When to start social security.

D

DaleD

New Member
Location
Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio
I'm 62, and I plan on retiring when I'm 63 at the end of the year. I did the math, the break even on social security if started at 64 is 80. That was what I was planning, then it occurred to me, if social security appreciates at 7% a year, why not just hit the 401k harder until I'm 66.5, or later?
 

DaleD said:
I'm 62, and I plan on retiring when I'm 63 at the end of the year. I did the math, the break even on social security if started at 64 is 80. That was what I was planning, then it occurred to me, if social security appreciates at 7% a year, why not just hit the 401k harder until I'm 66.5, or later?
Click to expand...
Actually, it goes up 8%. This question is asked almost daily on all sorts of sites. There is no simple answer. It depends on what your assumption is on how long you will live (which, of course, is a guesstimate). Then, it depends on your finances, lifestyle, health expenses, etc. Any answers we give you on this site would be speculation and/or opinion based on our own situations. There are endless articles to guide you to an informed decision. This is one source. You can easily find hundreds of articles.

When to Take Social Security: The Complete Guide
 
I took mine at 62, but it didn't really matter in my case. ... When I lost my husband, I was 69, and I switched over to his full SS benefit.
 

There have been lots of conversations on this forum regarding when to take SS. I strongly recommend you take your personal circumstances into consideration and research thoroughly. Forget asking SS employees for advice, like most low level bureaucrats they're frequently incorrect, are not experts on when to take benefits, and have personal biases.

I found this book to be invaluable during my research. It's available in most public libraries and the author, Laurence Kotlikoff, has impressive credentials a mile long.
Get What's Yours

This is too far-reaching a decision to make lightly. People who take the advice of their brothers-in-law, bosses, or SS employees, often live to regret it.
 
If a person knew, for certain, how long they will live, the decision of when to take SS would be fairly easy. However, lacking that critical piece of information, I elected to take SS as soon as I became eligible. Looking at my payment history, and comparing that to the benefits I've received over the past 17+ years, I have received over 4 times what I paid into the program during my working years...and if I live as long as my parents did, the gain will be somewhere between 800 to 1000%. I wish all my "investments" performed this well. Basically, I'm a believer that a "bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush".

Then, there is the real probability that the government is going to substantially reduce the benefits in future years, as the SS surplus is rapidly being used up. I fully expect some form of "means testing" in the future, and those delaying participation in this program may find their benefits paying less than today's numbers. There are any number of ways to ensure SS solvency, but that will require some action from the deadbeats in Washington....good luck with that.
 
Just purely for the record, I came to a 'compromise'. That is, I was eligible for full bene's at 66. I waited until 67 1/2 to take out. That way, I got an increased bene, but not the whole tamale if I waited until 70. Wife is waiting until 70. So, we didn't even agree. But, our finances are such that SS is a bonus, play money. The real bene is the medicare, for us.
 
social security increases by 6% from 62 to fra .. from fra to 70 it increases 8% ... but that is not a return ... it is zero return for many many years ... for someone spending down invested assets or money that could be invested it takes 22 years to first work your way to zero return from negative ..


there is nothing inherent in delaying that automatically gives you more money to spend or a bigger balance for heirs compared to filing early .you see this myth all the time posted , how waiting gives them more money . but that is not always true . the only time it is true is if you work and delay .

not spending down invested assets when taking ss early or investing money you get that could be invested if you take ss early can add a lot of money back in to the equation . by the same token , to match a balanced portfolio under average market outcomes ,delaying requires you or a spouse to live to 90 to equal that amount .

so it really boils down to betting on at least seeing average market outcomes if you take ss early or betting on you or a spouse living to age 90 if delaying ss since that is what it takes to get to the tipping point .

if you or a spouse live to 95 then delaying ss wins . if you and your spouse live less than 90 , then taking ss early and investing wins . the odds really favor investing and taking ss early but that does not mean it is guaranteed .

