is better to not focus on gender and allow the best and the brightest to duke it out.


Amen. I have never felt that there was any glass ceiling.  If a woman wants to feel that because being a woman she is a victim in the work place, then she will always be a victim real or not.  It is all in the mindset.


----------



## Luanne (May 6, 2019)

VacationForever said:


> Amen. I have never felt that there was any glass ceiling.  I don't want to get political here but if a woman wants to feel that because being a woman she is a victim in the work place, then she will always be a victim real or not.  It is all in the mindset.


You don't want to get political?


----------



## TravelTime (May 6, 2019)

Luanne said:


> You don't want to get political?



I do not think VacationForever needed to mention she did not want to get political. She mentioned it and I thought, why is she mentioning that? It did not sound political to me. I think we all have different perspectives depending on our life story.


----------



## VacationForever (May 6, 2019)

Luanne said:


> You don't want to get political?


OK. I took out the word political.


----------



## bluehende (May 6, 2019)

TravelTime said:


> I do not have kids but I am from the working women's generation where we did not expect special treatment. There was no Me Too movement in the 1980s and 1990s. Frankly, I never experienced any discrimination in the work force and I was in high paying positions. In about the mid 2000s, I noticed things changing. Progressive big companies (like the one I worked at - Microsoft) were trying to be female friendly. So they started talking about and focusing on women's issue. At that point, I finally felt that being a woman was a deficit. I feel it is better to not focus on gender and allow the best and the brightest to duke it out.



Is it possible that the first 5 words of your comment has a lot to do with the rest of it.


----------



## am1 (May 6, 2019)

bluehende said:


> My guess is that the people with no income going on other social safety net programs would eliminate the huge part.



That’s why an adjustment period would be needed.  There are no more typical famalies as everyone is different.  

Maybe a limit on survivor benefits would be better?  How long is possible for someone to collect on those benefits?  18 year old marries an old guy and she is set for life. Nothing against it or for it but let the old guy pay out of pocket for it not the tax payers.  

I am not going to rely on any of the 3 systems that my wife or I have paid into.  But may make a last minute push into one if the projected return is high enough.


----------



## VacationForever (May 6, 2019)

am1 said:


> That’s why an adjustment period would be needed.  There are no more typical famalies as everyone is different.
> 
> Maybe a limit on survivor benefits would be better?  How long is possible for someone to collect on those benefits?  18 year old marries an old guy and she is set for life. Nothing against it or for it but let the old guy pay out of pocket for it not the tax payers.
> 
> I am not going to rely on any of the 3 systems that my wife or I have paid into.  But may make a last minute push into one if the projected return is high enough.


The 18-year old is unable to start collecting until she is 60 and only if she does not remarry.  If they have children, the children collect until when they turn 18.


----------



## am1 (May 6, 2019)

VacationForever said:


> The 18-year old is unable to start collecting until she is 60 and only if she does not remarry.  If they have children, the children collect until when they turn 18.


 
So marries low forties and has a child at 42.  Still a lot of cash to pay out to people who habe never paid into the system.


----------



## bluehende (May 6, 2019)

Since our SS is dependent on the payroll deductions from today's younger workers, maybe we should base SS on how many children you have.  This would seem more fair if we want to keep the system financially sound.  I would bet some good accountant could do a nice discounted cash flow model that would get the current value of a future wage earner.


----------



## VacationForever (May 6, 2019)

am1 said:


> So marries low forties and has a child at 42.  Still a lot of cash to pay out to people who habe never paid into the system.


SS also doubles up as a welfare program so that the poor do not fall through the cracks of society.  I do not see a problem with that.  One way or the other, they will need to be taken care of.


----------



## klpca (May 7, 2019)

TravelTime said:


> I do not have kids but I am from the working women's generation where we did not expect special treatment. There was no Me Too movement in the 1980s and 1990s. Frankly, I never experienced any discrimination in the work force and I was in high paying positions. In about the mid 2000s, I noticed things changing. Progressive big companies (like the one I worked at - Microsoft) were trying to be female friendly. So they started talking about and focusing on women's issue. At that point, I finally felt that being a woman was a deficit. I feel it is better to not focus on gender and allow the best and the brightest to duke it out.


My experience was different. When I was working full time (while pregnant and with a toddler at home) I was working on the most complex clients in our firm, and for the most difficult partner. I chose to work with him because the clients were interesting and the work was challenging. After our annual reviews were held, I received a "meets expectations" review. I knew that this was wrong. I knew that I was in sole possession of first place in our department - and it wasn't close. A week later a female manager took me aside to let me know that a single man had been given a larger raise because he was single and I was married, thus my husband and I had two incomes and he (single guy) needed the money more. This was in 1987. Of course I made a stink and got my deserved raise plus a bonus, but really?? This was what we were up against in the "olden days". Good for those who worked in a large protected corporate environment, but a lot of us were working in small firms where chauvinism thrived. It was not pretty.

One more thing, there was absolutely no accommodation given for anything back in those days. Childcare (and getting your kids before it closed) was not their problem. Need to work but still breastfeeding - tough - give your kid a bottle.  Of course, the guys took two hour lunches and left early on Fridays. Me, I was coming in early so that my husband could drop off the kids in the morning, and working through lunch to be able to leave by 6. And in the end, the single guy got the mercy raise. Those years were ridiculous and younger women have those of us who fought the tough fight to thank for being treated equally.


----------



## klpca (May 7, 2019)

VacationForever said:


> SS also doubles up as a welfare program so that the poor do not fall through the cracks of society.  I do not see a problem with that.  One way or the other, they will need to be taken care of.


So true!


----------



## WinniWoman (May 7, 2019)

And then there is SSI for Disability. Very important, but also a lot of fraud goes on.


----------



## geekette (May 7, 2019)

klpca said:


> My experience was different. When I was working full time (while pregnant and with a toddler at home) I was working on the most complex clients in our firm, and for the most difficult partner. I chose to work with him because the clients were interesting and the work was challenging. After our annual reviews were held, I received a "meets expectations" review. I knew that this was wrong. I knew that I was in sole possession of first place in our department - and it wasn't close. A week later a female manager took me aside to let me know that a single man had been given a larger raise because he was single and I was married, thus my husband and I had two incomes and he (single guy) needed the money more. This was in 1987. Of course I made a stink and got my deserved raise plus a bonus, but really?? This was what we were up against in the "olden days". Good for those who worked in a large protected corporate environment, but a lot of us were working in small firms where chauvinism thrived. It was not pretty.
> 
> One more thing, there was absolutely no accommodation given for anything back in those days. Childcare (and getting your kids before it closed) was not their problem. Need to work but still breastfeeding - tough - give your kid a bottle.  Of course, the guys took two hour lunches and left early on Fridays. Me, I was coming in early so that my husband could drop off the kids in the morning, and working through lunch to be able to leave by 6. And in the end, the single guy got the mercy raise. Those years were ridiculous and younger women have those of us who fought the tough fight to thank for being treated equally.


Thank you.  Harrassment and discrimination are not a state of mind.  Those lucky enough to not be subjected to it are just that - lucky.


----------



## bogey21 (May 7, 2019)

Frankly I would leave Social Security just like it is with one change and one item to review.  Society depends on it.  Don't complicate things by tinkering with the rules.  The change I would make is to have the SS Tax apply to all income, not cut it off at some arbitrary amount.  This would be a good step to ensure the Program's solvency.  I would also have the Disability part analyzed to see if any changes are needed.  Otherwise leave it alone...

George


----------



## PigsDad (May 7, 2019)

bogey21 said:


> The change I would make is to have the SS Tax apply to all income, not cut it off at some arbitrary amount.  This would be a good step to ensure the Program's solvency.


Currently the contributions are capped at a certain income level, but the benefits are also capped.  If the income level cap was removed, would you still cap the benefits?

Kurt


----------



## bluehende (May 7, 2019)

PigsDad said:


> Currently the contributions are capped at a certain income level, but the benefits are also capped.  If the income level cap was removed, would you still cap the benefits?
> 
> Kurt




The answer to your question depends on how you look at SS.

If it is an account you feel your depositing into for a future withdrawal then certainly not.  This is how many look at it and how it is portrayed.

If you see your SS deductions from your paycheck as a tax to pay for current outlays of the government then you would.  Paying more taxes does not obligate the government to spend more on you.  This is how it actually works.

