Some start collecting social security too early. Some make the mistake of trying to collect the second they're eligible. The longer they wait and older they are the more one gets. The trick is wait to as long as possible. I know people who did that and sadly they never made it to see a social security check.
Do you know anybody that only gets 400.00 a month on Social Security?
- Thread starter Robert59
- Start date
OneEyedDiva
SF VIP
- Location
- New Jersey
Not $400, but $600. That's what my mother got but it was decades ago. She's been gone now for almost 20 years. She managed to live fairly well though. She lived in public housing, which only took 1/3 of her income. I had her transferred to a newer, nicer building closer to me. She had nice clothes and always ate well. She also had a savings account and bonds to fall back on if she needed anything extra, which she never did. In fact, she pre-paid her funeral expenses. I can't imagine anyone trying to live on $400 a month now if that's their only income!
Disgustedman
Senior Member
Had my crippled friend get $417 a month on ABD (Aged, Blind or Disabled) HOWEVER, once he gets his SSDI, he's got to pay back ALL of his money from state.
Unless he....um.....dies.
Unless he....um.....dies.
Paladin1950
Still love 50's & 60's music!
- Location
- Mohawk Valley, NY
I never got that little. I get about 3 times that now. Next month, it will be even more.
Disgustedman
Senior Member
That reminds me of my mother. She worked till she couldn't anymore. She retired at 70. I was commenting to some others her SS and mine.
I had actually worked more years, but she got more as she didn't take till 70. There were surprised. But she'd never smoked, drank very sparingly and had no major medical issues. Dying at 84. Heck, I'll be lucky to hit 70, much less 68.
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
My advisor said to absolutely file before age 70. After 70, you actually start losing benefits, not only because of longevity but also, if you file at 70, SS pays you for less than 100 months, but at, say 67, it pays for almost 200 months, and the ultimate total is higher.
I'm not sure I remember all that right, but I remember he said the worst age to file is 62, and everyone should file by age 67.
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
Your friend should have filed for Social Security Disability from the get-go. In Calif you can only collect state disability benefits for like 9 or 10 months, and you do have to pay it back.
I get $727 now, it was 644 when I first started collecting at age 65. I worked almost all my adult life, but until my son was 6 years-old it was part time, usually five till ten in the evenings after my husband got home from his job. That way we never had to put him in day care. I've had 15 different jobs.
I didn't work during the three years we lived in England. English employers would say "Why should we give an American a job when some of our own people need jobs?" We received quite a bit of anti-American animosity while we were there. No one seemed to remember that the reason the USAF kept a presence in England was because they asked us to do that after WWII.
I don't know how I would be able to live on that $727 if we didn't own this house. If my husband died I would continue to get his $1975 a month less my $727. He didn't start taking his SS until age 70. His Air Force retirement pay would stop completely -- that's just the way he set it up.
I didn't work during the three years we lived in England. English employers would say "Why should we give an American a job when some of our own people need jobs?" We received quite a bit of anti-American animosity while we were there. No one seemed to remember that the reason the USAF kept a presence in England was because they asked us to do that after WWII.
I don't know how I would be able to live on that $727 if we didn't own this house. If my husband died I would continue to get his $1975 a month less my $727. He didn't start taking his SS until age 70. His Air Force retirement pay would stop completely -- that's just the way he set it up.
Georgiagranny
Well-known Member
Double check that with an actual phone conversation with a rep at SS...I believe the way it works is that you will get your $727 plus the difference of $1248 for a total of $1975. You will no longer get a check for $727; you will get one check for $1975.
When my DH died 14 years ago, that's how it was done. My SS benefit plus the difference between mine and his is what I started getting, along with the COLA each year, of course. Doubt that the rules for that have changed.
StarSong
Awkward is my Superpower
- Location
- Los Angeles Suburbs
The break even point for SS age claims, which is when the dollar value of claiming benefits at a later age surpasses the value of taking them earlier, comes at roughly 78 years, 8 months, regardless of which age between 62-70 one first files their claim. If you live past 78/8, it will benefit you to have waited.
Delaying past 70 makes no sense, since maximum benefits are attained at 70.
The difference between 62 and 70 is 8 years = 96 months. The difference between 67 and 70 = 36 months. Don't know where your advisor came up with the difference between 67-70 being 100 months. If you file at 70 and live to 85, that's 180 months of payout. If you file at 67 and live to 85, that's 216 months of payout.
I claimed at 65. DH delayed his benefits until age 70, a few months from now (and from age 66 forward he received a spousal benefit of 50% of my SS, so we've gotten 150% of my benefits for four years). As @Georgiagranny and @Della pointed out, surviving spouses receive the higher of the two benefits; while both alive we'll receive both his and mine.
