Taking Social Security at 62

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boomers shouldn't be allowed to touch ss until 73 so they can pay their fair share

My dad was dead at 67. So he’d get zero return?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We just ran the numbers, and my break even age is 81.

No way will I work until 67, my full retirement age, or 70. Job has gone from dream job to horrendous.

I am thinking about 63.5 or 65. If I did the earlier age I would use my savings to pay for things. Would love to swing 62 but don't think I can.

Anyone else bail out early to get SS?

We have about 1 million invested. 400 equity in home.

Thinking about retiring back to the South.

Assuming this is extra money, that you don’t need at 62. Then break even is way past 81, you would be investing the earnings which adds up. Even in like a conservative bond or treasury it would move the age a few years past 81. I would take at 62 if your math is correct.

[Anonymous]

Will your spouse (if you have one) be using your benefits after your death? If so, did you work that into your calculations of a break even point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will your spouse (if you have one) be using your benefits after your death? If so, did you work that into your calculations of a break even point?

Also, did you figure in the impact of COLA on your break-even point? (since COLA are percentage-based you get a higher adjustment on a higher amount--and these are imputed into your earlier non-taken benefits).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boomers shouldn't be allowed to touch ss until 73 so they can pay their fair share

If you want to talk about fair share, you’d be focused on repealing the provisions that allow SAHM spouses to claim 50% of their spouse’s benefit while the spouse is still alive. Or the provision that allows one spouse to claim 50% of their spouse’s benefit if that amount is greater than the amount they would have received based on their own work experience.

You’d also be more focused on repealing the ability for Congress to stop using the SS fund as a piggybank for other needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Will your spouse (if you have one) be using your benefits after your death? If so, did you work that into your calculations of a break even point?

No my spouse's benefit is higher. We do have a disabled child who will be able to get half of my benefit, too,which is more than he is getting now on SSI

[Anonymous]

OP, the reason the choices are what they are: there is no wrong decision. You would prefer to retire sooner rather than later. That's enough thinking. Take it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boomers shouldn't be allowed to touch ss until 73 so they can pay their fair share

My dad was dead at 67. So he’d get zero return?

Correct , he's also hoarding stuff from millennials and genz, circle of life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Delaying SS is a form of longevity insurance. That is, you'll receive a bigger benefit over your lifetime if you exceed your actuarial life expectancy. If you take SS earlier, you are locked into to that lower income forever, even if you live longer than you anticipate.

Consider using one of the many available SS claiming strategy calculators which are available to help you fully understand the implications of claiming benefits at different ages.

A second vote for using the calculators and discussing with your financial advisor.

[Anonymous]

OP there is no correct answer. The system is designed that if you have an average lifespan everything equals out. If you live to 90 better to wait, if 75 then take early. Unless you have a health issue there is no way to know. Early 80s is usually a break even.

If you have other fixed income like a pension maybe take early. If not, maybe wait so you have more fixed income security.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boomers shouldn't be allowed to touch ss until 73 so they can pay their fair share

Dumb kid

Yeh keep saying that, we'll be pulling the plug on y'all and taxing you when we get in power. You are the worst generation ever.

Like I said, dumb kid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boomers shouldn't be allowed to touch ss until 73 so they can pay their fair share

This makes no sense. Everyone needs to pay into the system for the same number of years to get full benefits.

Yes, but boomers, you know.....suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Boomers shouldn't be allowed to touch ss until 73 so they can pay their fair share

This makes no sense. Everyone needs to pay into the system for the same number of years to get full benefits.

Yes, but boomers, you know.....suck.

Why? Are you upset because boomers will get it and you won't? Not sure your if I understand your boomer hate.

[Anonymous]

Both of us plan to take it at 62 rather than touching TSP/401k. Between 2 pensions and 2 early SS, I think we will have enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both of us plan to take it at 62 rather than touching TSP/401k. Between 2 pensions and 2 early SS, I think we will have enough.

For this plan to be advantageous, you have to anticipate a return from your TSP/401k which exceeds the return you are guaranteed to receive for each year you delay taking Social Security. If you delay from age 62 to 70, that translates into an average increase in Social Security benefits of 7.4% per year. If your TSP/401k fails to increase in value by that much or more, you'll end up worse off because you will have permanently reduced Social Security payments and lower later income from the TSP/401k. If your TSP/401k is mostly or all in equities, and you're lucky, perhaps you'll do better than an annual 7.4% return in those accounts. But maybe not, e.g., https://advisors.vanguard.com/insights/article/series/vanguardeconomicandmarketoutlook#global-capital-markets-outlook