This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Same. I'm pretty bored in my job. I need to do something about that since I still have at least 8 years left until retirement. I don't want to be this bored for 8 years, but also not looking to fill up every minute of my workday and having work on my mind at night and on the weekends. I should be able to easily find that balance in my current organization.
I email myself at 3 in the morning all the time. I am doing my best to try and turn the squelch on my give-a-****ter way down. Still working at it.
You seem like a prime candidate for a 20-30 hour/week job to start stepping back. Sounds like you're not ready to pull the ripcord fully. A progressive exit may be more your style.
I had a job like this. I quit it this March because life is too short and we have enough savings for a good enough life. As much as I disliked the job, it was too difficult for me to turn down the care factor.
Love most of my job and definitely love the people. It's just there is too much of it. Boss is wanting me to expand and grow. Frankly, I'm thinking about a 30 hour work week.
I understand and am not being critical. Just feel the need to nudge people sometimes.
I can't unring the FI bell - I'm there and don't think I'm going to fall off of that readily, barring a huge market meltdown. But, then again, if I do something binary at work I don't think I can unring that bell, either. I'm going to angle for something incremental reasonably soon.
Hopefully you can find some type of transition that works for you. Part time is not really common at all in my industry.
I'm pretty solid Gen X and I have no idea what you are talking about. Is it a tuning knob?
Someone didn’t play with CB radios as a kid.
I read that is higher than normal the last two years, mainly due to economic reasons and inflation.
I pay $37 for Verizon's prepaid monthly plan. Gives me 15gb per month. Service is fine. I feel that they throttle me if I'm in a sea of humanity like at a concert.
we pay $300 monthly for 6 phones and home internet with Verizon. This includes monthly payments on 3 new phones. Unlimited data.
Super interesting comparing coverage areas.
Cricket. AT&T network. For 2 phones it's $80/month unlimited. For my family of four it's $100/mo.
before our move to italy, we switched to the 55+ 2 line plan, which is $110 a month, including taxes. key here is that for the most part, international texting and roaming are included. that alone on ATT would be $10 a day for 1 line and $5 for another.
One of the really good things about our relocation is never having to deal with Comcast ever again. The king of hidden frees and rate hikes. It was our only option for years. New home has fiber ran to it instead of cable. Glory be, that's 1000 Mbps UP and DOWN.
Found a pretty good SS calculator for married couples that take into account both of your ages. It will chart what they recommend versus what scenario you're thinking about doing for both spouses.
As some of you know I've been a proponent of taking SS early. I had posted before a bar napkin calculation for my break even point being at age 89, but, I made a mistake. I didn't take into account that SS gets adjusted for inflation. If inflation is high your SS payments can be substantially larger (of course stuff you buy cost substantially more too). But redoing my bar napkin math and double checking it with some of the online calculators with inflation at 2.5 or 3% my break even point is really at age 79.
Every book I've read, including a new chapter of a new one last night, says WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. And they are right, there probably isn't a better investment option than a guaranteed 8% that is protected and adjusted for inflation.
Using the calculator above the recommendation is for both of us to wait until 70. Depending on the exact numbers sometimes it's better for her to start her own at 67 then jump on my spousal at 70. But in all cases it's better to wait because at age 90 we net about $325,000 versus us both collecting starting at age 62.
BUT
Looking at the data the calculator spits out when taking the SS early at 62 - at age 70 (her 76) we are ahead $250,000. So, the question becomes is it be better to have an extra quarter million dollars in our 70s versus betting that we live past break even (ages 79/85) and eventually die at age 90 with an extra 325K?
- leaving an inheritance isn't really important to us
- having extra money in our 70s and being able to enjoy it versus in our 80s when less active
- larger payments in 80s and possibly 90s would be beneficial for health and long term care if needed
Chapter 3 of How to Make Your Money Last, Jane Bryant Quinn
Good points.Found a pretty good SS calculator for married couples that take into account both of your ages. It will chart what they recommend versus what scenario you're thinking about doing for both spouses.
As some of you know I've been a proponent of taking SS early. I had posted before a bar napkin calculation for my break even point being at age 89, but, I made a mistake. I didn't take into account that SS gets adjusted for inflation. If inflation is high your SS payments can be substantially larger (of course stuff you buy cost substantially more too). But redoing my bar napkin math and double checking it with some of the online calculators with inflation at 2.5 or 3% my break even point is really at age 79.
