Good stuff. Remember, even if you decided to delay your Social Security to say…. 67 or 70, if you retire at age 62 and you believe you’re gonna have sequence of return risks or that the market is going to stay down, you can always start Social Security at any point between age 62 and 70. Said a bit differently, my strategy will be to retire around 62, delay Social Security until 67 , but if the market turns down material, I’ll probably, then start claiming SSI earlier in order to protect my investments
I like the thought of the flexibility. If the market is soaring or flat at a high level when you first retire it makes sense to pull more from your portfolio earlier anticipating that there may well be a correction later when you’d like to pull less.
Good point. Sequence of return risk only applies if you need to withdraw from the accounts that have lost value. One way to mitigate that risk is have enough funds available that are invested in assets that will not decrease such as CDs or bonds to cover expenses until the market recovers
Great strategy on balancing Social Security with market risks! It’s wise to stay flexible with your plans. How do you plan to monitor market conditions and adjust your strategy accordingly?
This video is gold and confirms my own analysis: for people who retire with a portfolio of index funds and sell 2-4% every year to cover living expenses, early withdrawal at 62 outperforms delayed withdrawal at 70, because social security reduces the percentage of withdrawal, ultimately leading to a bigger portfolio at 70.
We're both claiming at 62, we're in year 60 now. I'm retiring next year at 61, she's a free-lancer in real estate and online sales/auctions so will keep doing that indefinitely. I'm going to just NOT be slave to an alarm clock anymore and with no ongoing requirements of maintaining a security clearance. I'm going to enjoy my many hobbies without always feeling rushed to get it all done over a weekend. SS will be $4100/mo for us and is actually enough to fund our needs without taking anything from our portfolio. We have no debts and will be mortgage free before I retire. I'm excited and scared but it's gonna happen!
That $4100/month may drop to $2100/month if your spouse dies. When that happens you need to have $600,000 invested in a low cost balanced fund or S&P 500 index fund so you can pull 4% per year ($24,000 or $2000/month) out for 30 years to replace the $2000 drop in income.
People who have horses live longer than people who don't. It doesn't mean you should get a horse; it means that they are wealthier and wealthy people live longer.
Your video confirms my plan as I am taking SS starting in 2025 at 63. The objective is to use the SS income to reduce the retirement portfolio withdrawls from equity positions as you explained so well. My plan is to have an additional 2 years of expenses in short term bonds to help avoid hitting the equity positions on a bear market. I'd love to see the example modified to have 2 columns for the portfolio: 1 for equities and 1 for the short term bonds. When the market goes down the withdrwals come from the bonds column to avoid selling equities in a bear market. When the market recovers the portfilio would be rebalanced to replenish the short term bond column by selling equities at a better price. That strategy should help minimize the market recovery pain at the expense of a portion of the portfolio being dedicated to short term bonds. I appreciate your work. Subscribed!
For me, people like you, who have taken SS at a certain age, are the ones to listen to because of their experience. The majority I see who have taken it at 62 are glad they did.
@@TM_Stone Ok - I retired before 60. I am delaying taking SS till 70. It increases my monthly income by well over $1000 / mo (amt varies based on a calculation using highest working income years). You can see projections for your personal SS based on history to date, at the social security site and read general info at: www.ssa.gov/myaccount/assets/materials/workers-61-69.pdf People have different situations to take into account (expected life expectancy concerns, personal or family health or need to care for a family member, etc), but someone in reasonable health, particularly with family history of long life (many of the men in my recent family history lived well over 90), could benefit significantly with a higher lifetime monthly benefit. So higher SS can be a form of longevity insurance with higher benefit for remainder of life, which can also impact spouse's survivor benefit. But it is a personal choice. As far as lifetime returns, taking benefits early, is kind of betting on a shorter life (because that would be how you would get higher total lifetime returns by starting SS early). Taking SS later, or at 70 is betting on a possible longer life, or at least insuring better monthly income, which provides a better lifetime income if the person lives longer than average life expectancy (and may benefit a surviving spouse, regardless), but there are of course no guarantees. --- You know the monthly rates are calculated, assuming you will live to the statistical average life expectancy from whatever date you start collecting SS. So essentially they take your estimated lifetime SS and spread it from your retirement age till life expectancy date. If you retire at 62 in theory the lifetime amount is just spread over 8 more years than if you retire at 70, when it is spread over 8 less years than the 62 year old retiree. Then that lower or higher rate is just extended (with some cost of living adjustments... at lower calculated totals for the people who collect early) for the rest of your life. No pressure.
At 62 I founded a startup and spent the next 6 years working furiously to make it successful. Those were some of the best years of my life. My years of schooling and experience finally paid off. I was at the top of my profession when I sold out and retired. 62 may be the optimal retirement age for some people, but everybody has a special story. Life is not about an age number, it is about you. Retire when it feels right.
Im 68 and delaying retirement and taking SS for 2 nore years. Since I didn't have a pension (but do have a good-sized 403b) SS is the only guaranteed income my wife and I will have until we pass into the Great Beyond. Unlike most people, though, I have a really good job that isn't very stressful and that i enjoy. I can also fade out of it gradually, which I'm beginning to do. I also have done a lot of travel in my life, not wanting to 'wait until retirement' in case I never made it. So if I die tonight I'll really have no regrets or things I wish I had done. I'm not waiting until I retire to live the life I want to live. I'm fortunate to already be doing that.
my philosophy is if youll need SS , because you didnt save well for retirement , delay as long as possible ... if you dont need it to survive , take it at 62 and make sure you get as much as possible and leave your investments to your kids ... only two things are certain in this life .... 1. you will die .... 2. you cant leave your SS to your kids
For those that can quit working & take SS at 62 and are in good health usually have at least this 1 thing in common & that is to have a large enough sum of money in some sort of savings and/or investment portfolios that will pay out $4,000+ per month, just in dividends, to go with their $2,000+ per spouse SS ($4,000+ SS total) benefits. I mean, without having those dividend payments, why would you quit working and try to live on $4,000 total per month on SS payments? And this is probably why many folks delay their SS from 62 until 70 & work until a later age because many do not have investments that can pay them even $1,000 per month.
I retired at 61. They were going to give me $1350 a month at 62. I declined. I’m currently 65 and I just checked and I could get $2,000 a month if I started right now. But by waiting until 70 my benefit will be around $3,300 a month. My wife is 11 years younger than I am so she will get my higher benefit when I pass.
I have a different viewpoint. Social Security is insurance. If I die without ever collecting it, then I will be dead and won’t need the money. But if for some reason I live to 100, I will be glad I waited.
This is an equally valid way to approach the claiming decision. As with most financial planning decisions, there is both a qualitative and quantitative evaluation that need be done. Quantitative is the #'s. Qualitative are the personal factors. Most financial planning decisions are actually determined by the qualitative factors - in this case, your belief about what purpose social security should serve you.
