Social Security at 70 worth it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes if your family has longevity gene. Otherwise, 62. I plan to take it at 62. DW at 70.

Are you the higher earner? The one with the higher benefit should likely be the one to take it at 70 so the survivor gets the higher benefit for life.

We both get the maximum payout, like a lot of dual earner couples in DC.

[Anonymous]

Yes, if you are bad with money.

Yes, if you don't have a pension or any other source of income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Do the math for you/your spouse. It's over $1000/month extra for us by waiting for 5 years, and both of spouses parents lived well into their 90s. That's an extra $240,000 for us if spouse only lives until 90. Also deoends if you need it to live on between 65-70 or not, and what your estate plan/how much you want to leave to your heirs. Worth it for us to wait until 70 (stopped working at 55, yes we have health insurance through former employer, and Medicare premiums are paid at 65 through the same former employer)

Isn't there some lost investment income to factor in though?

If you postpone taking social secuity from 65 to 70 - that means that you can live without the money for those 5 years.

What if, though, you took the SS at 65 but invested it instead of spending it?

Then in 5 years you would have a certain amount of money in an investment. How much would it be? Would it offset the $12000 year in income you would get?

Because the bonus is that the money you have saved is YOUR money and doesnt disappear when you die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely taking it at 62. My dad died at 73 and my mom died at 84. I think I’ll be 79 at the break even point. I don’t see a reason to delay it.

That is the reason to wait. My MIL in-law is 85 and strong as a bull. Her Husband waited to take it and dropped dead at 73. Which is great in sense my MIL was a SAHM most of life. Her SS was small and now she is on his higher SS. She took her SS at 62 and after he died moved to his.

Men usually have younger wives who live longer. My friend is 62 and his wife is 55. She has not worked in 20 years and before that was just in retail. If he waited till 70 and dropped dead next day she would only be 63 and I know her parents are still alive and very active right now. She could live to 95.

For the Man it is a bad deal. My Grandaunt who died recently at 104 was a widow for 30 years. She was on her husbands pension, medical and SS. And had her own pension. Crazy.

Also in Maryland for instance 40K worth of retirement income either SS or 401K withdrawls are tax free at 65. In Maryland might make sense at 65 to do 40K a year from 401k tax free than start SS at 70. Would lower RMD amounts later. You could put that 40k in Roths each year.

I actually see this as the argument to take it at 62. In my case my husband and I are close in age and close in income level. I won’t benefit from his if he goes first. We’re both hoping to retire at 55/57 with healthy pensions, healthy brokerage accounts and a paid off house.

[Anonymous]

With life expectancy of 78, why would anyone wait till 70?

[Anonymous]

It is longevity insurance. It you outlive your actuarially predicted lifespan, you'll come out ahead financially, receiving the maximum possible benefit for a longer period of time. You also will be increasing your income from a (relatively) guaranteed source, in contrast to investing on your own in the markets and possibly receiving a lower or higher return in retirement than what SS promises you.

Absent a good and sufficient reason to expect a reduced lifespan, most people do better waiting until age 70 to claim SS, although it's possible to argue that people without other sources of retirement income may have no alternative to claiming early if they cannot manage financially without SS income at an earlier age.

[Anonymous]

doubtful. Most Americans are dead around that age.

[Anonymous]

For 90% of people taking at 70 is best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely taking it at 62. My dad died at 73 and my mom died at 84. I think I’ll be 79 at the break even point. I don’t see a reason to delay it.

That is the reason to wait. My MIL in-law is 85 and strong as a bull. Her Husband waited to take it and dropped dead at 73. Which is great in sense my MIL was a SAHM most of life. Her SS was small and now she is on his higher SS. She took her SS at 62 and after he died moved to his.

Men usually have younger wives who live longer. My friend is 62 and his wife is 55. She has not worked in 20 years and before that was just in retail. If he waited till 70 and dropped dead next day she would only be 63 and I know her parents are still alive and very active right now. She could live to 95.

For the Man it is a bad deal. My Grandaunt who died recently at 104 was a widow for 30 years. She was on her husbands pension, medical and SS. And had her own pension. Crazy.

Also in Maryland for instance 40K worth of retirement income either SS or 401K withdrawls are tax free at 65. In Maryland might make sense at 65 to do 40K a year from 401k tax free than start SS at 70. Would lower RMD amounts later. You could put that 40k in Roths each year.

I actually see this as the argument to take it at 62. In my case my husband and I are close in age and close in income level. I won’t benefit from his if he goes first. We’re both hoping to retire at 55/57 with healthy pensions, healthy brokerage accounts and a paid off house.

Not everyone is a child Bride. At 55 I had 16, 14 and 10 years ago old at home and just bought a trade up home with a 30 year mortgage till I was 85 and had 12 years of college tuition still to pay. Sometimes I do wish I got married as a teenager like you. Might have been cool to do my wedding on Prom night. After all had a tux on anyhow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely taking it at 62. My dad died at 73 and my mom died at 84. I think I’ll be 79 at the break even point. I don’t see a reason to delay it.