Every book I've read, including a new chapter of a new one last night, says WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. And they are right, there probably isn't a better investment option than a guaranteed 8% that is protected and adjusted for inflation.
Using the calculator above the recommendation is for both of us to wait until 70. Depending on the exact numbers sometimes it's better for her to start her own at 67 then jump on my spousal at 70. But in all cases it's better to wait because at age 90 we net about $325,000 versus us both collecting starting at age 62.
BUT
Looking at the data the calculator spits out when taking the SS early at 62 - at age 70 (her 76) we are ahead $250,000. So, the question becomes is it be better to have an extra quarter million dollars in our 70s versus betting that we live past break even (ages 79/85) and eventually die at age 90 with an extra 325K?
- leaving an inheritance isn't really important to us
- having extra money in our 70s and being able to enjoy it versus in our 80s when less active
- larger payments in 80s and possibly 90s would be beneficial for health and long term care if needed
Starting SS earlier means taking less from other investments early. Starting later puts more stress on those investments, but then lessens that stress by a larger amount when you do turn on SS. I’m too young to worry about it now, but my thought at this time would be to delay and get the higher amount later. I do have longevity in my family.
Top 35 years. I’m 62 and maxed already so good there. Thinking 62 for my wife and 70 for me. She has longevity on her side so I want to make sure she’s good when I’m gone. I guess we both have longevity on our Mom’s side. Dad’s - not so much
My parents are in a decent one in Indianapolis. It’s alright but not perfect by any stretch. Still, I’d much rather be there than a less well managed one. Thankfully dad was a teacher when Michigan had good plans.
I'm 100% planning on taking SS at 62 because I want the income during a period when I'll still be highly active. I understand the mathematical argument for delaying, and it's a sound argument. I just place more value on having the extra income during the go-go years, and if that means that my portfolio is under a little more pressure when I'm 85, that's totally fine.Good points.Found a pretty good SS calculator for married couples that take into account both of your ages. It will chart what they recommend versus what scenario you're thinking about doing for both spouses.
As some of you know I've been a proponent of taking SS early. I had posted before a bar napkin calculation for my break even point being at age 89, but, I made a mistake. I didn't take into account that SS gets adjusted for inflation. If inflation is high your SS payments can be substantially larger (of course stuff you buy cost substantially more too). But redoing my bar napkin math and double checking it with some of the online calculators with inflation at 2.5 or 3% my break even point is really at age 79.
Every book I've read, including a new chapter of a new one last night, says WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. And they are right, there probably isn't a better investment option than a guaranteed 8% that is protected and adjusted for inflation.
Using the calculator above the recommendation is for both of us to wait until 70. Depending on the exact numbers sometimes it's better for her to start her own at 67 then jump on my spousal at 70. But in all cases it's better to wait because at age 90 we net about $325,000 versus us both collecting starting at age 62.
BUT
Looking at the data the calculator spits out when taking the SS early at 62 - at age 70 (her 76) we are ahead $250,000. So, the question becomes is it be better to have an extra quarter million dollars in our 70s versus betting that we live past break even (ages 79/85) and eventually die at age 90 with an extra 325K?
- leaving an inheritance isn't really important to us
- having extra money in our 70s and being able to enjoy it versus in our 80s when less active
- larger payments in 80s and possibly 90s would be beneficial for health and long term care if needed
Starting SS earlier means taking less from other investments early. Starting later puts more stress on those investments, but then lessens that stress by a larger amount when you do turn on SS. I’m too young to worry about it now, but my thought at this time would be to delay and get the higher amount later. I do have longevity in my family.
I'm still leaning towards wife collecting at 62, then as long as we have plenty of money pushing mine out to 67 or 70 (mostly just for her protection). She'd be collecting the smaller amount for 14 years before jumping to half of mine. The calculators say to push her's off too though, which I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around (need to print off the numbers so I can see it on paper).
I don't think there is any doubt though if the higher earner is older instead of younger, the younger lower earner should use theirs starting at 62 for as long as they can before the higher earner is maxed out and starts.