@@johnscott2746 try running a spreadsheet where you collect early and invest the money, if you can get 6% above inflation you will always beat taking the money later. a dollar in your hand is worth 2 in the bush and ten in the government's hands
I have never read about or heard anyone say that they regretted retiring and taking SS at 62. Never. Not once. Universally, I see and hear that "It was the best decision ever." Live your life while you can live it to the fullest.
This is the best video on this subject I’ve seen. Most of these videos don’t even mention sequence of return risks. The other thing is if you’re planning to pull more than the necessities because you can afford to you can always cut back a bit if you need to and SS helps enable this.
64 1/2 in the process if putting my retirement in the next 90 days. Don't know how much longer I have on this Earth so decided to just enjoy the rest of my life!
The way I look at it is if you can wait until 70, then it's a much higher annuity for life, inflation adjusted. With the current bull market, it's easy to keep withdrawing without much reduction of the portfolio or even growth. If there's a long term downturn, then I'd start to think twice.
If you are not working any more, so the decision is early collect or later delay, you are a winner up until the break even age. You may not make it that far or much farther anyway so you may as well enjoy it while you can. Having more money in your 60s is better than having more money in your 80s.
I was forced to retire at the very beginning of this year 2 months before turning 60. I will delay taking social security as long as I can, but my retirement was 3-4 years before I had planned to. It's working out so far, having a little side hustle is very helpful. I am living off what I can earn with what I saved but will not hesitate to take it at 62 if needed. I try to keep at least 2 years expenses in cash at all times so I have that going. Just, everyone, be prepared for your plans happening earlier than wanted, some things are not in our control.
I would like to see you carry these tables out to 85 to see the changes beyond 70. It a no brainer that additional income will slow the portfolio draw initially. What does the catch up look like.
Agree. If the scenarios only go to 70yo, and one portfolio doesn’t collect SS until age 70 before their first SS check, this analysis becomes meaningless by comparing a portfolio with SS to a portfolio with no SS. No brainer which will win. Only makes sense for someone who passes away at age 70.
You won’t live long after 70. And if you do why? You’ll have health problems. You’re not a productive member of society, your old and you’re in young peoples way.
I think the catch up time, or break-even that I’ve seen elsewhere is somewhere around 16 years. So if you start claiming at 70, it would take til age 86 to catch up to the guy that started at 62. You might not even make it to 86! Claim at 62.
You make a good point about using social security distributions to reduce withdrawals from other accounts when they are down, but from a long term planning perspective there are a couple of issues. First, life expectancy at 65 is significantly higher than at birth and even higher at 75 (the older you get, the longer you can expect to live.) Don’t be using 75 years as life expectancy for retirement planning. Second, and most importantly, what happens in your scenario when the retiree lives past 70? Getting to 70 is easy. Your example retiree could have the 1.4 million just sitting in cash and likely not out live it. Run your spreadsheets (better yet, use simulation) to 85 or 90 and tell me what the delta is then.
Excellent points on factoring in extended life expectancy and long-term planning. It’s crucial to consider how strategies will play out over a longer horizon. How do you currently adjust your retirement plans to account for such longevity risks and ensure sustainability throughout a potentially long retirement?
@@StressLessFinancial Don't know if you are asking me the question, but . . . regarding social security, I try to always remember what it really is. It's nothing more than an annuity that we are all forced to pay into for up to 35 years of our working lives. As an annuity, it's death insurance (insurance against a long life--the opposite of life insurance) not "income." That's why I'm letting it ride to its maximum payout while using other retirement assets to cover current expenses.
My husband has a pension and we both started collecting our SS at 62. We have more than enough to live off of these 2 incomes. We also have a 457 b which we don't need to draw from it will most likely be for our long term care. And we have quite a bit in savings.
Seems smart to reduce risk. There are enough variables to make this a personalized decision, and it may make no effective difference for some, but I see value in taking early
Sarasota Tim lives in a trailer on borrowed lot and has to work part time as a greeter to cover expenses. I’m not taking financial advice from a man with a lifetime of poor decisions.
Sarasota Tim dropped out of tenth grade, cannot handle basic math, never worked enough to build a decent Social Security account of his own, and started drawing from one of his ex-wives' Social Security accounts at age 62 because he was flat stinking broke.
Re. being forced to retire early, "Be Prepared." I've known many who were forced to retire and I didn't want that for me. I prepared financially, then decided I was ready mentally, then I hung around a bit longer to get the next bonus. Always better to leave on your terms. Maybe delay social security if: * portfolio is sufficient that higher early withdrawals do no harm * market is doing well In addition I'd consider: * spouse won't need the longevity insurance (the old age security in OASDI) * 8% annual increase in withdrawal for equal safety requires an 8% annual increase in nest age, will you get that if you claim earlier?
If you take SS at age 62, this increased income would reduce your tax credit if you need to get health insurance through the marketplace (below age 65). So that’s an important factor that you didn’t mention.
This is one the most in-depth videos covering this subject that I have seen. Well done. The only thing that I wish you had covered would be the comparative end results at say age 80 or age 90. Thank you!
I plan to take SS at 67 but if there is another 2008 type financial crisis I will probably take it earlier. I feel fortunate that i currently have that financial flexibility. Many people do not.
Very helpful. I calculated decades ago that the breakeven age for me, a single male, would be 82. I've seen 78 as the breakeven number for actual dollar total received, but that does not consider the interest value of dollars received earlier vs postponed. And so, both you and the US Treasury need to survive past your age of 82 for you to begin to come out ahead. I also consider (via my father's hints) that Medicare may one day triage our available coverages, and so I would emphasize conserving those cashable assets for your medical and care needs in the 80s and 90s.
If work was fun, you'd do it for free. Work, even at something you loved at first, turns into a grind for 95% of the people after years and years of doing it.
@@notanomad9320 - You are fortunate then. I adored aviation, became a commercial pilot. A dream job. After 30 years of 3:00 AM trans-atlantics, FAA check rides every 9 months, FAA aeromedical exams yearly, drug and alcohol tests, bad weather, bad passengers, etc etc. It turned into... something unpleasant. The magic was long gone.
@@notanomad9320Not necessarily easy for everyone to do. Single mom of 3 kids, relatively small town with no equivalent position/employer/income in the same field. Not going to uproot my kids for my job satisfaction; that would be selfish.
Mortality age needs to be adjusted to your current age. If you are 62, your mortality age is higher than it was when you were 52. A 62 year old male is likely to live until about age 82.
The chances that Congress will successfully reduce benefits across the board has now increased exponentially. Another good reason to claim now if you are 62 and lock in your payout.