True, we've worked longer than many (semi-retired at 64 and consulting ever since), but the work hasn't been overly difficult or stressful and is often enjoyable. Between our income and my SS, our retirement accounts remained intact.
We're bthe roughly 70 and our current life expectancy is 86/6 for me and 84/3 for him.
https://coolconversion.com/heath/life-expectancy-calculator-us/Life-expectancy-at-age_70_in-US_w
All four of our parents lived into their 90s. DH & I are in good health with no chronic or other medical conditions, so chances are quite good that one or both of us will receive the larger monthly check from his delayed filing until at least the break even point.
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
Ok, yeah that's it. I wrote it as "under 100" (or whatever) in my post because I don't remember the number he said, I just remember it was less than 100 and the other number was less than 200.
Also, the reason I even had an advisor is because I'd been awarded a sumly amount in a lawsuit and still had quite a chunk of it left, so I'm sure his advice centered around that. But I remember him saying that the part about the months and the ultimate payout applied to most full-time workers.
OneEyedDiva
SF VIP
- Location
- New Jersey
@StarSong You said: "The break even point for SS age claims, which is when the dollar value of claiming benefits at a later age surpasses the value of taking them earlier, comes at roughly 78 years, 8 months, regardless of which age between 62-70 one first files their claim. If you live past 78/8, it will benefit you to have waited."
I believe I saw that my break even age is 78 too. Taking it early and investing it with investments that do well can actually be better than waiting. I've already done the projections. When financial analysts finally starting getting real and publishing reports stating that waiting isn't always best for everybody, one of the reasons they gave for not waiting was investing (wisely, of course) their SS.
I believe I saw that my break even age is 78 too. Taking it early and investing it with investments that do well can actually be better than waiting. I've already done the projections. When financial analysts finally starting getting real and publishing reports stating that waiting isn't always best for everybody, one of the reasons they gave for not waiting was investing (wisely, of course) their SS.
mathjak107
Well-known Member
- Location
- bayside ,queens , ny
Breakeven is different for all of us .
if one is laying out the ss they are not getting with money that is either invested or could be invested then break even is much longer .
it can take until about age 90 for delaying to equal early ss at 62 and a balanced portfolio.
plus there are no spousal benefits paid if the higher earner delays .that adds to the time too.
I would run away from any advisor that makes blanket statements about the worst age to take ss is 62…. It depends on so much more
if one is laying out the ss they are not getting with money that is either invested or could be invested then break even is much longer .
it can take until about age 90 for delaying to equal early ss at 62 and a balanced portfolio.
plus there are no spousal benefits paid if the higher earner delays .that adds to the time too.
I would run away from any advisor that makes blanket statements about the worst age to take ss is 62…. It depends on so much more
Last edited:
mathjak107
Well-known Member
- Location
- bayside ,queens , ny
I would avoid that advisor ….blanket statements like that , about 62 are just wrong as well as the age 67 comment
there is no best age .. it all depends on each persons situation and plan …
there are as many reasons for filing at 62 as there are at 70 , and every age in between..
we all have different situations
mathjak107
Well-known Member
- Location
- bayside ,queens , ny
Star song. ,Keep in mind life expectancy is different for couples than singles …
with a couple there are two horses in the race and either can outlive the other .
for a 65 year old couple the odds of one of them seeing 85 is a whopping 73% …odds of one seeing 90 is 47% or pretty close to a coin toss .
so those odds are much higher then either would be individually
with a couple there are two horses in the race and either can outlive the other .
for a 65 year old couple the odds of one of them seeing 85 is a whopping 73% …odds of one seeing 90 is 47% or pretty close to a coin toss .
so those odds are much higher then either would be individually
Last edited:
mathjak107
Well-known Member
- Location
- bayside ,queens , ny
Again , this is not true for everyone .. delaying for some can be a poor choice and a dangerous choice if they are retiring at 62 and spending assets dangerously low laying out the ss they are not getting .
retiring at 62 and delaying until 70 needs a whole lot of money to lay out or if you have other sources, that is a lot of money not to get that could be invested
odds are better as well that early ss and not spending invested assets down or money that could be invested if you had early ss will beat the balance and income you would have delaying .
also the worst question to ask is what if I die ?.
dead is dead .
the most important question to ask is what if I or my spouse live.
so these generizations about whats best are just false as one size fits all advice.
the catch 22 is most of those who retire at 62 and need the extra money at 70 , cant afford to delay until 70 since they need to live on that money or they will deplete assets to low
Last edited:
Supernatural
Senior Member
Oh thanks for the info, as I was wondering about my carer's allowance, as what will happen to it when and if I get pension at 66. However, you should get help with rent, cost of living and the government energy scheme, if not check with DWP.
