Social Security Family Benefits and Early Retirement Age

[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!

If you die, your spouse gets the larger of your and their benefit. So, depends on each of your claim ages and your ssa earnings history.

[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.

Why Trump & Republicans are going to squeeze every last dime. Johnston and Vought have already told you this

[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.

Why Trump & Republicans are going to squeeze every last dime. Johnston and Vought have already told you this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:if you have young kids and [SAHM] then I would wait and take the max at 70, giving no thought to break even.

Anonymous wrote:The wife still has to reach retirement age to take the spousal benefit if OP is alive.

OP here. I'm appalled at the financial ignorance here. I paid the maximum for 35+ years and deserve to maximize my benefits. A wife gets extra money if she cares for dependent children under age 16, even if she is under 62, subject to a family maximum.

The question is whether to take $4k/month plus $3k in family benefits at age 67, or take $5k/month starting at age 70. If I collect $7k/month for 3 years then I can save $250k+ by age 70. I can then invest that extra money for my wife and kids and earn more than the extra $1k per month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you have young kids and [SAHM] then I would wait and take the max at 70, giving no thought to break even.

Anonymous wrote:The wife still has to reach retirement age to take the spousal benefit if OP is alive.

OP here. I'm appalled at the financial ignorance here. I paid the maximum for 35+ years and deserve to maximize my benefits. A wife gets extra money if she cares for dependent children under age 16, even if she is under 62, subject to a family maximum.

The question is whether to take $4k/month plus $3k in family benefits at age 67, or take $5k/month starting at age 70. If I collect $7k/month for 3 years then I can save $250k+ by age 70. I can then invest that extra money for my wife and kids and earn more than the extra $1k per month.

You're not wrong about financial ignorance here, but it's kind of ironic that you're seeking an answer to a question that is very basic. 250k = 10k/year before taxes. And SS increase appears to be 12k/yr. So SS appears to be the winner. But how much confidence do you have in SS? What about your other finances? Is there a benefit for you to have 250k in a taxable account?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you have young kids and [SAHM] then I would wait and take the max at 70, giving no thought to break even.

Anonymous wrote:The wife still has to reach retirement age to take the spousal benefit if OP is alive.

OP here. I'm appalled at the financial ignorance here. I paid the maximum for 35+ years and deserve to maximize my benefits. A wife gets extra money if she cares for dependent children under age 16, even if she is under 62, subject to a family maximum.

The question is whether to take $4k/month plus $3k in family benefits at age 67, or take $5k/month starting at age 70. If I collect $7k/month for 3 years then I can save $250k+ by age 70. I can then invest that extra money for my wife and kids and earn more than the extra $1k per month.

You're not wrong about financial ignorance here, but it's kind of ironic that you're seeking an answer to a question that is very basic. 250k = 10k/year before taxes. And SS increase appears to be 12k/yr. So SS appears to be the winner. But how much confidence do you have in SS? What about your other finances? Is there a benefit for you to have 250k in a taxable account?

your "basic" math fails to account for the fact that the yearly increase is irrelevant.

at the extra$12k a year, OP would have to live 21 more years to 91 to accrue the "extra" $250k. in 21 years, if OP just directly invested it in the S&P, that could become closer to one million dollars, and also does not rely on OP living until 91.

also, given the uncertainty of SSA, money in hand now is better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you have young kids and [SAHM] then I would wait and take the max at 70, giving no thought to break even.

Anonymous wrote:The wife still has to reach retirement age to take the spousal benefit if OP is alive.

OP here. I'm appalled at the financial ignorance here. I paid the maximum for 35+ years and deserve to maximize my benefits. A wife gets extra money if she cares for dependent children under age 16, even if she is under 62, subject to a family maximum.

The question is whether to take $4k/month plus $3k in family benefits at age 67, or take $5k/month starting at age 70. If I collect $7k/month for 3 years then I can save $250k+ by age 70. I can then invest that extra money for my wife and kids and earn more than the extra $1k per month.

If you provide more specific info upfront, maybe you could've gotten better responses. We don't know you, we don't know your situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:if you have young kids and [SAHM] then I would wait and take the max at 70, giving no thought to break even.

Anonymous wrote:The wife still has to reach retirement age to take the spousal benefit if OP is alive.

OP here. I'm appalled at the financial ignorance here. I paid the maximum for 35+ years and deserve to maximize my benefits. A wife gets extra money if she cares for dependent children under age 16, even if she is under 62, subject to a family maximum.

The question is whether to take $4k/month plus $3k in family benefits at age 67, or take $5k/month starting at age 70. If I collect $7k/month for 3 years then I can save $250k+ by age 70. I can then invest that extra money for my wife and kids and earn more than the extra $1k per month.

