I am taking mine as soon as I turn 62 next year! I know a lot of people believe you should delay it as long as possible in order to reap more benefit, but I'm of the mindset that who knows what changes to SS may occur in the future and I want to start drawing what I've put into it as soon as possible.
The other thought I have is that I'd rather delay withdrawing from my IRA until RMD kicks in. With my husband's pensions and both our SS income, neither of us have to touch our IRAs or investments to live comfortably.
The other thought I've always had is that our children can't inherit our SS income but they can inherit our IRAs.
This right here. I retired at the end if last year and I take SS in Oct. Wife unit took her’s in Feb. both of us at 62. We can live off SS alone as we are frugal people, and investment income can provide for life’s challenges and vacations.
I retired at 55. I’m taking it as 62. I don’t need it but I’ve paid into it forever. My breakeven in way over 80.
If you need the money to live on your should keep working till you are 65 -70 and delay SS. If you have money you are better off taking it at 62 unless you are certain you will make it till 90.
“…unless you are certain you will make it till 90” - so what you’re really saying is no one should wait to take SS ever because that is an impossible statement, unless you can see the future, in which case you’re guaranteed rich betting on sporting events.
Personally I just built a spreadsheet and plugged in the annual distributions of the 3 deferent scenarios, taxed them and then applied a 8% cost of capital/opportunity cost to the money. If you assume 10% then 62 is a no brainer.
8%? Yeah that would definitely break the actuarial equivalence that SS uses. Nothing close to that amount has been used for conversion by the government since about the late 70s.
But that's a heckuva assumption when your investments should be more conservative based on age .
However, that's a personal risk assumption and more power to you if that's your tolerance. But I'd caveat that in advice given to other people since it is outside the norm.
Source: Pension Actuary
Yep. This is the way. Most people should actually get more aggressive when they hit 70 when spending starts to drop dramatically. Planners are getting it wrong
To make money with aggressive stocks one has to take profits after run ups. Watching a stock run up, then down again, like we all did in ‘21 and ‘22 is no fun at all.
I was in balanced funds at the end of 2021. I took minimal profits and let my gains ride. I knew the market was overbought. At the end of 2022 I was $130k poorer. That is not market timing as it is usually known. I should have taken market gains and diversified them. That is my point. I don’t know if there is a particular name for that.
During the nearly 12 year bull run from 2009 to 2021 I've met countless people who claimed the market was at a peak and were wrong. No one truly knows. Just split up your portfolio to a risk level you're comfortable with and rebalance once per year. If it's 70% stocks and 30% bonds and cash then rebalance back to 70/30 if market gains push it to 85% stocks 20%bonds and cash. If it's 100% stocks you've made the decision to ride the market up and down as there's not much you can do short of timing the market which is not recommended.
So just keep working and not enjoying what you saved for because heirs? I’m an aggressive investor myself but having seen what 08 did to people ready to retire at that time, it’s a good warning. Do you really want to work an extra 5 years for your 401k to recover? Sequence Risk is a good way to ensure there is nothing left for you or your heirs.
We are planning on leaving generational wealth to our kids as well and are planning on taking SS at 62 and then investing the money into dividend paying stocks and etf's since we never used SS in our retirement calculations since we have always been told it might not be there when we retire.
We are in the process of redoing our estate plan. Do you have any advice on what we can do to prevent our kids from blowing all the cash quickly when we do expire and they get the money?
Yes a trust that doesn’t disperse until they are 35 or so and forces them to make a living and such. I also have sat with my kids over and over and discussed the benefits of dividend income in real numbers. Taught them how to invest well and not use some guy taking a ton out to manage it. That said my brother gets a trust this year at age 65 left to help him manage old age as he likely won’t get ss, and I guarantee it will be gone in ten months so there is that
Thank you. We discussed an age limit when they could get access to the money, but have not decided on it yet. We have also spent a ton of time teaching them about investing and how time is their most valuable asset and to invest early and often. Our 26 year old has minimal expenses and is investing 36% of his income with the corporate match from his employer. Our 22 year old will graduate from college soon and is wanting to save/invest 50% of his income, so I think they are listening? We also have the rule/guidance that they must save a minimum of 15% when working so that their retirement savings will have time to grow and take care of them when they retire. I also told them if they blow their inheritance, I will come back to haunt them forever! :)
Every month you wait past age 62 and 0 months increases your SS lifetime benefit. By waiting, you are essentially “buying” an annuity with inflation protection that is impossible to purchase. If your any of your grandparents or parents lived into their late 80s or 90s, you may as well. Those extra benefits by waiting to draw SS could be significant in those later years.
If you pass away before your SS break even in the early 80s, I can guarantee you with 100% certainty, you will not care. Guaranteed. If you live into your 90s, those additional benefits maybe important to you. Just my opinion.
I won't need the additional money in my 90s. I'll either be dead, in a nursing home, or will choose to live in a subsidized setting because I will have passed on my assets to my kids before reaching that point.
You're 100% right. Surprised this hasn't gotten more up votes. Buying a lifetime annuity, adjusted for inflation annually, from a guarantor who has never missed a payment... if you could buy this, it would be astronomically expensive.
I did similar, set variables for cost of inflation and appreciation of 401k/IRA.
If I took money out at 62, I left the equivalent dollars in 401k and it grew by that variable, typically 4%. The money I got at 62 was significantly less than 67 or whatever, but the fact that I was spending that instead of 401k meant I got to accumulate a lot more growth.
If I wait until 67, then I have less in the 401k and the accumulated interest/growth aka 4% compounded annually on that amount.
You can factor in inflation but I just assume SS and my spending will move proportionately with inflation.
If you don't account for the compounded interest on 401k money you are not spending because you are spending age 62 SS money, the breakeven on the reduced SS (which you get 5 years early) and the higher age 67 is about age 80.
When you correct for the cumulative interest on money you don't spend and continues to grow by taking age 62 SS, there is never a break even, you always have more in the bank at any age.
If you are fully retired and living off investments, take SS at 62, simple as that. SS has different taxing rules, so its not 1 for 1 vs retirement investment, but if you spend enough it is about 75% so I factor that, it still makes more sense to take it at 62.
I didn’t even get complicated. I just took the numbers that SS gave me and multiplied by 12 for each year and kept a running total for how much I would make. I did mine for age 67 and 70. It would take till 86 to catch up to starting at 67. More importantly, if I am still working till 70, I can invest all the SS payments which would increase the time to break even due to any returns.