The SSA has a pretty good handle on when we’re going to check out and while we may go beyond that there are a lot who check out quicker. The breakeven point between taking it at 62 and 70 is somewhere around 80 +- it really doesn’t make a lot of difference except in those rare cases where we out live the tables. In any case you really need the money sooner in the go go years and not in the slow or no go years. I’m taking it at 62 because my wife didn’t work and is 5 years older than me so she’ll get the full measure of half of my benefit at 67 while I will have a 30% reduction but overall it would be better as a family. For something so simple it is really complicated.
Thank you for showing that the basic "break even" points that people use as a rule of thumb is more nuanced. SOOOO many people think that they can just "straight line" SS payments at 62 vs 70 and determine that as long as they live past 82, they'll be ahead, when the reality is - if you are in the scenario that you have depicted here - the break even could be much later than 82. I mean, even at better rates of return than your example, the age 62 filer has a much more robust account balance at 70 than the 70 filer. Taking SS early is not only a prophylactic against poor returns, but also a benefit in good returns. I'm not saying 62 is the right choice, just that this scenario has to be considered in any break-even analysis.
Excellent presentation, I have a question, Im a 63 y/o retiree, collect SS and have a pension ( house paid for ), no kids or heirs ,800 K , dont mind spending down my monies , Im of the believe a Roth Conversion is NOT for me ( Im in a 12 % bracket ) Im I correct in my assumption?
Good move, given that Social Security will become insolvent in 2033 (per the SSA website), and payments will be cut 21% that year. Better to get something now than nothing later.
Bad idea to collect at 62. I know too many people who had to go back to work for one reason or another, but we’re limited to only making $21k/yr due to pulling before their full retirement. Be careful.
I retired 12 years ago at 50 and next month I'm colleting SS at 62. I don't need the money but I'm taking it and investing it. My break even age is 77 but if I invest it all it could be around 85. Plus, the way the Govt is spending I'm getting mine now before it's all gone!! But good luck!!
The sequence of return risk is typically why people put some money in bonds. Ideally enough to cover whatever income is needed during a downturn in the market. That way the person can avoid selling stocks when they are low in value. Interesting video, though. A lot to consider.
Good video. A piece of feedback if I may. I know you said "we don't know what will happen here" after year 70, but that is entirely the purpose of delaying SS. I see a benefit in stretching this video out just a minute or two longer to see what another 10 years could look like. If at 80, there is still a tangible benefit to starting SS early, I would see a stronger conclusion.
Another way to interpret the correlation between early retirement and increased mortality rates is to turn it around: people with poorer health will be more likely to be forced into an earlier retirement. So the conclusion in that case would not be that retiring later is healthier, rather that poor health will lead to earlier retirement. Of course, we don't know which is true (no cause and effect known here) but it seems to me that this is more likely than the reverse conclusion.
Per the Social Security website, "The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund will be able to pay 100 percent of total scheduled benefits until 2033, unchanged from last year's report. At that time, the fund's reserves will become depleted and continuing program income will be sufficient to pay 79 percent of scheduled benefits." So, payments will be cut by 21% in 2033, and it seems likely that further future cuts will follow. I'd say that taking SS at 62 is a smart move, as it is better to get something now versus nothing later.
SS will not be cut at all - let alone by 20% or more - simply because it cannot be cut. A very large number of folks are solely living on SS and can barely squeeze by month to month. Any cut in SS will wreak havoc and cause instant chaos across this nation, especially when SS can be saved by a few changes in the law.
According to the SSA website, "The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund will be able to pay 100 percent of total scheduled benefits until 2033, unchanged from last year's report. At that time, the fund's reserves will become depleted and continuing program income will be sufficient to pay 79 percent of scheduled benefits." So, payments will be cut by 21% in 2033, and it seems likely that further future cuts will follow. So I'd say that taking SS at 62 is a smart move.
Thanks. Taking ss late is longevity insurance. It also gives bigger spousal benefits and a longer roll over window. In a downturn, do bigger roll overs. Can you give us these examples too? Cheers
Please get an accurate estimate of your health insurance premiums because you won't get Medicare until age 65. Health insurance rates are over $1000 per month for an individual age 62 where I live.
Well, In the scenario provided the avg annual rate of return he is showing from the investments is 0.833%. So this skews the numbers in favor of taking SS early. In the last 100 years there has not been a return that low over a 9 year period. Therefore the conclusion drawn is way off and very inaccurate information.
While I chose to claim early, this presentation seems to be biased towards early claiming. The benefit from claiming late appears after 70 y/o,due to higher SS payments. The portfolio comparison should extend to 90 y/o. Most of us won't live that long, but I don't want to risk looking for a job at 85 y/o.
How can I keep making money on my saved money and not exceed the 26K allowed a year, my wife is older, can I place the money in her name and then be able to collect my SSN any time between 62 and 67 if I leave my day job?
Only comparing portfolio values at 70, is useless. Of course your investment portfolio would be larger at 70 if you claim SS at 62. At least compare values later than 70, so the larger SS payout, (claiming at 70) can reveal its impact.
Early retirement doesn't mean that it causes people to die earlier. Correlation doesn't prove causation. It is more likely that people who have poor health (i.e. going to die earlier), retire earlier.
Another video says you can apply for a spousal benefit and then change to your own benefit later. For my wife, her own benefit at full retirement age is $2100 vs $2000 for the spousal. Can she allow the $2100 grow for 3 years while collecting $2000 then switch at age 70 to get $2600? If so it seems like $72k of free money?
That’s what I’m going to do, and as a widow I’ll start at age 60, and let my own grow until I’m 70, which will obviously make an enormous difference. I had no idea this was possible until I watched Dr Ed Weir’s channel. He worked for social security for decades (as he will mention repeatedly in his rather rambling, but still unbelievably informative videos😂). I’m grateful for all the channels providing insight into this essential topic 🙏
In order to draw married spousal benefits the higher earning spouse must also be drawing. And the lower earning spouse would be required to take any SS benefits they have first. So no, that would not be an option.
Thanks for excellent video. How long do i need to be married to someone in order for them to qualify for 1/2 of what I'm getting in social security benefit checks? Does that amount of time have to have transpired before i start withdrawals for them to qualify for this benefit?
5:22 I think you are interpreting this very wrongly. It most likely meana that ppl who are unhealthy so that they cant work have to retire vs you die early becuz you retired. For healthy ppl, it'd be opposite - you'd live longer if you retire eaely
I read a statistic that only 5% of Social Security claimants maximize benefits by taking them at age 62. While my concern will never be getting the most out of Social Security to the penny (which can't be fully known anyway), I am going to wait until 70 for various reasons
Thanks for the comparison. One bit of feedback on the video recording. The shadow from your mini-blinds was really distracting. Consider avoiding this in the future.
Yes :( I didn't notice it during the recording, and only in the post production. I wasn't able to fix it but it was annoying and distracting to me as well. I ordered some better blinds and hopefully that should do the trick!
