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.

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.

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.

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.

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

+100. Men in particular should not wait. There is a reason the government wants you to take it at 70. The numbers work in their favour.

It also depends on how much you enjoy your job.

There is no right answer, only what is right for you. As we near retirement, we’ll need to do Roth conversions to lower our RMDs. We won’t be taking SS until 70.

Anonymous wrote:It depends on your financial position.

First question is whether you have enough in retirement savings to either quit working at 62 or only work a low paying job that doesn’t pay more than the SS means testing. If no, then keep working

That’s my thinking also; would love to stop my “real job “ at 62 and work a relaxing, part time job, but finances won’t be strong enough at that point.

It depends on your financial position.

First question is whether you have enough in retirement savings to either quit working at 62 or only work a low paying job that doesn’t pay more than the SS means testing. If no, then keep working

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

I'm taking mine at 62.

My Dad died at 70
My Mum died at 64

I did have a couple of Aunts that made it to their 80's, but I'm not holding my breath that I'll make it that far.

Anonymous wrote:Is it worth it to wait till 70 for social security?

Only if you make it to the age of 70 and then live for another 12 to 13 years. I buried two people in one year. One was 59 1/2 and the other was 63 years of age. They both had worked and contributed to the social security fund since they were teenagers with summer employment. They did not live to see retirement age of 67 to collect, more less 70.

Anonymous wrote:My advisor said to wait.

I can easily live on the 403b in the meantime.

If your advisor advised you to take 403 before SS, you should fire him/her. Always live off someone else’s money (even though technically SS is your money) before yours (403).

My advisor said to wait.

I can easily live on the 403b in the meantime.

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)

Turn 69. so the difference is $250... either 4200 or 4500., money is tight right now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Break even age is like 80 if you take it at 62 and 82, if you take it at 67. You only make out better if you live longer than 80, which isn’t guaranteed.

It's not only about breaking even. It's the insurance aspect of having the highest possible inflation-adjusted annuity for the rest of the survivor's life. If a male and female couple are both 62, there's a 59.3% chance one of them will live past 90.

I thought there a limit of income if you start at 62.