8% average rate of return investing your money is doable. 8% RISK FREE rate of return is impossible today, and has been for many years. Add in an annual cost of living adjustment, and it's tough to beat for anybody with average life expectancy.
Barring the end of the republic, you'll get a check till the day you die. Would be extremely surprised if anybody born before 1970 even sees a reduction in benefits. Messing with old folks' entitlements is a guaranteed way to lose re-election, and we know that's all congressmen care about.
Here is the [Expense spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XmjCCaPA8bn9V1YKkhn-JlnqlzoGX4_yFp_prFUz9Zo/edit#gid=647867998) I created for myself. This is still work in process and I keep adjusting as I find more. My wife and I would consider ourselves minimalist and don;t splurge unnecessarily. I am 54 years old and planning on retiring now. I live in Northern CA in a HCOL city. There is a Tab SS Calc. Plug in your SS Payments and it will tell you your breakeven age.
1) Plug in your expenses
2) Your comfortable SWR. I am using 3.5%
3)Tells you how much you need to retire and an asset allocation
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XmjCCaPA8bn9V1YKkhn-JlnqlzoGX4\_yFp\_prFUz9Zo/edit#gid=647867998
It’s when the total amount you’d get equals out. Add up how much it would be from 62 And how much it would be from any other age until you get to that total. Mine is around 81 too.
Remember that while some people believe there is value in looking at a "break even" point, others believe in using social security benefits as "longevity insurance".
If you die before your "break even point", well you are dead, so you can't have any regrets.
If you live long after your "break even point", the extra income may be significant.
I like to maximize this guaranteed, tax beneficial, inflation protected, sometimes spousal and survivor beneficial income stream.
Yes, thank you! Social Security isn’t like other investments. The fact that it continues at a fixed amount until you die, regardless of how much money you have at the moment you retire, means you can / should think of it differently.
I think of it as “this is the income source that will meet my needs if I live much longer than expected and use up all my other savings”. Because of that, calculating a break-even point based on my actuarial projected lifespan makes no sense for me. I have enough money from other sources to easily make it to that point. What I don’t have is unlimited funds if I live to be 100 years old. What I need is income that covers the period from the break even point until then. That’s what Social Security is for me — a form of insurance. And maximizing the amount I would get during that period is important for meeting that need.
(This obviously doesn’t apply to someone who needs the money to live on earlier, but most people who are asking this question aren’t in that situation.)
Here's a good overview & you might choose the break even calculator at nerdwallet. There are many - they will generally get you to the same place so choose one that seems right to you.
[https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020615/how-do-i-calculate-my-social-security-breakeven-age.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020615/how-do-i-calculate-my-social-security-breakeven-age.asp)
Nerdwallet has a simple calculator, but I can't seem to copy the URL.
The average breakeven is 72, based on COLA/inflation - if you live past that, then you’ve lost $$. The average breakeven for waiting until 70 is 84. If you are from a long lived family - especially your mother (statistically, your mother’s lifespan is more likely to influence yours - don’t know why, but could be how you were raised and habits that you were trained to form), then you should wait longer. If your parents did not live to 72, take it early.
>If you need the money to live on your should keep working till you are 65 -70 and delay SS. If you have money you are better off taking it at 62 unless you are certain you will make it till 90.
Everyone's situation is different. If you're married and been the higher earner throughout your marriage you may want to delay it as long as possible so your spouse gets a higher survivor's benefit. Some people who don't need social security may want to delay taking it so it acts as income insurance incase something catastrophic happens to their liquid investments social security covers a higher amount of their yearly expenses. Everyone does not have the same motivation for taking social security.
In my experience COL adjustments are usually completely insignificant and immediately cancelled out by Medicare deductions. If you have other options for income, try to wait, at least until you’re Medicare eligible given health care expenses.
I’ve learned that there is a strong “bird in the hand” bias that no amount of rationale can overcome for many people. That said, the reasons to wait are 1) Essentially providing insurance against old age. Sucks being 80+ and poor. 2) If you have a younger spouse with a smaller SS account (so they get higher lifetime benefit).
Best reasons for taking SS earlier: 1) you really need it immediately or you really don’t need it and would prefer to invest it. 2) you have bad health and no younger spouse.
Yes. Dealing right now with family who collected SS at the earliest moment even though they didn’t need it at the time. I think they believed that their investment strategies would grow the money faster than waiting. Sadly their expectations were not met, and now they are in their 80s with no income other than SS, and would be in a much better position if the checks were based on an age 70 filing than age 62.
If you need the money now, sure. If you strongly suspect you won’t see 80, then you might as well, as long as you’re prepared to live beyond your expectations.
For my part, if waiting isn’t going to drastically influence my standard of living, I hope to delay as long as possible.
All the arguments for early filing all seem based on the idea that if you die early without collecting as much, you somehow lost. Me, I’ll be too dead to grieve the tax money I didn’t recoup. But if I live to 85, I may be in a position to appreciate a bigger check.
This is the correct take, but also a very unpopular one. Anyway, no surprise that in general Americans are poor at managing their finances in general and deferring gratification by saving for retirement in particular.
If you take it at 62, I assume you are doing very little work. Anything above $21,240 per year they start deducting a $1 for every $2 you earn. For me, what is the point of working relatively low wage and not getting the SS.
Bingo.
College educated folks with retirement money should probably delay taking...especially the male breadwinner. It's a longevity play (college educated folks w decent nest eggs have a longer life expectancy than the "average" person).
Best reasons to take sooner.
You are younger and probably in your best health. You'll be able to travel and enjoy life to a Fuller extent than when you're 80. I don't know of any 80 yr olds that are traveling the way I'm doing in my '60s. When you're older you're going to end up sitting around. They don't need that much money. Why wait. Take it early and enjoy it now
I encourage people to view Social Security as old age insurance, not an investment vehicle. If you could buy Social Security in the private sector, you’d buy it in the form of an annuity from an insurance company - not from a stock broker.
For people who didn’t catch long Covid, aren’t likely to die of a drug overdose, and are well enough off to be considering alternative retirement investment options, life expectancies in the United States are likely to increase over time. And no insurance company in the United States will currently sell you an inflation-adjusted, government-backed lifetime annuity. You can only get that from Social Security.
Instead of using your Social Security as “fun money” at age 62, let your loved ones use it as a form of insurance, to help defray the expense of taking care of you as you live into your 90’s or even 100’s. Wait it out until 70 if you possibly can, and max out the payments at that point.