I'm sure you already know this but your soc sec benefits is reduced $1 per $2 you earn over 23k and $1 per $3 over 59k. The 59k is the year you reach NRAI'm 100% planning on taking SS at 62 because I want the income during a period when I'll still be highly active. I understand the mathematical argument for delaying, and it's a sound argument. I just place more value on having the extra income during the go-go years, and if that means that my portfolio is under a little more pressure when I'm 85, that's totally fine.Good points.Found a pretty good SS calculator for married couples that take into account both of your ages. It will chart what they recommend versus what scenario you're thinking about doing for both spouses.
As some of you know I've been a proponent of taking SS early. I had posted before a bar napkin calculation for my break even point being at age 89, but, I made a mistake. I didn't take into account that SS gets adjusted for inflation. If inflation is high your SS payments can be substantially larger (of course stuff you buy cost substantially more too). But redoing my bar napkin math and double checking it with some of the online calculators with inflation at 2.5 or 3% my break even point is really at age 79.
Every book I've read, including a new chapter of a new one last night, says WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. And they are right, there probably isn't a better investment option than a guaranteed 8% that is protected and adjusted for inflation.
Using the calculator above the recommendation is for both of us to wait until 70. Depending on the exact numbers sometimes it's better for her to start her own at 67 then jump on my spousal at 70. But in all cases it's better to wait because at age 90 we net about $325,000 versus us both collecting starting at age 62.
BUT
Looking at the data the calculator spits out when taking the SS early at 62 - at age 70 (her 76) we are ahead $250,000. So, the question becomes is it be better to have an extra quarter million dollars in our 70s versus betting that we live past break even (ages 79/85) and eventually die at age 90 with an extra 325K?
- leaving an inheritance isn't really important to us
- having extra money in our 70s and being able to enjoy it versus in our 80s when less active
- larger payments in 80s and possibly 90s would be beneficial for health and long term care if needed
Starting SS earlier means taking less from other investments early. Starting later puts more stress on those investments, but then lessens that stress by a larger amount when you do turn on SS. I’m too young to worry about it now, but my thought at this time would be to delay and get the higher amount later. I do have longevity in my family.
I'm still leaning towards wife collecting at 62, then as long as we have plenty of money pushing mine out to 67 or 70 (mostly just for her protection). She'd be collecting the smaller amount for 14 years before jumping to half of mine. The calculators say to push her's off too though, which I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around (need to print off the numbers so I can see it on paper).
I don't think there is any doubt though if the higher earner is older instead of younger, the younger lower earner should use theirs starting at 62 for as long as they can before the higher earner is maxed out and starts.
There's also a psychological consideration here. I know that I am going to be one of those people who has a hard time spending from his portfolio in the early years of retirement. The sooner I start SS, the better I will feel about being able to leave my positions alone. That's a very poor mathematical argument, but I see it as a reasonable peace-of-mind argument.
And, this is kind of grim, but the fact is that if you end up in long-term care, you probably won't be there all that long. We're dealing with this with a family member right now, and it's really not all that bad. This is going to take my MIL and step-FIL to the felt, but that's just because they were under-financed for their lifestyle. My wife and I will not have that problem, and I just don't really expect many issues with self-insuring LTC. And if LTC doesn't come up as an issue, then I would definitely want to have taken SS as early as possible.
I’ve said it for my situation and just using say $3k for my wife and me (both should have enough credits) gives you enough of a nest egg from 62-70 that a decent return of 6-8% each year would have us making up the 62 to 70 monthly difference and still be way ahead with that huge nest egg.Found a pretty good SS calculator for married couples that take into account both of your ages. It will chart what they recommend versus what scenario you're thinking about doing for both spouses.
As some of you know I've been a proponent of taking SS early. I had posted before a bar napkin calculation for my break even point being at age 89, but, I made a mistake. I didn't take into account that SS gets adjusted for inflation. If inflation is high your SS payments can be substantially larger (of course stuff you buy cost substantially more too). But redoing my bar napkin math and double checking it with some of the online calculators with inflation at 2.5 or 3% my break even point is really at age 79.
Every book I've read, including a new chapter of a new one last night, says WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. And they are right, there probably isn't a better investment option than a guaranteed 8% that is protected and adjusted for inflation.
