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

To: shove_it

When 61 I ran the numbers and clearly it’s to your advantage to take it early for multiple reasons.

Waiting until 65 did not benefit until I reached age of 75, and then only marginally so. You have to live well into your 80’s for it to really pay - and who has that guarantee? No one.

If you are very active, which I am, you will need more income in late 60’s/early 70’s than in your 80’s.

Add to all that the chance that SS will either become worthless because of inflation or a complete failure of the SS system itself, and one takes a huge risk to wait instead of taking what you can at 62.

There is no guarantee of tomorrow, and the instability of our SS system’s sources of funding say - take it sooner rather than later. There may be no “later”, or “later” could be a mess.

Just my opinion, of course.......


9 posted on 09/01/2014 8:01:17 AM PDT by Arlis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Arlis

If one is on SS, works FT and puts say $20,000/yr in 401K, does that decrease the amount SS withholds for working more? I am thinking early retirement but want to continue working. I am 63, thought if so I would sign up for next year.


16 posted on 09/01/2014 8:08:38 AM PDT by libbylu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Arlis

Agree, I don’t care if the nursing home gets a bigger check.


23 posted on 09/01/2014 8:15:33 AM PDT by evaporation-plus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Arlis

Yes. I was thinking those same points.


36 posted on 09/01/2014 8:27:11 AM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Arlis

bttt-—and thanks for sharing your thoughts

kg/nancy


41 posted on 09/01/2014 8:32:17 AM PDT by krunkygirl (force multiplier in effect...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Arlis

nope - not just your opinion.
Make that yours and mine.


46 posted on 09/01/2014 8:37:30 AM PDT by aumrl (let's keep it real Conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Arlis

There may be no “later”

Very true. My husband retired at age 62, after working and paying into SS since age 16. He died two years later. I am SO glad he had those two years.


48 posted on 09/01/2014 8:40:51 AM PDT by Polyxene (Out of the depths I have cried to Thee, O Lord; Lord, hear my voice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Arlis
Add to all that the chance that SS will either become worthless because of inflation or a complete failure of the SS system itself, and one takes a huge risk to wait instead of taking what you can at 62.

There is no guarantee of tomorrow, and the instability of our SS system’s sources of funding say - take it sooner rather than later. There may be no “later”, or “later” could be a mess.

I agree and "retired" last year at 62.

FMCDH(BITS) Just my opinion, of course.......

66 posted on 09/01/2014 9:07:26 AM PDT by nothingnew (Hemmer and MacCullum are the worst on FNC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Arlis

btt


139 posted on 09/03/2014 3:19:14 AM PDT by KSCITYBOY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: Arlis
When 61 I ran the numbers and clearly it’s to your advantage to take it early for multiple reasons.

I agree 100%. Taking mine at age 62 in 4 1/2 years. Another reason for me to take at 62 is that my father, healthy and active nearly his entire life, died of cancer at age 68. No guarantees, get what you can today.

140 posted on 09/03/2014 4:54:59 AM PDT by IndyTiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | 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