Well this advice is good for people below the 26K mark on income. My Money markets make well over 5K a month so I can not get my SSN at 62, I can apply but I am screwed plus my day job pays well over 6 figures so again I am screwed. this sucks and making me wait to 67 blows. The SSN is my money and at 62 no matter what I make I should be able to collect all of it and not be shot in the head because I was smart and make too much.
You have to work till you die. Social Security is not enough as most people have very small retirement and while you work you generally have health care which becomes a bigger expense. Most of my family has lived to 92 and had 0 the amount of of healthy habits compared to me.
We are never guaranteed tomorrow. It rarely makes sense to delay ss passed 62. The break even on funds is age 76 1/2. Get your damn money. Never let the evil government get it.
While I agree, I think he made it overly complex with the tables and scenarios. I can give you a simple test to ponder. I am currently at this point. I am 66 and will stop work/retire at 67 1/2 (Dec 2025). I will be eligible for full SS at 66 and 8 months (next March 2025). SSA only increases yearly in Jan. No complex compounding interest math, just simple math, If I start my full SS in March of 2025 and bank it (as I am still working) with no interest for 10 months I will have $x.00 Then I look at the amount increased SSA will offer in Jan 2026 if I waited that extra 10 months to start. It is $y.00. (I use $x.00 and $y.00 because the same break even is the same even if you insert your numbers.) Here is the simple math. banking my SSA for 10 months vs the extra increase is a 12.5 year break even. This means if I live long enough to collect SS past 12.5 years, then I win. If I die within 12.5 years of delaying my SS, the SSA wins. This is validated by the number I have heard the SSA increases 8% each year you delay. It just so happens that 8% into 100% is 12.5. I feel young and healthy at 66 and expect to be fine at 67 1/2 when I retire but the 12.5 year break even point puts me at 80 years old. If, God willing, I live well into my 80's I should have delayed my SS. But even from this video it states the average age of dying for a male is 74. I have been noticing so many people dying at 75, 76 77 etc. I talk of collecting at 66 and 8 months vs 67, but the math and break even is the same of waiting to 68, 69 or 70. It is a 12.5 year break even. If you wait until you are 70 you need to ask your self if you will live to 82.5 ?
This was simpler? 😊 The tables were helpful. But basically, we could all use a crystal ball to see if the break even point and when we start SS is the best decision.
His point is that time is more important than the break even point, provided you live long enough. Even more so is the opportunity lost to spend time the way you imagine your retired rich life is supposed to be lived. Just my .02. The computation is the same but your life span is not a given - just ask a cardiologist.
Thanks for the video! However, did you know that you have stripes on the side of your face and shirt? They are a bit distracting. I suggest closing the window blinds.
My plan is to get rid of the house at age 63, then retire and minimize income for 2 years. Then claim medicare at 65 and wait at least one year to start social security. 67 is FRA, but I might not wait that long. Depends on how the markets do in 7-10 years from now.
This video was meant to target people that oversave but you spewed a bunch of meaningless word salad and graphs in an already difficult world of uncertainty. This brought no light to anything for anyone that is worried and over save. You brought up 85,000 different possible scenarios and that everyone is a unique snowflake and all sorts of uncertainty which is EXACTLY why the people that oversave do so. After this video, I bet absolutely no oversavers figured out an actionable plan. Dumb... and I want my time and money back!!
People don't take it "early" by chance. They do it because they are either in poor health and don't expect to live much longer or because they didn't save and plan enough to cover the gap. Those who take it late are the ones who are healthy or believe themselves to be healthy, have longevity in their family, and/or have enough savings so it's doesn't hurt them much to wait. You can't compare these two groups of people because they are apples and oranges.
This was an extremely disingenuous presentation by only focusing on the points that support your conclusion. Prime example: showing portfolio balance differences at age 70. That is pointless, of course the age 62 start will have a higher portfolio balance, Captain Obvious.
The jump cuts in your videos are brutal. I can't get past them they are so distracting. You need to get better at delivering your content in longer chunks.
If you consider taxes, it is best to draw from your portfolio (especially tax defferd accounts) and delay ss until 70. I have done these calculations and thus one should definitely consider taxes over ones retirement when considering when to claim ss.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Good stuff. Remember, even if you decided to delay your Social Security to say…. 67 or 70, if you retire at age 62 and you believe you’re gonna have sequence of return risks or that the market is going to stay down, you can always start Social Security at any point between age 62 and 70. Said a bit differently, my strategy will be to retire around 62, delay Social Security until 67 , but if the market turns down material, I’ll probably, then start claiming SSI earlier in order to protect my investments
Gotta stay nimble
I like the thought of the flexibility. If the market is soaring or flat at a high level when you first retire it makes sense to pull more from your portfolio earlier anticipating that there may well be a correction later when you’d like to pull less.
Good point. Sequence of return risk only applies if you need to withdraw from the accounts that have lost value. One way to mitigate that risk is have enough funds available that are invested in assets that will not decrease such as CDs or bonds to cover expenses until the market recovers
Great strategy on balancing Social Security with market risks! It’s wise to stay flexible with your plans. How do you plan to monitor market conditions and adjust your strategy accordingly?
Is this question meant for me? It came through my email but does not seem to relate to my comment.
This video is gold and confirms my own analysis: for people who retire with a portfolio of index funds and sell 2-4% every year to cover living expenses, early withdrawal at 62 outperforms delayed withdrawal at 70, because social security reduces the percentage of withdrawal, ultimately leading to a bigger portfolio at 70.
We're both claiming at 62, we're in year 60 now. I'm retiring next year at 61, she's a free-lancer in real estate and online sales/auctions so will keep doing that indefinitely. I'm going to just NOT be slave to an alarm clock anymore and with no ongoing requirements of maintaining a security clearance. I'm going to enjoy my many hobbies without always feeling rushed to get it all done over a weekend. SS will be $4100/mo for us and is actually enough to fund our needs without taking anything from our portfolio. We have no debts and will be mortgage free before I retire. I'm excited and scared but it's gonna happen!
That $4100/month may drop to $2100/month if your spouse dies. When that happens you need to have $600,000 invested in a low cost balanced fund or S&P 500 index fund so you can pull 4% per year ($24,000 or $2000/month) out for 30 years to replace the $2000 drop in income.
The reason mortality effects people who retire earlier is many people who retire early do so due to health issues.
I was thinking the same thing. He's def wrong on the cause effect vs correlation here
People who have horses live longer than people who don't. It doesn't mean you should get a horse; it means that they are wealthier and wealthy people live longer.
And most eat crap and sit on their asses too.
Whatever you do, don't just do nothing when you retire.
Exercise, garden, enjoy your hobbies or start a new one. Move and do something. Anything.