Using the calculator above the recommendation is for both of us to wait until 70. Depending on the exact numbers sometimes it's better for her to start her own at 67 then jump on my spousal at 70. But in all cases it's better to wait because at age 90 we net about $325,000 versus us both collecting starting at age 62.
BUT
Looking at the data the calculator spits out when taking the SS early at 62 - at age 70 (her 76) we are ahead $250,000. So, the question becomes is it be better to have an extra quarter million dollars in our 70s versus betting that we live past break even (ages 79/85) and eventually die at age 90 with an extra 325K?
- leaving an inheritance isn't really important to us
- having extra money in our 70s and being able to enjoy it versus in our 80s when less active
- larger payments in 80s and possibly 90s would be beneficial for health and long term care if needed
I agree with ALL of that.I'm 100% planning on taking SS at 62 because I want the income during a period when I'll still be highly active. I understand the mathematical argument for delaying, and it's a sound argument. I just place more value on having the extra income during the go-go years, and if that means that my portfolio is under a little more pressure when I'm 85, that's totally fine.Good points.Found a pretty good SS calculator for married couples that take into account both of your ages. It will chart what they recommend versus what scenario you're thinking about doing for both spouses.
As some of you know I've been a proponent of taking SS early. I had posted before a bar napkin calculation for my break even point being at age 89, but, I made a mistake. I didn't take into account that SS gets adjusted for inflation. If inflation is high your SS payments can be substantially larger (of course stuff you buy cost substantially more too). But redoing my bar napkin math and double checking it with some of the online calculators with inflation at 2.5 or 3% my break even point is really at age 79.
Every book I've read, including a new chapter of a new one last night, says WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. And they are right, there probably isn't a better investment option than a guaranteed 8% that is protected and adjusted for inflation.
Using the calculator above the recommendation is for both of us to wait until 70. Depending on the exact numbers sometimes it's better for her to start her own at 67 then jump on my spousal at 70. But in all cases it's better to wait because at age 90 we net about $325,000 versus us both collecting starting at age 62.
BUT
Looking at the data the calculator spits out when taking the SS early at 62 - at age 70 (her 76) we are ahead $250,000. So, the question becomes is it be better to have an extra quarter million dollars in our 70s versus betting that we live past break even (ages 79/85) and eventually die at age 90 with an extra 325K?
- leaving an inheritance isn't really important to us
- having extra money in our 70s and being able to enjoy it versus in our 80s when less active
- larger payments in 80s and possibly 90s would be beneficial for health and long term care if needed
Starting SS earlier means taking less from other investments early. Starting later puts more stress on those investments, but then lessens that stress by a larger amount when you do turn on SS. I’m too young to worry about it now, but my thought at this time would be to delay and get the higher amount later. I do have longevity in my family.
I'm still leaning towards wife collecting at 62, then as long as we have plenty of money pushing mine out to 67 or 70 (mostly just for her protection). She'd be collecting the smaller amount for 14 years before jumping to half of mine. The calculators say to push her's off too though, which I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around (need to print off the numbers so I can see it on paper).
I don't think there is any doubt though if the higher earner is older instead of younger, the younger lower earner should use theirs starting at 62 for as long as they can before the higher earner is maxed out and starts.
There's also a psychological consideration here. I know that I am going to be one of those people who has a hard time spending from his portfolio in the early years of retirement. The sooner I start SS, the better I will feel about being able to leave my positions alone. That's a very poor mathematical argument, but I see it as a reasonable peace-of-mind argument.
And, this is kind of grim, but the fact is that if you end up in long-term care, you probably won't be there all that long. We're dealing with this with a family member right now, and it's really not all that bad. This is going to take my MIL and step-FIL to the felt, but that's just because they were under-financed for their lifestyle. My wife and I will not have that problem, and I just don't really expect many issues with self-insuring LTC. And if LTC doesn't come up as an issue, then I would definitely want to have taken SS as early as possible.
Yes, but it does go back into the pot and you'll get it later right? So in that sense you're still pushing it out if you happen to go over the income limits.I'm sure you already know this but your soc sec benefits is reduced $1 per $2 you earn over 23k and $1 per $3 over 59k. The 59k is the year you reach NRAI'm 100% planning on taking SS at 62 because I want the income during a period when I'll still be highly active. I understand the mathematical argument for delaying, and it's a sound argument. I just place more value on having the extra income during the go-go years, and if that means that my portfolio is under a little more pressure when I'm 85, that's totally fine.Good points.Found a pretty good SS calculator for married couples that take into account both of your ages. It will chart what they recommend versus what scenario you're thinking about doing for both spouses.