I have no idea which is correct.


----------



## TravelTime (May 7, 2019)

bluehende said:


> Is it possible that the first 5 words of your comment has a lot to do with the rest of it.



One thing that irks me to no end is how the pregnancy laws hurt small businesses. I feel like my company has become a maternity ward. I am supposed to accommodate everyone’s needs yet no one accommodates my needs. Two more years and I am closing my doors. The laws have a lot to do with why being a small business owner is hard.


----------



## am1 (May 7, 2019)

TravelTime said:


> One thing that irks me to no end is how the pregnancy laws hurt small businesses. I feel like my company has become a maternity ward. I am supposed to accommodate everyone’s needs yet no one accommodates my needs. Two more years and I am closing my doors. The laws have a lot to do with why being a small business owner is hard.



My guess is it hurts young women as well as anyone doing the hiring knows in the back of their mind they could get pregnant at any time or currently are pregnant.  Laws can only regulate so much. Unintended consequences.


----------



## bluehende (May 7, 2019)

TravelTime said:


> One thing that irks me to no end is how the pregnancy laws hurt small businesses. I feel like my company has become a maternity ward. I am supposed to accommodate everyone’s needs yet no one accommodates my needs. Two more years and I am closing my doors. The laws have a lot to do with why being a small business owner is hard.



Yeah the continuation of the species can be inconvenient.


----------



## TravelTime (May 7, 2019)

am1 said:


> My guess is it hurts young women as well as anyone doing the hiring knows in the back of their mind they could get pregnant at any time or currently are pregnant.  Laws can only regulate so much. Unintended consequences.



This is true. Now that I have had 3 women in my small business go on six maternity leaves, I have seen how expensive this is and how it has hurt my business. I need to over hire to cover the revenue when they are away to make sure we can pay the overhead. The overhead does not change when someone is out for 5-6 months but the revenue goes way down.


----------



## TravelTime (May 7, 2019)

bluehende said:


> Yeah the continuation of the species can be inconvenient.



It is very inconvenient. Glad you agree. The worst part is they do not tell me until the last minute when if they told me sooner, I could plan better. Also one took leave and is not coming back. She knew she would not come back but lied in order to get disability benefits from the state. As soon as the payments stopped, she resigned.


----------



## bogey21 (May 7, 2019)

PigsDad said:


> Currently the contributions are capped at a certain income level, but the benefits are also capped.  If the income level cap was removed, would you still cap the benefits?



Yes.  I would leave the benefits capped.  I see the extra revenue going toward making Social Security more solvent.  Trust me.  I'm not a soak the rich kind of guy but the money has to come from somewhere to keep the Program solvent...

George


----------



## klpca (May 7, 2019)

TravelTime said:


> It is very inconvenient. Glad you agree. The worst part is they do not tell me until the last minute when if they told me sooner, I could plan better. Also one took leave and is not coming back. She knew she would not come back but lied in order to get disability benefits from the state. As soon as the payments stopped, she resigned.


No one knows how they will feel about parenting until after the baby is home. Some moms just can't leave their babies.  Either that or they discovered the true cost of daycare and decided that it wasn't worth it financially to work.

Why did I leave my full time job? The powers-that-be who were running the firm told me that if they let me come back part time at first, then going to full time in 6 months, they would have to let everyone do that. So I left and went to another firm who let me work permanent part time. I am still working for the same people (firm has gone through some changes) over 30 years later. How stupid to spend the time training someone then let all of that investment walk right out the door.  Life is full of give and take. I paid my dues and worked my 65+ hour weeks (no overtime for exempt employees back then either) for four years. To be unwilling to be flexible for a relatively short time was pretty shortsighted, if you ask me. No surprise that the firm eventually imploded. Everyone went and formed their own firms and took the clients with them.


----------



## WinniWoman (May 7, 2019)

TravelTime said:


> It is very inconvenient. Glad you agree. The worst part is they do not tell me until the last minute when if they told me sooner, I could plan better. Also one took leave and is not coming back. She knew she would not come back but lied in order to get disability benefits from the state. As soon as the payments stopped, she resigned.



Yes. That is a very common strategy. They pretend they are coming back and are then entitled to SS. Then after the leave and collecting all their checks,  they resign.