That is the reason to wait. My MIL in-law is 85 and strong as a bull. Her Husband waited to take it and dropped dead at 73. Which is great in sense my MIL was a SAHM most of life. Her SS was small and now she is on his higher SS. She took her SS at 62 and after he died moved to his.

Men usually have younger wives who live longer. My friend is 62 and his wife is 55. She has not worked in 20 years and before that was just in retail. If he waited till 70 and dropped dead next day she would only be 63 and I know her parents are still alive and very active right now. She could live to 95.

For the Man it is a bad deal. My Grandaunt who died recently at 104 was a widow for 30 years. She was on her husbands pension, medical and SS. And had her own pension. Crazy.

Also in Maryland for instance 40K worth of retirement income either SS or 401K withdrawls are tax free at 65. In Maryland might make sense at 65 to do 40K a year from 401k tax free than start SS at 70. Would lower RMD amounts later. You could put that 40k in Roths each year.

I actually see this as the argument to take it at 62. In my case my husband and I are close in age and close in income level. I won’t benefit from his if he goes first. We’re both hoping to retire at 55/57 with healthy pensions, healthy brokerage accounts and a paid off house.

Not everyone is a child Bride. At 55 I had 16, 14 and 10 years ago old at home and just bought a trade up home with a 30 year mortgage till I was 85 and had 12 years of college tuition still to pay. Sometimes I do wish I got married as a teenager like you. Might have been cool to do my wedding on Prom night. After all had a tux on anyhow.

You are not making any sense.

Dp

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You should take it in most cases. I know I will at 62.

But my parents had no savings and zero net worth so they waited until 70, which made sense given my dad was still working. The risk of a significantly lower cash flow after he inevitably was laid off was too high.

Too bad your parents had no kids to help out. Just kidding.

You do know most married men with SAHM wife are still working at 62 full time. Or have kids in college and there is FASFA. And you have to give back one dollar for every two dollars earned from 62 to 65 plus the lower benefit.

The retirement earnings test goes to full retirement age (which has gradually risen to 67) though it's a 1-for-3 reduction in the year of FRA.
However, it's only applied to earnings above the threshold: in 2025, that threshold is $23,400 for people below FRA and $62,160 in the year of FRA.
Even more important to understand is that it's a temporary reduction: if you make it to FRA, your benefits are recalculated and you start getting a higher amount based on your reductions and the FICA you paid between claiming and FRA.

Resources to understand this include https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/rtea.html and https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/program-explainers/retirement-earnings-test.html

I plan to wait because a guaranteed 8% return is good, 3/4 of my grandparents have lived into their 80s (and the last died of lung cancer after lots of smoking, which I have never done), and I have other resources to live off of while I wait. If my health changes, I would reconsider.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely taking it at 62. My dad died at 73 and my mom died at 84. I think I’ll be 79 at the break even point. I don’t see a reason to delay it.

That is the reason to wait. My MIL in-law is 85 and strong as a bull. Her Husband waited to take it and dropped dead at 73. Which is great in sense my MIL was a SAHM most of life. Her SS was small and now she is on his higher SS. She took her SS at 62 and after he died moved to his.

Men usually have younger wives who live longer. My friend is 62 and his wife is 55. She has not worked in 20 years and before that was just in retail. If he waited till 70 and dropped dead next day she would only be 63 and I know her parents are still alive and very active right now. She could live to 95.

For the Man it is a bad deal. My Grandaunt who died recently at 104 was a widow for 30 years. She was on her husbands pension, medical and SS. And had her own pension. Crazy.

Also in Maryland for instance 40K worth of retirement income either SS or 401K withdrawls are tax free at 65. In Maryland might make sense at 65 to do 40K a year from 401k tax free than start SS at 70. Would lower RMD amounts later. You could put that 40k in Roths each year.

I actually see this as the argument to take it at 62. In my case my husband and I are close in age and close in income level. I won’t benefit from his if he goes first. We’re both hoping to retire at 55/57 with healthy pensions, healthy brokerage accounts and a paid off house.

Not everyone is a child Bride. At 55 I had 16, 14 and 10 years ago old at home and just bought a trade up home with a 30 year mortgage till I was 85 and had 12 years of college tuition still to pay. Sometimes I do wish I got married as a teenager like you. Might have been cool to do my wedding on Prom night. After all had a tux on anyhow.

You are not making any sense.

Dp

Having kids late is actually a good reason to claim early. If you retire, your kids under 18 (and older, if severely disabled) can get benefits on your record. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10085.pdf explains this. You can run the numbers and see how it plays out. For PP, whose youngest kid was probably 17 when he turned 62, might not matter. But a 62 year old with a younger child might come out ahead by claiming early.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For 90% of people taking at 70 is best.

no because more than 10% die before 70.

maybe for 90% of rich, healthy 60 year olds...but that would still depend on specifics with spousal and child benefits and other savings.

For low-income, low-asset people, it might make sense to claim ASAP and then get SSI to fill the gap starting at age 65.

[Anonymous]

As for me, I am taking immediately. I will use it for spend ($4K a month covers a lot of fixed costs) and continue to let my retirement savings build wealth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As for me, I am taking immediately. I will use it for spend ($4K a month covers a lot of fixed costs) and continue to let my retirement savings build wealth.

4k at 62?