As some of you know I've been a proponent of taking SS early. I had posted before a bar napkin calculation for my break even point being at age 89, but, I made a mistake. I didn't take into account that SS gets adjusted for inflation. If inflation is high your SS payments can be substantially larger (of course stuff you buy cost substantially more too). But redoing my bar napkin math and double checking it with some of the online calculators with inflation at 2.5 or 3% my break even point is really at age 79.
Every book I've read, including a new chapter of a new one last night, says WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. And they are right, there probably isn't a better investment option than a guaranteed 8% that is protected and adjusted for inflation.
Using the calculator above the recommendation is for both of us to wait until 70. Depending on the exact numbers sometimes it's better for her to start her own at 67 then jump on my spousal at 70. But in all cases it's better to wait because at age 90 we net about $325,000 versus us both collecting starting at age 62.
BUT
Looking at the data the calculator spits out when taking the SS early at 62 - at age 70 (her 76) we are ahead $250,000. So, the question becomes is it be better to have an extra quarter million dollars in our 70s versus betting that we live past break even (ages 79/85) and eventually die at age 90 with an extra 325K?
- leaving an inheritance isn't really important to us
- having extra money in our 70s and being able to enjoy it versus in our 80s when less active
- larger payments in 80s and possibly 90s would be beneficial for health and long term care if needed
Starting SS earlier means taking less from other investments early. Starting later puts more stress on those investments, but then lessens that stress by a larger amount when you do turn on SS. I’m too young to worry about it now, but my thought at this time would be to delay and get the higher amount later. I do have longevity in my family.
I'm still leaning towards wife collecting at 62, then as long as we have plenty of money pushing mine out to 67 or 70 (mostly just for her protection). She'd be collecting the smaller amount for 14 years before jumping to half of mine. The calculators say to push her's off too though, which I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around (need to print off the numbers so I can see it on paper).
I don't think there is any doubt though if the higher earner is older instead of younger, the younger lower earner should use theirs starting at 62 for as long as they can before the higher earner is maxed out and starts.
There's also a psychological consideration here. I know that I am going to be one of those people who has a hard time spending from his portfolio in the early years of retirement. The sooner I start SS, the better I will feel about being able to leave my positions alone. That's a very poor mathematical argument, but I see it as a reasonable peace-of-mind argument.
And, this is kind of grim, but the fact is that if you end up in long-term care, you probably won't be there all that long. We're dealing with this with a family member right now, and it's really not all that bad. This is going to take my MIL and step-FIL to the felt, but that's just because they were under-financed for their lifestyle. My wife and I will not have that problem, and I just don't really expect many issues with self-insuring LTC. And if LTC doesn't come up as an issue, then I would definitely want to have taken SS as early as possible.
So be careful earning income while collecting
I think what you're saying is that SS is simple 8% interest, not compounded, and 6% compounded interest beats that with the unknown being inflation?I’ve said it for my situation and just using say $3k for my wife and me (both should have enough credits) gives you enough of a nest egg from 62-70 that a decent return of 6-8% each year would have us making up the 62 to 70 monthly difference and still be way ahead with that huge nest egg.Found a pretty good SS calculator for married couples that take into account both of your ages. It will chart what they recommend versus what scenario you're thinking about doing for both spouses.
As some of you know I've been a proponent of taking SS early. I had posted before a bar napkin calculation for my break even point being at age 89, but, I made a mistake. I didn't take into account that SS gets adjusted for inflation. If inflation is high your SS payments can be substantially larger (of course stuff you buy cost substantially more too). But redoing my bar napkin math and double checking it with some of the online calculators with inflation at 2.5 or 3% my break even point is really at age 79.
Every book I've read, including a new chapter of a new one last night, says WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. And they are right, there probably isn't a better investment option than a guaranteed 8% that is protected and adjusted for inflation.