----------



## TravelTime (May 7, 2019)

klpca said:


> No one knows how they will feel about parenting until after the baby is home. Some moms just can't leave their babies.  Either that or they discovered the true cost of daycare and decided that it wasn't worth it financially to work.
> 
> Why did I leave my full time job? The powers-that-be who were running the firm told me that if they let me come back part time at first, then going to full time in 6 months, they would have to let everyone do that. So I left and went to another firm who let me work permanent part time. I am still working for the same people (firm has gone through some changes) over 30 years later. How stupid to spend the time training someone then let all of that investment walk right out the door.  Life is full of give and take. I paid my dues and worked my 65+ hour weeks (no overtime for exempt employees back then either) for four years. To be unwilling to be flexible for a relatively short time was pretty shortsighted, if you ask me. No surprise that the firm eventually imploded. Everyone went and formed their own firms and took the clients with them.



Yes but you went back. You wanted to work full-time. I have bent over backwards to accommodate my employees and I feel they do not reciprocate. She told another employee 2 months before the baby was born that she was not coming back and to keep it a secret.


----------



## TravelTime (May 7, 2019)

mpumilia said:


> Yes. That is a very common strategy. They pretend they are coming back and are then entitled to SS. Then after the leave and collecting all their checks,  they resign.



Yes it is common. If women are lying and sneaking around then how can employers have respect?


----------



## klpca (May 7, 2019)

TravelTime said:


> Yes but you went back. You wanted to work full-time. I have bent over backwards to accommodate my employees and I feel they do not reciprocate. She told another employee 2 months before the baby was born that she was not coming back and to keep it a secret.


They wouldn't let me come back part time during our slow season.  I had to go somewhere else to get that benefit.

Sorry that those women took advantage of you. It's better when everyone feels like they are in the same team, and it seems like they aren't playing fair with you. 

On the other side, I know how betrayed I felt after sacrificing for 4 years for nothing. Obviously I'm still a bit salty about it.


----------



## geekette (May 7, 2019)

TravelTime said:


> Yes it is common. If women are lying and sneaking around then how can employers have respect?


whoa, hold on!   If THOSE women were lying and sneaking around...   do not extrapolate this to All Women.  Please also do not assume that all women want babies because some of us do not ever want babies.   Deal with the problem employees or perhaps evaluate why they didn't feel safe in telling you the truth.  Sometimes women get fired for being pregnant.  In an at will state, that can happen and very difficult to prove it was pregnancy-related.  

If I were a young lady planning a family, I would definitely look at how other women were treated during and after their pregnancies.  Some places are not at all friendly, but exactly what would you change to enable a woman that is going to have 3 babies during her career with you Stay?  Perhaps be A Lifer for you.  What does she need and what does your business need to gain a 20-30 year service?  

It is not the fault of women that we are the child bearers, but people need to make a living, and businesses need continuity.  Let's try for solutions and not further punishment.


----------



## Tia (May 11, 2019)

This is a new one for me, the part where if I'm reading right someone on maternity leave can collect disability pay while off? Is this certain states or every where and since when?



TravelTime said:


> It is very inconvenient. Glad you agree. The worst part is they do not tell me until the last minute when if they told me sooner, I could plan better. Also one took leave and is not coming back. She knew she would not come back but lied in order to get disability benefits from the state. As soon as the payments stopped, she resigned.


----------



## Luanne (May 11, 2019)

Tia said:


> This is a new one for me, the part where if I'm reading right someone on maternity leave can collect disability pay while off? Is this certain states or every where and since when?


I did this.  My company paid for 6 weeks maternity leave, and I took an additional 6 weeks using disability pay.


----------



## VacationForever (May 12, 2019)

Tia said:


> This is a new one for me, the part where if I'm reading right someone on maternity leave can collect disability pay while off? Is this certain states or every where and since when?


In CA, one can collect disability pay while off.


----------



## TravelTime (May 12, 2019)

Tia said:


> This is a new one for me, the part where if I'm reading right someone on maternity leave can collect disability pay while off? Is this certain states or every where and since when?



Yes in California women can get disability leave for pregnancy. I have had 3 women take 6 leaves between them all.

PS The law is fine. My problem is when people lie and/or abuse the system.


