For the PPs with disabled adult children, I'm in the same boat. I'm younger than my DH by 2 years, but the higher earner as he scaled back his job to be the lead with our child. He's 2 years from 62, should he take SS as soon as he's eligible. Where does the consideration that we have a disabled adult child come into play? Does that mean I should wait until 68 or 70? Thanks for any thoughts or insights you may have.

Anonymous wrote:[mastodon]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No one forced you to have a baby at age 45. Or to upgrade your house and take on a new 30 year mortgage. It’s your own fault you’ll be forced to work until you’re 85, if you’re even lucky enough to live that long- neither of my parents did. Personal choices.

And math may be hard but someone could have kids starting at 30 and be able to get them launched by 57.

+1

Had first at 30, 2nd at 33, that one will graduate college in May. I will be 55.
If you want to retire "early" then don't have a kid at 45+, and work to pay off your home, not upgrade and have a massive mortgage still

Pretty easy to retire early with only two kids. I would not sacrifice having more kids to retire young, seems selfish

Never had any desire to have more than 2 kids. It's actually selfish to do so, unless you are adopting. We don't need more people on this planet. 2 kids is part of "replace yourself". But if I did, I would have had my kids only 2 years apart (not 3-4) and would have been done by time I was 36/37

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No one forced you to have a baby at age 45. Or to upgrade your house and take on a new 30 year mortgage. It’s your own fault you’ll be forced to work until you’re 85, if you’re even lucky enough to live that long- neither of my parents did. Personal choices.

And math may be hard but someone could have kids starting at 30 and be able to get them launched by 57.

Actually my broker once told me you can’t be 30 when you’re 80. Went on a wild spending spree at 29. Had a Jeep Wrangler plus a Mercedes Convertible plus a NYC Coop and a place in Hamptons. Had three girlfriends, went skiing 10-20 times a year, and I went to clubs 100-200 times a year and hung out with celebs. Finally around 34 after dating several hundred girls, owning 8-9 cars, going on tons of vacations and spending every cent I had ready to settle down. My broker was right you can be 80 when 30.

And sadly no morale to story a car accident caused by a surgeon that hit me I got a big settlement to make me even. Got out of debt paid off my mortgage too.

I don’t feel like retiring young as I partied till 36. And no not broke I could retire if I wanted. I just find it pathetic people in their 60s pretending to be young. You are old, bald, fat and wrinkled in a 55 plus community in Florida. Me in Aspen Skiing, Southampton in Summer, spring break, Cancun, LA, Miami in my 20s tanned and in shape was fun. Me doing it now sad.

If anything I wish I got married later. Kids keep you young. Might sound crazy if my wife died would not mind remarrying a younger woman and having some more kids. I plan on living forever, so far so good

I encourage all people wait till 40 to get married,

This one is a keeper.

No.

[mastodon]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

No one forced you to have a baby at age 45. Or to upgrade your house and take on a new 30 year mortgage. It’s your own fault you’ll be forced to work until you’re 85, if you’re even lucky enough to live that long- neither of my parents did. Personal choices.

And math may be hard but someone could have kids starting at 30 and be able to get them launched by 57.

+1

Had first at 30, 2nd at 33, that one will graduate college in May. I will be 55.
If you want to retire "early" then don't have a kid at 45+, and work to pay off your home, not upgrade and have a massive mortgage still

Pretty easy to retire early with only two kids. I would not sacrifice having more kids to retire young, seems selfish

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.

No one forced you to have a baby at age 45. Or to upgrade your house and take on a new 30 year mortgage. It’s your own fault you’ll be forced to work until you’re 85, if you’re even lucky enough to live that long- neither of my parents did. Personal choices.

And math may be hard but someone could have kids starting at 30 and be able to get them launched by 57.

Actually my broker once told me you can’t be 30 when you’re 80. Went on a wild spending spree at 29. Had a Jeep Wrangler plus a Mercedes Convertible plus a NYC Coop and a place in Hamptons. Had three girlfriends, went skiing 10-20 times a year, and I went to clubs 100-200 times a year and hung out with celebs. Finally around 34 after dating several hundred girls, owning 8-9 cars, going on tons of vacations and spending every cent I had ready to settle down. My broker was right you can be 80 when 30.