Using the calculator above the recommendation is for both of us to wait until 70. Depending on the exact numbers sometimes it's better for her to start her own at 67 then jump on my spousal at 70. But in all cases it's better to wait because at age 90 we net about $325,000 versus us both collecting starting at age 62.
BUT
Looking at the data the calculator spits out when taking the SS early at 62 - at age 70 (her 76) we are ahead $250,000. So, the question becomes is it be better to have an extra quarter million dollars in our 70s versus betting that we live past break even (ages 79/85) and eventually die at age 90 with an extra 325K?
- leaving an inheritance isn't really important to us
- having extra money in our 70s and being able to enjoy it versus in our 80s when less active
- larger payments in 80s and possibly 90s would be beneficial for health and long term care if needed
Part of the reason why many of these sites recommend 70 is because most people get SS at 62 because they need it not because they thought about investing the difference. Those sites A) don’t even mention the nest egg and B) if they have the nest egg they don’t mention that you are investing that nest egg amount over the 8 years. The average time each year of $$$s has is 4 years. 4 years at 6-8% return makes that nest egg a lot bigger at age 70.
For example, my nest egg above would be $72k * 8 years or $576k. Using just 6% return with simple math (average of 4 years of compounding) and that nest egg is $727k.
All that said, there are other factors like the reduction of SS due to income before full retirement age. If my wife or I are still working or if we are trying to do Roth rollovers, it won’t make sense to get SS early when you get half of it.
This is kind of where I'm landing. I've been saving (delaying gratification) my entire life. I don't know how many years I have left, but (a) I know I don't have more than about 40, at the very upper end, and (b) I know that many of those years -- if I even get them -- are going to be "low quality" years. I'm fortunate enough to be able to retire in my mid-50s. It seems foolish to keep putting off consumption. This is the period that I've been saving for. I don't want to get to this point, be frugal so that I'll have lots of money for the nicest nursing home down the road, and then drop dead of a massive heart attack at 75.
100%
Sure - I was just commenting on using it early as a supplement while still earning income. I could have misunderstood Ivan post but it was more of a generic hey I'm taking SS at 62 to supplement my income but if you plan on the 3K a month - it won't be 3K - thats all I was sayingYes, but it does go back into the pot and you'll get it later right? So in that sense you're still pushing it out if you happen to go over the income limits.I'm sure you already know this but your soc sec benefits is reduced $1 per $2 you earn over 23k and $1 per $3 over 59k. The 59k is the year you reach NRAI'm 100% planning on taking SS at 62 because I want the income during a period when I'll still be highly active. I understand the mathematical argument for delaying, and it's a sound argument. I just place more value on having the extra income during the go-go years, and if that means that my portfolio is under a little more pressure when I'm 85, that's totally fine.Good points.Found a pretty good SS calculator for married couples that take into account both of your ages. It will chart what they recommend versus what scenario you're thinking about doing for both spouses.
As some of you know I've been a proponent of taking SS early. I had posted before a bar napkin calculation for my break even point being at age 89, but, I made a mistake. I didn't take into account that SS gets adjusted for inflation. If inflation is high your SS payments can be substantially larger (of course stuff you buy cost substantially more too). But redoing my bar napkin math and double checking it with some of the online calculators with inflation at 2.5 or 3% my break even point is really at age 79.
Every book I've read, including a new chapter of a new one last night, says WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. And they are right, there probably isn't a better investment option than a guaranteed 8% that is protected and adjusted for inflation.
Using the calculator above the recommendation is for both of us to wait until 70. Depending on the exact numbers sometimes it's better for her to start her own at 67 then jump on my spousal at 70. But in all cases it's better to wait because at age 90 we net about $325,000 versus us both collecting starting at age 62.
BUT
Looking at the data the calculator spits out when taking the SS early at 62 - at age 70 (her 76) we are ahead $250,000. So, the question becomes is it be better to have an extra quarter million dollars in our 70s versus betting that we live past break even (ages 79/85) and eventually die at age 90 with an extra 325K?
- leaving an inheritance isn't really important to us
- having extra money in our 70s and being able to enjoy it versus in our 80s when less active
- larger payments in 80s and possibly 90s would be beneficial for health and long term care if needed
Starting SS earlier means taking less from other investments early. Starting later puts more stress on those investments, but then lessens that stress by a larger amount when you do turn on SS. I’m too young to worry about it now, but my thought at this time would be to delay and get the higher amount later. I do have longevity in my family.