----------



## Luanne (May 12, 2019)

VacationForever said:


> In CA, one can collect disability pay while off.


And it is short term disability.  I don't remember how long it lasted, but I couldn't have stayed off forever and collected.


----------



## rapmarks (May 12, 2019)

mpumilia said:


> Yes. That is a very common strategy. They pretend they are coming back and are then entitled to SS. Then after the leave and collecting all their checks,  they resign.


I don’t understand, I got nothing when I took maternity leave.  What are they getting?  I suppose they can use sick days, but those are limited.  Why do they get SS?


----------



## WinniWoman (May 12, 2019)

Tia said:


> This is a new one for me, the part where if I'm reading right someone on maternity leave can collect disability pay while off? Is this certain states or every where and since when?




In NY you could take 3 months on short term disability for maternity.  You take your sick time first then the Disability kicks in. You have to file for it through your employer. Now there is a paid family leave law in the state so not sure how that works. I just know they take money out of your paycheck for it also. Was a long time ago for me so not sure how it all works now.


----------



## VacationForever (May 13, 2019)

rapmarks said:


> I don’t understand, I got nothing when I took maternity leave.  What are they getting?  I suppose they can use sick days, but those are limited.  Why do they get SS?


In CA, the employee has to apply for it directly through the government agency.  The employer receives a form from the agency and complete for verification purposes.


----------



## VacationForever (May 13, 2019)

mpumilia said:


> In NY you could take 3 months on short term disability for maternity.  You take your sick time first then the Disability kicks in. You have to file for it through your employer. Now there is a paid family leave law in the state so not sure how that works. I just know they take money out of your paycheck for it also. Was a long time ago for me so not sure how it all works now.


In CA, employee does not file through the employer.


----------



## ThatGuyOverThere (May 13, 2019)

rapmarks said:


> I don’t understand, I got nothing when I took maternity leave.  What are they getting?  I suppose they can use sick days, but those are limited.  Why do they get SS?



I think the misunderstanding here is where it was said to be Social Security, it isnt. This would be some sort of state law that allows for Pregnancy Pay/Workers Comp or it could be a Short Term Disability policy by the employer/employee.

Social Security Disabilty does not allow payments for being "pregnant".

I had to go through this article here and also read some comments and just to keep in mind for anyone/everyone. There is no specific age that guarantees you make the most of social security everyone's life expectancy rate, income, and retirement planning is completely different.


----------



## capjak (May 13, 2019)

Getting back to SS optimization this calculator is supposed to help identify the best strategies built by an FA:
Open Social Security is a free, open-source Social Security strategy calculator.

The calculator runs the math for each possible claiming age (or, if you're married, each possible combination of claiming ages) and reports back, telling you which strategy is expected to provide the most total spendable dollars over your lifetime.

Please note that this calculator should not be the only analysis you do, as there are various factors that it does not consider, such as:


The fact that delaying benefits reduces longevity risk and therefore may be preferable even in some cases in which it is not the strategy that maximizes expected total spending, or
Tax planning reasons or other unrelated reasons why it might be better for you to file earlier or later than the calculator suggests.


*About the Author (Mike Piper)*
I am a CPA in St. Louis, Missouri. I'm the author of nine financial books, as well as the popular blog "Oblivious Investor." I am an occasional public speaker (usually about Social Security or tax planning), and I have been quoted as a Social Security expert in numerous publications (e.g., Wall Street Journal, AARP, Kiplinger, and several others).

http://opensocialsecurity.com/


----------



## VacationForever (May 13, 2019)

capjak said:


> *About the Author (Mike Piper)*
> I am a CPA in St. Louis, Missouri. I'm the author of nine financial books, as well as the popular blog "Oblivious Investor." I am an occasional public speaker (usually about Social Security or tax planning), and I have been quoted as a Social Security expert in numerous publications (e.g., Wall Street Journal, AARP, Kiplinger, and several others).
> 
> http://opensocialsecurity.com/



I just ran our ages and PIA through and it confirmed what I already knew.  It said I should collect when I turn 62.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (May 13, 2019)

I am minded to quote Yogi Berra.

"Predictions are hard to make, especially about the future."


