Social Security - 62, 66 or 70?

[riptides]

... Modern medicine is doing wonderful things.....

Yah, but I'd rather blow some of my money living each day than save it for the nursing home choice of - male erection drugs, soup of the day, or whatever.

There are things like travel and physical labor that I don't think being in my 80's or 90's will offer the same level of pure discovery or muscle ache as they do NOW. ****, who is to say your memories will still be as fresh?

It is a difficult and risky choice, enjoy each day NOW, or..... money is just a tool in the shed.

 

[ultrarunner]

I guess a man could really beat the system by having children very late in life...

My friends that were high school sweethearts never could have kids and then at age 50 she gave birth to triplets... kids are now 3 and thriving... she says every day is a blessing... her husband is not quite on the same page...

Also... most of my friends are 80+. Just helped my long time widow neighbor move at age 101 to a retirement home... except for me... age in the neighborhood is all folks 80 to 104... guess that's California living at it's best... no ice to slip and fall or snow to shovel and get a heart attack.

The 104 was still traveling to Hawaii alone to her condo until she was a 100...

 

[rekees4300]

What experience can you guys lend to the thought process?

62... Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

 

[jeff9366]

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, TODAY:

MISGUIDED MONEY IDEAS I KEEP HEARING

You are better off claiming Social Security at age 62.

Many folks are adamant this is the right strategy. Rather than delay Social Security until as late as age 70, thus ensuring a larger monthly benefit for themselves and potentially a larger survivor benefit for their spouse, they are convinced they should claim at 62, the earliest possible age.

To back up their argument, readers send me spreadsheets showing that they would come out ahead if they claim benefits early, then invest the proceeds in stocks that only go up or in bonds with yields available only from dicey issuers.

Yes, if you assume a high enough return, you can come out ahead by taking Social Security early. Yes, if you (and, if married, both you and your spouse) fully intend to die early in retirement, claiming at 62 makes sense.

But for those who reside in a world where investment returns and longevity are uncertain, delaying benefits makes sense. Sure, there is a chance that you will die early in retirement, having received little or nothing in return for your many years of paying Social Security payroll taxes.

But this is rather like buying homeowner's insurance, then despairing because your house did not burn down. The big financial risk in retirement isn't dying young. At that point, all your money problems are over.

Rather, the big risk is living longer than expected and running through your savings. Want insurance against that risk? Go for the fatter Social Security check.

 

[jeff9366]

FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, TODAY:

MISGUIDED MONEY IDEAS I KEEP HEARING

You are better off claiming Social Security at age 62.

Many folks are adamant this is the right strategy. Rather than delay Social Security until as late as age 70, thus ensuring a larger monthly benefit for themselves and potentially a larger survivor benefit for their spouse, they are convinced they should claim at 62, the earliest possible age.

To back up their argument, readers send me spreadsheets showing that they would come out ahead if they claim benefits early, then invest the proceeds in stocks that only go up or in bonds with yields available only from dicey issuers.

Yes, if you assume a high enough return, you can come out ahead by taking Social Security early. Yes, if you (and, if married, both you and your spouse) fully intend to die early in retirement, claiming at 62 makes sense.

But for those who reside in a world where investment returns and longevity are uncertain, delaying benefits makes sense. Sure, there is a chance that you will die early in retirement, having received little or nothing in return for your many years of paying Social Security payroll taxes.

But this is rather like buying homeowner's insurance, then despairing because your house did not burn down. The big financial risk in retirement isn't dying young. At that point, all your money problems are over.

Rather, the big risk is living longer than expected and running through your savings. Want insurance against that risk?
Go for the fatter Social Security check.

 

[riptides]

Ok,

Maybe a person will not draw at 62. What does that mean, current job continues until 70? Find work between 62 and 70? Doing what? At what quality?

Working almost kills me now, I imagine after 62, working will kill me quicker.

 

[Tractor Seabee]

"Beat the System" is somewhat a misnomer. A Gov system is only "Beat" by the dishonest scammers and criminals. Us honest middle class are just receiving the dividends from that hard earned money we and our employers sent to the "System". We elected the folks that screwed around with the investment part of the "Social System" by making a large part of it into a welfare program and a poorly policed bonanza for the criminal element (scammers are criminals).

One way to "beat the system": you have to be in that six figure earnings class that stops paying on their earned income early in the fiscal year. Social programs are "progressive taxing" programs and that earning cap does not belong there until we do away with "progressive taxing of all types. The good ole' US progressive way is to tax all to the max but means test benefits to the rich so the poor have a piece of the social pie. The reverse example is: I am means tested on what I have to pay for Medicare so why not the same principal on SS and very little of my current income is "Earned".

Solution: Flat income tax, delete all other taxes on the individual, and a planned elimination of SS benefits till those grandfathered are gone. Swim or Sink except the "PROVEN" poor and helpless. Drones and scammers beware.

The purpose of this dialog is to NOT start a political slant and steer the thread off course here; but, state what I perceive to be important elements of the "Program". So far we have done well to keep politics from dominating the dialog as so often happens.

Ron

 

[dave1949]

The current system of progressive tax with loopholes is working quite well for those who can afford a politician. What makes you think they would support an inescapable flat tax? Can you out-spend them for contributions? I can't.

 

[Threepoint]

Ok,

Maybe a person will not draw at 62. What does that mean, current job continues until 70? Find work between 62 and 70? Doing what? At what quality?

Working almost kills me now, I imagine after 62, working will kill me quicker.

As I understand it, you would not have to continue working beyond 62 in order to benefit from waiting to start your payments. If you preferred to stop working at 62, but deferred commencement of payments until 66 or 70, your monthly payments when they began would be only slightly smaller than if you continued to work up to that time. Smaller because you did not continue paying into the system, but still much bigger than at 62 because you waited. Stopping work completely at 62 would mean, though, that you would not be earning income (and paying taxes on it) thereafter. So there's that. You'd need to have some other source of cash flow. And you might get real bored.

 

[Tractor Seabee]

The current system of progressive tax with loopholes is working quite well for those who can afford a politician. What makes you think they would support an inescapable flat tax? Can you out-spend them for contributions? I can't.

Dave,

Yes I was facetious, you hit it on the head as to the real problem, so we continue live on our little share of the country's largess. Actually because of a lot of due diligence and good I did not come out too bad. The stock market has bailed me out, after the slump I did nothing, 5 years later I was back ahead of the game and still climbing.

Ron