Your video confirms my plan as I am taking SS starting in 2025 at 63. The objective is to use the SS income to reduce the retirement portfolio withdrawls from equity positions as you explained so well.
My plan is to have an additional 2 years of expenses in short term bonds to help avoid hitting the equity positions on a bear market. I'd love to see the example modified to have 2 columns for the portfolio: 1 for equities and 1 for the short term bonds. When the market goes down the withdrwals come from the bonds column to avoid selling equities in a bear market. When the market recovers the portfilio would be rebalanced to replenish the short term bond column by selling equities at a better price. That strategy should help minimize the market recovery pain at the expense of a portion of the portfolio being dedicated to short term bonds. I appreciate your work. Subscribed!
I’m 65. Took it at 62. Best decision ever.
For me, people like you, who have taken SS at a certain age, are the ones to listen to because of their experience. The majority I see who have taken it at 62 are glad they did.
Agree. Got all my "contributions" back in 4 years. Kept my income low to not be suckered by the greatest Ponzi ever.
@@TM_Stone Ok - I retired before 60. I am delaying taking SS till 70. It increases my monthly income by well over $1000 / mo (amt varies based on a calculation using highest working income years). You can see projections for your personal SS based on history to date, at the social security site and read general info at: www.ssa.gov/myaccount/assets/materials/workers-61-69.pdf People have different situations to take into account (expected life expectancy concerns, personal or family health or need to care for a family member, etc), but someone in reasonable health, particularly with family history of long life (many of the men in my recent family history lived well over 90), could benefit significantly with a higher lifetime monthly benefit. So higher SS can be a form of longevity insurance with higher benefit for remainder of life, which can also impact spouse's survivor benefit. But it is a personal choice. As far as lifetime returns, taking benefits early, is kind of betting on a shorter life (because that would be how you would get higher total lifetime returns by starting SS early). Taking SS later, or at 70 is betting on a possible longer life, or at least insuring better monthly income, which provides a better lifetime income if the person lives longer than average life expectancy (and may benefit a surviving spouse, regardless), but there are of course no guarantees. --- You know the monthly rates are calculated, assuming you will live to the statistical average life expectancy from whatever date you start collecting SS. So essentially they take your estimated lifetime SS and spread it from your retirement age till life expectancy date. If you retire at 62 in theory the lifetime amount is just spread over 8 more years than if you retire at 70, when it is spread over 8 less years than the 62 year old retiree. Then that lower or higher rate is just extended (with some cost of living adjustments... at lower calculated totals for the people who collect early) for the rest of your life. No pressure.
Did you stop working at 62? What did you do to keep busy?
At 62 I founded a startup and spent the next 6 years working furiously to make it successful. Those were some of the best years of my life. My years of schooling and experience finally paid off. I was at the top of my profession when I sold out and retired. 62 may be the optimal retirement age for some people, but everybody has a special story. Life is not about an age number, it is about you. Retire when it feels right.
Im 68 and delaying retirement and taking SS for 2 nore years. Since I didn't have a pension (but do have a good-sized 403b) SS is the only guaranteed income my wife and I will have until we pass into the Great Beyond. Unlike most people, though, I have a really good job that isn't very stressful and that i enjoy. I can also fade out of it gradually, which I'm beginning to do. I also have done a lot of travel in my life, not wanting to 'wait until retirement' in case I never made it. So if I die tonight I'll really have no regrets or things I wish I had done.
I'm not waiting until I retire to live the life I want to live. I'm fortunate to already be doing that.
my philosophy is if youll need SS , because you didnt save well for retirement , delay as long as possible ... if you dont need it to survive , take it at 62 and make sure you get as much as possible and leave your investments to your kids ... only two things are certain in this life .... 1. you will die .... 2. you cant leave your SS to your kids
It is kind of reverse logic but I like it 😊
If you need SS most people will need to claim it ASAP.
For those that can quit working & take SS at 62 and are in good health usually have at least this 1 thing in common & that is to have a large enough sum of money in some sort of savings and/or investment portfolios that will pay out $4,000+ per month, just in dividends, to go with their $2,000+ per spouse SS ($4,000+ SS total) benefits. I mean, without having those dividend payments, why would you quit working and try to live on $4,000 total per month on SS payments? And this is probably why many folks delay their SS from 62 until 70 & work until a later age because many do not have investments that can pay them even $1,000 per month.
I retired at 61. They were going to give me $1350 a month at 62. I declined. I’m currently 65 and I just checked and I could get $2,000 a month if I started right now. But by waiting until 70 my benefit will be around $3,300 a month. My wife is 11 years younger than I am so she will get my higher benefit when I pass.
That's all and well IF you live to age 70.
I knew three people that recently died at ages 63, 67, and 71.
Once a human hits age 60 time is fleeting.
I have a different viewpoint. Social Security is insurance. If I die without ever collecting it, then I will be dead and won’t need the money. But if for some reason I live to 100, I will be glad I waited.
This is an equally valid way to approach the claiming decision.
As with most financial planning decisions, there is both a qualitative and quantitative evaluation that need be done.
Quantitative is the #'s. Qualitative are the personal factors.
Most financial planning decisions are actually determined by the qualitative factors - in this case, your belief about what purpose social security should serve you.
@@johnscott2746 try running a spreadsheet where you collect early and invest the money, if you can get 6% above inflation you will always beat taking the money later. a dollar in your hand is worth 2 in the bush and ten in the government's hands
@@ThePeakFP Thanks for a more comprehensive explanation; no cookie cutter answer! Good job!
I have never read about or heard anyone say that they regretted retiring and taking SS at 62. Never. Not once. Universally, I see and hear that "It was the best decision ever." Live your life while you can live it to the fullest.
That is because they brag until they are 80 (breakeven point) then spend the next 20 years eating humble pie or dead.
@@scottscott5827 😂😂😂
This is the best video on this subject I’ve seen. Most of these videos don’t even mention sequence of return risks. The other thing is if you’re planning to pull more than the necessities because you can afford to you can always cut back a bit if you need to and SS helps enable this.
Thank you for the kind words.
Glad you enjoyed the video!
@@ThePeakFP Excellent upload what a great presentation. I agree 100%
64 1/2 in the process if putting my retirement in the next 90 days. Don't know how much longer I have on this Earth so decided to just enjoy the rest of my life!
The way I look at it is if you can wait until 70, then it's a much higher annuity for life, inflation adjusted. With the current bull market, it's easy to keep withdrawing without much reduction of the portfolio or even growth. If there's a long term downturn, then I'd start to think twice.
I think this is a very reasonable and wise option!
What if you don't live that long
If you are not working any more, so the decision is early collect or later delay, you are a winner up until the break even age. You may not make it that far or much farther anyway so you may as well enjoy it while you can. Having more money in your 60s is better than having more money in your 80s.