----------



## TravelTime (May 13, 2019)

rapmarks said:


> I don’t understand, I got nothing when I took maternity leave.  What are they getting?  I suppose they can use sick days, but those are limited.  Why do they get SS?



In California, pregnancy counts as short term disability. The state pays for 12 weeks, I believe. There is an even more liberal maternity leave that just went into effect this year.


----------



## easyrider (May 13, 2019)

Can anyone confirm that my plan for ss will work. Here it is. 

My wife is a year older than me and could receive a ss check at 62. Her benefit at almost 67 is less than mine. 

My benefit at full retirement is substantially higher than my wife's benefit.

My question is will my wife be able to take half of my benefit as her benefit when I take ss ? Would she be able to collect her benefit at 62 and then switch to the higher amount that is half of my benefit ? 

Bill


----------



## WinniWoman (May 13, 2019)

easyrider said:


> Can anyone confirm that my plan for ss will work. Here it is.
> 
> My wife is a year older than me and could receive a ss check at 62. Her benefit at almost 67 is less than mine.
> 
> ...



I found this on line. I really wasn't sure about it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlik...e-switch-to-her-spousal-benefit/#7b3726eb4142


----------



## WinniWoman (May 13, 2019)

Here's another....https://finance.zacks.com/can-wife-...its-based-her-husbands-work-history-2446.html


----------



## ThatGuyOverThere (May 13, 2019)

easyrider said:


> Can anyone confirm that my plan for ss will work. Here it is.
> 
> My wife is a year older than me and could receive a ss check at 62. Her benefit at almost 67 is less than mine.
> 
> ...



If I am understanding you correctly I can answer this.

 No she would not. If you draw a benefit at under FRA and her PIA is less than half of yours (i.e Husband PIA 2200 Wife PIA 800) she is automatically deemed to file for BOTH benefits under the age of FRA. She has to take both benefits due.

Does this answer it?


----------



## bluehende (May 13, 2019)

ThatGuyOverThere said:


> If I am understanding you correctly I can answer this.
> 
> No she would not. If you draw a benefit at under FRA and her PIA is less than half of yours (i.e Husband PIA 2200 Wife PIA 800) she is automatically deemed to file for BOTH benefits under the age of FRA. She has to take both benefits due.
> 
> Does this answer it?



We actually are doing this.  We are in the same position as the questioner.  We were told when I file at FRA my wife's social security will then be based on half of mine.  There is a reduction due to her collecting early but with us the break even was like 85.  They actually ran the numbers for us.  Also with mandatory retirement withdrawals and the increase in our income  due to SS if you include tax benefits it pushes it to 90+ with a few tax assumptions.  Do not forget to include the tax implications.  Another issue is how much you can earn on what you collect.  For us it is allowing our assets to grow.  If you spend it then ignore this.

Your example is close to us

mine is 2200 at fra and hers was 700 when she collected at 62.  They calculated that hers would be 950 instead of 1100 when I file.


----------



## VacationForever (May 13, 2019)

easyrider said:


> Can anyone confirm that my plan for ss will work. Here it is.
> 
> My wife is a year older than me and could receive a ss check at 62. Her benefit at almost 67 is less than mine.
> 
> ...


You have to check PIA amount for both.  If her PIA is higher than 50% of yours, then she won't benefit from it.  BTW, spousal claim it is 50% of your PIA which is at full retirement age and not 50% of what you collect at 70.


----------



## easyrider (May 13, 2019)

bluehende said:


> We actually are doing this.  We are in the same position as the questioner.  We were told when I file at FRA my wife's social security will then be based on half of mine.  There is a reduction due to her collecting early but with us the break even was like 85.  They actually ran the numbers for us.  Also with mandatory retirement withdrawals and the increase in our income  due to SS if you include tax benefits it pushes it to 90+ with a few tax assumptions.  Do not forget to include the tax implications.  Another issue is how much you can earn on what you collect.  For us it is allowing our assets to grow.  If you spend it then ignore this.
> 
> Your example is close to us
> 
> mine is 2200 at fra and hers was 700 when she collected at 62.  They calculated that hers would be 950 instead of 1100 when I file.



We are very close to your numbers. I want to wait until 70 so the spousal benefit would be higher. I am pretty sure she will outlive me. 

