Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You are so clueless but that's okay... Life must be hard for you.

Does anyone listen to Millennial anti-boomer whining anymore? Totally played out.

I don't but I never really understood why they are so upset with boomers. Other than, I assume, it's coming from sense of entitlement, maybe??

They also have an ahistorical view that everything was roses and sunshine economically before 2009. They forget about the 1970's oil crisis, stagflation, the recessions of 1982, 1992, and 2001, spiking interest rates, and the shrinking blue collar job base.

That makes a lot of sense. I remember all of those sadly.

Well, the data suggest though that Boomers rode on a crest of prosperity due to various policies and post-war economic growth that is unparalleled and no longer exists. Yes, all those things happened, but even with those figured in on average Boomers had it better.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/27/millennial-recession-covid/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The broad consensus among financial experts and economists is that for most people, it's optimal to wait at long as you can to claim benefits, ideally until 70, even if you retire earlier. Of course, not everyone has the income/assets to wait that long, but if you do, delaying is a good investment.

In retirement, a main financial risk is living too long and therefore outliving your money. By delaying, you end up with a larger guaranteed benefit so are protected if you live longer than expected. (If you live shorter than expected, you receive fewer total benefits, but you are unlikely to outlive your money in that case.)

More info:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chriscarosa/2021/11/27/5-reasons-why-it-makes-sense-to-claim-social-security-as-late-as-possible-age-70/?sh=11cc65d51849

Our financial expert says the opposite. Take SS early and keep your money invested.

Lemme guess, you're paying him a percentage of assets under management?

Nope.

If you're telling the truth (and even if you're not), you should get a new advisor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The broad consensus among financial experts and economists is that for most people, it's optimal to wait at long as you can to claim benefits, ideally until 70, even if you retire earlier. Of course, not everyone has the income/assets to wait that long, but if you do, delaying is a good investment.

In retirement, a main financial risk is living too long and therefore outliving your money. By delaying, you end up with a larger guaranteed benefit so are protected if you live longer than expected. (If you live shorter than expected, you receive fewer total benefits, but you are unlikely to outlive your money in that case.)

More info:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chriscarosa/2021/11/27/5-reasons-why-it-makes-sense-to-claim-social-security-as-late-as-possible-age-70/?sh=11cc65d51849

Our financial expert says the opposite. Take SS early and keep your money invested.

My retirement seminar guy said the same.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The broad consensus among financial experts and economists is that for most people, it's optimal to wait at long as you can to claim benefits, ideally until 70, even if you retire earlier. Of course, not everyone has the income/assets to wait that long, but if you do, delaying is a good investment.

In retirement, a main financial risk is living too long and therefore outliving your money. By delaying, you end up with a larger guaranteed benefit so are protected if you live longer than expected. (If you live shorter than expected, you receive fewer total benefits, but you are unlikely to outlive your money in that case.)

More info:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chriscarosa/2021/11/27/5-reasons-why-it-makes-sense-to-claim-social-security-as-late-as-possible-age-70/?sh=11cc65d51849

Only if 1) you can live long enough and 2) SS benefits stay the same. I am not sure on both counts.

Well, you're obviously not sure of how long you'll live. As for changes to SS benefits, I don't really get your position - you are going to take them sooner because it's possible that, at some point in the future, benefits will decrease?

Yeah, because benefit "may" decrease. Who really knows what's going to happen between 62 and 70? I want to keep my money in the market as long as possible and use SS to pay for my retirement. Is that crazy?

OP you can retire early and not collect social security until later. We are tentatively planning to retire at 55 and live off our taxable investments until 59.5 when we can start withdrawing from our TSP and 401k. Only enough to stay in lowest tax bracket. We will supplement with taxable investments. We want income as low as possible so we can qualify for ACA health insurance subsidies and stay in a low tax rate. The lower earning spouse will take SS at 67 and the higher earner will take at 70 to maximize benefit. At that time, lower earner will switch to 1/2 of higher earner’s benefit. If higher earning predeceases lower earner, lower earner will then collect 100% of the higher earners benefit for the remainder of their life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The broad consensus among financial experts and economists is that for most people, it's optimal to wait at long as you can to claim benefits, ideally until 70, even if you retire earlier. Of course, not everyone has the income/assets to wait that long, but if you do, delaying is a good investment.

In retirement, a main financial risk is living too long and therefore outliving your money. By delaying, you end up with a larger guaranteed benefit so are protected if you live longer than expected. (If you live shorter than expected, you receive fewer total benefits, but you are unlikely to outlive your money in that case.)

More info:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chriscarosa/2021/11/27/5-reasons-why-it-makes-sense-to-claim-social-security-as-late-as-possible-age-70/?sh=11cc65d51849

Our financial expert says the opposite. Take SS early and keep your money invested.

Lemme guess, you're paying him a percentage of assets under management?

Nope.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The broad consensus among financial experts and economists is that for most people, it's optimal to wait at long as you can to claim benefits, ideally until 70, even if you retire earlier. Of course, not everyone has the income/assets to wait that long, but if you do, delaying is a good investment.

In retirement, a main financial risk is living too long and therefore outliving your money. By delaying, you end up with a larger guaranteed benefit so are protected if you live longer than expected. (If you live shorter than expected, you receive fewer total benefits, but you are unlikely to outlive your money in that case.)

More info:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chriscarosa/2021/11/27/5-reasons-why-it-makes-sense-to-claim-social-security-as-late-as-possible-age-70/?sh=11cc65d51849

Our financial expert says the opposite. Take SS early and keep your money invested.