You're not wrong about financial ignorance here, but it's kind of ironic that you're seeking an answer to a question that is very basic. 250k = 10k/year before taxes. And SS increase appears to be 12k/yr. So SS appears to be the winner. But how much confidence do you have in SS? What about your other finances? Is there a benefit for you to have 250k in a taxable account?

your "basic" math fails to account for the fact that the yearly increase is irrelevant.

at the extra$12k a year, OP would have to live 21 more years to 91 to accrue the "extra" $250k. in 21 years, if OP just directly invested it in the S&P, that could become closer to one million dollars, and also does not rely on OP living until 91.

also, given the uncertainty of SSA, money in hand now is better.

OP would need a withdrawal rate approaching 5% to earn an extra 1k per month.When factoring in sequence of return risk of 100% stocks, OP might do OK or not. You're also not factoring in a level of volatility that few 70 year olds could stomach. Personally, I'd take the money, but I also spent 5 seconds thinking about this lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you provide more specific info upfront, maybe you could've gotten better responses.

I posted general information to help others, and hoped someone had done the complicated benefit calculations in case I overlooked something.

The wrong advice here includes:

I should not try to get the most money.
I should only care about annual cash flow after age 70 instead of extra money from age 67-70.
My wife must be 62 to qualify. No, spouses get benefits if they care for kids under 16, subject to a family maximum (which is binding with two kids).
250k = 10k/year before taxes. That is only 4%, but mortgage and Baa bond yields exceed 6%.
Quadruple your money in the stock market. I already invest in the stock market. Social security is less risky.

Let me do an example to help the math-challenged. The question is whether to take $7k per month for three years, or take an extra $1k per month for life. With 0% interest, I make more money by waiting if I live for 252 months, i.e., 21 years, i.e., until age 91. But with an interest rate of 6% per year compounded monthly, accumulated payments from age 67 to age 70 will grow to $275,352.23. Then I must lift until 95. Even if I live forever, a 4.45% annual interest rate will generate $1k extra per month.

[Anonymous]

What’s up with that attitude?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you provide more specific info upfront, maybe you could've gotten better responses.

I posted general information to help others, and hoped someone had done the complicated benefit calculations in case I overlooked something.

The wrong advice here includes:

I should not try to get the most money.
I should only care about annual cash flow after age 70 instead of extra money from age 67-70.
My wife must be 62 to qualify. No, spouses get benefits if they care for kids under 16, subject to a family maximum (which is binding with two kids).
250k = 10k/year before taxes. That is only 4%, but mortgage and Baa bond yields exceed 6%.
Quadruple your money in the stock market. I already invest in the stock market. Social security is less risky.

Let me do an example to help the math-challenged. The question is whether to take $7k per month for three years, or take an extra $1k per month for life. With 0% interest, I make more money by waiting if I live for 252 months, i.e., 21 years, i.e., until age 91. But with an interest rate of 6% per year compounded monthly, accumulated payments from age 67 to age 70 will grow to $275,352.23. Then I must lift until 95. Even if I live forever, a 4.45% annual interest rate will generate $1k extra per month.

WTF is wrong with you, you old goat. This is a mommy board, not Bogleheads. Nobody here owes you anything.

Two people gave you advice that was actually pretty decent. You don't even seem to know much about investing and then you go insult people trying to help you. GTFO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you provide more specific info upfront, maybe you could've gotten better responses.

I posted general information to help others, and hoped someone had done the complicated benefit calculations in case I overlooked something.

The wrong advice here includes:

I should not try to get the most money.
I should only care about annual cash flow after age 70 instead of extra money from age 67-70.
My wife must be 62 to qualify. No, spouses get benefits if they care for kids under 16, subject to a family maximum (which is binding with two kids).
250k = 10k/year before taxes. That is only 4%, but mortgage and Baa bond yields exceed 6%.
Quadruple your money in the stock market. I already invest in the stock market. Social security is less risky.

Let me do an example to help the math-challenged. The question is whether to take $7k per month for three years, or take an extra $1k per month for life. With 0% interest, I make more money by waiting if I live for 252 months, i.e., 21 years, i.e., until age 91. But with an interest rate of 6% per year compounded monthly, accumulated payments from age 67 to age 70 will grow to $275,352.23. Then I must lift until 95. Even if I live forever, a 4.45% annual interest rate will generate $1k extra per month.

WTF is wrong with you, you old goat. This is a mommy board, not Bogleheads. Nobody here owes you anything.

Two people gave you advice that was actually pretty decent. You don't even seem to know much about investing and then you go insult people trying to help you. GTFO

*standing golf clap*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s up with that attitude?

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.

Anonymous wrote:That only works for old men who are rich enough to get a much younger gold digger wife.

Anonymous wrote:You don't even seem to know much about investing ... GTFO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s up with that attitude?

Seriously. He comes to a public board to ask for information and then insults everyone who tries to help? What a wanker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s up with that attitude?

Seriously. He comes to a public board to ask for information and then insults everyone who tries to help? What a wanker.

I didn't even see a question in the first post