if you were able to retire early (55-62) how did you do it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What # did people hit to decide they were ok to retire before 60 - asssume to cover two people?

$4mil, but our PITI is low, and kids' colleges all paid for. And we are on ACA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Side question....Is age 62 considered "early retirement"? I always thought early retirement was in the 50s but due to less favorable economics, is early 60s the new "early retirement" zone? Just curious what others are thinking?

I agree, reading this thread and seeing people say they retired "early" at 62 is kind of depressing. Unless social security is going to be your primary source of income, i would expect retiring at 62 vs 65 isn't really a big financial difference. LIke, if you're going to be good to retire at 65, you're presumably set up with a good enough cushion to retire at 62 instead.

Most people need reasonable health insurance which doesnt come until medicare at 65. Once you wait to 65 might as well wait to 67 to get full SS.

Waiting until age 70 is even better, for those who can afford it, unless you have good reason to expect an actuarially reduced lifespan. SS benefits increase 8% annually up to age 70 for those who defer beyond their Full Retirement Age of 66 or 67; that is effectively a form of longevity insurance. That is, if you live longer than expected you'll not only collect benefits for a longer period of time but those benefits will be larger than they would have been if you had claimed them earlier than age 70. https://www.alerus.com/exclusive-content/3-reasons-to-wait-until-70-to-claim-social-security-benefits/

The average age of "healthy retirement" is something like 64. After that, your body has more aches and pains, and you won't be able to enjoy your retirement as much due to health issues. So, you finally retire at 65, and you can't do as much because you aren't as healthy.

No thanks. That's not how I want my retirement to be. I'm going to retire early and enjoy at least 10 years of being healthy in retirement.


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/planning-retire-65-surprising-stats-130000836.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Side question....Is age 62 considered "early retirement"? I always thought early retirement was in the 50s but due to less favorable economics, is early 60s the new "early retirement" zone? Just curious what others are thinking?

I agree, reading this thread and seeing people say they retired "early" at 62 is kind of depressing. Unless social security is going to be your primary source of income, i would expect retiring at 62 vs 65 isn't really a big financial difference. LIke, if you're going to be good to retire at 65, you're presumably set up with a good enough cushion to retire at 62 instead.

Most people need reasonable health insurance which doesnt come until medicare at 65. Once you wait to 65 might as well wait to 67 to get full SS.

Waiting until age 70 is even better, for those who can afford it, unless you have good reason to expect an actuarially reduced lifespan. SS benefits increase 8% annually up to age 70 for those who defer beyond their Full Retirement Age of 66 or 67; that is effectively a form of longevity insurance. That is, if you live longer than expected you'll not only collect benefits for a longer period of time but those benefits will be larger than they would have been if you had claimed them earlier than age 70. https://www.alerus.com/exclusive-content/3-reasons-to-wait-until-70-to-claim-social-security-benefits/

The average age of "healthy retirement" is something like 64. After that, your body has more aches and pains, and you won't be able to enjoy your retirement as much due to health issues. So, you finally retire at 65, and you can't do as much because you aren't as healthy.

No thanks. That's not how I want my retirement to be. I'm going to retire early and enjoy at least 10 years of being healthy in retirement.


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/planning-retire-65-surprising-stats-130000836.html

That's a pessimistic view of retirement life, unless you have a family history of early death or fragility. Most people do fine for much longer, even if they slow down a bit or exchange for physically demanding hobbies for those which are not quite so demanding. The so-called "slow-go" years of retirement are generally said to be from the mid-70s to the mid-80s; 70 is well within the "go-go" years of retirement for most people.

And, many people retire far in advance of claiming SS; the two are not interdependent unless you will be reliant on SS for living expenses. Many people view SS as a welcome supplement to their retirement income, but can easily do with out it until age 70 thanks to savings, investments, pensions, deferred comp, or other sources of income thanks to prudent financial planning.