I was forced to retire at the very beginning of this year 2 months before turning 60. I will delay taking social security as long as I can, but my retirement was 3-4 years before I had planned to. It's working out so far, having a little side hustle is very helpful. I am living off what I can earn with what I saved but will not hesitate to take it at 62 if needed. I try to keep at least 2 years expenses in cash at all times so I have that going. Just, everyone, be prepared for your plans happening earlier than wanted, some things are not in our control.
Very good explanation. Great details. Like others have said it would be nice to see up to age 85. Thanks for all your hard work.
I would like to see you carry these tables out to 85 to see the changes beyond 70. It a no brainer that additional income will slow the portfolio draw initially. What does the catch up look like.
Agree. If the scenarios only go to 70yo, and one portfolio doesn’t collect SS until age 70 before their first SS check, this analysis becomes meaningless by comparing a portfolio with SS to a portfolio with no SS. No brainer which will win. Only makes sense for someone who passes away at age 70.
So are u guys suggesting that going out to 85, it would prove to make more sense to delay ss?
You won’t live long after 70. And if you do why? You’ll have health problems. You’re not a productive member of society, your old and you’re in young peoples way.
I think the catch up time, or break-even that I’ve seen elsewhere is somewhere around 16 years. So if you start claiming at 70, it would take til age 86 to catch up to the guy that started at 62. You might not even make it to 86! Claim at 62.
@@wampy31 what rate of return are you expecting 10%+? 78.5 is generally the expected breakeven between 62 and 70 take points.
You make a good point about using social security distributions to reduce withdrawals from other accounts when they are down, but from a long term planning perspective there are a couple of issues. First, life expectancy at 65 is significantly higher than at birth and even higher at 75 (the older you get, the longer you can expect to live.) Don’t be using 75 years as life expectancy for retirement planning. Second, and most importantly, what happens in your scenario when the retiree lives past 70? Getting to 70 is easy. Your example retiree could have the 1.4 million just sitting in cash and likely not out live it. Run your spreadsheets (better yet, use simulation) to 85 or 90 and tell me what the delta is then.
Excellent points on factoring in extended life expectancy and long-term planning. It’s crucial to consider how strategies will play out over a longer horizon. How do you currently adjust your retirement plans to account for such longevity risks and ensure sustainability throughout a potentially long retirement?
@@StressLessFinancial Don't know if you are asking me the question, but . . . regarding social security, I try to always remember what it really is. It's nothing more than an annuity that we are all forced to pay into for up to 35 years of our working lives. As an annuity, it's death insurance (insurance against a long life--the opposite of life insurance) not "income." That's why I'm letting it ride to its maximum payout while using other retirement assets to cover current expenses.
My husband has a pension and we both started collecting our SS at 62. We have more than enough to live off of these 2 incomes. We also have a 457 b which we don't need to draw from it will most likely be for our long term care.
And we have quite a bit in savings.
Seems smart to reduce risk. There are enough variables to make this a personalized decision, and it may make no effective difference for some, but I see value in taking early
Sarasota Tim believes 62 is the ideal age for most, as most people never reach the age they believe they will die at.
Sarasota Tim lives in a trailer on borrowed lot and has to work part time as a greeter to cover expenses. I’m not taking financial advice from a man with a lifetime of poor decisions.
Sarasota Tim is uneducated and cannot comprehend Actuarial Tables based on age. He is not mentally that sharp IMHO.
Who da fuk is Sarasota Tim? 😂
Sarasota Tim dropped out of tenth grade, cannot handle basic math, never worked enough to build a decent Social Security account of his own, and started drawing from one of his ex-wives' Social Security accounts at age 62 because he was flat stinking broke.
Re. being forced to retire early, "Be Prepared." I've known many who were forced to retire and I didn't want that for me. I prepared financially, then decided I was ready mentally, then I hung around a bit longer to get the next bonus. Always better to leave on your terms.
Maybe delay social security if:
* portfolio is sufficient that higher early withdrawals do no harm
* market is doing well
In addition I'd consider:
* spouse won't need the longevity insurance (the old age security in OASDI)
* 8% annual increase in withdrawal for equal safety requires an 8% annual increase in nest age, will you get that if you claim earlier?
If you take SS at age 62, this increased income would reduce your tax credit if you need to get health insurance through the marketplace (below age 65). So that’s an important factor that you didn’t mention.
This is one the most in-depth videos covering this subject that I have seen. Well done. The only thing that I wish you had covered would be the comparative end results at say age 80 or age 90. Thank you!
I plan to take SS at 67 but if there is another 2008 type financial crisis I will probably take it earlier. I feel fortunate that i currently have that financial flexibility. Many people do not.
Very helpful. I calculated decades ago that the breakeven age for me, a single male, would be 82. I've seen 78 as the breakeven number for actual dollar total received, but that does not consider the interest value of dollars received earlier vs postponed. And so, both you and the US Treasury need to survive past your age of 82 for you to begin to come out ahead. I also consider (via my father's hints) that Medicare may one day triage our available coverages, and so I would emphasize conserving those cashable assets for your medical and care needs in the 80s and 90s.
Why do so many people work jobs in they hate and can't wait to retire? I imagine the daily stress and frustration affects your health.
Because that's what life has thrown at me.
If work was fun, you'd do it for free. Work, even at something you loved at first, turns into a grind for 95% of the people after years and years of doing it.
@@kurtbjorn3841 never felt that work was a grind, just time to move on and do something different.
@@notanomad9320 - You are fortunate then. I adored aviation, became a commercial pilot. A dream job. After 30 years of 3:00 AM trans-atlantics, FAA check rides every 9 months, FAA aeromedical exams yearly, drug and alcohol tests, bad weather, bad passengers, etc etc. It turned into... something unpleasant. The magic was long gone.
@@notanomad9320Not necessarily easy for everyone to do. Single mom of 3 kids, relatively small town with no equivalent position/employer/income in the same field. Not going to uproot my kids for my job satisfaction; that would be selfish.
Mortality age needs to be adjusted to your current age. If you are 62, your mortality age is higher than it was when you were 52. A 62 year old male is likely to live until about age 82.
The chances that Congress will successfully reduce benefits across the board has now increased exponentially. Another good reason to claim now if you are 62 and lock in your payout.
Great video. My first, of yours. Just subscribed. Well done overall. And I never heard of the "Retirement Smile."
Thanks Eric for another very informative video!
You bet!
The SSA has a pretty good handle on when we’re going to check out and while we may go beyond that there are a lot who check out quicker. The breakeven point between taking it at 62 and 70 is somewhere around 80 +- it really doesn’t make a lot of difference except in those rare cases where we out live the tables. In any case you really need the money sooner in the go go years and not in the slow or no go years. I’m taking it at 62 because my wife didn’t work and is 5 years older than me so she’ll get the full measure of half of my benefit at 67 while I will have a 30% reduction but overall it would be better as a family. For something so simple it is really complicated.
