So start it when you can.
I took it a full-retirement age, not waiting until 70. I ran the income curves and the cross-over point was something like mid-80s.
I didn’t trust the USA under Obama and the RATS.
My wife is working, house is paid, we have want we want (we're not extravagant). It's all gravy. I can get a new Les Paul and if Marshall ever decides to release the new DSL line, a new amp!
Here’s another way to look at it.
If you take the money let’s say, two years early. You put it in an investment account, say, an IRA. Will it be worth more than the difference two years from now. (the answer is yes).
Bookmark
I retired at 65 and 5 months (my full retirement age was 66). The difference between what I collected at 65 and 5 is only slightly less than what I would have collected had I waited to 66. To me, time is more valuable than money, and I am enjoying my retirement.
You can always recover lost money, but you can never recover lost time. Retire as early as you can as long as you can afford to do so. I retired shortly after I paid off my house note and paid off all our debt.
I’ll be 63 in a couple days, I signed up. I asked Freeperville advice (very helpful) a few months ago and I can’t remember if there was one who said they regretted it. I like my job and it’s as secure as can be if there is such a thing (I’m #1 in the nation 10 out of the last 11 quarters).
Every weekend will now be a 3 day weekend ... I didn’t have a vacation this year. I get a small pension which brings me in the neighborhood where I’d be at full retirement. I’ll put 15 -20% in a 401K. That will be pre-taxed as my benes are. I’m told that will bring my gross pay down so I won’t be penalized as much, I have my doubts. Could I regret it, sure, but not today. To heck with life’s what ifs and maybes.
Note: If you do it, check your stats and rules ... SS screwed mine up and I finally found the person that said I was right, they’ll be sending a revised (higher) pay out in a few weeks.
If one has sufficient savings to hold out until 70, and one is relatively healthy, waiting for the maximum payout makes a lot of sense.
Saving
Never mind even if our SS money was placed in Even a basic
savings account it would have been grand
1) if you retire any time between 62 and FRA aren’t you entitled to x months back benefits?
2) if You still work can’t you still put money in 401k until 70 and jack up max deferred rate to highest level?
Use / time value of money is important also. I have a relatively cheesy pension from the formerly greatest IT co that I started drawing on since 55 over 4 yrs even taxable I’ve had the very handy use of $33K
bookmark
If SS isn’t a mere afterthought in your retirement plan, you’re screwed.
This is mentioned in the article, but only briefly, and is the main reason one should consider waiting as long as possible to take SS.
It’s about the only inflation-protected income stream available that isn’t affected by market forces.
If you take, say, $2000 a month at age 62, and inflation is 6% that year, the next year your SS payment will be raised approx. 6%, to $2,120.
But if you wait until age 70, your SS payment will be $3,500 even if there’s no inflation during that eight years. However, if inflation averages 5% between age 62 and 66, your payout will go up accordingly. (I’m not certain how it’s handled from 62 to 70, however.) The result will be around a $4200 monthly payment.
Even at $3500, if you now get a six percent inflation rate, your next year’s monthly check will rise to $3,710, an increase of $210 instead of $120. And at $4200, your monthly payout would rise to $4450, an increase of $250.
So, besides getting a significantly larger monthly payout that doesn’t depend on how your IRA performs, it will increase by inflation each year, something your IRA doesn’t always do either.
People seem to equate retiring with needing to take SS. If you can’t live without SS payments coming in, all the more reason that you should consider working longer because you will build in better protection against inflation in your later years.
SS was originally meant to be a stopgap to keep people from becoming destitute - not to provide a comfortable retirement. Then it grew. And grew. And so did the SS taxes.
Well, they’ve basically figured out a way to get it back to where it started despite the protestations about SS ‘going insolvent’, haven’t they?
I’m talking about the $1 deduction for every $2 you earn over a certain amount - meaning that if you’d like to use your SS to help supplement your older years, you need to stop working, basically.
Lovely. I’ve put more $$$ into it than I’ll ever see, and then I’ll have to retire completely (ie not work) to see SOME of it come back.
But if you don’t have enough saved to comfortably retire (yet), then you have to keep working - and not take your SS.
The angles on this scam keep getting more interesting ...
Two of my closest Childhood Friends died before reaching the age of 62.
Both had worked their entire lives and each probably “invested” over $250,000 into SS and Medicare throughout their lives.
They got nothing. One of them was Married and his Wife got $255 to help pay for the Flowers at his Funeral.
Her SS Check got a slight bump as the surviving Spouse of about $100 a Month since she earned close to what her Late Husband earned.
I made the decision to take my Benefit at 62 since I was diagnosed with Leukemia in my early 50’s. Made that decision easy since the odds are I won’t make the “break even” point.
First recipient Ida Mae Fuller.
Paid about $25 into the SS scheme and collected almost 1,000 times that much. Life is sweeeeeeeeeet!!!!!
If you don’t take it at 62 you are “STUCK ON STUPID”
The COLA is next to worthless as they do not figure in the stuff that will be your biggest expenses as a retired person.
If you don’t take it at 62 and wait until 66, ya never get any of that back, it’s gone, zip.