both can provide higher income along the way . if markets are at least average outcomes then raises can be taken when you invest and take ss early all along the way possibly even beating the higher ss check by age 70 .

so don't get to wrapped up in thinking one is better than the other because they are both dependent on certain expectations . the real deal is do you want to bet more on markets or more on longevity for the "same " potential income and balance?
you have taxes to consider both ways , you have to consider a spouse will be filing single with rmds and heavy taxes , ss is tax free in many states , rmds are not .. you also only get 85% of ss taxed when it is taxed at the max .
another factor is your spouse can not get spousal benefits when you delay . besides all the checks i gave up delaying , my wife could not get 4500 a year as a spousal adder .
so there is far more parameters then what if i die .

i-KmsGcPL-S.png

i-6dWGZkG-S.png

i-pMXGMwg-S.png
 
retiredtraveler said:
Actually, it goes up 8%. This question is asked almost daily on all sorts of sites. There is no simple answer. It depends on what your assumption is on how long you will live (which, of course, is a guesstimate). Then, it depends on your finances, lifestyle, health expenses, etc. Any answers we give you on this site would be speculation and/or opinion based on our own situations. There are endless articles to guide you to an informed decision. This is one source. You can easily find hundreds of articles.

When to Take Social Security: The Complete Guide
Click to expand...


it is 6% from 62 to fra and 8% from fra to 70 ...but you can never compare it to an investment return since that is an increase not a return .
 
there are certain big advantages to delaying ss that are not factored in to the numbers themselves ..

such as:

delaying ss can allow a retiree to take advantage of a gift from the tax gods ... just using the standard deduction if a couple , of over 24k , a couple can pull out of their ira's as much as 192k totally tax free or as much as 48k at less than 5% tax ...

reducing rmd's down the road for a spouse who is filing single after one of them dies is a biggie .

you can use the zero percent tax bracket if there is room to take more tax free money .

you can do roth conversions potentially if ss is delayed .

you may be able to get a subsidy on health insurance from 62 to 65 , that is worth thousands .much bigger survivor benefits
it is catastrophic market decline insurance

it is the best annuity money can buy . NO ONE SHOULD EVER BUY A COMMERCIAL ANNUITY PRODUCT BEFORE DELAYING SS FIRST .
there is nothing you can buy that for the dollars given up from 62-70 that will pay you as much , pass to a spouse , and is inflation adjusted .

by delaying , if you are grand fathered in there are claiming strategy's like restricted application that can add tens of thousands of more dollars to your pocket .


so delaying ss is a whole lot more than what if i die .

the problem is most people are financially ignorant about everything linked to ss and all the planning that can be done around when you take ss , so the only thing in their heads is what if i die , not the bigger issue , which is what if i or my spouse live
 
Last edited:
took mine at 62 break even was 74, I am now 68 and have enjoyed the extra. I talked to a friend who took his at 62, his break even was 74 and I asked if he thought he did right. he said I'm now 74 and still think it was right. my brother told me 62, my brother in law said 62 they both died at 67. my other brother in law said 62, he died at 84. but it is still up to you. live long and prosper.
 
In my opinion know one should ever delay taking ss if they can not take their full draw up front day one of retirement by laying out the ss money ...it makes little sense to wait 8 years to first take a penny more in draw .

all that should happen is the mix goes from all your money to a mix of ss and your money....if you can’t layout the ss up front then odds are you can’t afford to delay ....to delay properly means you need the resources to delay and not work ..

if it is going to take 8 years of living on less then you could be my opinion is you may want to rethink delaying
 
Last edited:
Due to being unemployed/no income, I took my SS/Early Retirement at age 62. My EUI had run out. Now, my wife took hers at 67. Full SS. The last few years that we lived in Florida, she was getting her full SS and getting a nice job salary as well. Not taking the companies medical either, because she has Medicare.
 