Tax implications and age adjusted mortality need to be included in any break even calculation.
Thank you for showing that the basic "break even" points that people use as a rule of thumb is more nuanced. SOOOO many people think that they can just "straight line" SS payments at 62 vs 70 and determine that as long as they live past 82, they'll be ahead, when the reality is - if you are in the scenario that you have depicted here - the break even could be much later than 82. I mean, even at better rates of return than your example, the age 62 filer has a much more robust account balance at 70 than the 70 filer. Taking SS early is not only a prophylactic against poor returns, but also a benefit in good returns. I'm not saying 62 is the right choice, just that this scenario has to be considered in any break-even analysis.
Excellent presentation, I have a question, Im a 63 y/o retiree, collect SS and have a pension ( house paid for ), no kids or heirs ,800 K , dont mind spending down my monies , Im of the believe a Roth Conversion is NOT for me ( Im in a 12 % bracket ) Im I correct in my assumption?
The oldest age of a male in my family so far has been 68. I started SS benefits at 62 based on that.
Very foolish. Why opt for a tine check???
Good move, given that Social Security will become insolvent in 2033 (per the SSA website), and payments will be cut 21% that year.
Better to get something now than nothing later.
A person might retire early *because* of ill health. So, we can't conclude that early retirement *causes* an early demise.
Bad idea to collect at 62. I know too many people who had to go back to work for one reason or another, but we’re limited to only making $21k/yr due to pulling before their full retirement. Be careful.
I retired 12 years ago at 50 and next month I'm colleting SS at 62. I don't need the money but I'm taking it and investing it. My break even age is 77 but if I invest it all it could be around 85. Plus, the way the Govt is spending I'm getting mine now before it's all gone!! But good luck!!
I’ve worked with a number of older people who had this issue . I think they just liked the idea of retiring but never did the numbers
The sequence of return risk is typically why people put some money in bonds. Ideally enough to cover whatever income is needed during a downturn in the market. That way the person can avoid selling stocks when they are low in value. Interesting video, though. A lot to consider.
Good video. A piece of feedback if I may. I know you said "we don't know what will happen here" after year 70, but that is entirely the purpose of delaying SS. I see a benefit in stretching this video out just a minute or two longer to see what another 10 years could look like. If at 80, there is still a tangible benefit to starting SS early, I would see a stronger conclusion.
Another way to interpret the correlation between early retirement and increased mortality rates is to turn it around: people with poorer health will be more likely to be forced into an earlier retirement. So the conclusion in that case would not be that retiring later is healthier, rather that poor health will lead to earlier retirement. Of course, we don't know which is true (no cause and effect known here) but it seems to me that this is more likely than the reverse conclusion.
What if you’re still working making six figures and are 65? Claim now or at 67?
Per the Social Security website, "The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund will be able to pay 100 percent of total scheduled benefits until 2033, unchanged from last year's report. At that time, the fund's reserves will become depleted and continuing program income will be sufficient to pay 79 percent of scheduled benefits."
So, payments will be cut by 21% in 2033, and it seems likely that further future cuts will follow.
I'd say that taking SS at 62 is a smart move, as it is better to get something now versus nothing later.
SS will not be cut at all - let alone by 20% or more - simply because it cannot be cut. A very large number of folks are solely living on SS and can barely squeeze by month to month. Any cut in SS will wreak havoc and cause instant chaos across this nation, especially when SS can be saved by a few changes in the law.
@@spookietowne7932 I appreciate your optimism.
Great explanation! All should watch and think about….
I took ss at 62 because I'd heard too many late claimers who died before they got it. You don't know what will happen tomorrow.
You will regret collecting at 62. Your check will always be puny.
According to the SSA website, "The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund will be able to pay 100 percent of total scheduled benefits until 2033, unchanged from last year's report. At that time, the fund's reserves will become depleted and continuing program income will be sufficient to pay 79 percent of scheduled benefits."
So, payments will be cut by 21% in 2033, and it seems likely that further future cuts will follow.
So I'd say that taking SS at 62 is a smart move.
Thanks. Taking ss late is longevity insurance. It also gives bigger spousal benefits and a longer roll over window. In a downturn, do bigger roll overs. Can you give us these examples too?
Cheers
Please get an accurate estimate of your health insurance premiums because you won't get Medicare until age 65. Health insurance rates are over $1000 per month for an individual age 62 where I live.
Well,
In the scenario provided the avg annual rate of return he is showing from the investments is 0.833%. So this skews the numbers in favor of taking SS early. In the last 100 years there has not been a return that low over a 9 year period.
Therefore the conclusion drawn is way off and very inaccurate information.
While I chose to claim early, this presentation seems to be biased towards early claiming. The benefit from claiming late appears after 70 y/o,due to higher SS payments. The portfolio comparison should extend to 90 y/o. Most of us won't live that long, but I don't want to risk looking for a job at 85 y/o.
How can I keep making money on my saved money and not exceed the 26K allowed a year, my wife is older, can I place the money in her name and then be able to collect my SSN any time between 62 and 67 if I leave my day job?
Life expectancy is dependent on current age. A male that is 62, life expectancy is now 81.1 years old.
But, correct me if I am wrong, if I start getting my Social Security at 62, won't I be penalized if I am still working a full time job?
If you haven’t reached full retirement age per SS then yes . I know a number of older people who have to be careful about how much they make
Only comparing portfolio values at 70, is useless. Of course your investment portfolio would be larger at 70 if you claim SS at 62. At least compare values later than 70, so the larger SS payout, (claiming at 70) can reveal its impact.
I am not taking mine until FRA which is 67 for me. I am over 62, still work, and I don't want my SSA payment reduced based on my earnings.
This is entirely viable!
Yeah, I actually prefer working so I'm with you @JBoy340a
What do the stats say when I retired at 51 voluntarily? Will I not even make 70?
Early retirement doesn't mean that it causes people to die earlier. Correlation doesn't prove causation. It is more likely that people who have poor health (i.e. going to die earlier), retire earlier.
This is NOT a fee only firm
Another video says you can apply for a spousal benefit and then change to your own benefit later. For my wife, her own benefit at full retirement age is $2100 vs $2000 for the spousal. Can she allow the $2100 grow for 3 years while collecting $2000 then switch at age 70 to get $2600? If so it seems like $72k of free money?
That’s what I’m going to do, and as a widow I’ll start at age 60, and let my own grow until I’m 70, which will obviously make an enormous difference. I had no idea this was possible until I watched Dr Ed Weir’s channel. He worked for social security for decades (as he will mention repeatedly in his rather rambling, but still unbelievably informative videos😂). I’m grateful for all the channels providing insight into this essential topic 🙏
In order to draw married spousal benefits the higher earning spouse must also be drawing. And the lower earning spouse would be required to take any SS benefits they have first. So no, that would not be an option.
