Social Security..should I take it now?

[Anonymous]

DH and I live comfortably on pensions. I can start taking SS this year, as I turn 66, but I don't require it necessarily now. DH will not receive SS, nor is he entitled to any spousal SS as he is retired CSRS. If I wait until 70, it will be 700 more a month.
We still have a mortgage, just under 100k, but with a very low interest rate. We have savings, don't really use it. Planning to use it to self fund long term care if and when we need it.
Kind of worried about where SS is going as ths R party keeps threatening it.

[Anonymous]

Run both scenarios through the calculator here:

https://opensocialsecurity.com/


It will give you a concrete idea of what the trade off is. If it’s truly income you don’t need I think a good rule of thumb is that, if you are trying to leave money for heirs, take it asap and invest the monthly income, but if it’s just for you, delay as long as possible.

[Anonymous]

the most important aspect (that no one ever talks about) is whether your side of family has longevity gene. if so, take it later. if not, take it now. Literally you can't take it with you scenario.

[Anonymous]

Republicans aren’t going to actually do anything. They would need more than a super majority in the senate since many moderate Rs would never agree. So if we want to bash their stupid economic policies, count me in, but let’s be smarter than click bait articles and realize touching SS is a third rail that will not happen in the foreseeable future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republicans aren’t going to actually do anything. They would need more than a super majority in the senate since many moderate Rs would never agree. So if we want to bash their stupid economic policies, count me in, but let’s be smarter than click bait articles and realize touching SS is a third rail that will not happen in the foreseeable future.

+1, they’ve been threatening to gut it for 40 years, through multiple periods when they controlled the WH and Congress, but never do. It’s something they say to support their claim of fiscal conservatism, so they can wage expensive wars and cut taxes for the wealthy without paying for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republicans aren’t going to actually do anything. They would need more than a super majority in the senate since many moderate Rs would never agree. So if we want to bash their stupid economic policies, count me in, but let’s be smarter than click bait articles and realize touching SS is a third rail that will not happen in the foreseeable future.

I agree with this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans aren’t going to actually do anything. They would need more than a super majority in the senate since many moderate Rs would never agree. So if we want to bash their stupid economic policies, count me in, but let’s be smarter than click bait articles and realize touching SS is a third rail that will not happen in the foreseeable future.

I agree with this

We have Moore vs Harper looming. If Republicans win in 2024 Social Security is gone, given Moore vs Harper chances of Dems ever winning another race again slim to none.

Buckle up people Republicans are about to make you all quite poor but hey Hunter's dick pics are so much more important than an Authoritarian rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH and I live comfortably on pensions. I can start taking SS this year, as I turn 66, but I don't require it necessarily now. DH will not receive SS, nor is he entitled to any spousal SS as he is retired CSRS. If I wait until 70, it will be 700 more a month.
We still have a mortgage, just under 100k, but with a very low interest rate. We have savings, don't really use it. Planning to use it to self fund long term care if and when we need it.
Kind of worried about where SS is going as ths R party keeps threatening it.

So you got a pension and want ss, greedy boomers

?? Why shouldn't she. She EARNED both. What a f'king idiot.

+1

I'm a private sector employee. Never worked for the govt. Why shouldn't the OP get both. They paid into.

To answer OP's question.

It depends on how much you think you will need when you get older, and your tax bracket, and how much you have in any 401k type retirement.

When you hit RMD at some point, add the SS. Will this push you into a higher tax bracket? SS is not taxed in most states, and federal tax is I think 85% of your social security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans aren’t going to actually do anything. They would need more than a super majority in the senate since many moderate Rs would never agree. So if we want to bash their stupid economic policies, count me in, but let’s be smarter than click bait articles and realize touching SS is a third rail that will not happen in the foreseeable future.

+1, they’ve been threatening to gut it for 40 years, through multiple periods when they controlled the WH and Congress, but never do. It’s something they say to support their claim of fiscal conservatism, so they can wage expensive wars and cut taxes for the wealthy without paying for it.

And people said Roe would never really be overturned...

[Anonymous]

All analyses suggest that you wait as long as possible - up to age 70 -to claim if you can. The only exceptions are if you expect to die significantly earlier than average or need the money right away.

https://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/social-security/articles/reasons-to-claim-social-security-at-age-70

https://www.fox6now.com/news/retiring-too-early-182000-social-security-benefits-study

https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2022/12/15/kotlikoff-dont-let-social-security-dupe-your-clients-into-claiming-early/

[Anonymous]

This thread is funny because you can tell who actually reads the letter the Social Security Administration sends every year and who throws it straight in the trash.

If you think you've "earned" your SS, you definitely haven't been opening those letters.

OP's case is marginal, but in the next few years people are going to have to more heavily weigh taking their benefits earlier, because around 2035 all SS benefits are going to get slashed by 30%, and whinging about what you've "earned" won't change that a bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All analyses suggest that you wait as long as possible - up to age 70 -to claim if you can. The only exceptions are if you expect to die significantly earlier than average or need the money right away.

https://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/social-security/articles/reasons-to-claim-social-security-at-age-70

https://www.fox6now.com/news/retiring-too-early-182000-social-security-benefits-study

https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2022/12/15/kotlikoff-dont-let-social-security-dupe-your-clients-into-claiming-early/

The analysis is based on the average person who doesn't have a lot in their retirement fund.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is funny because you can tell who actually reads the letter the Social Security Administration sends every year and who throws it straight in the trash.

If you think you've "earned" your SS, you definitely haven't been opening those letters.

OP's case is marginal, but in the next few years people are going to have to more heavily weigh taking their benefits earlier, because around 2035 all SS benefits are going to get slashed by 30%, and whinging about what you've "earned" won't change that a bit.

oh, i gotta hear this. do tell us please...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is funny because you can tell who actually reads the letter the Social Security Administration sends every year and who throws it straight in the trash.

If you think you've "earned" your SS, you definitely haven't been opening those letters.

OP's case is marginal, but in the next few years people are going to have to more heavily weigh taking their benefits earlier, because around 2035 all SS benefits are going to get slashed by 30%, and whinging about what you've "earned" won't change that a bit.

oh, i gotta hear this. do tell us please...

Well if you'd read the letter you'd see the part where it says that your benefits don't belong to you, they are defined by law and future legislation can change them at any time. And then there's that other part that says notwithstanding what SSA formulas say you should get, if there's no money in the trust fund you just get a share of whatever SS revenue came in that year (currently estimated to be about 70-80% of obligations).

That letter goes out every. single. year. And it's said the same thing for the last 25 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Republicans aren’t going to actually do anything. They would need more than a super majority in the senate since many moderate Rs would never agree. So if we want to bash their stupid economic policies, count me in, but let’s be smarter than click bait articles and realize touching SS is a third rail that will not happen in the foreseeable future.

There's no need to insult my intelligence here. Privatizing SS has been a Republican agenda for a long time. There's quite a bit of machinations on the Republican side in the last 7 years, but beginning 15 years ago as roots, that we never thought would happen, until we did see it, so I'm not going to assume we can take anything for granted. My research is not click bait articles.