Posted on 09/04/2015 6:30:22 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Depending on your situation, taking SS early (62) may actually be better. Using your formula, if full monthly benefits at 66 1/2 are $2000 and early benefits are $1500, you will leave 54 months of benefits on the table. This amounts to $81,000. Divide $81k by the $500 difference and you get 162 months (13.5 yrs.) of unpaid benefits. Add 13.5 to 66.5 and you don’t break even until you are 80. I contend that you can use more money in your active 60’s than your sedentary 80’s.
Just more inside the belt way BS. Remember folks we are nothing more then mushrooms to be fed manure and kept in the dark.
Amen! Odds are it will be easier to enjoy life at 62 than 82. The only thing you will see at 82 is the buzzard-like anticipation in the eyes of your closest relatives...spend it before they get it.
If one makes it to 80.
-2- Using SS early would allow tax free growth of some IRA money.
-3- Who knows when the SS Ponzi scheme collapses or reduces their payments.
Good points, but who knows how much more money a person could make by remaining employed in a good job until the age of 70 or even later, rather than being forced to retire at 62 because the labor market has dried up.
That person could also take SS benefits at regular retirement age, continue to work, and pay no penalty for doing so.
Instead, with this ‘wonderful’ economy, they can’t find a good job and have to settle for their measly benefits check at a relatively young age. Try to live on that alone, it’s almost impossible.
Hopefully, one has saved up a good chunk of money in an IRA or 401K, so that the SS is supplemental. An extra $1500 a month can buy a lot of fun in your early 60’s.
[Those of us who live in the real world know better.]
Yes, yes we do.
Yes, that’s about right. I was in offices but I seemed to be alone in wondering how so many factories and manufacturing closing down was good in the long run.
And it wasn’t. Once in awhile, I drive by a steel plant that was larger then many small towns. I toured that plant as a kid when it was in full operation.
It was a ghost town for 20-some-odd years, much like Detroit. Only some small portion of the thing is leased out to a non-steel-manufacturing business (service it appears).
Ho hum. Another pronouncement from the Ministry of Propaganda.
BTTT
Far more lost their jobs, yet the UI falls? Cooking the books again.
So, you expect us to believe Labor Department statistics?
I don’t take any government stats at face value. If any one does, it is at their own peril.
5.1% is an absurd rate. It only fits if you eliminate about 5% of those in the work force that are not working.
SMOKE AND MIRRORS, it will fool them (us) every time.
They’ve kept the lie going for much longer than I ever thought was possible.
That’s why so many are in for a shock when it (seemingly) grinds to a near-halt. Even as much as I watched it, I didn’t see the fall of Lehman Bros and AIG coming. Though with AIG, had I known where they placed their bets, it was an easy prediction.
Of course, many of us were shouted down by “India and China....”. Yeah, whatever.
I could be wrong, but I think he’s showing us the absurdity of the daily propaganda from the Politburo. Expect CNN/MSNBC/ABC/CBS to be trumpeting this lie at the evening propaganda broadcasts.
Every state collects its own unemployment data as well.
Nebraska has recently had the lowest unemployment rate in the nation, below 3%.
Nebraska is a red state with a conservative Republican administration. If we look at the state by state data, even using the data from the Obama administration, it shows states with Republican administrations leading the way in low unemployment rates.
Depending on your situation, taking SS early (62) may actually be better. Using your formula, if full monthly benefits at 66 1/2 are $2000 and early benefits are $1500, you will leave 54 months of benefits on the table. This amounts to $81,000. Divide $81k by the $500 difference and you get 162 months (13.5 yrs.) of unpaid benefits. Add 13.5 to 66.5 and you don’t break even until you are 80. I contend that you can use more money in your active 60’s than your sedentary 80’s.
Add the fact that if you don’t take it now, you may never get it at all
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.