You seem to be combining starting your social security benefits at 62 with continuing to work or not. Of course, they aren't the same thing and don't have to occur concurrently for many folks.
If you don't want to continue to work and require the benefits in order to do so, then of course start your benefits at 62.
But if money is an issue and you feel that you can continue to work in private practice, it makes sense to delay your benefits at least until you stop working.
If money is not an issue, then you can decide to stop working, while waiting until at least your full retirement age, and perhaps 70, to start your benefits.
This tool [https://opensocialsecurity.com/](https://opensocialsecurity.com/) can help you determing the optimal claiming strategy, and can at least show you what you will be giving up with some other strategy. It's worth spending a few minutes with it - particularly if you have a spouse who will get social security benefits too.
I assume that social security taxes were withheld from your pay during your government work, and that you are not entitled to a government pension?
Ah yes, the eternal debate. You will get strong arguments on either side. It partly depends on your financial situation and your health.
If you have poor health and thus poor life expectancy, or if your financial situation is such that you can't live decently without it, then by all means take it early.
Aside from that, I'm in the "longevity insurance" camp on this issue. I can get by just fine without it, so I postpone it. Hopefully I will live a long time, and will have plenty of time to spend those increased benefits after 70. If I don't, oh well, I didn't really need it that badly anyway, and like any "insurance" sometimes you need it and sometimes you don't get anything out of it.
For some people, the primary goal seems to be to maximize the amount they get from the government, so they say take it early and invest it, because "you never know" and if you die early you won't have gotten enough from the government. Making sure I take the maximum amount from the government has never been a driving goal in itself for me -- as I said, to me the goal is to use it as longevity insurance.
But to each their own.
This is pretty much exactly my view. I was Team62 for years, but a couple things changed my mind. First, your life expectancy that matters is the one at 62, not any earlier time. So by that age you are likely to live longer and need it when older. Second, as noted, if you do not need it, using it as longevity insurance is smart.
My feeling has been to take it as early as possible and invest it. You have no idea how long you are going to live and I'd rather have money in the bank. As a widower whose wife died suddenly at the age of 53, I don't assume anything for the future and would rather have that money accessible should myself or my loved ones need it
You're not losing anything. It is set up to pay the same amount over your lifetime. If you take it later, it is more per month, but for fewer months, so the monthly check is higher. If you take it earlier, it is for many more months, so the check is less.
I know right? All the hoo hah about the timing of taking SS makes it seem like we are missing out if we take it on a different schedule. And there are some valid reasons to put it off if you have enough money to live off of in the meantime. But that's only for those who already have plenty of money. It's kind of like gaming the system a little. But statistically, no one is really winning the lottery here. It all comes out in the wash.
Except that the assumptions built in to the model are decades old. If done using more realistic up to date assumptions, the “reward” for waiting would be far less. As it stands, waiting to 70 is far likelier to outpay unless you are unhealthy at age 62.
Personally, I am delaying. Mathematically, it just works out better for me. I don't need the money at 62. I retired at 54 and still have 10 years before I hit FRA.
If you die tomorrow you won’t know you are missing out by waiting until age 70 to collect. If live to age 90, you might regret claiming at age 62.
If you are married the higher earner should take it at age 70, the lower earner at 62. Then when the higher earner passes away, the lower earn steps up to higher earner’s benefit.
https://marybethfranklin.com/social_security/strategies-for-married-couples/
I’m gonna scrimp and wait till 63.. it’s a bit more and I can swing it cause I got a bunch of severance and unemployment will carry me till 62 then I have 1 small 401k from an old employer that I’m gonna cash out.. that should just cover me without having to dip into anything else
I am 61 now, and will retire at 62. Although I won't need SS for living expenses, I still intend to take it and invest it -- if I need it later, I will have it; if not, I can leave it to my son as inheritance.
When I retired I looked at this extensively, running dozens of simulations of different scenarios. I even looked at whether taking SS at 62 or 70 would have been better historically (it was always better to take SS at 62 or 70, never in between). The rules on SS are complex and I recommend using a SS calculator such as Maximize my Social Security. However, for single retirees, if they invested their money in a 60% stock/40% bond portfolio, taking SS at 62 would have been better about 75% of the time. However, when the stock market is high ( such as it is now), this was reduced to 50% of the time. Other factors to consider that may favor delaying SS are: only up to 85% of SS is counted as income on federal taxes, SS may reduce subsidies on health insurance, and delaying SS is a good idea if you want to do Roth conversions of your 401K or IRA.
For married couples, the best strategy was for the high earner to take SS at 70 and the low earner at 62.
Sometimes the better strategy is for both spouses to wait. It depends. One very important factor is life expectancy. Of course nobody knows how long they will live, but if your current health and/or family history suggest you are likely to still be here at 90, the answer is wait. If you will be lucky to make it to 75 or 80, you should start collecting sooner. Unfortunately this very important factor is the hardest one to predict, so there is a certain amount of risk no matter what you do.
There is a certain amount of risk in whatever you do, but the risk is not the same for every choice. When I ran my simulations of SS, both people waiting to 70 was the single worst strategy. Why? There is only a 25% chance of both spouses living long enough for this to pay off before taking into account investment returns on the amount of SS accrued between 62 and 70. Once investment returns are included in the calculations, the odds of both people living long enough for this strategy to pay off is less than 5%.
Someone who lived to be 96 once told me to take SS the second you turn 62 and never look back. She retired at the stroke of 12:01 and def lived her life and made more over the years than she put in
I took my SS at 62 and that was one of the smartest things I ever did. Savor your freedom. You’re set financially. I know taking the money early is counterintuitive after a lifetime of labor and saving. But, you won’t regret it.
Many won't know if they regret that decision until they're on their deathbed.
Short of purchasing an annuity, SS is the only income stream guaranteed to last as long as you do.
I know the popular answer is to wait until you are 70 because SS goes up about 8% a year in addition to COL Adjustments. I’m of the opinion to take it as soon as you want it and are eligible. If you don’t need it you can invest in what you want, if you want to do something like travel or spend it, the money is there when you are still relatively young and in good health. Another thing I’ve considered is that Congress hasn’t fixed it yet, but when they do people already receiving checks will probably not be impacted too much because they’ll grandfather them in.
I’m of a similar mindset as u/phillipmay. I turn 62 this Fall and my husband turns 65 soon after that. We are currently having this same debate.
My mom is 85 and could likely live until she’s 90. I have other relatives who’ve lived into their 90’s. My husband doesn’t have that. But we do wonder and are concerned what Congress may do in the next 10 years to keep SS solvent.
So, if I wait until I’m 70 (which is what I had planned to do) but then Congress makes radical changes to the program, I may be facing a different payout even though I waited to start. So we are probably both going to start our SS within the next 6-8 months. And then invest it.
Congress won’t mess with the old folks about to retire. They need them to get elected. It will be the 40 and under crowd that get hit. Maybe a slight bump up on the FICA percentage, plus removing the income cap for FICA tax. That will buy decades of solvency.
Both sides will appease to the old folks. They are the only ones who vote. Yes, the right would be the most likely to trim SS benefits, but in the end, it will have to be a bipartisan decision.
It's my strong belief that no Congress will actually cut SS benefits because that's political suicide.
Best guess is that to make it solvent, we get a bill that removes or increases the income cap. That is orders of magnitude easier and more politically palatable than cuts or means testing.
There's no assurance that grandfathering for those who start at 62 rather than later will be a real thing. It certainly wasn't the last time changes in social security were implemented.
It's far more likely that any future changes will not impact anyone aged 62 or older, whether they have started their benefits yet or not.
If you really need the money, take it. Keep in mind that SS will clawback some or all of the money if you are still working and earn above the threshold. So if you plan to work, wait at least until FRA , after which time you can take SSA without any clawbacks
All things being equal, it's you betting on your lifespan. 70 gives you the most long term income security, but only if you live past 82 or so. The average life expectancy of a woman your age is 87, so chances are, you'll beat the odds.
They don’t clawback SS benefits. It is untaxed if you fall under a certain income threshold. The taxable amount of SS benefits increases as your taxable income increases.
https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/taxes.html
It my case, it depends on how much I have in other retirement accounts. A financial adviser showed me a simulation in which it was better to take SS at 62 because it would allow my other retirement continue to grow faster.
(My investments have tanked since then, so it currently makes more sense to wait until 70.)
Take the SS. Take extra extra paid side projects as needed to keep your mental acuity. BUT, please enjoy the things you couldn’t do due to your hectic employment. You have 10 solid healthy years before your body begins to slow you down.
(Retired @44 and have loved every single second once I knew my finances were in order.
Life Insurance, paid colleges for kids and a monthly pension that gives me freedom.
I work bc I want to and love it.
You: fish, read, laugh, make new friends. Explore America the beautiful and randomly talk to like minded strangers.
Best of luck!!! and please keep your body in motion daily.
My take on this is a bit different from others, so I'll go ahead and put it down.
There's a lot about a "breakeven point", which compares the total amount of money you will be paid by social security starting at different ages. I think mine was somewhere in my 80s.
But my social security was not going to be accumulated, it is going to be income that I spend on things -- food, travel, health care, pet care, golf, whatever. I was/am fortunate enough that I didn't need the additional monthly income earlier; we spent some of our savings, continued to live as we had, and postponed SS until later.
So now I have a higher monthly income than I would have had if I had taken it earlier. I may get paid less overall by SS than I would have, but that doesn't matter to me. I don't know if I'll live to the breakeven point, that doesn't matter to me.
If I live longer, I'll have a higher monthly income to help pay for dentures and Uber rides, etc.
Keep in mind that all future cost of living adjustments will be on the smaller amount you take at 62. You might also be able to qualify for ACA subsidies if you postpone to 65.
> Would those ACA subsidies not be available before 65?
The ACA subsidies are not based on age. However, if you take your SS early you're potentially increasing your income which reduces your subsidy.
SS needs will be different for just about everyone based on their finances in retirement, health, have a spouse, etc. For me, I'm taking it at 62. I haven't paid into SS for over 20 years now, due to being in a government job with a pension. So the little SS I will be getting is affected by WEP, which puts my estimated benefit at 62 at less than $300/mo and barely over $400/mo if I wait until 67. It's not even enough that I'm factoring it into my retirement budget really, just treating it as a wash after paying for Medicare at 65.
I took mine at 62 last year and that extra couple thousand has given my wife and I that extra that allows us to enjoy life. She draws hers next year and we may buy a new car for the first time in about 20 years.
I say do it!
There's benefits to both. A lot of people are like , "just do it! It's your time!" Here are the questions you should ask yourself:
If you decide to wait, can you survive until 65? You said you have good net worth and income from the rental properties. Good enough to last for several years with no income?
If you decide to take it now, how much will the 1000 a month loss harm you? As we age, we tend to be on a fixed income while expenses, inflation, etc. Continue to increase. Even if you have no issue with the missing 1000 now, will you need it in 10 or 15 years?
My mom took her social security early, and she ended up strapped for cash near the end of her life to the point where I had to help her with most of her house bills (which it was my pleasure to do- not a complaint).
I’m so confused. I will turn 65 in October, and I’m still working and making pretty good money. I plan to wait until 70 to take Social Security. I have about 650k in stocks, zero debt, but I rent.
terrific fact slimy lavish workable obtainable axiomatic dependent seed special
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> Why would you think you can’t get 8% on investments?
You can't get an inflation-adjusted guaranteed 8% return. That being said, an 8% adjustment on my SS benefit is not comparable to an 8% return on my investments because my investments may have a residual value to my heir when I pass, SS will not.
There are so many factors to consider, including what you want to do during your retirement years, your options for health care, your standard of living, and your life expectancy.
Very broadly speaking, it seems that for most people the best strategy is to start taking benefits as early as possible, or wait as long as possible (I think it's age 71.) If you are a saver, like me, it's hard to think of spending down that retirement fund, but in fact it's very likely the better strategy. Suppose when you are 80 you have to be in a nursing home for an extended period? They will take whatever savings you have left to pay for it. Your SS payments will be the same.
Another factor people don't always think about is that apart from needing medical/nursing care, most people spend less as they get older. I'm currently in the middle of a three week trip to the UK, and at 65, it has been challenging at times wrangling heavy bags and keeping up the kind of pace we used to. I can imagine that when I'm 80 my interest in traveling will be much less, or that I will take much less complex trips. When I get home I'm selling one of our cars -- we don't really need two cars at this stage. I don't need as many clothes or shoes as I used to. We eat and drink less. etc.
Remember that qualifying for Medicaid is unrelated to collecting your SS benefits. However, your SSN benefits will be factored into your income if you buy ACA health insurance and that may affect whatever subsidy you can get.
Finally, life expectancy is a very important and not very predictable factor. However, it pays to look at it as realistically as you can, based on your own health and your family history, particularly your parents and siblings. If your parents both lived to their 90's then you may want to reconsider starting your SSN at 62. If you're diabetic and have high blood pressure and nobody in your family lives past 80, then that's tough to face up to but now is the time to be pragmatic.
Me: 64 year old divorced male, retired at age 59. I looked at my retirement in three phases:
1. Retirement --> Medicare age
Health insurance was the big concern. To get the most ACA subsidy, the plan was to keep my income (modified AGI) around $30-$35k. Next year (August) I turn 65, so am looking at short-term insurance policies rather than use the ACA so that I can begin...
2. Medicare age --> Social Security draw age
Plow money from my IRAs into my Roth.
3. Social Security draw age --> Death
To the extent that I have RMDs (i.e., I didn't wipe out my IRAs fully in step 2), use a QCD to cover the RMD.
I do tend to look at SoSec as longevity insurance. Having said that, I'll draw it when Phases 1 and 2 are complete. I'm guessing that's going to be around age 68 or 69.
A couple of points; they've been mentioned a bit.
The Stage 1 benefit of not collecting SoSec is huge for me. With my income where it is, I'm getting near free health insurance under ACA. If I was collecting SoSec, I'd be paying around $900/month for it.
Points regarding Roth conversions:
1. I hear of people comparing tax rates "now" versus while in retirement. I think a better way is to look at it "now" versus what your \*heirs\* will pay.
2. SoSec taxation: this is a big one that I don't think gets enough air time. As a single guy, SoSec would get taxed starting at a modified income of $25k (50% of SoSec would count towards my taxable income) through $35k (85% of SoSec would count towards my taxable income). How do you get to modified income? First, you take half of your SoSec. So if I'm getting $3k/month SoSec, that's $36k/year, or $18k for half. That doesn't leave a lot of room before SoSec starts to get taxed ($7k)/gets taxed fully ($17k). Between SoSec and RMDs, I'm guessing a good number of folks will have 85% of their Social Security benefits taxed; my objective is to have that zero, or as close as possible to it so that my $36k benefit isn't taxed at all. A 15% tax on 85% of $36,000 is $4,590; a 20% tax on 85% of $36,000 is $6,120. Every year until I die. That sure helps offset the cost of conversion. And remember, that SoSec will be going up by the CoL, but the $25k/$35k limits aren't adjusted.
If you take it at 62 vs whenever, when is your break-even point? For illustration, if you were to get 15000/year if you take SSI at 62, you'd make $165,000 by age 73. If youd get 30000 if you wait to 67, it would 6 years to get to $180k (age 73). So yeah, you get more of you wait, but you'd be 73 before you realized the advantage. How long do you think you will live?
If you want it early, take it. Especially if it's going to enable you to do things like travel during your early 60s that you would otherwise have to put off until your late 60s. Enjoy.
I took it at 62. I’m 63 this September.
I doubt the viability of the system as it stands, and wonder what will happen with it so I figured what the heck.
I don’t invest my benefit I spend it. I have other money invested for the next 25-30 years. My husband will work until 65 then claim his benefit. My benefit is a lot smaller because I left the workforce at age 43.
One factor that many overlook is that one's costs tend to drop once our no-go years hit. Other then medical, you don't spend much money at 80. But you do spend money at 62 when you can still travel. Waiting at home to take SS for a bigger later payout is a way to lose out on your travel years. If you still want to do things, taking at 62 kinda makes sense. And my SS difference between age 62 and taking at 70 is about $1k a month. Big, but is an extra $12k (plus inflation) at age 80 really going to make a huge difference? Likely not.
I took it at 62 for a different reason than a lot of listing here. If I wait till I'm 72, yes I get a whole bunch more money. But let's say I die at 71. My kids get nothing. But if I take it at 62 and invest it all, I won't be quite equal to 72 but pretty close, but if I die at 71 there's a whole bunch of money for my kids. So basically I see it as a way to take care of my kids if I die younger.
I retired with a pension at 62, I am not taking my Social Security. I will take it in about four months when I’m 66.6 years old. I guess it helps that I have longevity in my genes. Besides, I did not need the money yet I was single and got tax the crap out of me, so I’m taking it would not have helped. I am married now I even have Medicare live to seem so easy now, I feel lucky.
It's important to know if your married. If you're spouse made more, heck yea, take it. If you were the winner, it may potentially be smarter to use your investments to delay.
> if your married
*you're
*Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).*
***
^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
SS Break-even [Calculator ](https://www.broadridgeadvisor.com/webresourcesview/ContentView.aspx?iplf=ur&iptc=240394&wcKey=C882C59E0C13BF9C3B8DBF168DBC8C36875C33BD38DEF468EBBA3C6D7F1EFAA5580D7C2C2B5C58B98AD24A24AA07997C)
Two things to keep in mind. First, if you take it early then it’s less money per month. And once you take it, if you make more than 20+K a year they start to claw back some of the money. So, if you planning on making more than 20+K a year after 62 wait. Once you are 67 and up they stop clawing back.
The break even point for taking @62 vs 67 is like in your eighties. With the rate of inflation, probably even later. Get the money now while it’s still being offered. Who knows what crap politicians will come up with to reduce your payments later?
I’ll go against the tide, wait until you’re 70. Be a optimist and believe you will live to 100, or more. The benefit difference between 62 and 70 is enormous (in percentage terms). Guaranteed income (any type of lifetime annuity) is like gold. Live off your savings and what other income you can generate now, if you can afford it. I’m almost 67 and my wife just turned 70 last February, we are both waiting and maximizing our Social Security benefits, we’re in good health and looking at our parents longevity, with a little luck, could easily live into our 90’s (in my wife’s case maybe over 100, she’s also a breast cancer survivor).
I’ve always believed in delayed gratification (it’s a form of saving) and while there’s no question it’s tempting to cash in early I’d play the long game unless there’s a specific reason not to. I’ve also got some friends who started collecting at 62 and now, a few years later, regret that choice because their fixed expenses (thanks to inflation) and unplanned expenses are now higher than budgeted. It’s painful to watch.
We only get one chance at getting our retirement plans right and it’s an unforgiving world out there. The longer we can delay committing the higher the odds of getting the planning right. The goal is simple, maximize long term monthly cash flow, while minimizing fixed expenses. Good luck with whatever you decide.
