To me the absolute worst way to decide to collect SS is knowing "X" or "XX" person(S) who died before or soon after starting SS. They never look at all those who don't. The greatest risk is not dying young, but living till old.
I'm retiring at 62 and going to draw at 62 because the lesser amount along with some rental income and a 403B is enough to pay the bills. Sure, it might be best to wait until 67, but tomorrow isn't promised and my Wife's health isn't very good.
It is that simple. It's pretty close to a push either way. There are many more factors that will affect your lifestyle much more. I'm 67 and waiting until 70, but I can see why many take it earlier. By waiting I get Part B, smartphone and home internet paid for because my income is basically $0. And 8% return and I can't get COLA on any investment.
@@MrWaterbugdesignIf you have enough savings, or other non-W2 income, to make it to 70 before claiming SS benefits, that's great. But, those of us without that safety net to rely on, are hard pressed to wait that long to claim benefits. Groceries, utility bills, car insurance and plates, property taxes and other non Medicaid covered expenses require beginning benefits sooner even though waiting until 70 is ideal, is not always possible.
When you are thinking about longevity, using the Social Security Actuarial Life tables is fine as long as you remember that those tables are based on population statistics. An individual's life expectancy is quite different. For example, I decided to take social security at a time when my life expectancy was very uncertain. Basically, I decided to start social security at 64 when I was diagnosed with fairly advanced cancer. I made the decision that I wanted to see some of my social security. My wife had already started her social security and my decision didn't impact her since her benefit is larger than mine. My point is that I looked at my personal life expectancy rather than considering population based statistics. Fortunately, treatment put my cancer into remission, but now at age 72 it is coming back. Consequently, I doubt I will make it to 80 since treatment of my particular cancer after relapse is generally not all that successful. So when looking at longevity start by looking at the actuarial life table, but modify your expectation based on your health and your genetics (family longevity, etc.).
Glad you could work until 72! More than half of retirees find that they retire sooner than they planned. For me, I was retired at 59, but had saved enough and knew job market would not be welcome to older white male in my profession. I could have stayed working if I free-lanced, but I was content to start that next chapter of my life. Eight years later, it is still the best decision I never made!
If you have a job you love, keep working as long as you want. But if you are done working, start collecting as soon as possible. I've done my own spreadsheet math on the various age based payment streams and it's not till age 76 until I would be better off waiting till an age later than 62. I can be collecting for 8 years (and not spending my savings which allows that to grow) before taking it at 70. Would you rather have the money to enjoy your life when you're younger and healthier, or when you may be too old to really enjoy it?
Factor in survivor and spousal benefits and the math changes. Also, waiting on Social Security provides a larger COLA adjusted benefit in your 80s and 90s. Of course if you have a large COLA pension then that advantage is less important.
I'll be Retiring less than Month after I turn 62 with Full Income Replacement. I have CalPers Coordinated with Social Security. I'll delay my Social Security by a Quarter to make sure My Severance Payment[s] [Two Months accumulated Vacation] don't collide with my first Benefit Payments. After my first SS Payment Deposit, I'll start traveling in SE Asia.
I took a reduced government pension at age 55 and moved to Thailand. I taught English part-time in a school to top it up. I live here for literally half of what it would cost me to live in the UK. Now, I am retired and receive an additional state pension. My advice is to get out as soon as you can afford to. Life is short, and we're all gambling on our health.
@VivaciousOM Yes, I do miss my daughter and grandson, but they face call me regularly, and truth is pensions have not kept up with inflation over the last 15 years so I be living a very poor lifestyle if I moved back.
There is another way to pay for Medicare if you are a retired federal employee, and not receiving social security. I retired as a federal employee at age 60. I decided to wait until 70 to file for social security. I had OPM deduct the Medicare premium directly from my monthly FERS pension.
I’m 61, and have an HSA account and plan on using those funds to help pay my part B and part D supplements. Nothing like using triple tax free accounts instead of tax infested accounts to pay these costs. And more money for doing Roth conversions before you take SS at 70.
Thank you is not high enough level to say to you, much much appreciate your doing, the kindness in your voice, the clear speaker …you should be a professor at the University level. I am 67 now, started to collect $$$ last year at my FRA, still working, love what I do, and keeping my mind as sharp as a younger person, and my routine. Do you have any ideas when the system will re-calculate my $$$ (I knew, these past working years to replace my early years)? God bless.
Thank you for your kind words! I don't know how that works. I know you did the right thing waiting until FRA if you want to work and collect! Too many take it early and have to deal with limits on earnings, which is a different complex calculation when the recalculate your benefits at FRA. Dennis Carroll's channel on RUclips might have the answer to your question.
Another good reason to delay SS. Taxes. SS can push you up into higher tax brackets vs getting the 8% per year credit for delaying. Also, no matter how much other income you have, at least 15% of SS is not taxable at the federal level and tax free in most states. For me the tax savings is 10% (20% tax vs 30%) thus I want to maximize that income along with its COLA.
I think many want to claim Social Security as soon a possible. I think that is a poor strategy unless you have way more than enough. Legit reasons for claiming SS earliest would be 1) Hating your job 2) Having more than you need, with very little doubt of running out of money. 3) Health concerns. But collecting SS for the sake of collecting it, isn't a legit reason in my book.
I would concur with reasons 3 and to a lesser degree 2, but not 1. If you hate your job, change it! You may find ageism is a reason to begin your retirement. But I would have private savings to manage your optimal Social Security claiming age. Again, two separate decisions! That qualifies my respons to your reason 2. I'm taking retirement later because I have enough. I might need to file early if I didn't save enough in retirement plans.
@@IwasRetired - We are both coming at this issue from different angles. I am coming at it from the angle that "a person ALREADY wants to collect SS" because perhaps they feel that they don't want to risk leaving any SS money on the table. In other words, the people who may like their jobs, but their goal is to collect SS asap.
If I was guaranteed life till 90 you better believe I would wait to take SS at 67 or even later. You, me and everyone else entitled to SS are not granted life into our 80s or 90s. You take SS when you want. I’m taking it when I turn 62.
When you are 77 your SSA won't have kept up with inflation and then you will be poor. But you will still care and not be in LTC yet. Take SSA after 67. Not 62
I plan to work past 70, in part because my wife is 7 years younger. She's 57, wants to retire when she hits 65 (Medicare age). She's on my insurance because that's cheaper than getting it from her employer. I also have a health savings account, which I would need to close before filing for SS after age 65. So the goal is to file for SS and Medicare Part A a couple of months before turning 70 (and stop the HSA six months before I file). Then apply for Medicare Part B and a Medigap plan when I do retire. The comforting thing is that my boss told me recently that he is banking I work at least another 4-5 years, so my plan could work. I like my job, so working till 70 or beyond will be no hardship; I have several coworkers who are years my senior. By my calculation, my break-even point for SS should be 78 years.
You may want to read up on Medicare part A because there may be penalties uf you don't apply at 65 regardless of what some people say. I would check with an expert.
@@kevincross1240 I have checked with Medicare experts, so I know what I’m doing. It’s amazing how many people wrongly believe that one has to absolutely sign up at 65 or face penalties. Medicare.gov is the best source if you want to research the subject. The AARP is also a good resource. There’s an explanation about Health Savings Account that’s pertinent to me. www.medicare.gov/basics/get-started-with-medicare/sign-up/when-can-i-sign-up-for-medicare
From what I read, if you are covered by an employer health plan, and the employer has over a certain number of employees, the penalty for not signing up for Medicare goes away. No penalty for delaying part A past age 65
Yes, but make sure your employer plan qualifies. And while you can delay, you will have a special enrollment period once you leave your job. Be sure to pay attention to the rules.
I wouldn’t go by what an “Actuary” says on life expectancy. An actuary isn’t a doctor. Each person is different. Just because the average person who makes it to 65 is no guarantee they’ll make it to 84.
Yes, personalize your longevity risk. Start with actuarial data but adjust for your circumstances. There are detailed calculators on line to help you. And all of it is a guess just like how much inflation, how much risk and how much return you put into your plan.
Marvin: Unless you have a health problem, it makes sense to plan for a long life, not because you will live to 90 but, because you MAY live to 90. The risk is not dying young and leaving money on the table. The risk is outliving your savings or trying to survive on a meager SS benefit while over 80.
Social Security was not designed to dictate when you should retire. Although a lot of people wait until at least 65 because of the Healthcare Insurance problem we have in this country. Every other country in the free World provides healthcare for all of their population. We have become the 3rd world country when it comes to our healthcare system. We are not ranked very high at all in the world for the quality of healthcare and that might surprise a lot of people. I would LOVE to quit working at 62, but I would not have affordable healthcare until 65 (and even then that is questionable).
Pre-Medicare healthcare is another factor in a DIY retirement that arrives sooner than you expect. I have some other videos on that subject. Two more years to go until we are both on Original Medicare.
Have you priced a plan on Healthcare.gov? I was able to get a plan for 2 at $500 per month making $50,000 a year. That’s not too much more than I’m paying now considering I have to pay money into my HSA account to pay for out of pocket costs. Won’t hurt to see, each situation is different. Oh and absolutely agree that other countries are leaps and bounds ahead of taking care of healthcare for all. My son lives and works and Sweden and does not pay a monthly premium just to get healthcare. Good luck!
The reason that all of those other countries have free healthcare is because we have been the world’s policeman for the past 70 years. They can spend all of their tax money on Social programs because they don’t have to provide defense knowing that we will keep them safe. Our military is bigger than the rest of the world combined. When President Trump tried to point this out and get them to pay for their protection they all had fits.
We use easy pay as well deducted from checking...yet, we STILL get a false bill every month telling us what we owe but not to pay it....what a waste of MEDICARE postage, paper and manpower time.
As a teacher, I will never get social security. I am cobbling together teacher retirement plans from four different states, but it cannot match social security. Having said that, if social security goes under, I am still at least somewhat okay.
@@kaninma7237 understood. Thank you for teaching! But look at ways to roll over any 403b money into lower cost plans you control. The key is keeping the drag of fees as low as possible. Conversely many of us on SS will never get the pensions that teachers will collect.
You should use a break-even calculator to determine the age at which your lower SS benefit starting at 62, equals the same total cumulative benefit if you get the higher amount starting at FRA. My break even age is 83. If I expect to live longer than 83, it would be worth it to wait. My mom lived to 86 and my dad to 89. I am not as healthy as they were at my age, so I don’t really expect to make it to 80. I might wait to 64, but I don’t see much value in waiting longer.
If you are a FERS retired federal employee, like myself that retired at age 60. At age 65, I had OPM deduct my Medicare from my federal pension. I then waited until 70 to file for social security.
For most folks, arranging direct pay for Medicare also works, right from your checking account each month. File for Social Security when it makes sense and not as a Medicare bill pay system!
This is a good video, I already knew everything presented here, but most people do not understand these facts. Taking Social Security at 62 is generally not the best choice, assuming you are in average or better health and are not desperate for the money. Delaying has a huge benefit for total benefits received, Tax implications due to a higher provisional income allowance, and reducing RMD's due to the fact that you spend down your IRA/401K amounts more in the early years, and take the higher SS income later. People really need to understand the full implications of all of these factors before making any decision to take SS. Also, an often over looked part is for a married couple, if the wife has a lower amount than the husband, for SS, then people need to know is that the wife will get the husbands benefit upon his death, were he to die first. However, if he took it at age 62 this amount will be a fraction of what it would have been had he deferred. Many, so called, finantual advisors do not consider a lot of these important points, so do your own research.
@@IwasRetired Yes, your video is much better than most I have seen, you really did a good job of covering all the bases many miss. Thanks for your efforts getting this information out to the World. I think that the SSA should be doing a much better job explaining all of this to people than they do.
I've watched Tim and and he never talks about how everyone's situation is different. He also never talks about what other money he has stashed away. How did he buy that camper recently??? Not from SS!!!. Every person files for SS depending on many factors. I recently read a study that showed for every year you keep working after 65, you have a better chance at NOT getting Dementia or getting it at a much later age due to your mind being busy and having that human connection that sometimes falls aside in retirement life. Tim of course is an outgoing person so that might not come into play for him but it is another thing to think about. I'd rather NOT have dementia that have some extra money in the bank from taking SS early.
@@RickMartinRUclips I haven't followed him closely. How does he get around the limit on earned income from 62 to FRA? So he filed early, works odd-jobs up to that pretty low limit, and then because he has made his bet early, he'll need to keep working that odd job for the rest of his life? "Florida Man Finds His Fortune!"
@@IwasRetiredYes, because of his (poor) choices, Tim has forced himself to do some kind of work until he dies. He appears to have no financial assets (except depreciating ones) and he spends more than SS pays.
Yes, in one of my earliest videos, I used a NWML longevity calculator and then joked, "make your spouse happier and add another five years." In those 80s and 90s, Social Security will be a benefit that will adjust with inflation. Annuities, many private pensions do not.
I’ll be 60 this year. My wife is 10 years younger, doesn’t work and I have a 13 year old daughter. Will probably turn on social security at 62 since I just learned that my daughter will get half of my full social security until she’s 18, that’s for roughly 30 months. Was planning to turn it on at 70. At 62 will also start collecting NY state pension, not a full one (will only have 21 years on the job then and a full pension requires 30 years). Tragically lost my 18 year old son 2 years ago and not sure if I’ll ever recover from it so I don’t know if I’ll be around that long.
She will be 15 when I retire. Children under 18 get half of retiree’s PIA amount, so even though my benefit will be permanently reduced, we will be compensated by almost 3 years of additional benefits for her. My wife will also collect something for few months (till my daughter turns 16).
Enjoy your content. Just curious, what percentage of your retirement is in Roth accounts? And do you plan on doing more Roth conversions before Trump cuts expire and before you turn 70? Small window, expiring soon. 2026 tax will increase. I see continued gridlock.
My 2023 Results and Plans for 2024 ruclips.net/video/2cQikTzkWFI/видео.html. That’s in this video. I do small amounts up to tax tripwires. We will see where I am by 2026.
Congress has NO plan to fully fund SS and it will run out of money in less than a decade. Their only solution is to continue cutting benefits and to increase age requirements. How can you make more benefits in the future when they keep cutting them? I am "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" guy. Promises of more money later never materialize. I turn 62 next month and I'll take SS the second I qualify.
Opensocialsecurity.com allows you to test the mandatory cut in 2034, and waiting still provides higher lifetime totals. Since the mandatory cut is across the board, your benefit and my benefit will both be cut by the same percentage. But my higher benefit means I'll still come out ahead. For a single person, I might file as soon as my FRA. But I'm waiting to give my widow her highest benefit for the rest of her life after I'm gone.
@@SandfordSmythe we the people elect the government. Here’s hoping we elect people who will resolve “trust” issues and not just Social Security. Have you seen share of budget goes to interest on the debt?
@@IwasRetired The problem with the debt is also the voters wanting things and voting accordingly. Wanting to keep your job is not grounds for conjuring up conspiracy explanations.
@@SandfordSmythe You can't charge enough FICA to cover the full cost of SS, especially when the govt is giving it to illegals. The feds spend money on everything but SS. They expect payroll taxes to cover it all. My blame is well placed.
I was laid off last month. 65. Thinking about SS, as I have the foot problem with gout. Only have one daughter. How do I pay my child support? She's 15.
If I can retire at 60, which does mean that my funds can sustain me, I am not sure why I would wait to 70 before collecting social security. If you assume that you can survive without social security, and simply add it to a brokerage fund to grow, we can compute the amount of growth income over the years. Ignoring for inflation. If one assumes a 5% growth (one can assume after taxes have been deducted), at 85 years old, if you started collecting SS at 62, you would be making $66,000. If you waited to 70, you would be making $65,000. If you waited to 66, you would be making $68,000. Starting at 62 did better than starting at 70, but not as good as starting at 66. The question then becomes one of whether you care about missing out at $1,000 a year if you are 85 and can't really travel (and expenses are much lower anyway). If you are in a low income bracket, it makes sense to work until you are 70 so that you can survive on the higher social security payment. Even if one considers health insurance, we are talking about $14,000 a year. Taking the SS at 62 would reduce the subsidies by about $2400 a year, which doesn't seem to be much of a dent. If one were trying to optimize, one would need to know the specific growth rate. e.g. If you can earn at least 7% a year (with the market averaging 11%, or JEPI making 7% income), the growth from starting at 70 will never be as much as what one can make if one started at 62, no matter how long you live. It seems that taking social security early in this case provides for a sense of emotion security, rather than hanging on to extract maximum amounts from the government.
@@RickMartinRUclips That still does not explain why one should wait til 70 before taking SS. If one can survive without it, missing out on that last $1,000 a year off the optimal, or about 0.7% seems like one is focusing at the noise level. However, considering assisted living costs makes sense. The median cost appears to be around $55,000 annually. One would be trying for at least $55,000 anyway if one were living in one's own home and traveling. If one flies business class internationally for holidays, the lifestyle cost goes up. ie. One would be keeping costs similar but switching lifestyle. Of course, we will have inflation. However, the nature of inflation is such that the worth of each dollar drops over time. People's incomes therefore grow once equilibrium is reached, company profits grow, and therefore company valuations grow. The stock market and owning a home therefore adjusts for inflation. Social security also grows to compensate. If you just keep your money in a bank account, you are losing at least 2% a year, and that compounds over time. It is still my sense that if you can survive without social security, you might as well take it early. If you can't survive without it, then delaying it to max it out might make sense. However, if you were in that case, you might want to keep working to build up as much cash as you can. In between these 2 cases, and you have a balancing act which has more unknowns.
Finally, money is fungible and SS is tax advantage income verses other provisional income. If you are not working and don't need $$ it still is better to take it early for you and your heirs. I ran those same numbers on the AARP calculator and at 5% return I think the breakeven taking SS at 62 vs 70 was appox 92 yrs of age. Any return above 5% the person taking SS late never caught up. Simply put money today is far more valuable than money later. How many years past 92 are you willing to bet you will live. Plus the younger you are the more utility you will get from the $$
70? Wtf! I'm not trying to be on the corporate America hamster wheel 🛞 that long! Where are all these jobs for geriatrics going to come from?! Smh!!! 😶
I retired at 61 and I’m waiting until 70 for my Social Security. I have enough resources to take care of myself until then. I know several people doing the same thing.
If you don't have a spouse who counts on spousal or survivor benefits, maybe not. But you need to factor that into your breakeven analysis. See my original Why I'm Waiting for 70 video.
I kinda skipped when you hit longevity... Did you mentions the no 1 reason to take SS 'early'? YOU NEED THE MONEY. I'm happy you have a private nest egg that can provide for all your needs, $40G a yr for a median worker now a days after taxes, more or less. Few, very very few do so, due to our lousy wages. As to longevity. In short, having more money later may not matter much or at all. We will all end up needing a 'nursing home environment' and the older, the more likely. I'm sure there is a table showing this. Waiting unitl 70 to get more money may not mean much if at 80 you're in a nursing home. It will buy you a slightly better nursing home experience but it won't be a big difference. in detail... Here's something to consider, and having worked in long term care on the facilities side only, so not in the trenches, here's a fact. At some point, you'll need long term care unless you have saved up enough to hire someone to take care of you at home, PT then FT. So again for the VAST MAJORITY you will be going into a nursing home some day. If you have vast savings you can pay yearly for a really nice one, if not, you'll need to find the best that will just take all your SS money, what's left of your savings. Best meaning you'll have the best experience there. Some SS only can be pretty dreadful, and SS only isn't likely to be a lot of fun. However there is good news. When you need such care, you may not 'need' such enjoyable an experience. Ekkk yes we deteriorate in all ways, all too many of us. What seems NOW to be a depressing future might well at the time, not be so depressing. If you can still appreciate how you need the care provided and had no other way to get it, you might even be happier there than whatever the alt was. Depressing, yeah, all this is. Sigh.
www.aplaceformom.com/senior-living-data/articles/elderly-nursing-home-population# Social Security was never intended to be sole source of funds, so we do need to save for the future. It is the one benefit with a built-in cost of living adjustment, whereas many pensions do not, and your savings, unless properly invested will not be inflation protected either. As for we will all end up in a nursing home? You need to do a little research. This article says it is about 2.3%. It is more likely that you will need to age in place with support. I'll have some money in my 80s and 90s to arrange such help.
Another way of looking at it: $96,000 you could have taken out of tax deferred assets to spend at lower tax rates and/or converted to Roth. And the benefit grows 8% yr from FRA to 70. All depends on your circumstances.
Actually, go watch that David Blanchett video (link in the notes). Pick a life expectancy age based on your own health and circumstances. Not averages, but actuarial science. But don't just assume 90 or 95 or 105 in your financial plans to be conservative, since you might be too conservative in your retirement spending.
@IwasRetired I'll agree with you.... but at some point, proper planning would be an infinite age.... and eventually a waste of time. Since I've had one heart attack, I'll conceed and plan for age 100... then expect to die tomorrow! Bottom line.... plan for the worst case, and expect to live at LEAST another day. (enjoy the ride while you're there... but don't be surprised later on if you still want to buy more expensive tickets to ride again!) I like your videos, BTW...!
Breakeven rate is the wrong way to think about Social Security if you also consider spousal benefits and survivor benefits. Spousal benefits are important when comparing 62 and FRA. Survivor benefits are the factor between FRA and 70. I'm waiting for 70 to give my wife the highest survivor benefit -- with a COLA -- she can have for those years later in retirement when she is a widow.
My wife and I waited till full, we only need 28% of our annual SSI funds to exist. We haven't taped into our 401 yet. Together we almost get the max at 74,540 a year before medicare deduction. We worked longer to pay off our mortgage and cars to become dept free. We have already finished our desired traveling, so we only do short motorhome trips now. Our equity in our properties is our fall back, we'll just sell one. Get dept free. It's not what you make, it's what you owe.
Disagree entirely. Most people retire before age 62 because they have a employer based retirement plan. When they hit age 62 (or decide to wait) they are getting back what the government stole. That money isn’t returned with interest, what you get is a percentage of what they stole, and you never get it all back since the return is calculated at the average life span. It is all cleverly calculated. Even those that outlive the life span, and who collect more than what they put in.. they are not paid decades of interest so they will never get it all back. Social security is the biggest legalized scam in history. So how should we think of social security? It’s a pay raise on top of your retirement plan, and if you are lucky it’s enough to cover a payment or two… with change left over for a turkey dinner.
For many younger Boomers, Gen-X, and younger generations, "employer-based retirement plan" was defined contribution savings plans, rather than pensions. I have one small pension, but most of my retirement savings are in IRA and 401(k) plans. So in a sense, I was able to accept that I was retired at 59, because I saved enough. Therefore Social Security is a payment on top, but I'm leveraging it for longevity insurance. Since most of my retirement savings will not have a COLA, it will be a chunk of the retirement income in my 70s, 80s, and hopefully, 90s with a COLA. Given the dwindling "trust fund" we also need to consider the 24% across-the-board cut in 2034 if rules are not changed. Even with that, waiting for 70 is the best choice for me. Thanks for watching and sharing in the debate.
You will get WAY more than you put in, you will get an 8% increase in benefit for each year you delay after age 62 and it will be risk free. So unless you can invest at a guaranteed rate of greater than 8% with no risk, delaying is the smart choice. The thing about "interest" is a red herring, does your car insurance pay you interest? Did your homeowners insurance pay you interest? You have to think of SS as insurance against poverty in old age. You should have a multi bucket retirement plan with your SS being one bucket. You have your SS, and hopefully a Pension, or 401K, Brokerage account, and cash buckets. The idea that you need to take SS early so you can "get your money back" is very simpleminded thinking... if you really think that way then you best burn your house down so you can "get your premiums back" from that no good insurance company that ripped you off. 🤣 On top of all that how much did you actually pay in? I payed in around 80,000, but I will get an estimate with COLA's of around $4600 at age 70... so my expected life span would be 86 years... simple math says that I would receive $883200 in payments for my 80000. That does not include COLAS during the 16 years I would be collecting so that is a low number. Looks like it will in fact pay me some interest.
@@IwasRetired There will be no cut in 2034... I have been hearing about SS running out since I started my first job bagging groceries in 1976. SS is called the "third rail" of politics for a reason, there will be no cut. It's just like I have heard about "we will run out of oil in ten years" since I was a kid in the 70's.
Starwater: It will take me about 4 1/2 years to get more in benefits than I paid into SS. Nothing was stolen. Taxes, levied by the government based on bills passed by Congress, are legal.
I'm simply sharing entertaining ideas from one DIY retiree that may help others. If you see the number of views on Social Security videos, you realize we all could compare notes. No fool's errand, in my book.
🤥🤥So we are supposed to believe the media with the statistics 🫣🫣 The way I see it, take it while you are young enough to enjoy life. Just look at a new born infant, then look at that infant 10 years from then. This is what happens to us in reverse. Time, Time , 🕰⌛️⏳is the most precious to me.
That is a reason to retire and enjoy go-go years. But having enough money for no-go years is a reason to wait on the COLA-adjusted higher Social Security benefit. Ensure you have retirement savings to manage a successful retirement.
I havexseversl friends that are in their 80s. They had to go to work because they retired early and now can't pay for basic living expenses. I'm not sure that they are enjoying their retirement now.
To me the absolute worst way to decide to collect SS is knowing "X" or "XX" person(S) who died before or soon after starting SS. They never look at all those who don't. The greatest risk is not dying young, but living till old.
The nursing home will need that money to afford the hotdogs that they grind up for your toothless dinner
@patde1264 what an absolutely meaningless Tiuret comment with no reference to the video or comment.
@@patde1264
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
I was 61 when I retired. I took SS at 63 and 1 month. Won't look back or regret.
You make it work. Hope it does.
I'm retiring at 62 and going to draw at 62 because the lesser amount along with some rental income and a 403B is enough to pay the bills. Sure, it might be best to wait until 67, but tomorrow isn't promised and my Wife's health isn't very good.
Thanks for the video. It would be interesting to see how well net worth correlates to Social Security filing age.
awealthofcommonsense.com/2024/01/did-the-pandemic-save-us-from-a-retirement-crisis/. I haven’t looked into net worth but Ben Carlson has.
There's always one clear answer. File for SS whenever you want or feel you must for the income.
It is that simple. It's pretty close to a push either way. There are many more factors that will affect your lifestyle much more. I'm 67 and waiting until 70, but I can see why many take it earlier. By waiting I get Part B, smartphone and home internet paid for because my income is basically $0. And 8% return and I can't get COLA on any investment.
@@MrWaterbugdesignIf you have enough savings, or other non-W2 income, to make it to 70 before claiming SS benefits, that's great. But, those of us without that safety net to rely on, are hard pressed to wait that long to claim benefits. Groceries, utility bills, car insurance and plates, property taxes and other non Medicaid covered expenses require beginning benefits sooner even though waiting until 70 is ideal, is not always possible.
You will make more at 70 with everything will be higher priced anyway.
When you are thinking about longevity, using the Social Security Actuarial Life tables is fine as long as you remember that those tables are based on population statistics. An individual's life expectancy is quite different. For example, I decided to take social security at a time when my life expectancy was very uncertain. Basically, I decided to start social security at 64 when I was diagnosed with fairly advanced cancer. I made the decision that I wanted to see some of my social security. My wife had already started her social security and my decision didn't impact her since her benefit is larger than mine. My point is that I looked at my personal life expectancy rather than considering population based statistics. Fortunately, treatment put my cancer into remission, but now at age 72 it is coming back. Consequently, I doubt I will make it to 80 since treatment of my particular cancer after relapse is generally not all that successful. So when looking at longevity start by looking at the actuarial life table, but modify your expectation based on your health and your genetics (family longevity, etc.).
Exactly as you should decide based on your circumstances. May you approach each day as a gift for we know not when we will see another. Peace.
🙏
Retired at 72,started collected SSA at 70. So glad I did. I feel blessed to have a job I loved !
Glad you could work until 72! More than half of retirees find that they retire sooner than they planned. For me, I was retired at 59, but had saved enough and knew job market would not be welcome to older white male in my profession. I could have stayed working if I free-lanced, but I was content to start that next chapter of my life. Eight years later, it is still the best decision I never made!
If you have a job you love, keep working as long as you want. But if you are done working, start collecting as soon as possible. I've done my own spreadsheet math on the various age based payment streams and it's not till age 76 until I would be better off waiting till an age later than 62. I can be collecting for 8 years (and not spending my savings which allows that to grow) before taking it at 70. Would you rather have the money to enjoy your life when you're younger and healthier, or when you may be too old to really enjoy it?
Factor in survivor and spousal benefits and the math changes. Also, waiting on Social Security provides a larger COLA adjusted benefit in your 80s and 90s. Of course if you have a large COLA pension then that advantage is less important.
I'll be Retiring less than Month after I turn 62 with Full Income Replacement. I have CalPers Coordinated with Social Security. I'll delay my Social Security by a Quarter to make sure My Severance Payment[s] [Two Months accumulated Vacation] don't collide with my first Benefit Payments. After my first SS Payment Deposit, I'll start traveling in SE Asia.
I took a reduced government pension at age 55 and moved to Thailand. I taught English part-time in a school to top it up. I live here for literally half of what it would cost me to live in the UK. Now, I am retired and receive an additional state pension. My advice is to get out as soon as you can afford to. Life is short, and we're all gambling on our health.
Are you missing your children and grandchildren? That’s what would stop me from living in another country far away.
@VivaciousOM Yes, I do miss my daughter and grandson, but they face call me regularly, and truth is pensions have not kept up with inflation over the last 15 years so I be living a very poor lifestyle if I moved back.
@@trevor5526 Thank you for replying. I’m happy it’s worked out with your family and living in Thailand. Enjoy your retirement!
There is another way to pay for Medicare if you are a retired federal employee, and not receiving social security. I retired as a federal employee at age 60. I decided to wait until 70 to file for social security. I had OPM deduct the Medicare premium directly from my monthly FERS pension.
Great video and appreciate the references to due the research and listen to experts. Thanks.
Glad you enjoyed it!
I’m 61, and have an HSA account and plan on using those funds to help pay my part B and part D supplements. Nothing like using triple tax free accounts instead of tax infested accounts to pay these costs. And more money for doing Roth conversions before you take SS at 70.
Unfortunately, I didn't have an HSA in my career. I also had Roth options only in my last job. Thanks for watching.
Thank you is not high enough level to say to you, much much appreciate your doing, the kindness in your voice, the clear speaker …you should be a professor at the University level.
I am 67 now, started to collect $$$ last year at my FRA, still working, love what I do, and keeping my mind as sharp as a younger person, and my routine. Do you have any ideas when the system will re-calculate my $$$ (I knew, these past working years to replace my early years)? God bless.
Thank you for your kind words! I don't know how that works. I know you did the right thing waiting until FRA if you want to work and collect! Too many take it early and have to deal with limits on earnings, which is a different complex calculation when the recalculate your benefits at FRA. Dennis Carroll's channel on RUclips might have the answer to your question.
Another good reason to delay SS. Taxes. SS can push you up into higher tax brackets vs getting the 8% per year credit for delaying. Also, no matter how much other income you have, at least 15% of SS is not taxable at the federal level and tax free in most states. For me the tax savings is 10% (20% tax vs 30%) thus I want to maximize that income along with its COLA.
Thanks for those insightful comments and a great video, Jim!
Glad you enjoyed it!
I think many want to claim Social Security as soon a possible. I think that is a poor strategy unless you have way more than enough. Legit reasons for claiming SS earliest would be 1) Hating your job 2) Having more than you need, with very little doubt of running out of money. 3) Health concerns. But collecting SS for the sake of collecting it, isn't a legit reason in my book.
I would concur with reasons 3 and to a lesser degree 2, but not 1. If you hate your job, change it! You may find ageism is a reason to begin your retirement. But I would have private savings to manage your optimal Social Security claiming age. Again, two separate decisions! That qualifies my respons to your reason 2. I'm taking retirement later because I have enough. I might need to file early if I didn't save enough in retirement plans.
@@IwasRetired - We are both coming at this issue from different angles. I am coming at it from the angle that "a person ALREADY wants to collect SS" because perhaps they feel that they don't want to risk leaving any SS money on the table. In other words, the people who may like their jobs, but their goal is to collect SS asap.
If I was guaranteed life till 90 you better believe I would wait to take SS at 67 or even later. You, me and everyone else entitled to SS are not granted life into our 80s or 90s. You take SS when you want. I’m taking it when I turn 62.
When you are 77 your SSA won't have kept up with inflation and then you will be poor.
But you will still care and not be in LTC yet.
Take SSA after 67.
Not 62
I plan to work past 70, in part because my wife is 7 years younger. She's 57, wants to retire when she hits 65 (Medicare age). She's on my insurance because that's cheaper than getting it from her employer. I also have a health savings account, which I would need to close before filing for SS after age 65. So the goal is to file for SS and Medicare Part A a couple of months before turning 70 (and stop the HSA six months before I file). Then apply for Medicare Part B and a Medigap plan when I do retire.
The comforting thing is that my boss told me recently that he is banking I work at least another 4-5 years, so my plan could work. I like my job, so working till 70 or beyond will be no hardship; I have several coworkers who are years my senior.
By my calculation, my break-even point for SS should be 78 years.
Thanks for watching and sharing your plans. I'm glad you can continue to work. Sometimes, new regimes and ageism make it impossible.
You may want to read up on Medicare part A because there may be penalties uf you don't apply at 65 regardless of what some people say. I would check with an expert.
@@kevincross1240 I have checked with Medicare experts, so I know what I’m doing. It’s amazing how many people wrongly believe that one has to absolutely sign up at 65 or face penalties. Medicare.gov is the best source if you want to research the subject. The AARP is also a good resource.
There’s an explanation about Health Savings Account that’s pertinent to me.
www.medicare.gov/basics/get-started-with-medicare/sign-up/when-can-i-sign-up-for-medicare
From what I read, if you are covered by an employer health plan, and the employer has over a certain number of employees, the penalty for not signing up for Medicare goes away.
No penalty for delaying part A past age 65
Yes, but make sure your employer plan qualifies. And while you can delay, you will have a special enrollment period once you leave your job. Be sure to pay attention to the rules.
I wouldn’t go by what an “Actuary” says on life expectancy. An actuary isn’t a doctor. Each person is different. Just because the average person who makes it to 65 is no guarantee they’ll make it to 84.
Yes, personalize your longevity risk. Start with actuarial data but adjust for your circumstances. There are detailed calculators on line to help you. And all of it is a guess just like how much inflation, how much risk and how much return you put into your plan.
Marvin: Unless you have a health problem, it makes sense to plan for a long life, not because you will live to 90 but, because you MAY live to 90. The risk is not dying young and leaving money on the table. The risk is outliving your savings or trying to survive on a meager SS benefit while over 80.
Exactly!
Social Security was not designed to dictate when you should retire. Although a lot of people wait until at least 65 because of the Healthcare Insurance problem we have in this country. Every other country in the free World provides healthcare for all of their population. We have become the 3rd world country when it comes to our healthcare system. We are not ranked very high at all in the world for the quality of healthcare and that might surprise a lot of people. I would LOVE to quit working at 62, but I would not have affordable healthcare until 65 (and even then that is questionable).
Pre-Medicare healthcare is another factor in a DIY retirement that arrives sooner than you expect. I have some other videos on that subject. Two more years to go until we are both on Original Medicare.
Have you priced a plan on Healthcare.gov? I was able to get a plan for 2 at $500 per month making $50,000 a year. That’s not too much more than I’m paying now considering I have to pay money into my HSA account to pay for out of pocket costs. Won’t hurt to see, each situation is different. Oh and absolutely agree that other countries are leaps and bounds ahead of taking care of healthcare for all. My son lives and works and Sweden and does not pay a monthly premium just to get healthcare. Good luck!
The reason that all of those other countries have free healthcare is because we have been the world’s policeman for the past 70 years. They can spend all of their tax money on Social programs because they don’t have to provide defense knowing that we will keep them safe. Our military is bigger than the rest of the world combined. When President Trump tried to point this out and get them to pay for their protection they all had fits.
We use easy pay as well deducted from checking...yet, we STILL get a false bill every month telling us what we owe but not to pay it....what a waste of MEDICARE postage, paper and manpower time.
Fiscal changes should allow SSA to send that electronically but that would cut government payroll. Such a dilemma! Guess how politicians vote on that?
As a teacher, I will never get social security. I am cobbling together teacher retirement plans from four different states, but it cannot match social security. Having said that, if social security goes under, I am still at least somewhat okay.
@@kaninma7237 understood. Thank you for teaching! But look at ways to roll over any 403b money into lower cost plans you control. The key is keeping the drag of fees as low as possible. Conversely many of us on SS will never get the pensions that teachers will collect.
You should use a break-even calculator to determine the age at which your lower SS benefit starting at 62, equals the same total cumulative benefit if you get the higher amount starting at FRA. My break even age is 83. If I expect to live longer than 83, it would be worth it to wait. My mom lived to 86 and my dad to 89. I am not as healthy as they were at my age, so I don’t really expect to make it to 80. I might wait to 64, but I don’t see much value in waiting longer.
if you are planning as a couple, you need to factor that as well. See my original video Why I'm Waiting for 70!
If you are a FERS retired federal employee, like myself that retired at age 60. At age 65, I had OPM deduct my Medicare from my federal pension. I then waited until 70 to file for social security.
For most folks, arranging direct pay for Medicare also works, right from your checking account each month. File for Social Security when it makes sense and not as a Medicare bill pay system!
This is a good video, I already knew everything presented here, but most people do not understand these facts. Taking Social Security at 62 is generally not the best choice, assuming you are in average or better health and are not desperate for the money. Delaying has a huge benefit for total benefits received, Tax implications due to a higher provisional income allowance, and reducing RMD's due to the fact that you spend down your IRA/401K amounts more in the early years, and take the higher SS income later. People really need to understand the full implications of all of these factors before making any decision to take SS. Also, an often over looked part is for a married couple, if the wife has a lower amount than the husband, for SS, then people need to know is that the wife will get the husbands benefit upon his death, were he to die first. However, if he took it at age 62 this amount will be a fraction of what it would have been had he deferred. Many, so called, finantual advisors do not consider a lot of these important points, so do your own research.
Thanks for watching! Survivor and spousal benefits were my final factor on why I'm waiting for 70!
@@IwasRetired Yes, your video is much better than most I have seen, you really did a good job of covering all the bases many miss. Thanks for your efforts getting this information out to the World. I think that the SSA should be doing a much better job explaining all of this to people than they do.
cx@@_Coffee4Closers Thanks for watching! I appreciate the comment!
Sarasota Tim says for everybody to retire at 62
I’ll check back with him when we’re in our 80s…
I've watched Tim and and he never talks about how everyone's situation is different. He also never talks about what other money he has stashed away. How did he buy that camper recently??? Not from SS!!!. Every person files for SS depending on many factors. I recently read a study that showed for every year you keep working after 65, you have a better chance at NOT getting Dementia or getting it at a much later age due to your mind being busy and having that human connection that sometimes falls aside in retirement life. Tim of course is an outgoing person so that might not come into play for him but it is another thing to think about. I'd rather NOT have dementia that have some extra money in the bank from taking SS early.
The guy lives in a camper.
@@RickMartinRUclips I haven't followed him closely. How does he get around the limit on earned income from 62 to FRA? So he filed early, works odd-jobs up to that pretty low limit, and then because he has made his bet early, he'll need to keep working that odd job for the rest of his life? "Florida Man Finds His Fortune!"
@@IwasRetiredYes, because of his (poor) choices, Tim has forced himself to do some kind of work until he dies. He appears to have no financial assets (except depreciating ones) and he spends more than SS pays.
For a healthy weight, nonsmoker, 64 yo male, longevity is closer to 94. John Hancock has a decent calculator based on a few health question.
Yes, in one of my earliest videos, I used a NWML longevity calculator and then joked, "make your spouse happier and add another five years." In those 80s and 90s, Social Security will be a benefit that will adjust with inflation. Annuities, many private pensions do not.
If you are eligible for Medicare plan A (being age 65 and a legal resident, e.g.), it will be free as long as you meet the qualifications.
I’ll be 60 this year. My wife is 10 years younger, doesn’t work and I have a 13 year old daughter. Will probably turn on social security at 62 since I just learned that my daughter will get half of my full social security until she’s 18, that’s for roughly 30 months. Was planning to turn it on at 70. At 62 will also start collecting NY state pension, not a full one (will only have 21 years on the job then and a full pension requires 30 years). Tragically lost my 18 year old son 2 years ago and not sure if I’ll ever recover from it so I don’t know if I’ll be around that long.
You have compelling family reasons to start soon. God bless.
🙏
So sorry for your loss. It's the toughest one there is.
How does the daughter get money? I'm 65, just laid off. Health problem with gout in my foot. I want to just go on SS
She will be 15 when I retire. Children under 18 get half of retiree’s PIA amount, so even though my benefit will be permanently reduced, we will be compensated by almost 3 years of additional benefits for her. My wife will also collect something for few months (till my daughter turns 16).
Good job. Sounds like your channel is similar to mine.
I will check it out
Enjoy your content. Just curious, what percentage of your retirement is in Roth accounts? And do you plan on doing more Roth conversions before Trump cuts expire and before you turn 70? Small window, expiring soon. 2026 tax will increase. I see continued gridlock.
My 2023 Results and Plans for 2024
ruclips.net/video/2cQikTzkWFI/видео.html. That’s in this video. I do small amounts up to tax tripwires. We will see where I am by 2026.
