Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MeneMeneTekelUpharsin

Most people are highly advantaged if they delay SS retirement benefits till age 70 anyway, so a change from 65 to 66 to 67 would be irrelevant to many.


3 posted on 02/07/2023 7:28:11 PM PST by hinckley buzzard ( Resist the narrative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: hinckley buzzard
"Most people are highly advantaged if they delay SS retirement benefits till age 70 anyway, so a change from 65 to 66 to 67 would be irrelevant to many."

..... Well ... Isn't part of the plan also to move the maximum payed out age to 72 ... possibly higher instead of the current 70?

.

9 posted on 02/07/2023 7:35:13 PM PST by R_Kangel ("A nation of sheep will beget a nation ruled by wolves")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: hinckley buzzard

“Most people are highly advantaged if they delay SS retirement benefits till age 70 anyway, so a change from 65 to 66 to 67 would be irrelevant to many.”

I think for me the optimal time is my full retirement point of 66 years and eight months.

I think you get about an 8% decrease for each 12 months taking SS early, but only a 5% increase for delay past the full retirement point.


11 posted on 02/07/2023 7:36:46 PM PST by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: hinckley buzzard

That’s what I had heard, but considering my health, the economy, the corrupt government, their plans on nuking SS, I decided that I’d rather take what I can get now while I can still get it than wait and be cheated out of it by the government.


14 posted on 02/07/2023 7:39:16 PM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: hinckley buzzard

I would like not having to touch investments until 75...


23 posted on 02/07/2023 7:49:55 PM PST by Adder (ALL Democrats are the enemy. NO QUARTER!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: hinckley buzzard
Most people are highly advantaged if they delay SS retirement benefits till age 70 anyway, ...

The trick in that equation is living that long. Many if not most are in poor health or dead by 70. They're definitely not as mobile as in their younger days. Me, probably take it at FRA.

55 posted on 02/07/2023 9:21:44 PM PST by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: hinckley buzzard

Maybe people with soft jobs. Mine was manual.


60 posted on 02/07/2023 11:09:56 PM PST by roving ( Pronouns- libs/suk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: hinckley buzzard
Most people are highly advantaged if they delay SS retirement benefits till age 70 anyway, so a change from 65 to 66 to 67 would be irrelevant to many.

If you happen to die before age 67 you get nothing.


61 posted on 02/07/2023 11:24:32 PM PST by magooey (The Mandate of Heaven resides in the hearts of men.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: hinckley buzzard

Social Security payments are calculated so that regardless of what age you start receiving social security, everyone’s lifetime payment is the same.


84 posted on 02/08/2023 4:20:26 AM PST by ops33 (SMSgt, USAF, Retired)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: hinckley buzzard
Most people are highly advantaged if they delay SS retirement benefits till age 70 anyway.

That is not true generally. It takes 12-13 years to make up for the loss of income caused by delaying receiving benefits. And by that time, you're too old to appreciate it. IMHO

97 posted on 02/08/2023 5:43:55 AM PST by zeebee ( The left thinks they can train smart people to be stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: hinckley buzzard
Most people are highly advantaged if they delay SS retirement benefits till age 70 anyway

For the most part, people that can wait until 70 don't really need the money anyhow. Of course, I have no problem with them taking it then, as they paid into it all those years.

For most people, FRA is the logical choice (which is 67 for most). That is when your benefits are no longer penalized for earning a large income on the side.

I highly recommend not claiming before FRA unless you are truly out of full time work and earning less than $20K a year on the side. Otherwise, you are going to be giving much of it back in penalties.

104 posted on 02/08/2023 5:53:15 AM PST by SamAdams76 (4,857,036 Truth | 87,716,542 Twitter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: hinckley buzzard

The wife and I did the math and opted to start at 62 - if we make 83, we will then be losing money - plus, the money we already took out can’t be denied us if they decide to cut
benefits” (we paid for them over a lifetime of working).


118 posted on 02/08/2023 8:04:02 AM PST by trebb (So many fools - so little time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: hinckley buzzard

The break even point between early and full retirement is 78. I am going to take early.


132 posted on 02/08/2023 5:21:49 PM PST by yuleeyahoo (The nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one. Hamilton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson