Social Security - 62, 66 or 70?

[Oaktree]

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.

Actually, you still can but only within the first year of collecting. After that, you're stuck.

I retired at 62. Was considering retiring early anyway, but the decision was somewhat made for me due to the fact that my last employer went out of business 1 month before my 62nd birthday (no surprise...everyone knew it was coming well in advance). To find a similar job would entail a long commute, and most likely not include a company vehicle like my last one did. Went for the SS, no regrets. Still doing some work on a contract basis for several of my old clients, so I've kind of got the best of both worlds.

 

[KennyG]

After reading all this, I'm sticking with my original plan - wait til 70 to start benefits and then live to 100 so I come out ahead. There may be a little uncertainty there, but I've always been an optimist.

 

[Country Geek]

Keep in mind, that it's your money...you gave it to the gov to 'hold' for you. It's unlikely you'll ever get back all you paid.

Many of the other 'fine Americans' never paid a cent and are getting what you won't...something for nothing.

Don't ever feel guilty about getting the gov to pay you back...even if you don't need it.

Sorry, but no.

If you're old enough to be collecting SS already, you are likely going to get more than you put in. Significantly more. More enough to be a very good rate of return, so you also didn't do worse than if you had kept and invested the money.

See:

Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get | PolitiFact

Some selected quotes:

a two-earner couple receiving an average wage $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

If a similar couple had retired in 1980, they would have gotten back almost three times what they put in. And if they had retired in 1960, they would have gotten back more than eight times what they paid in. The bigger discrepancies common decades ago can be traced in part to the fact that some of these individuals working lives came before Social Security taxes were collected beginning in 1937.

past and current generations will pay $71.3 trillion in payroll taxes but will receive $93.4 trillion in benefits.

the exhortation that today痴 generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect. 糎e are to get much more under current Social Security laws to the tune of $21.6 trillion than we値l pay into the system. The excess benefits are a 喪eturn on past and current generations taxes of $71.3 trillion and quite a handsome return it is!"

Look at the figures that go with that article as well.

 

[smstonypoint]

After reading all this, I'm sticking with my original plan - wait til 70 to start benefits and then live to 100 so I come out ahead. There may be a little uncertainty there, but I've always been an optimist.

As an optimist, you shouldn't be laid low by heart problems.

Doomy, gloomy attitudes may be bad for your health. A study that examined people's outlooks on life along with their cardiovascular health found people with positive attitudes tend to have the happiest hearts.

"Individuals with the highest levels of optimism have twice the odds of being in ideal cardiovascular health compared to their more pessimistic counterparts," Rosalba Hernandez, the study's lead author and a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, said in a statement last week. "This association remains significant, even after adjusting for socio-demographic characteristics and poor mental health."

Optimistic People Have The Happiest Hearts Too, Study Finds

Good luck.

Steve

 

[jerrybob]

Keep in mind, that it's your money...you gave it to the gov to 'hold' for you. It's unlikely you'll ever get back all you paid.

Many of the other 'fine Americans' never paid a cent and are getting what you won't...something for nothing.

Don't ever feel guilty about getting the gov to pay you back...even if you don't need it.

Yea.....I was only being fecetious......I will never feel guilty.....especially when I see what I put into the system over my career. Thanks for the comments.:thumbsup:

 

[jerrybob]

That is EXACTLY what I said in my earlier post...12 years additional to break even if you wait until age 66 versus starting at 62...AND we don't know what to expect from SS is a few more years. HEY...like you I retired early (age 51) and don't really need the money BUT...we paid into SS without having an option and were mandated to contribute. Look at me...during my working career I paid just under $45,000 into SS and my employers contributed about that much. Who knows how much that 90 grand would be worth today HAD WE been able to invest it? We MIGHT have a lot more, or we MIGHT have a lot less. Hard to say.

And there are those who feel if our employers had not been mandated to contribute to SS on our behalf, we would have gotten compensation from them. that could have been worth more than what they had to contribute.

jerrybob...don't take my opinion the wrong way, but to me collecting SS is NOT GOVERNMENT AID. You paid into the fund with a reasonable expectation you would get your contributions back and to me, if your contributions were mandatory they are NOT AID when you collect them. As for me, I began collecting SS 15 months ago and I know if I am still collecting at age 67 I will have gotten back my 45 grand and a few bucks of interest...anything after that is pure gravy but given the short lifespan mailes in my family tend to have I wonder if I will see age 67.

oldpilgrim says it well...you are collecting YOUR MONEY....and in most cases you will have to pay tax on it !!!

Time to get off my soapbox and sit down and shut up. Thanks for letting me have my say.

My "gov. aid" comment was intended to be funny and facetious........trust me.....I have no guilt getting my SS. But I must admit.....when I get that first deposit.......me and the wife are gonna go out and celebrate like a homeless couple that just got their food stamp coupons......gonna be quite the party!!:cool2:

 

[ultrarunner]

Sorry, but no.

If you're old enough to be collecting SS already, you are likely going to get more than you put in. Significantly more. More enough to be a very good rate of return, so you also didn't do worse than if you had kept and invested the money.

The comparison only works if you buried the money in the backyard...

The time value of money means the money would grow and compound.

 

[Kenneth in Texas]

bottom line, at 62 im taking it, known far too many people die between 62 and 65, so im taking the little amount cash and running.

 

[CurlyDave]

Sorry, but no.

If you're old enough to be collecting SS already, you are likely going to get more than you put in. Significantly more. More enough to be a very good rate of return, so you also didn't do worse than if you had kept and invested the money.

See:

Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get | PolitiFact ...

They do only the most simplistic calculations, with no respect for the either the time value of money, or of "opportunity cost". Show me a table of year-by-year contributions, both employee and the employer match and compare that with the value of those same contributions invested in an index fund tracking the S&P 500. The S&P 500 investments will do much, much better than SS any day.

 

[KennyG]

They do only the most simplistic calculations, with no respect for the either the time value of money, or of "opportunity cost". Show me a table of year-by-year contributions, both employee and the employer match and compare that with the value of those same contributions invested in an index fund tracking the S&P 500. The S&P 500 investments will do much, much better than SS any day.

I generally don't defend government programs but SS includes an insurance component for disability or survivors. As a result it isn't fair to compare it to an investment fund.