Congress has NO plan to fully fund SS and it will run out of money in less than a decade. Their only solution is to continue cutting benefits and to increase age requirements. How can you make more benefits in the future when they keep cutting them? I am "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" guy. Promises of more money later never materialize. I turn 62 next month and I'll take SS the second I qualify.
Opensocialsecurity.com allows you to test the mandatory cut in 2034, and waiting still provides higher lifetime totals. Since the mandatory cut is across the board, your benefit and my benefit will both be cut by the same percentage. But my higher benefit means I'll still come out ahead. For a single person, I might file as soon as my FRA. But I'm waiting to give my widow her highest benefit for the rest of her life after I'm gone.
Blame current workers for not wanting to pay more FICA. They vote also. Stop the knee-jerk blame of government.
@@SandfordSmythe we the people elect the government. Here’s hoping we elect people who will resolve “trust” issues and not just Social Security. Have you seen share of budget goes to interest on the debt?
@@IwasRetired The problem with the debt is also the voters wanting things and voting accordingly. Wanting to keep your job is not grounds for conjuring up conspiracy explanations.
@@SandfordSmythe You can't charge enough FICA to cover the full cost of SS, especially when the govt is giving it to illegals. The feds spend money on everything but SS. They expect payroll taxes to cover it all. My blame is well placed.
I was laid off last month. 65. Thinking about SS, as I have the foot problem with gout. Only have one daughter. How do I pay my child support? She's 15.
I take one allopurinol tablet a day. I haven't had a gout attack now for 5 years.
I'm pretty sure that if you're on SS, your dependent kids will also receive a SS check monthly.
@@conniechapin9278 yes
If I can retire at 60, which does mean that my funds can sustain me, I am not sure why I would wait to 70 before collecting social security. If you assume that you can survive without social security, and simply add it to a brokerage fund to grow, we can compute the amount of growth income over the years. Ignoring for inflation. If one assumes a 5% growth (one can assume after taxes have been deducted), at 85 years old, if you started collecting SS at 62, you would be making $66,000. If you waited to 70, you would be making $65,000. If you waited to 66, you would be making $68,000. Starting at 62 did better than starting at 70, but not as good as starting at 66. The question then becomes one of whether you care about missing out at $1,000 a year if you are 85 and can't really travel (and expenses are much lower anyway). If you are in a low income bracket, it makes sense to work until you are 70 so that you can survive on the higher social security payment. Even if one considers health insurance, we are talking about $14,000 a year. Taking the SS at 62 would reduce the subsidies by about $2400 a year, which doesn't seem to be much of a dent. If one were trying to optimize, one would need to know the specific growth rate. e.g. If you can earn at least 7% a year (with the market averaging 11%, or JEPI making 7% income), the growth from starting at 70 will never be as much as what one can make if one started at 62, no matter how long you live. It seems that taking social security early in this case provides for a sense of emotion security, rather than hanging on to extract maximum amounts from the government.
@@RickMartinRUclips That still does not explain why one should wait til 70 before taking SS. If one can survive without it, missing out on that last $1,000 a year off the optimal, or about 0.7% seems like one is focusing at the noise level. However, considering assisted living costs makes sense. The median cost appears to be around $55,000 annually. One would be trying for at least $55,000 anyway if one were living in one's own home and traveling. If one flies business class internationally for holidays, the lifestyle cost goes up. ie. One would be keeping costs similar but switching lifestyle. Of course, we will have inflation. However, the nature of inflation is such that the worth of each dollar drops over time. People's incomes therefore grow once equilibrium is reached, company profits grow, and therefore company valuations grow. The stock market and owning a home therefore adjusts for inflation. Social security also grows to compensate. If you just keep your money in a bank account, you are losing at least 2% a year, and that compounds over time. It is still my sense that if you can survive without social security, you might as well take it early. If you can't survive without it, then delaying it to max it out might make sense. However, if you were in that case, you might want to keep working to build up as much cash as you can. In between these 2 cases, and you have a balancing act which has more unknowns.
It is always a personal choice. Just do it for the right decisions. And if you are married and planning for two, plan for two!
Finally, money is fungible and SS is tax advantage income verses other provisional income. If you are not working and don't need $$ it still is better to take it early for you and your heirs. I ran those same numbers on the AARP calculator and at 5% return I think the breakeven taking SS at 62 vs 70 was appox 92 yrs of age. Any return above 5% the person taking SS late never caught up. Simply put money today is far more valuable than money later. How many years past 92 are you willing to bet you will live. Plus the younger you are the more utility you will get from the $$
70? Wtf! I'm not trying to be on the corporate America hamster wheel 🛞 that long!
Where are all these jobs for geriatrics going to come from?! Smh!!! 😶
I retired at 61 and I’m waiting until 70 for my Social Security. I have enough resources to take care of myself until then. I know several people doing the same thing.
I was retired at 59. And just waiting for 70 for Social Security benefits. I don't want to compete with AI robots in my old age!
alpha: You can retire many years before starting SS benefits.
Waiting till 70 gives me a break even point of 83. Is it worth it?
If you don't have a spouse who counts on spousal or survivor benefits, maybe not. But you need to factor that into your breakeven analysis. See my original Why I'm Waiting for 70 video.
Last month I saw an elderly woman 75+ pushing cart at WMRT.
If she took SSA at 62 she would fall behind inflation in 13 years.
Did not plan ahead.
Like you know what her options were.
She was really a 33 year old Meth head and getting more govt aid than a 75 year old that worked her entire life to collect at 70 !
75 plus 13 really ! 88. Shed be dead by then. Your statement makes no sense. What does pushing a cart at walmart have to do with anything
I kinda skipped when you hit longevity... Did you mentions the no 1 reason to take SS 'early'? YOU NEED THE MONEY. I'm happy you have a private nest egg that can provide for all your needs, $40G a yr for a median worker now a days after taxes, more or less. Few, very very few do so, due to our lousy wages.
As to longevity.
In short, having more money later may not matter much or at all. We will all end up needing a 'nursing home environment' and the older, the more likely. I'm sure there is a table showing this. Waiting unitl 70 to get more money may not mean much if at 80 you're in a nursing home. It will buy you a slightly better nursing home experience but it won't be a big difference.
in detail...
Here's something to consider, and having worked in long term care on the facilities side only, so not in the trenches, here's a fact. At some point, you'll need long term care unless you have saved up enough to hire someone to take care of you at home, PT then FT. So again for the VAST MAJORITY you will be going into a nursing home some day. If you have vast savings you can pay yearly for a really nice one, if not, you'll need to find the best that will just take all your SS money, what's left of your savings. Best meaning you'll have the best experience there. Some SS only can be pretty dreadful, and SS only isn't likely to be a lot of fun. However there is good news. When you need such care, you may not 'need' such enjoyable an experience. Ekkk yes we deteriorate in all ways, all too many of us. What seems NOW to be a depressing future might well at the time, not be so depressing. If you can still appreciate how you need the care provided and had no other way to get it, you might even be happier there than whatever the alt was. Depressing, yeah, all this is. Sigh.
www.aplaceformom.com/senior-living-data/articles/elderly-nursing-home-population# Social Security was never intended to be sole source of funds, so we do need to save for the future. It is the one benefit with a built-in cost of living adjustment, whereas many pensions do not, and your savings, unless properly invested will not be inflation protected either. As for we will all end up in a nursing home? You need to do a little research. This article says it is about 2.3%. It is more likely that you will need to age in place with support. I'll have some money in my 80s and 90s to arrange such help.
