Posted on 07/23/2022 11:42:24 AM PDT by rintintin
Your retirement planning likely includes getting income from the Social Security Administration, but when you start collecting Social Security benefits can have a big impact on your planning. The earliest you can collect is age 62, but you'll get more money if you delay your benefits past your initial Social Security eligibility. If you wait until after your full retirement age (somewhere between 65 and 67) to start collecting Social Security you can earn delayed retirement credits, which will increase your benefits even more.
You might think that waiting for bigger benefits is better, but that's not always the case. There is no definitive answer to when you should collect Social Security benefits, and taking them as soon as you hit the early retirement age of 62 might be the best financial move.
1. You're Planning Your End-of-Life Care
Your Social Security benefits stop paying at your death, so if you die prior to collecting benefits, you'll have missed out on benefits entirely. You need to figure out how to maximize your Social Security income, instead. For example, say you're planning to wait until age 70 so you can claim the larger monthly benefit. If you die right before your 70th birthday, you won't receive any benefits.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
He figures they’ll need to make cuts in Social Security and Medicare so they’ll have enough money to keep fighting Russia In Ukraine.
Do they borrow from the Social Security trust fund to finance the subsidies to Ukraine?
I did the math- if I started now -vs- if I stated when I turned 65
Although I would get less now, it would be 12 years before I broke even and the net amount would start to be less than I would have gotten.
I doubt I’ll be here in 12 years.
The “trust fund” is just a bunch of IOUs from the government to the government. It doesn’t exist.
We did a rough guesstimate years ago and figured ~ 12 years to make up the offset taking it early. And if a person doesn’t make it 67? $225 burial money? You and your employer put it in. Take it.
No, they just shake the money tree a little harder. They always bring up running out of money for SS, but never for welfare and social programs for like illegal immigrants. Never.
Take it as soon as you can get it. There is no guarantee it will be there in future and, quite simply, no one is promised tomorrow.
LOL! I saw this after I made my post. 😂✌
I’m 64 and retired 4 months ago. California mask and lockdown rules was the push I needed. Tired of being around people wearing masks all the time.
Do social security taxes go for our subsidies to Ukraine?
I had planed to wait until full retirement age of 67, but changed my mind and will start at 62. My reasons are that I have my doubts they will be paying full benefits in the not so far future. And my health has taken a turn. Might as well collect while I can.
“ They always bring up running out of money for SS, but never for welfare and social programs for like illegal immigrants. Never.”
Also, they have enough money to send billions to Ukraine. No Democrats and almost no Republicans objected to that. Apparently we can afford Ukraine subsidies, but there isn’t enough money for social security
Reason #11, to start at 62, which is never talked about.
“You don’t need the money.”
If you’ve saved and or invested well and don’t need the SS, take it as soon as possible.
I did the math about 10 years ago. I took the amounts I put in over 43 years, doubled it (employer match), allowed it to compound at 3%, and then determined, given my monthly benefit, I’d have to live to age 137 to break even. Most people forget about the employer’s contribution and the compound gain.
Been trying to explain this to my wife.
Some people I know are taking it at 62. Others are taking it right before they turn 65, so they can have Medicare premiums deducted from their SS check rather than have to deal with making the payments separately.
Waiting till Medicare kicks in at 65.
The Social Security fund is really just part of the general fund-there is no “lockbox” like Al Gore tried to claim-it is really just a piggy bank that wasteful congress uses for whatever they want-it should be called Social INsecurity now...
Yep. The "break-even" point is always looked at in a vacuum. Those who have saved for retirement can keep their investments untouched if they take SS early. The break-even point for them goes out several more years compared to someone who will be living primarily on SS in retirement.
No. It only goes to Social Security beneficiaries and the excess received from workers is put in a very big lock box that is triple locked for future beneficiaries. The feral givernment is very disciplined, would never open the box for things like the war in Ukraine because it would never commingle funds. I learned this years ago from Al Gore as reported in major media outlets. It must be true because there is no reason for them to lie.
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.