By the way, there's a current situation with British Gas customers not receiving the monthly government payment. Most received Oct and Nov but Dec hasn't showed up on meters or as vouchers through the mail (strikes there are one cause) so it might come later this week, hopefully!
Currently, it's less than £500 a month to get by and I managed to save quite a lot as I'm thrifty, always finding bargains here and there. I've a set budget, regular monthly payments, so that makes things easier but food has been wee bit pricier. Due to postal strikes, pandemic and all, getting news through mail has been difficult times enough. I'm hopeful that the New Year will bring good news ... Well fingers-crossed hey?
mathjak107
Well-known Member
- Location
- bayside ,queens , ny
Unless it was a spousal benefit if he didn’t pay in it would be ssi and not social security .ssi is a welfare program.
it is for those who don’t qualify for ssdi which is social security disability
mathjak107
Well-known Member
- Location
- bayside ,queens , ny
Fidelity investments had come out with their own optimizing social security software …
it was for their own internal use…
we were one of the first to put it to the test .
it really did find the biggest payment with some complex moves .
but I pointed out that it did not interface with our entire financial picture and may not be the best choice for us .
they agreed that without looking at everything from potential aca subsidy’s to taxes to rmds , etc it really was not ready for client use and they pulled it back .
for those interested , this is what is came up with .
my wife is 2 years older and was already collecting her 62 benefit .
so it had her stopping her early Benefit at her fra ….
she would start again at 70 ..
I would be 68 and so it had me filing restricted application for half her benefit .
at 70 I would file and at that point she would file for spousal and get an adder to her benefit .
but that didn’t do as well as me filing pre fra and stopping the spending down of money to advance ourselves the ss ,and just leaving that money invested
it was for their own internal use…
we were one of the first to put it to the test .
it really did find the biggest payment with some complex moves .
but I pointed out that it did not interface with our entire financial picture and may not be the best choice for us .
they agreed that without looking at everything from potential aca subsidy’s to taxes to rmds , etc it really was not ready for client use and they pulled it back .
for those interested , this is what is came up with .
my wife is 2 years older and was already collecting her 62 benefit .
so it had her stopping her early Benefit at her fra ….
she would start again at 70 ..
I would be 68 and so it had me filing restricted application for half her benefit .
at 70 I would file and at that point she would file for spousal and get an adder to her benefit .
but that didn’t do as well as me filing pre fra and stopping the spending down of money to advance ourselves the ss ,and just leaving that money invested
StarSong
Awkward is my Superpower
- Location
- Los Angeles Suburbs
You're a rare bird, as we already know, Diva.
Relatively few people invest SS (wisely or not) when they take it early; they use it for living expenses while also spending down their retirement savings.Absolutely agree. Chances are high that either DH or I will live past the breakeven point.
Had DH and I stopped working at 62 and drawn SS, it would have meant drawing approx $3K monthly from our nest egg to float our living expenses or downsize considerably. No thanks. We opted to work part time and delay SS. When we retire fully late 2023, thanks to bigger SS checks we'll only need $1K monthly from the nest egg to meet those same expenses.
Working longer hasn't done us any harm, believe me, and it's a family tradition, so to speak.
My father worked into his 90s because he loved it. Same with my grandfather into his late 80s. Mom didn't work outside the home, but believe me, she worked hard inside it until her spinal stenosis forced her into a wheelchair at 90. My in-laws took a very generous early retirement golden parachute, but neither of them sat still after that. FIL was always remodeling their home, or helping with their kids' homes. No sitting on the porch whittling during retirement for any of them.
To be fair, DH & my work isn't particularly physically demanding. Construction, caregiving, factory work, and many other occupations beat up one's body to the point where working longer isn't possible, and many seniors are downsized out of jobs (despite ageism being illegal), so I understand the need and lure of taking SS at 62.
Another important consideration: we hope, plan and expect to leave our children nice inheritances, just as we were from our parents.
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
His advice has served me well.
StarSong
Awkward is my Superpower
- Location
- Los Angeles Suburbs
That's what matters most.
mathjak107
Well-known Member
- Location
- bayside ,queens , ny
first Of all , most people can not evaluate an advisor properly .
any advisor that would say. What he did as one size fits all , lost My respect as an advisor because what he said is just wrong as a blanket statement .
people usually have no bench mark for measuring just how good an advisor is …
but so far he blew it with his social security advice ..
it may be good advice for you but not for others …
there is no one size is best in this stuff
any advisor that would say. What he did as one size fits all , lost My respect as an advisor because what he said is just wrong as a blanket statement .
people usually have no bench mark for measuring just how good an advisor is …
but so far he blew it with his social security advice ..
it may be good advice for you but not for others …
there is no one size is best in this stuff
Murrmurr
SF VIP
- Location
- Sacramento, California
Okie-dokie, good sir.