Bill


----------



## bluehende (May 13, 2019)

easyrider said:


> We are very close to your numbers. I want to wait until 70 so the spousal benefit would be higher. I am pretty sure she will outlive me.
> 
> Bill




See VactionForever's post.  The spousal benefit does not increase after your full retirement age.


----------



## SmithOp (May 13, 2019)

bluehende said:


> See VactionForever's post.  The spousal benefit does not increase after your full retirement age.



I think Bill mistyped, he meant the spouse Survivor benefit will be higher if he waits until 70, she will get his higher amount.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## VacationForever (May 13, 2019)

SmithOp said:


> I think Bill mistyped, he meant the spouse Survivor benefit will be higher if he waits until 70, she will get his higher amount.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Spousal benefit = when both are still alive.  Spouse can claim 50% of the other's SS amount based on PIA which is at Full Retirement Age, not at 70.  Spousal benefit does not change between FRA and 70.

Survivor benefit = Deceased SS benefit at Survivor Full Retirement Age.


----------



## easyrider (May 13, 2019)

VacationForever said:


> Spousal benefit = when both are still alive.  Spouse can claim 50% of the other's SS amount based PIA which is at Full Retirement Age, not at 70.  Spousal benefit does not change between FRA and 70.
> 
> Survivor benefit = Deceased SS benefit at Survivor Full Retirement Age.



Thanks. I didn't consider this.

Bill


----------



## capjak (May 14, 2019)

see my earlier post regarding 
http://opensocialsecurity.com/,   It allows you to play around with different strategies, it will give  you what the calculator believes is optimum based on what the coder assumed when developing the tool.  I can not verify it is the best I am not an accountant or etc... but it is another data point.


----------



## Kozman (May 14, 2019)

Or, 62 depending on your current financial status, health and family history. There is no guarantee that you will make it until tomorrow.


----------



## WinniWoman (May 14, 2019)

Everyone's situation is different so you just can't rely on calculators, but they are good tools to give you an idea of what might work.

The big risk is not that you might not live long enough to get social security.You will be dead anyway in that case, so you won't miss anything.

The bigger risk is that you just might live a long life so it is best to optimize your benefits in a way that works best for you.


----------



## am1 (May 14, 2019)

Seems like a standard starting time would be preferred.  Say 65 and every ten years increase it a year.  Take the decisions out of it and save people a lot of headache and money in paying someone decide.  Government pensions were only ever met to be part of a retirement plan.


----------



## e.bram (May 14, 2019)

If you take your SS at 66 your wife can get spousal SS without impeding her increase when can can take hers at 70. Gender can be exchange in previous sentence.


----------



## VacationForever (May 14, 2019)

e.bram said:


> If you take your SS at 66 your wife can get spousal SS without impeding her increase when can can take hers at 70. Gender can be exchange in previous sentence.


No she cannot.  This rule was changed a couple of years ago.


----------



## Talent312 (May 15, 2019)

Kozman said:


> There is no guarantee that you will make it until tomorrow.



Indeed. I was unwilling to forego 5 years of SS payments by waiting until FRA.
I figured my break-even age was something like 82 and, even if I lived longer...
I'd rather have it while I was still ambulatory.
.


----------



## Patri (May 15, 2019)

Talent312 said:


> Indeed. I was unwilling to forego 5 years of SS payments by waiting until FRA.
> I figured my break-even age was something like 82 and, even if I lived longer...
> I'd rather have it while I was still ambulatory.
> .


That really is a key point.


----------



## WinniWoman (May 15, 2019)

Talent312 said:


> Indeed. I was unwilling to forego 5 years of SS payments by waiting until FRA.
> I figured my break-even age was something like 82 and, even if I lived longer...
> I'd rather have it while I was still ambulatory.
> .




Sure. But one thing is that for married couples, it is usually a good idea for at least (but not always) the higher earning spouse to wait until age 70 (if they can afford it), so that after death, the surviving spouse will have a higher benefit when down to just one SS check..

Of course, if you are rolling in dough- have big pensions or whatever- and don't need it- you could also just take it early and play with it or invest it or gift it.

But if you will be relying on it somewhat or mostly, it is a good idea to have a strategy. If you really need it for income early on- take it early.

If you don't really need it ever- well- take it whenever you want.

