Social Security Family Benefits and Early Retirement Age

[Anonymous]

Social Security pays family benefits to spouses and dependent children under 18. This affects the retirement age decision.

For example, the maximum benefit at age 67 is around $4k/month or $50k/year. It increases to $5k/month or $60k/year at age 70. So, a single retiree needs to live an extra 12 years beyond age 70 to break even, not including interest. But if you receive an extra 50% or 75% in family benefits then you need to live an extra 18 or 21 years. I guess they want us to take benefits at 67.

[Anonymous]

I would like to take benefits at 55 to get my money's worth. Then come what may.

[Anonymous]

Social Security is a social safety net, not an investment plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would like to take benefits at 55 to get my money's worth. Then come what may.

This is not possible. The earliest you can start benefits is 62.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Social Security pays family benefits to spouses and dependent children under 18. This affects the retirement age decision.

For example, the maximum benefit at age 67 is around $4k/month or $50k/year. It increases to $5k/month or $60k/year at age 70. So, a single retiree needs to live an extra 12 years beyond age 70 to break even, not including interest. But if you receive an extra 50% or 75% in family benefits then you need to live an extra 18 or 21 years. I guess they want us to take benefits at 67.

Think about when you have to have your kids for this strategy to work. Come on OP. You can’t be that dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Social Security pays family benefits to spouses and dependent children under 18. This affects the retirement age decision.

For example, the maximum benefit at age 67 is around $4k/month or $50k/year. It increases to $5k/month or $60k/year at age 70. So, a single retiree needs to live an extra 12 years beyond age 70 to break even, not including interest. But if you receive an extra 50% or 75% in family benefits then you need to live an extra 18 or 21 years. I guess they want us to take benefits at 67.

The fascination so many people have with "breaking even" always befuddles me. It's not a contest with the government. Take or defer benefits based on what is best for you and your family, not some need to squeeze every last dollar out of the US Treasury.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Think about when you have to have your kids for this strategy to work. Come on OP. You can’t be that dumb.

I'm old, not dumb, with a younger wife and kids in diapers. I'll go on a Disney cruise with Mick Jagger.

[Anonymous]

I'm not entirely sure what your point is, OP, but if you have a younger wife and young kids (especially if DW is a SAHM) then I would wait and take the max at 70, giving no thought to break even. You want your wife to have as much as possible/month after you are gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not entirely sure what your point is, OP, but if you have a younger wife and young kids (especially if DW is a SAHM) then I would wait and take the max at 70, giving no thought to break even. You want your wife to have as much as possible/month after you are gone.

The wife still has to reach retirement age to take the spousal benefit if OP is alive. It’s different if OP dies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not entirely sure what your point is, OP, but if you have a younger wife and young kids (especially if DW is a SAHM) then I would wait and take the max at 70, giving no thought to break even. You want your wife to have as much as possible/month after you are gone.

NP, but i have a younger spouse who works and young kids who are all taken care of if i *die*. it's the income if im still alive thats a question. my 68yo coworker has a young teen and is getting a lot in social security now!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not entirely sure what your point is, OP, but if you have a younger wife and young kids (especially if DW is a SAHM) then I would wait and take the max at 70, giving no thought to break even. You want your wife to have as much as possible/month after you are gone.

NP, but i have a younger spouse who works and young kids who are all taken care of if i *die*. it's the income if im still alive thats a question. my 68yo coworker has a young teen and is getting a lot in social security now!

That only works for old men who are rich enough to get a much younger gold digger wife searching for a cash cow with one foot in the grave.

For men of normal means and all women, still having kids in the house in your late 60s is not a viable retirement income strategy.

[Anonymous]

Concentrate on money outside of SS for highest benefit.

[Anonymous]

Did you not hear Mike Johnson ?? Social security is gone people after mid terms thanks naga don’t say he didn’t warn you he has said it multiple times

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Social Security pays family benefits to spouses and dependent children under 18. This affects the retirement age decision.

For example, the maximum benefit at age 67 is around $4k/month or $50k/year. It increases to $5k/month or $60k/year at age 70. So, a single retiree needs to live an extra 12 years beyond age 70 to break even, not including interest. But if you receive an extra 50% or 75% in family benefits then you need to live an extra 18 or 21 years. I guess they want us to take benefits at 67.

The fascination so many people have with "breaking even" always befuddles me. It's not a contest with the government. Take or defer benefits based on what is best for you and your family, not some need to squeeze every last dollar out of the US Treasury.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Social Security pays family benefits to spouses and dependent children under 18. This affects the retirement age decision.

For example, the maximum benefit at age 67 is around $4k/month or $50k/year. It increases to $5k/month or $60k/year at age 70. So, a single retiree needs to live an extra 12 years beyond age 70 to break even, not including interest. But if you receive an extra 50% or 75% in family benefits then you need to live an extra 18 or 21 years. I guess they want us to take benefits at 67.

The fascination so many people have with "breaking even" always befuddles me. It's not a contest with the government. Take or defer benefits based on what is best for you and your family, not some need to squeeze every last dollar out of the US Treasury.

I don’t think it is about “breaking even”, it is about making the best long term financial decision to make sure you have the resources for retirement and there are a lot of variables to consider.

Longevity runs in my family, I have two parents that are each 86 now. Odds are that they won’t both live 10 more years but either one or both could.