Social Security - 62, 66 or 70?

[Travelover]

I want to make sure my wife is covered after I die, so she will take it at 62, I will take spousal (half her amount) at 66, then take my full at 70. When I die, she gets my amount. If she should die first, I'd still get the higher amount.

One thing not yet discussed in this thread is the SS strategy known as "file and suspend." ..........

Actually that is exactly what I described in my post shown above, though I didn't use the term. And the age for maximum benefits is 70. Age 70 1/2 is when you are required to take minimum required distributions (RMDs) from your IRA and 401(k) accounts.

 

[/pine]

FWIW...:

Every year you wait to claim social security benefits until age 70 you will boost your annual payouts by 8%. Waiting until you're 70 will give you 32% more in benefits than if you took them at age 66 and you can receive 76% more than taking them at age 62. If you can afford to delay benefits until age 70 and if you live past age 82, you will receive more in lifetime income from Social Security than if you had waited until full retirement age.

http://www.fool.com/ecap/the_motley_fool/social-security-5-facts-l/

 

[Kennygee]

I am about to retire in April at the age of 65, and will be getting a reduced SS benefit as I will be getting a COD retirement also. My wife is currentley getting SS disability after working to age 62 with a Polio disability.
She will not qualify for medicare for another 6 months after I retire. To keep her and myself on my Cobra insurance will run over 12,000 a Year!! I am leaning towards taking the SS and putting it into a Roth IRA and taking enough out of my 401/457 to pay The insurance premiums as I believe they are tax deductible.
We have done all the #'s and"NO BOMA CARE" will be available to us. An indivdual Insurance plan is another option but the out of pocket is way up there. We are both in reasonable good health, no maintenance drugs of any kind ,but am worried about the Post Polio Affects.
The wife,s SS will be higher than mine for sure but hope the Roth idea works out and we wont need it till then.
I think every one should consult with an independent Financial Planner as most are associated with a brokerage, Insurance Co. or other Financial instiution.

 

[RSKY]

My dad was going to work until he was 65 and draw a larger amount. He was in great health and was six years older than Mom. We talked him into retiring at 62. He and Mom had a great time, traveled some, farmed and gardened. He died three weeks before his 65th birthday.

You never know what tomorrow will bring. Retire when you are able and enjoy life.

 

[Country Geek]

FWIW I just played around with the benefit calculators at the SSA website. I was born in 1965.

If I start benefits at age 62, they are significantly reduced. However if I waited until my full retirement age of 67, it would take until I'm 85 1/2 to break even on waiting... and that's NOT taking into account the time value of money. Though I guess the time value of money is a bit less important since social security is indexed for inflation. I have sizeable 401K savings as well plus a smallish but nontrivial frozen cash balance pension account from when my employer stole ^H^H^H^H^modified our pension plan... seems like I'm leaning toward agreeing with those who say take it as soon as possible but it's still too early to be sure at my age.

 

[Country Geek]

My dad was going to work until he was 65 and draw a larger amount. He was in great health and was six years older than Mom. We talked him into retiring at 62. He and Mom had a great time, traveled some, farmed and gardened. He died three weeks before his 65th birthday.

You never know what tomorrow will bring. Retire when you are able and enjoy life.

Exactly. My grandfather and grandmother lived well into their 90s so my father had a pretty long life expectancy. But he died at 73. I'm with RSKY on this.

 

[sixdogs]

I'm pretty sure the "file and suspend" option for Social Security has been suspended. And likely filed.
As I understand it, too many were using it as a dodge so it got cancelled.

 

[Travelover]

I'm pretty sure the "file and suspend" option for Social Security has been suspended. And likely filed.
As I understand it, too many were using it as a dodge so it got cancelled.

I'm pretty sure you are mistaken about that. Retirement Planner: Suspending Retirement Benefit Payments

SS did eliminate an option where you could start taking it at 62 and at some point decide to repay all you'd received and reapply for a new, higher benefit. Only a few could afford to do this, but they eliminated the option. Too bad, it was like having your cake and eating it, too.

 

[sixdogs]

I'm pretty sure you are mistaken about that. Retirement Planner: Suspending Retirement Benefit Payments

SS did eliminate an option where you could start taking it at 62 and at some point decide to repay all you'd received and reapply for a new, higher benefit. Only a few could afford to do this, but they eliminated the option. Too bad, it was like having your cake and eating it, too.

Yes, the one you mention is the one I was thinking about.

 

[Teikas Dad]

Wow! Thanks for all the input, I figured there'd be a wealth of information available from you guys.

The issue of age difference between my wife and I is not a big one, I'm 3 years older than her. She's currently on SS disability from a job related injury. I'm 60 and retiring at the end of this month. I'm leaning towards taking it at 62 - I was in law enforcement for 40 years with two different agencies and have two pensions that both have a 100% survivor benefit so I'm worth the same dead or alive to my wife! Actually I'm worth more dead because of my life insurance.

What I've been thinking about doing was taking the SS payments and either roll them over into US Savings Bonds or even put it in the bank and make believe it's not there. I know there's a down side to that, if my wife or I need long term care we have to spend down everything before Medicaid kicks in. I learned that the hard way over the last year with my mother who had a stroke and is now in a nursing home. Longevity in my family has been late 70's to early 80's. I don't have any relatives who hit 90 or 100 so I don't see myself getting there. I realize I don't NEED the SS funds when I turn 62 but there are the various unknown factors, like what Washington will do to reduce benefits to anyone who hasn't started collecting. I don't know if banking the money would end up with the same amount over a lifetime or not. I guess if I invest wisely I could come out ahead collecting at 62. One of my pensions offers full medical insurance and it also has a COLA so the pension will increase as the years go by. I think that should more than make up for any difference in the 62 vs 66 vs 70 decision.

I just wasn't really sure about the whole thing as I've had some people tell me that I was crazy to take it at 62. They said you had to take it at 70 so you get more money. They're absolutely right....as long as I don't get hit by a bus or have a medical issue and live to be older than 82. Or, rather than saving the money, I'm thinking that the extra money now while we're still young (I never thought I would ever think that 60 was young!) enough to travel and enjoy ourselves would be a better investment not only in money but also in quality of life.