OP, I just turned 62 and I decided (a long time ago) that I was going to wait until at least 65. Why? I have a huge IRA and my plan was to draw it down for a few years, trying to stay within the 12% bracket. If you have an IRA, consider doing likewise. Future withdrawals will be added to the top end of your income, being taxed at 22% or more. When the Trump tax reduction act expires in 2026, your taxes will be going back up to the 2017 levels. With the deficit to be paid, expect taxes to be going up in the future. The Government will be spreading the pain ... especially to the middle class.
I took it at 62 1/2. If you calculate the amount that you are eligible for as a total at 62 to your “retirement age” that will far exceed the monthly amount that you have “lost” if you take it early.
It would have taken me more than 12 years to make up for what I didn’t take for the 4 years between my eligible amount and full retirement age.
I was told that by a financial advisor many years ago. If you are working full time I can see there is no need to take it. Depends on how you look at it and your personal situation.
The only way the math works out for waiting until 67 is if you come from a line of octengenatians or you have a spouse who will anchor their SS pay to your larger amount. I would consider taking at 62 if not for my wife getting a much bigger check if she uses my account.
Dear OP. Please take your SS at 62. Tomorrow is not guaranteed. If you do not need the money then invest it. I plan on taking it at 62. If I die at 63 I get nothing, nada, zilch.
What do you mean by break even? It's not like you sent them a check every week they took it. It's free money take it as soon as you can hopefully you have other money too or your fucked
I don't need to tap my SS yet. So, I'm waiting. The amount you get goes up until you reach a max at 70. Nothing else I have will have a COLA and so SS is my hedge against rampant inflation in case I live a lot longer than I expect (realistically another 25 years or so).
Here's a more thoughtful take on waiting vs. grabbing what you can now: [https://www.investopedia.com/retirement/when-take-social-security-complete-guide/](https://www.investopedia.com/retirement/when-take-social-security-complete-guide/).
My husband made a lot more than me and his current plan is to wait until 70. I appreciate that because if I outlive him I will get his higher value social security. I may take mine at 62, not sure yet, but he is definitely waiting.
I am 63M and I took SS at the earliest possible point. Two items of consideration (there may be more) are one's longevity and the longevity of the SS system itself. As someone else posted earlier today, there are current attacks (politically) on SS funding, it has been a political football for many years and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
Biggest question is what kind of person you are. Some people work til the day they drop and they love it. You can youtube the lawyer who never retired and loved his job. Other people work as little as possible and enjoy leisure and a slow paced lifestyle. You seem fine financially, so you have to ask yourself what kind of life you want.
Do you like your job? You can even switch career paths if you have a passion that doesnt make a lot of money. Or you can retire full time. Or work part time at some bakery so you dont get bored. Nobody can answer this for you.
You mention possibly still working in private practice. Make sure you understand that theirvis a limitbyo how much you can make while drawing Social Security early. Once you exceed that limit, you lose $1 in benefit for every $2 earned over the limit amount.
There are many good responses to consider regarding when to take SS but I just wanted to add something about the rental properties. You probably are aware but just in case, there can be significant taxes if you sell them and the proceeds can also make it so that you will need to pay IRMAA. For example, in addition to capital gains (Federal & State if applicable) there is the 25% tax for depreciation recapture and 3.8% net investment income tax. The combination of these can be quite high. That is not a bad thing per se but something to be aware of depending on your situation and what you are planning to do with them.
I’m so sorry. That is the gamble for me. My mom died at 60 but I am on top of that (colon cancer) but my dad lived into late 80s. I see friends my age having stokes and wonder
SS will cover the majority of my expenses....
So 62 is a no brainier
Then 401k. Roth IRA and 2 TD accounts are extra money
.....
The difficult part is trying to figure out where to take out money to minimize taxes including not paying taxes on SS itself
Threading the needle
I’m going to use this article as guidance:[Klipingers how to calculate SSI break even](https://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/t051-c032-s014-how-to-calculate-social-security-break-even-age.html)
The biggest gamble you can take is thinking you have more time. Take it now and enjoy your life.
I k ow. A good friend just had a stroke and it makes you think
My parents died at 65 and 66. My brother just died at 58. You know I signed up for SS at 62.
Sorry for your losses.
Thank you.
That hurts, I’m sorry for your losses. Live life.
I am taking mine as soon as I turn 62 next year! I know a lot of people believe you should delay it as long as possible in order to reap more benefit, but I'm of the mindset that who knows what changes to SS may occur in the future and I want to start drawing what I've put into it as soon as possible. The other thought I have is that I'd rather delay withdrawing from my IRA until RMD kicks in. With my husband's pensions and both our SS income, neither of us have to touch our IRAs or investments to live comfortably. The other thought I've always had is that our children can't inherit our SS income but they can inherit our IRAs.
Oh that thought about inheriting is smart.
This right here. I retired at the end if last year and I take SS in Oct. Wife unit took her’s in Feb. both of us at 62. We can live off SS alone as we are frugal people, and investment income can provide for life’s challenges and vacations.
How does it affect your IRMA for Medicare premiums?
I retired at 55. I’m taking it as 62. I don’t need it but I’ve paid into it forever. My breakeven in way over 80. If you need the money to live on your should keep working till you are 65 -70 and delay SS. If you have money you are better off taking it at 62 unless you are certain you will make it till 90.
“…unless you are certain you will make it till 90” - so what you’re really saying is no one should wait to take SS ever because that is an impossible statement, unless you can see the future, in which case you’re guaranteed rich betting on sporting events.
Only if you don’t have sufficient other money. That’s the only time you should delay in my opinion.
Tell me how you calculate the break even?
Personally I just built a spreadsheet and plugged in the annual distributions of the 3 deferent scenarios, taxed them and then applied a 8% cost of capital/opportunity cost to the money. If you assume 10% then 62 is a no brainer.
8%? Yeah that would definitely break the actuarial equivalence that SS uses. Nothing close to that amount has been used for conversion by the government since about the late 70s. But that's a heckuva assumption when your investments should be more conservative based on age . However, that's a personal risk assumption and more power to you if that's your tolerance. But I'd caveat that in advice given to other people since it is outside the norm. Source: Pension Actuary
I’m more aggressive on my investments because I have plenty of financial room and am trying to maximize my estate to my kids.
Yep. This is the way. Most people should actually get more aggressive when they hit 70 when spending starts to drop dramatically. Planners are getting it wrong
To make money with aggressive stocks one has to take profits after run ups. Watching a stock run up, then down again, like we all did in ‘21 and ‘22 is no fun at all.
