I'm going to be 62 in two weeks. I'm leaning towards applying for Social Security. I figure a bird in the hand, live while the living's good, who knows if SS will continue, etc. Any advice?
Social Security
- Thread starter velvetfoot
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
Social Security continuing isn't even on the issues list. What is, is the 25% discount from taking it early. If you have resources to hang on till 67 or better yet 70 you get a lot more out of the system. You have to think about how long you are going to live, not how long SS will live. Something you are going to start thinking about much more than you ever believe you will.
Dad said that when SS was enacted in 1935 it wouldn't still be around when he retired. Wrong. He died at age 86 and it was still there.
Dad said that when SS was enacted in 1935 it wouldn't still be around when he retired. Wrong. He died at age 86 and it was still there.
So, I've read the break even point is 78. Here's hoping my quality of life is good enough to enjoy those extra bucks.
A lot I've read says the opposite. The earlier you start, the smaller the payment (forever). If you are planning on living a while, and you are not hurting for cash now, you should hold off. What if you live to 90? 100? Something wipes out your (assumed) nest-egg? Think about how long that is!
As it is now you are choosing between two different contracts with the US govt (not IMO a bad or unreliable contract partner), and one of them will pay a lot more in 20-30 years and you might certainly care then.
IIRC the SS website will generate all the scenarios for you to compare.
As it is now you are choosing between two different contracts with the US govt (not IMO a bad or unreliable contract partner), and one of them will pay a lot more in 20-30 years and you might certainly care then.
IIRC the SS website will generate all the scenarios for you to compare.
webbie
Seasoned Moderator
I think I'll compromise and take it at 66 or so. You can't win the game of betting against yourself, so I will eat, drink and be merry.
I'm waiting until I am 66, Full Retirement Age. My wife may wait longer. Every year is like 8% in the bank. It's hard to get guaranteed returns like this on most other investments.
Literally everybody in the line on both sides has rolled a seven at 86 or 88. And none of them smoked and/or drank. So I started it at 62. On my wife's side the women have buried more husbands than a funeral home, so I should have held off on hers but didn't.
Heck with a high paying second career as a h.c. moderator I am set for life.
Heck with a high paying second career as a h.c. moderator I am set for life.
Not sure about that. You're collecting, albeit less, for 62-66. So, and I'm not sure about this, the break even point is something like 78. And that's not accounting for the possibility of investing the disbursements for those 4 years.
Look yourself up in the actuarial tables.... http://www.lifeexpectancycalculators.com/actuarial-life-tables.html
At 62, your mean life expectancy is 81.4. (since you are male)
At 62, your mean life expectancy is 81.4. (since you are male)
You have to make the call depending on your overall financial situation. We don't need the funds right away, so I am waiting until October. You "may" be able to make it up by investing, but not if you need the money or if there is a sharp market reversal. At this stage of life I prefer a bit more predictability and less gambling on stocks, particularly in the current overheated market.
No matter how you slice up this question, the answer is always going to be, "It depends". Every individual's situation is unique. It's an equation with too many unknown variables to expect you're going to find a simple closed-form solution. I could tell you about my thinking, research, and decision...and it really wouldn't mean squat for you. Your whole "life picture" is not the same as mine. Rick
BTW...speaking of actuarial tables...my wife (always in apparently excellent health) applied for SS (because of our own unique set of circumstances) at age 62, as did I. She received exactly one benefit check before she quite unexpectedly died of cancer. You just never know.
BTW...speaking of actuarial tables...my wife (always in apparently excellent health) applied for SS (because of our own unique set of circumstances) at age 62, as did I. She received exactly one benefit check before she quite unexpectedly died of cancer. You just never know.
Lake Girl
Moderator
Rick, sorry to hear about the loss of your wife ... I was trying to think of how to tactfully bring up the fact that actuarial tables are great in theory but no reflection of your personal health, family history. My MIL died at age 56, one year after she stopped working; FIL had already retired (age & length of service formula). They got a trip to Toronto to check on Grandma C (FILs mother) and a trip to Mexico. Grandma C lived to 103 and had lost 2 daughters and her daughter in law....
Ashful
Minister of Fire
Off-topic King here again, but I can't let this one go. What are you doing looking at the SS website, woodgeek? I mean, I had in my head you were in your 30's...
Maybe he's smarter than a whole lot of other people. If I hadn't started thinking about and planning for my daughter's education when she was about 3 years old, she'd still be saddled with student debt now at age 30. I took care of all that (and lots of other things) starting long ago by looking ahead, planning, and acting.
Ashful
Minister of Fire
Absolutely not, I'm simply responding to your post. Why would you be surprised at a 30-something looking ahead to the future? I'm sure glad I was one of those who did.
veemaxx
Member
Velvetfoot, I'm in the same boat you are in, I turn 62 this month too. I'm taking the early SS because for me time is much more valuable than money. I am lucky enough to have saved enough through a company pension and IRAs to fully fund a decent retirement so the SS is just some icing on the cake. There used to be a pay-back provision with SS where you could start drawing at 62 then at 66 pay back what you have withdrawn and start drawing what you would have gotten if you had waited till 66. The advantage being you get to keep the interest earned off of 4 years of SS payment. I think this little loophole got plugged recently though. If you need the SS to live then waiting might be the thing to do, if it is just extra cash which is what it was intended to be as a suppliment then you could alway invest it for 4 years and be way ahead of someone who waits till 66. Just my thoughts.
Ashful
Minister of Fire
Oh, definitely! I was lucky to have a mother who hounded me on the principles of compounding interest, so I maxed out my Roth IRA contributions every year from age 18. In my 20's, that meant driving old broken cars, and not going out as much as my friends, but I'm glad for it now. I also contribute the max allowable limit to my 401k every year, and have two separate wealth management accounts (one managed, one DIY), for the balance. Paid my first house off at age 35, second house will be paid by age 52.
My plan: have so much squirreled away that Soc Sec is irrelevant.
My plan: have so much squirreled away that Soc Sec is irrelevant.
smokedragon
Minister of Fire
I think it goes back to what BB said.......look at family history, and a few other things. This is a great predictor of life expectancy. If you feel like past 80 is living on borrowed time, why wait till 68 to start drawing.
My wife's grandfather (on her mom's side) was still living alone and caring for himself and his 2 bedroom house (vacuuming, cooking, etc) at 98. Grandpa on her dad's side was doing the same at 91, but fell and broke his hip. Men in her family have always lived well into their 90's......this is a case for taking it late.
On my side of the family, the men have died as young as 60 and the eldest I can recall is 81. My decision was made 10 years ago based on that.......I will take mine as soon as I am eligible because the life expectancy for men in my family is short (regardless of how healthy they are).
My wife's grandfather (on her mom's side) was still living alone and caring for himself and his 2 bedroom house (vacuuming, cooking, etc) at 98. Grandpa on her dad's side was doing the same at 91, but fell and broke his hip. Men in her family have always lived well into their 90's......this is a case for taking it late.
On my side of the family, the men have died as young as 60 and the eldest I can recall is 81. My decision was made 10 years ago based on that.......I will take mine as soon as I am eligible because the life expectancy for men in my family is short (regardless of how healthy they are).
Like I told the doc last time I was there. Genes can tell me more than she ever can. Ain't no pills to fix them yet.
Genes are only part of the picture. Anomalies can favor one sex, affect just part of the siblings or even skip a generation or two. Lifestyle plays into it too.
- Status
Similar threads