Lemme guess, you're paying him a percentage of assets under management?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The broad consensus among financial experts and economists is that for most people, it's optimal to wait at long as you can to claim benefits, ideally until 70, even if you retire earlier. Of course, not everyone has the income/assets to wait that long, but if you do, delaying is a good investment.

In retirement, a main financial risk is living too long and therefore outliving your money. By delaying, you end up with a larger guaranteed benefit so are protected if you live longer than expected. (If you live shorter than expected, you receive fewer total benefits, but you are unlikely to outlive your money in that case.)

More info:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chriscarosa/2021/11/27/5-reasons-why-it-makes-sense-to-claim-social-security-as-late-as-possible-age-70/?sh=11cc65d51849

Only if 1) you can live long enough and 2) SS benefits stay the same. I am not sure on both counts.

Well, you're obviously not sure of how long you'll live. As for changes to SS benefits, I don't really get your position - you are going to take them sooner because it's possible that, at some point in the future, benefits will decrease?

Anonymous wrote:The broad consensus among financial experts and economists is that for most people, it's optimal to wait at long as you can to claim benefits, ideally until 70, even if you retire earlier. Of course, not everyone has the income/assets to wait that long, but if you do, delaying is a good investment.

In retirement, a main financial risk is living too long and therefore outliving your money. By delaying, you end up with a larger guaranteed benefit so are protected if you live longer than expected. (If you live shorter than expected, you receive fewer total benefits, but you are unlikely to outlive your money in that case.)

More info:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chriscarosa/2021/11/27/5-reasons-why-it-makes-sense-to-claim-social-security-as-late-as-possible-age-70/?sh=11cc65d51849

Our financial expert says the opposite. Take SS early and keep your money invested.

Anonymous wrote:The broad consensus among financial experts and economists is that for most people, it's optimal to wait at long as you can to claim benefits, ideally until 70, even if you retire earlier. Of course, not everyone has the income/assets to wait that long, but if you do, delaying is a good investment.

In retirement, a main financial risk is living too long and therefore outliving your money. By delaying, you end up with a larger guaranteed benefit so are protected if you live longer than expected. (If you live shorter than expected, you receive fewer total benefits, but you are unlikely to outlive your money in that case.)

More info:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chriscarosa/2021/11/27/5-reasons-why-it-makes-sense-to-claim-social-security-as-late-as-possible-age-70/?sh=11cc65d51849

Another factor is spousal benefits. My SS benefit will be substantially more than my wife's. In the event I predecease her, I want her benefit to be as large as possible. Our plan is for her to take it at soon as she retires (likely 62), and for me to wait as lone as possible.

Anonymous wrote:The broad consensus among financial experts and economists is that for most people, it's optimal to wait at long as you can to claim benefits, ideally until 70, even if you retire earlier. Of course, not everyone has the income/assets to wait that long, but if you do, delaying is a good investment.

In retirement, a main financial risk is living too long and therefore outliving your money. By delaying, you end up with a larger guaranteed benefit so are protected if you live longer than expected. (If you live shorter than expected, you receive fewer total benefits, but you are unlikely to outlive your money in that case.)

More info:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chriscarosa/2021/11/27/5-reasons-why-it-makes-sense-to-claim-social-security-as-late-as-possible-age-70/?sh=11cc65d51849

Only if 1) you can live long enough and 2) SS benefits stay the same. I am not sure on both counts.

The broad consensus among financial experts and economists is that for most people, it's optimal to wait at long as you can to claim benefits, ideally until 70, even if you retire earlier. Of course, not everyone has the income/assets to wait that long, but if you do, delaying is a good investment.

In retirement, a main financial risk is living too long and therefore outliving your money. By delaying, you end up with a larger guaranteed benefit so are protected if you live longer than expected. (If you live shorter than expected, you receive fewer total benefits, but you are unlikely to outlive your money in that case.)

More info:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chriscarosa/2021/11/27/5-reasons-why-it-makes-sense-to-claim-social-security-as-late-as-possible-age-70/?sh=11cc65d51849

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You are so clueless but that's okay... Life must be hard for you.

Does anyone listen to Millennial anti-boomer whining anymore? Totally played out.

I don't but I never really understood why they are so upset with boomers. Other than, I assume, it's coming from sense of entitlement, maybe??

They also have an ahistorical view that everything was roses and sunshine economically before 2009. They forget about the 1970's oil crisis, stagflation, the recessions of 1982, 1992, and 2001, spiking interest rates, and the shrinking blue collar job base.

That makes a lot of sense. I remember all of those sadly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You are so clueless but that's okay... Life must be hard for you.

Does anyone listen to Millennial anti-boomer whining anymore? Totally played out.

I don't but I never really understood why they are so upset with boomers. Other than, I assume, it's coming from sense of entitlement, maybe??

They also have an ahistorical view that everything was roses and sunshine economically before 2009. They forget about the 1970's oil crisis, stagflation, the recessions of 1982, 1992, and 2001, spiking interest rates, and the shrinking blue collar job base.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You are so clueless but that's okay... Life must be hard for you.

Does anyone listen to Millennial anti-boomer whining anymore? Totally played out.

I don't but I never really understood why they are so upset with boomers. Other than, I assume, it's coming from sense of entitlement, maybe??

They also have an ahistorical view that everything was roses and sunshine economically before 2009. They forget about the 1970's oil crisis, stagflation, the recessions of 1982, 1992, and 2001, spiking interest rates, and the shrinking blue collar job base.