I'm still leaning towards wife collecting at 62, then as long as we have plenty of money pushing mine out to 67 or 70 (mostly just for her protection). She'd be collecting the smaller amount for 14 years before jumping to half of mine. The calculators say to push her's off too though, which I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around (need to print off the numbers so I can see it on paper).
I don't think there is any doubt though if the higher earner is older instead of younger, the younger lower earner should use theirs starting at 62 for as long as they can before the higher earner is maxed out and starts.
There's also a psychological consideration here. I know that I am going to be one of those people who has a hard time spending from his portfolio in the early years of retirement. The sooner I start SS, the better I will feel about being able to leave my positions alone. That's a very poor mathematical argument, but I see it as a reasonable peace-of-mind argument.
And, this is kind of grim, but the fact is that if you end up in long-term care, you probably won't be there all that long. We're dealing with this with a family member right now, and it's really not all that bad. This is going to take my MIL and step-FIL to the felt, but that's just because they were under-financed for their lifestyle. My wife and I will not have that problem, and I just don't really expect many issues with self-insuring LTC. And if LTC doesn't come up as an issue, then I would definitely want to have taken SS as early as possible.
So be careful earning income while collecting
TBC, I was talking about supplementing pension and investment income, not labor income. I should have been more clear about that.Sure - I was just commenting on using it early as a supplement while still earning income. I could have misunderstood Ivan post but it was more of a generic hey I'm taking SS at 62 to supplement my income but if you plan on the 3K a month - it won't be 3K - thats all I was sayingYes, but it does go back into the pot and you'll get it later right? So in that sense you're still pushing it out if you happen to go over the income limits.I'm sure you already know this but your soc sec benefits is reduced $1 per $2 you earn over 23k and $1 per $3 over 59k. The 59k is the year you reach NRAI'm 100% planning on taking SS at 62 because I want the income during a period when I'll still be highly active. I understand the mathematical argument for delaying, and it's a sound argument. I just place more value on having the extra income during the go-go years, and if that means that my portfolio is under a little more pressure when I'm 85, that's totally fine.Good points.Found a pretty good SS calculator for married couples that take into account both of your ages. It will chart what they recommend versus what scenario you're thinking about doing for both spouses.
As some of you know I've been a proponent of taking SS early. I had posted before a bar napkin calculation for my break even point being at age 89, but, I made a mistake. I didn't take into account that SS gets adjusted for inflation. If inflation is high your SS payments can be substantially larger (of course stuff you buy cost substantially more too). But redoing my bar napkin math and double checking it with some of the online calculators with inflation at 2.5 or 3% my break even point is really at age 79.
Every book I've read, including a new chapter of a new one last night, says WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. And they are right, there probably isn't a better investment option than a guaranteed 8% that is protected and adjusted for inflation.
Using the calculator above the recommendation is for both of us to wait until 70. Depending on the exact numbers sometimes it's better for her to start her own at 67 then jump on my spousal at 70. But in all cases it's better to wait because at age 90 we net about $325,000 versus us both collecting starting at age 62.
BUT
Looking at the data the calculator spits out when taking the SS early at 62 - at age 70 (her 76) we are ahead $250,000. So, the question becomes is it be better to have an extra quarter million dollars in our 70s versus betting that we live past break even (ages 79/85) and eventually die at age 90 with an extra 325K?
- leaving an inheritance isn't really important to us
- having extra money in our 70s and being able to enjoy it versus in our 80s when less active
- larger payments in 80s and possibly 90s would be beneficial for health and long term care if needed
Starting SS earlier means taking less from other investments early. Starting later puts more stress on those investments, but then lessens that stress by a larger amount when you do turn on SS. I’m too young to worry about it now, but my thought at this time would be to delay and get the higher amount later. I do have longevity in my family.
I'm still leaning towards wife collecting at 62, then as long as we have plenty of money pushing mine out to 67 or 70 (mostly just for her protection). She'd be collecting the smaller amount for 14 years before jumping to half of mine. The calculators say to push her's off too though, which I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around (need to print off the numbers so I can see it on paper).