But- if it is part of an income plan going forward into your 80's and 90's, seriously give other options a look.

Social Security is just like an annuity. That is what it is.


----------



## easyrider (May 16, 2019)

capjak said:


> see my earlier post regarding
> http://opensocialsecurity.com/,   It allows you to play around with different strategies, it will give  you what the calculator believes is optimum based on what the coder assumed when developing the tool.  I can not verify it is the best I am not an accountant or etc... but it is another data point.



This calculator confirms the notion of waiting until 70 for me and 66 and 10 months for my spouse to max out the benefits. Our scenario seems to be waiting until 65 at the earliest. Unless the ACA goes away, I wouldn't want the extra income to deal with until we are on Medicare at 65.  

Bill


----------



## VacationForever (May 16, 2019)

easyrider said:


> This calculator confirms the notion of waiting until 70 for me and 66 and 10 months for my spouse to max out the benefits. Our scenario seems to be waiting until 65 at the earliest. Unless the ACA goes away, I wouldn't want the extra income to deal with until we are on Medicare at 65.
> 
> Bill


What has ACA got to do with when you start SS?


----------



## bluehende (May 16, 2019)

VacationForever said:


> What has ACA got to do with when you start SS?



I would guess it sits in the need for current income to pay higher premiums side of the equation.


----------



## Brett (May 16, 2019)

VacationForever said:


> What has ACA got to do with when you start SS?



If the poster is on ACA "obamacare" then social security income adds to their total income and could increase health care costs


----------



## easyrider (May 16, 2019)

VacationForever said:


> What has ACA got to do with when you start SS?



Medical insurance subsidy in Washington is based on AGI .

Bill


----------



## VacationForever (May 16, 2019)

easyrider said:


> Medical insurance subsidy in Washington is based on AGI .
> 
> Bill


Got it.  ACA's premium subsidy is covers up to 400% of poverty line using AGI, not just Washington.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (May 16, 2019)

This is a piece of the retirement puzzle not mentioned here. Healthcare.

How much will the starting cost of Medicare increase, past 65, while you are waiting for the SS build-up? Once you start Social Security, it can't increase by more that the SS COLA. But it CAN increase greater than the SS COLA, in the gap between 65 and when you take SS. If it does, it eats away at the 8% a year SS boost for waiting.

And this is not including the "high retirement" extra price for Medicare. (This can get <real> nasty with IRA/401K RMDs. You may have to take out so much that you get kicked into the "high retirement earning" extra Medicare cost.)

There are multiple games to be played here, and they all interact with each other. . . .

(Which is why I plan to work until 63 1/2, at a minimum . . )


----------



## VacationForever (May 16, 2019)

Ralph Sir Edward said:


> This is a piece of the retirement puzzle not mentioned here. Healthcare.
> 
> How much will the starting cost of Medicare increase, past 65, while you are waiting for the SS build-up? Once you start Social Security, it can't increase by more that the SS COLA. But it CAN increase greater than the SS COLA, in the gap between 65 and when you take SS. If it does, it eats away at the 8% a year SS boost for waiting.
> 
> ...


It is really not that huge a difference on the cap on increase.  I think a year ago, those on SS already were paying $109 in Medicare due to "hold no harm" while those who were not paid $134. It was a $25 difference per month, which comes up to $300 for the year.

If one has to pay Medicare IRMAA premium penalty it also means that they have a healthy retirement income.  Just like other taxes, the more you make the more you pay.  This is definitely something that we don't sweat over.  But having said that we had significant income from an investment that matured in 2018, we delayed first year of RMD into the second year so that we get relief from the IRMAA premium penalty in 2020 using 2018 income.  Our financial advisor said that we were their only client that decided to have 2 RMDs in one year because we skipped taking it in the first year.


----------



## Ralph Sir Edward (May 17, 2019)

Isn't this thread about optimaxing your Social Security benefits? (based upon the best guess personal assumptions?) It seems valid to me to consider the cost side, as well as the income side.

As a life long bachelor, none of these "spousal games" apply to me. However, two things I can control are: 1. The starting date for benefits, and 2. Control of my variable income, with an eye on taxes.

Under my circumstances, optimaxing becomes a multivariable game. One can't just look at the income side.


----------