I am not one to stress a point using extremes BUT, it makes little sense to claim SS when working, that is unless you have reached FRA.
Thanks for excellent video. How long do i need to be married to someone in order for them to qualify for 1/2 of what I'm getting in social security benefit checks? Does that amount of time have to have transpired before i start withdrawals for them to qualify for this benefit?
5:22 I think you are interpreting this very wrongly. It most likely meana that ppl who are unhealthy so that they cant work have to retire vs you die early becuz you retired. For healthy ppl, it'd be opposite - you'd live longer if you retire eaely
I read a statistic that only 5% of Social Security claimants maximize benefits by taking them at age 62. While my concern will never be getting the most out of Social Security to the penny (which can't be fully known anyway), I am going to wait until 70 for various reasons
In my case, I spend many years overseas….i do not have the 35 years necessary. I get a 40 percent penalty for early. Not for me
Excellent presentation by Peak Financial Planning👍👍
My portfolio can yield higher return than the difference between claiming SS at 62 vs at 70.
Might as well, a lot of folks keel over before 65!
Thanks for the comparison. One bit of feedback on the video recording. The shadow from your mini-blinds was really distracting. Consider avoiding this in the future.
Yes :( I didn't notice it during the recording, and only in the post production. I wasn't able to fix it but it was annoying and distracting to me as well.
I ordered some better blinds and hopefully that should do the trick!
Well this advice is good for people below the 26K mark on income. My Money markets make well over 5K a month so I can not get my SSN at 62, I can apply but I am screwed plus my day job pays well over 6 figures so again I am screwed. this sucks and making me wait to 67 blows. The SSN is my money and at 62 no matter what I make I should be able to collect all of it and not be shot in the head because I was smart and make too much.
You have to work till you die. Social Security is not enough as most people have very small retirement and while you work you generally have health care which becomes a bigger expense. Most of my family has lived to 92 and had 0 the amount of of healthy habits compared to me.
We just don't know when we're going to die, so our best bet is to start getting social security at 62.
We are never guaranteed tomorrow. It rarely makes sense to delay ss passed 62. The break even on funds is age 76 1/2. Get your damn money. Never let the evil government get it.
What about health/dental care? Better have like *at least* 1/4 million or something in case you get deathly ill.
While I agree, I think he made it overly complex with the tables and scenarios.
I can give you a simple test to ponder.
I am currently at this point. I am 66 and will stop work/retire at 67 1/2 (Dec 2025). I will be eligible for full SS at 66 and 8 months (next March 2025). SSA only increases yearly in Jan.
No complex compounding interest math, just simple math, If I start my full SS in March of 2025 and bank it (as I am still working) with no interest for 10 months I will have $x.00
Then I look at the amount increased SSA will offer in Jan 2026 if I waited that extra 10 months to start. It is $y.00. (I use $x.00 and $y.00 because the same break even is the same even if you insert your numbers.)
Here is the simple math. banking my SSA for 10 months vs the extra increase is a 12.5 year break even. This means if I live long enough to collect SS past 12.5 years, then I win. If I die within 12.5 years of delaying my SS, the SSA wins.
This is validated by the number I have heard the SSA increases 8% each year you delay. It just so happens that 8% into 100% is 12.5.
I feel young and healthy at 66 and expect to be fine at 67 1/2 when I retire but the 12.5 year break even point puts me at 80 years old. If, God willing, I live well into my 80's I should have delayed my SS. But even from this video it states the average age of dying for a male is 74. I have been noticing so many people dying at 75, 76 77 etc.
I talk of collecting at 66 and 8 months vs 67, but the math and break even is the same of waiting to 68, 69 or 70. It is a 12.5 year break even. If you wait until you are 70 you need to ask your self if you will live to 82.5 ?
This was simpler? 😊 The tables were helpful. But basically, we could all use a crystal ball to see if the break even point and when we start SS is the best decision.
His point is that time is more important than the break even point, provided you live long enough. Even more so is the opportunity lost to spend time the way you imagine your retired rich life is supposed to be lived. Just my .02. The computation is the same but your life span is not a given - just ask a cardiologist.
"SSA only increases yearly in Jan."??? 🤔 COLA increases start each January. SSA increases each month you delay starting your benefits.
Thanks for the video! However, did you know that you have stripes on the side of your face and shirt? They are a bit distracting. I suggest closing the window blinds.
Well that was clear as a big pool of mud
My plan is to get rid of the house at age 63, then retire and minimize income for 2 years. Then claim medicare at 65 and wait at least one year to start social security. 67 is FRA, but I might not wait that long. Depends on how the markets do in 7-10 years from now.
This video was meant to target people that oversave but you spewed a bunch of meaningless word salad and graphs in an already difficult world of uncertainty. This brought no light to anything for anyone that is worried and over save. You brought up 85,000 different possible scenarios and that everyone is a unique snowflake and all sorts of uncertainty which is EXACTLY why the people that oversave do so. After this video, I bet absolutely no oversavers figured out an actionable plan. Dumb... and I want my time and money back!!
People don't take it "early" by chance. They do it because they are either in poor health and don't expect to live much longer or because they didn't save and plan enough to cover the gap. Those who take it late are the ones who are healthy or believe themselves to be healthy, have longevity in their family, and/or have enough savings so it's doesn't hurt them much to wait. You can't compare these two groups of people because they are apples and oranges.
This dude likes using the word "prophylactic " a lot. He should rather use the word "Rubbers" or "Jimmy Hats" when talking about Social Security.
But men cant untill 67
This was an extremely disingenuous presentation by only focusing on the points that support your conclusion. Prime example: showing portfolio balance differences at age 70. That is pointless, of course the age 62 start will have a higher portfolio balance, Captain Obvious.
The jump cuts in your videos are brutal. I can't get past them they are so distracting. You need to get better at delivering your content in longer chunks.
Thanks for the view and the comment.
Will keep that in mind. Enjoy the videos.
You lost me at “god”.
🤔
If Trump gets in what happens if it goes away like he wants to take it away our Social Security. Where all that money go?
Trump can’t take away your SS. Congress controls the budget. Worry about your Senators and Congressmen.
He can’t take it away there would be a full blown revolt in the country, it is essentially stealing money that was paid into the system
Sad, not true.
@@TheDailyInquirerSEM it’s true
@@ericheth5218 no evidence Trump will take away social security. Media lies as usual.
If you consider taxes, it is best to draw from your portfolio (especially tax defferd accounts) and delay ss until 70. I have done these calculations and thus one should definitely consider taxes over ones retirement when considering when to claim ss.
claim early ? Yea, when your broke and need the money because you lacked the self discipline to save for the rainy day !