Took mine at 62, and it has been great. Extra money, not really needed, but still a good deal. Remember, the SSA has a vested interest in convincing you that it's best to put off taking SS, if you really don't need it. They work with their actuarial experts, and they know the longer you put off taking it, the greater the odds you won't live long enough to ever do so.

Everyone's situation is different. For some, the extra income derived from putting off SS, is crucial.

Carefully do your own research. Those for whom that extra income is crucial, are the ones who need to put pencil to paper, even more so than others, to make sure they are doing the right thing.
 
I used to be a proponent for taking it at 62, which I did. It had already been 11 year since I retired. Now I advise those who can wait until full retirement age to do so. I read on several occasions about SS cutting benefits across the board by 23% probably starting in 2034. People didn't want to believe me but the probability has become more real as time goes on. There was even a message to that affect on the ssa.gov home page, then in my SS message inbox but both were removed. Perhaps the powers that be thought it was too soon to be posting and sending out definitive statements about the possible cut. I wish I had taken a screen shot of it. 23% is a huge chunk when you consider that your Medicare payments are also deducted from your SS. The average medicare payment is now $145, more for those who are wealthier and will no doubt rise considerably by 2034. Here is more about the pending reduction in SS. Even though these articles are a couple of years old, the issues with SS remain.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/warning-social-security-faces-a-23-cut-2017-11-27
Suggestions for fixing the problem are mentioned in this article from the Social Security administration.
https://blog.ssa.gov/social-securit...y-options-to-address-the-long-term-shortfall/
 
OneEyedDiva said:
I used to be a proponent for taking it at 62, which I did. It had already been 11 year since I retired. Now I advise those who can wait until full retirement age to do so. I read on several occasions about SS cutting benefits across the board by 23% probably starting in 2034. People didn't want to believe me but the probability has become more real as time goes on. There was even a message to that affect on the ssa.gov home page, then in my SS message inbox but both were removed. Perhaps the powers that be thought it was too soon to be posting and sending out definitive statements about the possible cut. I wish I had taken a screen shot of it. 23% is a huge chunk when you consider that your Medicare payments are also deducted from your SS. The average medicare payment is now $145, more for those who are wealthier and will no doubt rise considerably by 2034. Here is more about the pending reduction in SS. Even though these articles are a couple of years old, the issues with SS remain.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/warning-social-security-faces-a-23-cut-2017-11-27
Suggestions for fixing the problem are mentioned in this article from the Social Security administration.
https://blog.ssa.gov/social-securit...y-options-to-address-the-long-term-shortfall/
Click to expand...
The ss crisis will be solved as usual in the 11th hour....simply by raising the employee portion 1.30% and the employer portion 1.30% ss would be fully funded if they acted today along with raising the wage cap.

compared to medicare , solidifying ss is a piece of cake
 
Bear in mind, @DaleD, people on this forum are a very mixed bag. You can infer some of that from the posts above, other bits will come to you over time if you remain active here and pay attention.

A quick overview on active posters, including those participating on this thread:

Many of us own our homes outright, others find renting appropriate, still others believe they're best served by having a mortgage.
Some have large, expensive homes, others live in more modest dwellings.
Some share quarters with children, grands or roommates.
Some are completely independent, others are in assisted living or senior housing that offers some daily task support.
Some own rental properties, some are heavily invested in the stock market, still others are strictly in CDs and other government-insured investments.
Some have received large inheritances, others not.
Some have children to whom they want to leave sizeable gifts, others not.
Some have enough savings that SS goes into a slush fund for extras, some need the funds desperately to scrape by.
Some get pensions, most not.
Some retired very early, some very late, most somewhere in the middle.
Some come from very long-lived, healthy families, others not.

My point is that you need to look at your circumstances with respect to all of the above - and more. Research, research, research and research some more.
 
mathjak107 said:
The ss crisis will be solved as usual in the 11th hour....simply by raising the employee portion 1.30% and the employer portion 1.30% ss would be fully funded if they acted today along with raising the wage cap.

compared to medicare , solidifying ss is a piece of cake
Click to expand...
I sure hope you're right MJ ! Seems like if it was so easy, they would have done it already. And they've been talking about this for years now, so why haven't they done it? Makes no sense to me.
 