I don't think there is any doubt though if the higher earner is older instead of younger, the younger lower earner should use theirs starting at 62 for as long as they can before the higher earner is maxed out and starts.
There's also a psychological consideration here. I know that I am going to be one of those people who has a hard time spending from his portfolio in the early years of retirement. The sooner I start SS, the better I will feel about being able to leave my positions alone. That's a very poor mathematical argument, but I see it as a reasonable peace-of-mind argument.
And, this is kind of grim, but the fact is that if you end up in long-term care, you probably won't be there all that long. We're dealing with this with a family member right now, and it's really not all that bad. This is going to take my MIL and step-FIL to the felt, but that's just because they were under-financed for their lifestyle. My wife and I will not have that problem, and I just don't really expect many issues with self-insuring LTC. And if LTC doesn't come up as an issue, then I would definitely want to have taken SS as early as possible.
So be careful earning income while collecting
No, I was just saying the extra 8% you get from waiting is based upon the government’s “nest egg” rather than getting less SS 8 years earlier where the nest egg is now in your pocket and it’s been growing in those 8 years as well. My argument was that if you invested the early SS or spent the early SS to avoid pulling invested money out, you can have a rather large nest egg that could get you more per month than you lose out by getting the SS early and that nest egg making up the difference is your money.I think what you're saying is that SS is simple 8% interest, not compounded, and 6% compounded interest beats that with the unknown being inflation?I’ve said it for my situation and just using say $3k for my wife and me (both should have enough credits) gives you enough of a nest egg from 62-70 that a decent return of 6-8% each year would have us making up the 62 to 70 monthly difference and still be way ahead with that huge nest egg.Found a pretty good SS calculator for married couples that take into account both of your ages. It will chart what they recommend versus what scenario you're thinking about doing for both spouses.
As some of you know I've been a proponent of taking SS early. I had posted before a bar napkin calculation for my break even point being at age 89, but, I made a mistake. I didn't take into account that SS gets adjusted for inflation. If inflation is high your SS payments can be substantially larger (of course stuff you buy cost substantially more too). But redoing my bar napkin math and double checking it with some of the online calculators with inflation at 2.5 or 3% my break even point is really at age 79.
Every book I've read, including a new chapter of a new one last night, says WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. And they are right, there probably isn't a better investment option than a guaranteed 8% that is protected and adjusted for inflation.
Using the calculator above the recommendation is for both of us to wait until 70. Depending on the exact numbers sometimes it's better for her to start her own at 67 then jump on my spousal at 70. But in all cases it's better to wait because at age 90 we net about $325,000 versus us both collecting starting at age 62.
BUT
Looking at the data the calculator spits out when taking the SS early at 62 - at age 70 (her 76) we are ahead $250,000. So, the question becomes is it be better to have an extra quarter million dollars in our 70s versus betting that we live past break even (ages 79/85) and eventually die at age 90 with an extra 325K?
- leaving an inheritance isn't really important to us
- having extra money in our 70s and being able to enjoy it versus in our 80s when less active
- larger payments in 80s and possibly 90s would be beneficial for health and long term care if needed
Part of the reason why many of these sites recommend 70 is because most people get SS at 62 because they need it not because they thought about investing the difference. Those sites A) don’t even mention the nest egg and B) if they have the nest egg they don’t mention that you are investing that nest egg amount over the 8 years. The average time each year of $$$s has is 4 years. 4 years at 6-8% return makes that nest egg a lot bigger at age 70.
For example, my nest egg above would be $72k * 8 years or $576k. Using just 6% return with simple math (average of 4 years of compounding) and that nest egg is $727k.
All that said, there are other factors like the reduction of SS due to income before full retirement age. If my wife or I are still working or if we are trying to do Roth rollovers, it won’t make sense to get SS early when you get half of it.
This isn't quite right - this is from birth. A 65 year old dude, on average, lives to 82. A woman to 84.
The vast, vast majority of people who take SS early spend it so that calculation usually isn't part of it. I'm sure you can find a calculator out there that handles this. If you're single these are pretty easy calcs to make. Married is much more complex. At least for my situation I look at SS as longevity insurance for my wife, who I'm 99% sure will outlive me. So we'll probably do the "she claims early, I claim late" strategy to get her the best survivor benefits possible.