Who has a crystal ball and thinks they will live past 80.
@@drackkor725 Check out your family tree. But again SS is in case you do live into 80s and 90s.
You can wait for more when you're 70 but by then everything will cost more.
You can at 65 if you're that free.
1000.00 SS benefit at 62 opting to age 70 is leaving 96,000.00 on the table that you will never see. With 72 not guaranteed no brainer.
Another way of looking at it: $96,000 you could have taken out of tax deferred assets to spend at lower tax rates and/or converted to Roth. And the benefit grows 8% yr from FRA to 70. All depends on your circumstances.
🤘
what if you have EZ JOB AND MAKE OVER 150k A YEAR , WHAT DO YOU DO ?
Prepare for your retirement, which could come unexpectedly. But if you have a good job and enjoy it, keep enjoying it.
No one on their death bed ever said........... "I wished I worked longer"
@@kahvacso stupid. If you enjoy working, work. 150k is greater than a yearly SS check, have benefits including insurance. Usually abundant of leave.
Too much talk about what others polled on what they felt about life expectancy.
Plan on 90, expect 75.
Actually, go watch that David Blanchett video (link in the notes). Pick a life expectancy age based on your own health and circumstances. Not averages, but actuarial science. But don't just assume 90 or 95 or 105 in your financial plans to be conservative, since you might be too conservative in your retirement spending.
@IwasRetired
I'll agree with you.... but at some point, proper planning would be an infinite age.... and eventually a waste of time.
Since I've had one heart attack, I'll conceed and plan for age 100... then expect to die tomorrow!
Bottom line.... plan for the worst case, and expect to live at LEAST another day.
(enjoy the ride while you're there... but don't be surprised later on if you still want to buy more expensive tickets to ride again!)
I like your videos, BTW...!
Thanks for the honest feedback. Be well!
If you wait until 70, you won't break even until 82. Statistics say you wont live that long.
Breakeven rate is the wrong way to think about Social Security if you also consider spousal benefits and survivor benefits. Spousal benefits are important when comparing 62 and FRA. Survivor benefits are the factor between FRA and 70. I'm waiting for 70 to give my wife the highest survivor benefit -- with a COLA -- she can have for those years later in retirement when she is a widow.
My wife and I waited till full, we only need 28% of our annual SSI funds to exist. We haven't taped into our 401 yet.
Together we almost get the max at 74,540 a year before medicare deduction.
We worked longer to pay off our mortgage and cars to become dept free.
We have already finished our desired traveling, so we only do short motorhome trips now.
Our equity in our properties is our fall back, we'll just sell one.
Get dept free.
It's not what you make, it's what you owe.
@@OLDGUY7301thanks for sharing. Enjoy your retirement years. They were well earned!
Disagree entirely. Most people retire before age 62 because they have a employer based retirement plan. When they hit age 62 (or decide to wait) they are getting back what the government stole. That money isn’t returned with interest, what you get is a percentage of what they stole, and you never get it all back since the return is calculated at the average life span. It is all cleverly calculated. Even those that outlive the life span, and who collect more than what they put in.. they are not paid decades of interest so they will never get it all back. Social security is the biggest legalized scam in history.
So how should we think of social security? It’s a pay raise on top of your retirement plan, and if you are lucky it’s enough to cover a payment or two… with change left over for a turkey dinner.
For many younger Boomers, Gen-X, and younger generations, "employer-based retirement plan" was defined contribution savings plans, rather than pensions. I have one small pension, but most of my retirement savings are in IRA and 401(k) plans. So in a sense, I was able to accept that I was retired at 59, because I saved enough. Therefore Social Security is a payment on top, but I'm leveraging it for longevity insurance. Since most of my retirement savings will not have a COLA, it will be a chunk of the retirement income in my 70s, 80s, and hopefully, 90s with a COLA. Given the dwindling "trust fund" we also need to consider the 24% across-the-board cut in 2034 if rules are not changed. Even with that, waiting for 70 is the best choice for me.
Thanks for watching and sharing in the debate.
You will get WAY more than you put in, you will get an 8% increase in benefit for each year you delay after age 62 and it will be risk free. So unless you can invest at a guaranteed rate of greater than 8% with no risk, delaying is the smart choice. The thing about "interest" is a red herring, does your car insurance pay you interest? Did your homeowners insurance pay you interest? You have to think of SS as insurance against poverty in old age. You should have a multi bucket retirement plan with your SS being one bucket. You have your SS, and hopefully a Pension, or 401K, Brokerage account, and cash buckets. The idea that you need to take SS early so you can "get your money back" is very simpleminded thinking... if you really think that way then you best burn your house down so you can "get your premiums back" from that no good insurance company that ripped you off. 🤣
On top of all that how much did you actually pay in? I payed in around 80,000, but I will get an estimate with COLA's of around $4600 at age 70... so my expected life span would be 86 years... simple math says that I would receive $883200 in payments for my 80000. That does not include COLAS during the 16 years I would be collecting so that is a low number. Looks like it will in fact pay me some interest.
@@IwasRetired There will be no cut in 2034... I have been hearing about SS running out since I started my first job bagging groceries in 1976. SS is called the "third rail" of politics for a reason, there will be no cut. It's just like I have heard about "we will run out of oil in ten years" since I was a kid in the 70's.
Starwater: It will take me about 4 1/2 years to get more in benefits than I paid into SS.
Nothing was stolen. Taxes, levied by the government based on bills passed by Congress, are legal.
On top of other things already mentioned,not once did you mention the other benefits Social Security provides
You are mistaken on so many levels.
Yo Jim - what happened!?!? Doing social security videos?? What are you talking about??? Any fool can find this info on the net???
I'm simply sharing entertaining ideas from one DIY retiree that may help others. If you see the number of views on Social Security videos, you realize we all could compare notes. No fool's errand, in my book.
Hey, his videos ROCK!
SS is a very confusing topic for many. It's good to hear different perspectives. 😊
These videos are so informative, many people won't even know what to look for. If they don't know x thing or issue exists. 🙄
🤥🤥So we are supposed to believe the media with the statistics 🫣🫣
The way I see it, take it while you are young enough to enjoy life. Just look at a new born infant, then look at that infant 10 years from then. This is what happens to us in reverse.
Time, Time , 🕰⌛️⏳is the most precious to me.
That is a reason to retire and enjoy go-go years. But having enough money for no-go years is a reason to wait on the COLA-adjusted higher Social Security benefit. Ensure you have retirement savings to manage a successful retirement.
I havexseversl friends that are in their 80s. They had to go to work because they retired early and now can't pay for basic living expenses. I'm not sure that they are enjoying their retirement now.