And sadly no morale to story a car accident caused by a surgeon that hit me I got a big settlement to make me even. Got out of debt paid off my mortgage too.

I don’t feel like retiring young as I partied till 36. And no not broke I could retire if I wanted. I just find it pathetic people in their 60s pretending to be young. You are old, bald, fat and wrinkled in a 55 plus community in Florida. Me in Aspen Skiing, Southampton in Summer, spring break, Cancun, LA, Miami in my 20s tanned and in shape was fun. Me doing it now sad.

If anything I wish I got married later. Kids keep you young. Might sound crazy if my wife died would not mind remarrying a younger woman and having some more kids. I plan on living forever, so far so good

I encourage all people wait till 40 to get married,

Anonymous wrote:You can run scenarios at opensocialsecurity. Generally with 2 earners it will suggest one person taking at 62 and one person at 70. That starts the collection but also preserves the higher benefit for a survivor.

Yes. We also have a disabled adult child and it's much better if I take it early and DH waits.

Anonymous wrote:You can run scenarios at opensocialsecurity. Generally with 2 earners it will suggest one person taking at 62 and one person at 70. That starts the collection but also preserves the higher benefit for a survivor.

Yes. We also have a disabled adult child and it's much better if I take it early and DH waits.

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.

No one forced you to have a baby at age 45. Or to upgrade your house and take on a new 30 year mortgage. It’s your own fault you’ll be forced to work until you’re 85, if you’re even lucky enough to live that long- neither of my parents did. Personal choices.

And math may be hard but someone could have kids starting at 30 and be able to get them launched by 57.

+1

Had first at 30, 2nd at 33, that one will graduate college in May. I will be 55.
If you want to retire "early" then don't have a kid at 45+, and work to pay off your home, not upgrade and have a massive mortgage still

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

My income was around 50k/yr to 100K/yr from 1990 until 2000, 120K/yr to 200K/yr from 2001 until 2010, 400K from 2011 until now at the age of 58. According to SSA, my benefits would be $2753/month at the age of 62, $4019/month at the at age of 67, and $5015/month.

Do you have any tax advantaged accounts with high balances? If so, RMDs are coming for ya.

Op, it's obvious this far from this thread, but there are so many individual factors involved that there's no "right" answer. Among the things to consider are:

- whether you need the money immediately
- longevity in your and your spouse's family
- who is the higher earner
- the age difference, if any, between you and your spouse
- whether you have reason to keep your income down after you retire (Roth conversions, ACA subsidies, etc.)
- whether you or your spouse has a pension

For us, I am the (much) higher earner, and plan to take it at 70. Even though my wife is 3 years older than I am, her life expectancy exceeds mine, both on the actuarial tables and taking into account family history/longevity. I'd would like her to have the higher survivor benefits. Neither of us have pensions, and we do have decent retirement assets (~$4m at 53/56).

My parents, both of whom have pensions, took it at 62.

I will say, the one thing that I seem to disagree with most people about is the focus on the "break even point." I spend now and will spend in the future exactly zero time thinking out if I have broken even on SS. I just don't care. All I care about is doing what is best for my family. If that means deferring until 70 for the peace of mind, and perhaps not getting every last nickle out of SS, I'm fine with that.

Look into impact on tax strategy, you don’t want to Tao it of planning o do Roth conversion

Anonymous wrote: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.

We don't need it. But plan to take it at 62 simply because we don't trust SS to still be paying out without major changes in the future. So in 8 years, we will just start collecting to maximize our payouts

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.

No one forced you to have a baby at age 45. Or to upgrade your house and take on a new 30 year mortgage. It’s your own fault you’ll be forced to work until you’re 85, if you’re even lucky enough to live that long- neither of my parents did. Personal choices.

And math may be hard but someone could have kids starting at 30 and be able to get them launched by 57.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

My income was around 50k/yr to 100K/yr from 1990 until 2000, 120K/yr to 200K/yr from 2001 until 2010, 400K from 2011 until now at the age of 58. According to SSA, my benefits would be $2753/month at the age of 62, $4019/month at the at age of 67, and $5015/month.