Then again get some while some is still there!
Yes if
(1) You need the money
(2) If you have dependents living with you younger than 18.
because you will get additional money for the minor.
For me, it was a no-brainer. I took Social Security as soon as possible, at 62. Because:
1. I dont know if Ill make it to 78.
2. Ill be spending more money now - when Im younger - than when Im older.
Of course I might have a different opinion when Im 95. Well see.
Taking it at 62 means you cross the curve at 84 years old, meaning, if you wait until 72 then at 84 you are making more money if you wait until 72.
That said, who cares? At 84, you’re probably not spending much.
Take Social Security the first second you are eligible! PERIOD!
Get it while it’s still there. Get it BEFORE they change the rules AGAIN!
Why wait? Do you know how long you are going to live? NONE OF US DO!
The promise of MORE money if you wait is a government SCAM! It is appealing to your GREED!
If waiting is “better” for you, then WHY is the government trying to entice you to do it? BECAUSE it is better for THEM!
Don’t be a FOOL! Take the money and run.
Took mine at 66 and kept working, 68 now and still working, but there’s always a downside...........my kids moved back in.
Isn’t SS a cable bill and maybe an Electric bill worth of benefits ...?
I’m sure many of us folks here have been maxing out on OASDI by Oct/Nov...
I can see getting max. benefits when a loaf of bread is $30.00..
“Here Mr. Dakine is your $3200.00 SS benefit - that inflation priced bread will cost you $30.00.”
The phrase "annual benefit (for life)" dishonestly implies that it's referring to total lifetime benefits. In fact, while the yearly benefits are lower for claiming early, you also receive payments for a number of additional years. For most people, the lifetime break-even point is somewhere in their early 80s. The article goes on to provide a helpful example of how claiming early can cost you money. If you live to be 100.
This sort of misrepresentation pops up in article after article on Social Security, and it isn't an accident. A professional financial writer at Forbes can't possibly be confused by this.
Deferring claiming to age 70 does significantly benefit one entity: the federal government. That's because everyone who dies before 70 receives no Social Security payments at all.
Please don't take internet advice on this. Seek help from someone knowledgeable and analyze the decision based on your personal situation.
They should let us take Social Security AND the new unemployment...at least until we’re 80.
I wanted to retire at 65 and then move to Panama so my money would go further. Got laid off again in December 2018, tried to find work for four months, prayed about it and was led to begin retirement early.
I don’t regret it at all but my situation is a bit unusual. I have pension incomes to augment my retirement SS and, being single, liquidated practically everything and moved down here with three suitcases and 12 boxes of items shipped here from the States. I can live comfortably on $1500-2000/mo, stay independent and enjoy a new adventure in a new country instead of being a pest to my niece’s family, living with them being the other affordable alternative.
I miss gumbo and good Texas barbecue but, otherwise, I have everything here that I need thanks to the internet and a VPN. There’s even an English-language church to attend and serve. So, life’s good.
I’m just thankful that I am not sweating out having to find a job as a 63-year-old in the current economy with the cost of rents and health care the way they are in the U.S. I’d be left eating cat food.
I worked outside the US for non-US companies from 1990 until I retired. I haven’t paid anything into Social Security since 1989. I don’t even think I qualify to receive anything.
If you’re 62 and not working, you would be crazy to not take it.
As the Government goes broke they will find a way to reduce or eliminate benefits.
If you are laid off, and in this economic climate reasonably do not expect to see employment again soon, then start SS immediately.
If you are still working, and take SS before full retirement age, then your work income reduces your SS income, so it doesn’t pay to take SS early while still working. It makes more sense to wait for full retirement age.
https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10069.pdf
“If you reach full retirement age during 2020, we must deduct $1 from your benefits for each $3 you earn above $48,600 until the month you reach full retirement age.”
It takes 20 years before you begin to lose by not taking SS at 62. Plan to take mine in a few months
Printing trillions will drive inflation and erode Social Security and pensions. Problem solved, from the payers’ standpoint. They will be bringing in more dollars (inflated wages, sales taxes, etc.)
a bird in hand is worth two in the bush ...
I took it early, but I have Leukemia. Had no idea if I would make it to 66 and the break even is 73 anyway if I had waited.
My closest two Childhood Friends both died at age 61. They got nothing and they “contributed” at least $250,000 each during their Working Careers.
If you can go four years without eating or paying rent, by all means, you should wait for full retirement.
*