We just started takung ss at 62 yr 10 mths it's what is best fir us. Furst dk when we die..2) if we waited or retirement would be almost depleted by 70
There are many people who are on the lower economic levels. They don’t have pensions and can’t afford financial advisors. They take social security at 62 because they need the money to survive! They don’t have alternative sources of income.
These guys are referring to their clients and other clients of financial advisors. These clients have alternative sources of income. Those who barely earn enough to survive are not the target audience for these videos, and should probably keep working as long as they can so they can take a larger social security benefit later, unless their health won’t allow them to. A person is going to always make more money keeping their full time job then leaving it to take social security.
The person who listens to you and plans to wait until FRA to take social security and then passes 1 month before FRA will never tell you that you were wrong. LOL. The way I look at it is that if my break even age is 80 when taking my benefit at 62 and I live past 80 then I'm still a winner.
Everyone's situation is different of course. One thing that isn't spoken about much is quality of life at the point of break even. Money has less "value" if you're not able to get the maximum amount of utility out of it. Old age isn't kind to most people.
Good video. I view SS as a deferred annuity that I have already paid for. I will defer to 70 for two main reasons. 1. A hedge/insurance. I took the lump sum pension instead of the annuity so if I defer SS and live a long life it offsets missing out on the pension annuity. If I die early my heirs get the lump sum pension. 2. Since at least 15% of SS is not taxable at the federal level and zero is taxed in my state, if I am in the 24% fed and 6% state, my total tax on other income is 30% vs 20% at most for SS, thus I want to maximize that monthly amount and the COLAs. 3. Deferring allows me to live off my 401k for the next 6 years, lowering future RMDs.
I won't hesitate to take it early if needed, but if I can make it to at least 67 social security will cover more than 90% of my current expenses. It's too personal of a decision to say any choice is the best, but I tend to lean toward taking it later. I also needed to leave work 2 years earlier than planned so there's that.
Exactly, it requires multivariate analysis. 1) What is your health situation?; 2) What is your spouse's age?; 3) Are you still working?; 4) Have you saved enough money to live without a social security check?; 5) Do you have a pension fund plus a 401k account for your retirement?; and 6) You should at least wait until your full retirement age (FRA) or age 70, which will increase your benefit by 8% per annum after your FRA calculated monthly. And, lastly, if your spouse is 10 years or more younger than you, you should file and suspend to collect a higher payout, which your spouse will inherit when you die.
@@Dolphinfinancialgroupfl I meant: If you are already entitled to benefits, you may voluntarily suspend retirement benefit payments up to age 70 for any reason including maximizing a survivor benefit.
You mention your grandfather waiting until FRA in 1965. Note that DRCs were not introduced until 1972 and were only 1% until raise to 3% in 1977. Only person born after 1943 received the 8% DRC we have today. He likely made the correct choice not to delay for no benefit!
Very interesting point. Tony's grandfather turned 65 in the mid to late 80s, so he may have been eligible for some DRCs. I don't think he expected to live to 102 though!
@@Dolphinfinancialgroupfl - Yeah, but it is the 8% that kicks S&P, given risk. It would likely not be the better choice. My Father turned 65 in '65, so when I got close, it did a bit of research to see how it affected different ages.
If I start social security at 62 and my full retirement is 67, let's look at the math. My break even point would be in my 80's so unless I live into my 90's, I am probably okay. That said I plan on waiting as long as my health allows. Everybody's situation is different. You don't get medicare til 65 and then you have to pay for a suppliment.
A married couple that's average, meaning the man is the one with the highest SSI and is 1.5 years older than your wife, should consider FRA. Even if he dies at 80, the spouse will benefit from this choice.
We won’t collect SSI (supplemental security income) welfare, which is means based. We can’t qualify due to having too many asset (you can’t have more than $2,000 in assets to qualify). I’m not sure if your strategy would work with SSI to tell you the truth. Thankfully, both me and my husband have worked decades so we both have earned our 40 credits and qualify for retirement benefits for all these years of paying into OSDAI/FICA. My husband is 68 and already collecting his. I’m only 60 and unsure when I will retire, but if I can hold off until 65 and Medicare eligible, my husband will be 73 and will have to take RMD’s. We can live comfortably on his SS retirement and RMD for a few years so I will delay my SS retirement benefit until at least 67 and possibly until 70 depending on needs at that time. If something happens and I can’t make it until 65, I still plan to wait until 67 to collect SS and we will just have to start spending down our retirement portfolio a bit earlier. Not ideal, but doable.
Take it early to take the heat off investments. Every day on this earth is a gift. Longevity is not a given. I'm taking at 62 or 63, with high earnings over my lifetime, it will still be mid $2k's for me.
You are overpaying, period. Calculate that out over 20 years on $1,000,000 and see what you are paying. It's ridiculously high at ~$242,000. You should pay no more than 0.40% for only investment advice/portfolio management. If they are providing tax (including preparing and filing your taxes annually), estate planning, financial planning, and investment advice/management, then I "might" accept 1.5% as an AUM fee. Otherwise fugetaboutit.
One half take it at 62.This is much higher because you have to factor in the healthy 62 year olds and all the people who sign up for disability at 62 that get their fra benefit at 62 instead of 67.
Why is Tony Shore listed as with Dolphin Financial? He is just a paid facilitator who works with many people who call themselves FAs to promote their businesses and approach. I was recently in contact with a commission based FA (insurance agent) who uses him to promote the company line on a whole host of absurd insurance products and schemes to divert money to insurance companies and third party money management.
I think when you retire makes the decision for you. For my situation my wife should claim at 65 and I should claim at 62. This is because all our social security will be invested making probably 6%. This means we get the COLA plus 6%. We expect I will die first and the invested money will make up more than the difference of my survivor benefit from my pension lose. Effectively this means my wife’s annual income won’t change when I die.
Taking social security asap before the grifters in charge reduce benefits, this threat becomes more realistic by the day as the trillions in debt accelerates
Anyone with even a modest amount of savings or pension, should be cognizant of the fact that some future Republican Congress could use a means test of their benefits. Or reduce benefits using some other tricky method. I took mine at 62 and 1 month because of that fact. At least I am less dependent on the dysfunctional Congress to support me.
Given the way the Bend-Points and Tax on SS benefits work, it is already somewhat means tested. SS is part socialistic Welfare; old protester avoidance plan...
I think 99% of finance RUclips channels are focused around people who are on the edge of not having enough money to retire. If you started early and have a few extra millions none of this talk really matters.
There isn’t a very large audience of people who have millions. Even if a person started early, they likely won’t have millions. Me, for example. No “millions” here.
We just started takung ss at 62 yr 10 mths it's what is best fir us. Furst dk when we die..2) if we waited or retirement would be almost depleted by 70
There are many people who are on the lower economic levels. They don’t have pensions and can’t afford financial advisors. They take social security at 62 because they need the money to survive! They don’t have alternative sources of income.
And dont forget tired of abusive empoyers who work them to exhaustion and dont care!
These guys are referring to their clients and other clients of financial advisors. These clients have alternative sources of income. Those who barely earn enough to survive are not the target audience for these videos, and should probably keep working as long as they can so they can take a larger social security benefit later, unless their health won’t allow them to. A person is going to always make more money keeping their full time job then leaving it to take social security.
What percentage of financial advisors are advocating this, almost everyone I see says wait till FRA at a minimum.
A good question which this study doesn't answer. It does suggest how the advisor gets paid influences the Social Security recommendation.
My fiduciary financial advisor who gets paid via a percentage advised me to wait til 70 to get Social Security
That's been the common advice I've seen for many decades now.
The person who listens to you and plans to wait until FRA to take social security and then passes 1 month before FRA will never tell you that you were wrong. LOL. The way I look at it is that if my break even age is 80 when taking my benefit at 62 and I live past 80 then I'm still a winner.
Everyone's situation is different of course. One thing that isn't spoken about much is quality of life at the point of break even. Money has less "value" if you're not able to get the maximum amount of utility out of it. Old age isn't kind to most people.
Spending early in retirement is definitely up on the priority list for many.
This whole issue of longevity makes having life insurance much more important.
This channel is very enlightening.
Good video. I view SS as a deferred annuity that I have already paid for. I will defer to 70 for two main reasons.
1. A hedge/insurance. I took the lump sum pension instead of the annuity so if I defer SS and live a long life it offsets missing out on the pension annuity. If I die early my heirs get the lump sum pension.
2. Since at least 15% of SS is not taxable at the federal level and zero is taxed in my state, if I am in the 24% fed and 6% state, my total tax on other income is 30% vs 20% at most for SS, thus I want to maximize that monthly amount and the COLAs.
3. Deferring allows me to live off my 401k for the next 6 years, lowering future RMDs.
Your points are spot on. We go into detail on spending down a 401k to delay SS here: ruclips.net/video/9P21Rue_ybY/видео.htmlsi=xCcYsP_shybunYjM
Thats fine if you dont mind giving up 108,000 +
@@ptk7240How are you giving it up, unless you die early?
I won't hesitate to take it early if needed, but if I can make it to at least 67 social security will cover more than 90% of my current expenses. It's too personal of a decision to say any choice is the best, but I tend to lean toward taking it later. I also needed to leave work 2 years earlier than planned so there's that.
Exactly, it requires multivariate analysis. 1) What is your health situation?; 2) What is your spouse's age?; 3) Are you still working?; 4) Have you saved enough money to live without a social security check?; 5) Do you have a pension fund plus a 401k account for your retirement?; and 6) You should at least wait until your full retirement age (FRA) or age 70, which will increase your benefit by 8% per annum after your FRA calculated monthly. And, lastly, if your spouse is 10 years or more younger than you, you should file and suspend to collect a higher payout, which your spouse will inherit when you die.
Great points. The "file and suspend" strategy was eliminated in 2015, but the idea of maximizing a survivor benefit by delaying is key.
