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

[klpca]

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]

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]

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

.... 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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You don't want to get political?

OK. I took out the word political.

 

[bluehende]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[geekette]

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]

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