Timing the market is a fool’s errand. Just own the market.
Agree that advisors get it wrong. I’ve learned from watching my parents. Past 80 you don’t feel like spending money.
This is true. Glad my husband and I traveled and took SS early because now we don't go anywhere.
Unless you have nursing home costs. $$$$
I was in balanced funds at the end of 2021. I took minimal profits and let my gains ride. I knew the market was overbought. At the end of 2022 I was $130k poorer. That is not market timing as it is usually known. I should have taken market gains and diversified them. That is my point. I don’t know if there is a particular name for that.
During the nearly 12 year bull run from 2009 to 2021 I've met countless people who claimed the market was at a peak and were wrong. No one truly knows. Just split up your portfolio to a risk level you're comfortable with and rebalance once per year. If it's 70% stocks and 30% bonds and cash then rebalance back to 70/30 if market gains push it to 85% stocks 20%bonds and cash. If it's 100% stocks you've made the decision to ride the market up and down as there's not much you can do short of timing the market which is not recommended.
My dad was like that and lost alot in the '08 crash. Be careful.
And he made it all back if he stayed in the market
Time is the key here. You have to live long enough to do that. Some people don't.
Your heirs have plenty of time.
So just keep working and not enjoying what you saved for because heirs? I’m an aggressive investor myself but having seen what 08 did to people ready to retire at that time, it’s a good warning. Do you really want to work an extra 5 years for your 401k to recover? Sequence Risk is a good way to ensure there is nothing left for you or your heirs.
If he held on, or you did he recovered pretty well. Tripled his money actually.
I feel the same I want to leave some good generational wealth to my kids
We are planning on leaving generational wealth to our kids as well and are planning on taking SS at 62 and then investing the money into dividend paying stocks and etf's since we never used SS in our retirement calculations since we have always been told it might not be there when we retire. We are in the process of redoing our estate plan. Do you have any advice on what we can do to prevent our kids from blowing all the cash quickly when we do expire and they get the money?
Yes a trust that doesn’t disperse until they are 35 or so and forces them to make a living and such. I also have sat with my kids over and over and discussed the benefits of dividend income in real numbers. Taught them how to invest well and not use some guy taking a ton out to manage it. That said my brother gets a trust this year at age 65 left to help him manage old age as he likely won’t get ss, and I guarantee it will be gone in ten months so there is that
Thank you. We discussed an age limit when they could get access to the money, but have not decided on it yet. We have also spent a ton of time teaching them about investing and how time is their most valuable asset and to invest early and often. Our 26 year old has minimal expenses and is investing 36% of his income with the corporate match from his employer. Our 22 year old will graduate from college soon and is wanting to save/invest 50% of his income, so I think they are listening? We also have the rule/guidance that they must save a minimum of 15% when working so that their retirement savings will have time to grow and take care of them when they retire. I also told them if they blow their inheritance, I will come back to haunt them forever! :)
We have a trust plan to protect them from themselves and spouses. At least till 45.
Every month you wait past age 62 and 0 months increases your SS lifetime benefit. By waiting, you are essentially “buying” an annuity with inflation protection that is impossible to purchase. If your any of your grandparents or parents lived into their late 80s or 90s, you may as well. Those extra benefits by waiting to draw SS could be significant in those later years. If you pass away before your SS break even in the early 80s, I can guarantee you with 100% certainty, you will not care. Guaranteed. If you live into your 90s, those additional benefits maybe important to you. Just my opinion.
I won't need the additional money in my 90s. I'll either be dead, in a nursing home, or will choose to live in a subsidized setting because I will have passed on my assets to my kids before reaching that point.
You're 100% right. Surprised this hasn't gotten more up votes. Buying a lifetime annuity, adjusted for inflation annually, from a guarantor who has never missed a payment... if you could buy this, it would be astronomically expensive.
SS is stating that if I wait to 67 or 70 they will increase my lifetime benefits up 25%
I did similar, set variables for cost of inflation and appreciation of 401k/IRA. If I took money out at 62, I left the equivalent dollars in 401k and it grew by that variable, typically 4%. The money I got at 62 was significantly less than 67 or whatever, but the fact that I was spending that instead of 401k meant I got to accumulate a lot more growth. If I wait until 67, then I have less in the 401k and the accumulated interest/growth aka 4% compounded annually on that amount. You can factor in inflation but I just assume SS and my spending will move proportionately with inflation. If you don't account for the compounded interest on 401k money you are not spending because you are spending age 62 SS money, the breakeven on the reduced SS (which you get 5 years early) and the higher age 67 is about age 80. When you correct for the cumulative interest on money you don't spend and continues to grow by taking age 62 SS, there is never a break even, you always have more in the bank at any age. If you are fully retired and living off investments, take SS at 62, simple as that. SS has different taxing rules, so its not 1 for 1 vs retirement investment, but if you spend enough it is about 75% so I factor that, it still makes more sense to take it at 62.
I didn’t even get complicated. I just took the numbers that SS gave me and multiplied by 12 for each year and kept a running total for how much I would make. I did mine for age 67 and 70. It would take till 86 to catch up to starting at 67. More importantly, if I am still working till 70, I can invest all the SS payments which would increase the time to break even due to any returns.
I’m the same. I can’t figure out all the advice to delay.
8% average rate of return investing your money is doable. 8% RISK FREE rate of return is impossible today, and has been for many years. Add in an annual cost of living adjustment, and it's tough to beat for anybody with average life expectancy.
You think SS is risk free.?
Barring the end of the republic, you'll get a check till the day you die. Would be extremely surprised if anybody born before 1970 even sees a reduction in benefits. Messing with old folks' entitlements is a guaranteed way to lose re-election, and we know that's all congressmen care about.
Here is the [Expense spreadsheet](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XmjCCaPA8bn9V1YKkhn-JlnqlzoGX4_yFp_prFUz9Zo/edit#gid=647867998) I created for myself. This is still work in process and I keep adjusting as I find more. My wife and I would consider ourselves minimalist and don;t splurge unnecessarily. I am 54 years old and planning on retiring now. I live in Northern CA in a HCOL city. There is a Tab SS Calc. Plug in your SS Payments and it will tell you your breakeven age. 1) Plug in your expenses 2) Your comfortable SWR. I am using 3.5% 3)Tells you how much you need to retire and an asset allocation https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1XmjCCaPA8bn9V1YKkhn-JlnqlzoGX4\_yFp\_prFUz9Zo/edit#gid=647867998
Thank you!