@@Dolphinfinancialgroupfl I meant: If you are already entitled to benefits, you may voluntarily suspend retirement benefit payments up to age 70 for any reason including maximizing a survivor benefit.
@@randy74989 - If you intend to do Roth Conversions, SS income does add to the income pile.
You mention your grandfather waiting until FRA in 1965. Note that DRCs were not introduced until 1972 and were only 1% until raise to 3% in 1977. Only person born after 1943 received the 8% DRC we have today. He likely made the correct choice not to delay for no benefit!
Very interesting point. Tony's grandfather turned 65 in the mid to late 80s, so he may have been eligible for some DRCs. I don't think he expected to live to 102 though!
@@Dolphinfinancialgroupfl - Yeah, but it is the 8% that kicks S&P, given risk. It would likely not be the better choice. My Father turned 65 in '65, so when I got close, it did a bit of research to see how it affected different ages.
If I start social security at 62 and my full retirement is 67, let's look at the math. My break even point would be in my 80's so unless I live into my 90's, I am probably okay. That said I plan on waiting as long as my health allows. Everybody's situation is different. You don't get medicare til 65 and then you have to pay for a suppliment.
A married couple that's average, meaning the man is the one with the highest SSI and is 1.5 years older than your wife, should consider FRA. Even if he dies at 80, the spouse will benefit from this choice.
We won’t collect SSI (supplemental security income) welfare, which is means based. We can’t qualify due to having too many asset (you can’t have more than $2,000 in assets to qualify). I’m not sure if your strategy would work with SSI to tell you the truth. Thankfully, both me and my husband have worked decades so we both have earned our 40 credits and qualify for retirement benefits for all these years of paying into OSDAI/FICA. My husband is 68 and already collecting his. I’m only 60 and unsure when I will retire, but if I can hold off until 65 and Medicare eligible, my husband will be 73 and will have to take RMD’s. We can live comfortably on his SS retirement and RMD for a few years so I will delay my SS retirement benefit until at least 67 and possibly until 70 depending on needs at that time. If something happens and I can’t make it until 65, I still plan to wait until 67 to collect SS and we will just have to start spending down our retirement portfolio a bit earlier. Not ideal, but doable.
Take it early to take the heat off investments. Every day on this earth is a gift. Longevity is not a given. I'm taking at 62 or 63, with high earnings over my lifetime, it will still be mid $2k's for me.
What is the average commission on AUM? We are paying 1.5 percent.
1%
You are overpaying, period. Calculate that out over 20 years on $1,000,000 and see what you are paying. It's ridiculously high at ~$242,000. You should pay no more than 0.40% for only investment advice/portfolio management. If they are providing tax (including preparing and filing your taxes annually), estate planning, financial planning, and investment advice/management, then I "might" accept 1.5% as an AUM fee. Otherwise fugetaboutit.
I claimed my social security at 62 and have NO regrets.
Yep us 2 3 mths ago
One half take it at 62.This is much higher because you have to factor in the healthy 62 year olds and all the people who sign up for disability at 62 that get their fra benefit at 62 instead of 67.
For me 62 get my money why would wait till 67 for another 500 dlls forget about it the future is now
For me 62 makes sense
My husband and i both started our SS at 62 no regrets at all.
Why is Tony Shore listed as with Dolphin Financial? He is just a paid facilitator who works with many people who call themselves FAs to promote their businesses and approach. I was recently in contact with a commission based FA (insurance agent) who uses him to promote the company line on a whole host of absurd insurance products and schemes to divert money to insurance companies and third party money management.
I think when you retire makes the decision for you. For my situation my wife should claim at 65 and I should claim at 62. This is because all our social security will be invested making probably 6%. This means we get the COLA plus 6%. We expect I will die first and the invested money will make up more than the difference of my survivor benefit from my pension lose. Effectively this means my wife’s annual income won’t change when I die.
Taking social security asap before the grifters in charge reduce benefits, this threat becomes more realistic by the day as the trillions in debt accelerates
Anyone with even a modest amount of savings or pension, should be cognizant of the fact that some future Republican Congress could use a means test of their benefits. Or reduce benefits using some other tricky method. I took mine at 62 and 1 month because of that fact. At least I am less dependent on the dysfunctional Congress to support me.
Simply because you took SS doesn’t protect you against potential means test of benefits in the future.
Given the way the Bend-Points and Tax on SS benefits work, it is already somewhat means tested. SS is part socialistic Welfare; old protester avoidance plan...
Joe Biden, a DEMOCRAT, has lawlessly mandated means testing on all kinds of wealth confiscation, beginning next year or in 2026.
Who needs a financial advisor in 2025? RUclips videos and software make DIY planning simple.
I think 99% of finance RUclips channels are focused around people who are on the edge of not having enough money to retire. If you started early and have a few extra millions none of this talk really matters.
Very few people are in that position.
There isn’t a very large audience of people who have millions. Even if a person started early, they likely won’t have millions. Me, for example. No “millions” here.
Total BS… all depends on your situation…