Posted on 07/14/2008 9:19:24 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch
Sorry. I’m taking mine at 62. I may not live to 67 and 10 months. I will be dang if I let the .gov pay me nothing. Although I may not make it to 62 either. Sorry you know whats.
Example:
$700 a month at age 62; $1000 a month at age 67
You would draw $42K for the years 62-66- If you wait until age 67 to begin drawing, just to get that additional $300 per month, it would take almost 12 years to make up the difference. Is that right or is my math off?
I held off until age 65, thinking the same thing—bigger benefits.
The SS worker who processed my application ran a payout comparison and told me I’d have to live and receive benefits for an additional 13 years before I began to get ahead because the additional benefits aren’t that great.
Check it out at 62 first before you decide.
Funny, I always heard the opposite—that taking it at 62 was best. Of couse, if you’re still working, that’s another story.
62 it is.
Factoring in Inflation . . .
We will probably have my wife take her SS starting at 62, because her part of MY SS is more than her SS. I’ll take mine at 67. If I took mine at 62, we’d get nothing for her lifetime of earnings. But I can take hers at 62, and she will lose nothing in the long run because when I start taking mine, it will stop her from getting hers anymore, and she will instead take half of mine.
I started basically on time at 65. SS tried to get me to start early, with the stock answer it will take you ten years to recover. SS I think is for the surviving spouse, so I choose to begin on time rather than early at 62. It is an individual choice.
The way I had it figured was, if you start drawing @ 62, you would reach the age of 75 before those drawing from 65 would catch up to you. But my math is subject to being wrong also.
Not to mention any investment income you may generate. The only argument to not begin taking SS at 62 MIGHT be so you don't limit your earning potential. Maybe you have a real cushy job you like and make 6 figures.
In today’s climate taking it at 62 might be a good idea if it means your 401(k), IRA etc can be left alone to recover from the recent beatings unimpeded by withdrawals.
I agree with you, I’ll start at 62.
Well I hope my husband still has a good job at age 62! lol But yes, that was how I was figuring it too - if you don’t have to worry about the limits on earnings, then go ahead and draw the reduced amount early.
I think Uncle bets that you will live until you are about 82 or 83. I don’t know what the standard deviation is though. Sign up at 62. What is left out of the calculation is the future value of the dollar. it is put simply this way: Would you like to have $100 now or $105 a year from now?
A lot depends on whether or not you are working “on the books” after starting SS @ 62 but before full retirement age. If you’re still earning a decent (taxable) income, you get penalized pretty heavily.
If you’re not working (on the books that is), one other scenario they never mention is starting to collect at 62 but not spending the money - invest it instead. Plug that scenario into your spread sheets and you may come out with a different answer.
I would have to live to eighty-three to break even (assuming zero increase in inflation). I'll probably make it that far but if I do and I need the extra few bucks then I'm screwed anyway.
If you had a normal 30 to 40 year employment history, they won’t be “paying” you. They’re simply RETURNING the dough they confiscated from you over your working life. They want you to hold off collecting in hopes you’ll DIE before they have to start cutting checks.
The exception to that is, of course, the illegals and over breeding welfare bums who don’t have to hit a lick to “qualify” for benefits. This is why the system is in big trouble: The political hacks we ludicrously call “leaders” are pissing these now non-existent “reserves” to buy reelection.
This is what financial adviser Suse Orman is telling many of the callers to her tv show. It surprised me a bit, but you're right, it would take years to make up the difference. For someone who really wants/needs to retire, there doesn't seem to be a reason to wait until full retirement age.
Just yesterday I was on the SSA site trying to figure out my widow's benefit if I don't remarry before 62, though I probably make too much money for it to be worthwhile.
A lot of folks won’t or can’t retire till 66, which you have to be to get Medi-Care?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.