OneEyedDiva said:
I sure hope you're right MJ ! Seems like if it was so easy, they would have done it already. And they've been talking about this for years now, so why haven't they done it? Makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...
When has congress ever fixed a thing before the 11th hour ? The problem is workers hate tax increases and raising fica is a tax ... it does not win votes..being there are so many years of money still left politicians don’t want to deal with it now
 
"the social security payroll tax is 12.4% on earned (wage) income between $0.01 and $128,400, as of 2018. This means that any earned income above $128,400 is exempt from the payroll tax (but not the Medicare tax). Generally speaking, more than 90% of all working Americans pays into Social Security with every dollar they earn.

However, a majority of working Americans aren't paying the full 12.4% payroll tax. If you're employed by someone else, your employer is responsible for half of your payroll tax, based on your earned income, with you, the worker, covering the other half (6.2%). If you're self-employed, then you're on the hook for the full 12.4% payroll tax.

One the simplest ways to fix Social Security is simply to increase the payroll tax on all workers. The Trustees report notes that the long-term (75-year) actuarial deficit for the program is 2.84%, up 0.01% from the previous year. In plainer English, the Trustees are estimating that a 2.84% increase to the payroll tax today would completely resolve the aforementioned $13.2 trillion cash shortfall and allow benefits to continue without any cuts, at least until 2092. This implies a payroll tax of 15.24% (12.4% plus 2.84%) for the self-employed, and a split liability of 7.62% between employers and employees"


https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/06/23/raising-the-payroll-tax-by-this-much-would-fix-soc.aspx
 
Last edited:
we don't consider ss extra money at all ... it is all part of the yearly budget .. we intend to enjoy our money , in fact if we suddenly doubled our income all that would happen is our yearly budget would expand and we would do more or buy more of things which we enjoy ....

so day one of retirement whether we delayed or not the budget was the same all the way through .... if hypothetically our budget was 150k a year and had a 20k pension then if we delayed ss to 70, then 130k would be coming from our portfolio ....

when ss kicked in our draw would drop by 50k and the ss would make up the difference but the money we spend stays constant all the way through ...

if we filed early then we would need that much less from our own money to make up the 150k .


i would never ever suggest anyone delay and wait 8 years to take their first increase .
 
Don M. said:
If a person knew, for certain, how long they will live, the decision of when to take SS would be fairly easy. However, lacking that critical piece of information, I elected to take SS as soon as I became eligible. Looking at my payment history, and comparing that to the benefits I've received over the past 17+ years, I have received over 4 times what I paid into the program during my working years...and if I live as long as my parents did, the gain will be somewhere between 800 to 1000%. I wish all my "investments" performed this well. Basically, I'm a believer that a "bird in hand is worth 2 in the bush".

Then, there is the real probability that the government is going to substantially reduce the benefits in future years, as the SS surplus is rapidly being used up. I fully expect some form of "means testing" in the future, and those delaying participation in this program may find their benefits paying less than today's numbers. There are any number of ways to ensure SS solvency, but that will require some action from the deadbeats in Washington....good luck with that.
Click to expand...
One of the deciding factors in taking it at 62 for me was that my half sister (who I never got to meet) decided she would wait until full retirement which would have been 66 for her. She died at age 63. My other (half) sister told me she had a great job at IBM. I forgot whether my sister said she was still working when she passed.
"I fully expect some form of "means testing" in the future, and those delaying participation in this program may find their benefits paying less than today's numbers." This same thing crossed my mind...another reason I took it early.
 
rarely does anyone regret not delaying when markets are strong and the economy good ... it is like not regretting having paid for health insurance or fire insurance and not being sick or had a fire ....

ss was designed to be catastrophic market insurance and is 69% bigger at 70 than 62 ... so until the circumstances change few regret taking it early
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top