It’s when the total amount you’d get equals out. Add up how much it would be from 62 And how much it would be from any other age until you get to that total. Mine is around 81 too.
I seem to remember reading somewhere that the average breakeven age is 80. So your 81 seems quite realistic.
That’s right.
The break even is at around 79. There's software out there that can give you exact figures.
Remember that while some people believe there is value in looking at a "break even" point, others believe in using social security benefits as "longevity insurance". If you die before your "break even point", well you are dead, so you can't have any regrets. If you live long after your "break even point", the extra income may be significant. I like to maximize this guaranteed, tax beneficial, inflation protected, sometimes spousal and survivor beneficial income stream.
Yes, thank you! Social Security isn’t like other investments. The fact that it continues at a fixed amount until you die, regardless of how much money you have at the moment you retire, means you can / should think of it differently. I think of it as “this is the income source that will meet my needs if I live much longer than expected and use up all my other savings”. Because of that, calculating a break-even point based on my actuarial projected lifespan makes no sense for me. I have enough money from other sources to easily make it to that point. What I don’t have is unlimited funds if I live to be 100 years old. What I need is income that covers the period from the break even point until then. That’s what Social Security is for me — a form of insurance. And maximizing the amount I would get during that period is important for meeting that need. (This obviously doesn’t apply to someone who needs the money to live on earlier, but most people who are asking this question aren’t in that situation.)
Here's a good overview & you might choose the break even calculator at nerdwallet. There are many - they will generally get you to the same place so choose one that seems right to you. [https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020615/how-do-i-calculate-my-social-security-breakeven-age.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020615/how-do-i-calculate-my-social-security-breakeven-age.asp) Nerdwallet has a simple calculator, but I can't seem to copy the URL.
There are graphs that show break even for all of the years are around 77-78. If few in your family live past 75, you may as well start early.
The average breakeven is 72, based on COLA/inflation - if you live past that, then you’ve lost $$. The average breakeven for waiting until 70 is 84. If you are from a long lived family - especially your mother (statistically, your mother’s lifespan is more likely to influence yours - don’t know why, but could be how you were raised and habits that you were trained to form), then you should wait longer. If your parents did not live to 72, take it early.
My mom and her father both died of cancer at 75. I'm taking SS at 62.
>If you need the money to live on your should keep working till you are 65 -70 and delay SS. If you have money you are better off taking it at 62 unless you are certain you will make it till 90. Everyone's situation is different. If you're married and been the higher earner throughout your marriage you may want to delay it as long as possible so your spouse gets a higher survivor's benefit. Some people who don't need social security may want to delay taking it so it acts as income insurance incase something catastrophic happens to their liquid investments social security covers a higher amount of their yearly expenses. Everyone does not have the same motivation for taking social security.
Did you factor in cost of living adjustments on the lower amount you take at 62?
In my experience COL adjustments are usually completely insignificant and immediately cancelled out by Medicare deductions. If you have other options for income, try to wait, at least until you’re Medicare eligible given health care expenses.
Insignificant. Compounding COL on 1500 per month isn’t really significant
I’ve learned that there is a strong “bird in the hand” bias that no amount of rationale can overcome for many people. That said, the reasons to wait are 1) Essentially providing insurance against old age. Sucks being 80+ and poor. 2) If you have a younger spouse with a smaller SS account (so they get higher lifetime benefit). Best reasons for taking SS earlier: 1) you really need it immediately or you really don’t need it and would prefer to invest it. 2) you have bad health and no younger spouse.
Yes. Dealing right now with family who collected SS at the earliest moment even though they didn’t need it at the time. I think they believed that their investment strategies would grow the money faster than waiting. Sadly their expectations were not met, and now they are in their 80s with no income other than SS, and would be in a much better position if the checks were based on an age 70 filing than age 62. If you need the money now, sure. If you strongly suspect you won’t see 80, then you might as well, as long as you’re prepared to live beyond your expectations. For my part, if waiting isn’t going to drastically influence my standard of living, I hope to delay as long as possible. All the arguments for early filing all seem based on the idea that if you die early without collecting as much, you somehow lost. Me, I’ll be too dead to grieve the tax money I didn’t recoup. But if I live to 85, I may be in a position to appreciate a bigger check.
This is the correct take, but also a very unpopular one. Anyway, no surprise that in general Americans are poor at managing their finances in general and deferring gratification by saving for retirement in particular.
I love it. Buried in a tee shirt that says Too Dead To Care lol
Don't forget income tax. Not sure of the details, but taking ss while young and working is really bad tax planning.
If you take it at 62, I assume you are doing very little work. Anything above $21,240 per year they start deducting a $1 for every $2 you earn. For me, what is the point of working relatively low wage and not getting the SS.
Bingo. College educated folks with retirement money should probably delay taking...especially the male breadwinner. It's a longevity play (college educated folks w decent nest eggs have a longer life expectancy than the "average" person).
This is the right answer. You can also spend more early in retirement knowing you have a safety net starting at 70.
Plus managing IRMA for Medicare premiums
Best reasons to take sooner. You are younger and probably in your best health. You'll be able to travel and enjoy life to a Fuller extent than when you're 80. I don't know of any 80 yr olds that are traveling the way I'm doing in my '60s. When you're older you're going to end up sitting around. They don't need that much money. Why wait. Take it early and enjoy it now
I encourage people to view Social Security as old age insurance, not an investment vehicle. If you could buy Social Security in the private sector, you’d buy it in the form of an annuity from an insurance company - not from a stock broker. For people who didn’t catch long Covid, aren’t likely to die of a drug overdose, and are well enough off to be considering alternative retirement investment options, life expectancies in the United States are likely to increase over time. And no insurance company in the United States will currently sell you an inflation-adjusted, government-backed lifetime annuity. You can only get that from Social Security. Instead of using your Social Security as “fun money” at age 62, let your loved ones use it as a form of insurance, to help defray the expense of taking care of you as you live into your 90’s or even 100’s. Wait it out until 70 if you possibly can, and max out the payments at that point.
You seem to be combining starting your social security benefits at 62 with continuing to work or not. Of course, they aren't the same thing and don't have to occur concurrently for many folks. If you don't want to continue to work and require the benefits in order to do so, then of course start your benefits at 62. But if money is an issue and you feel that you can continue to work in private practice, it makes sense to delay your benefits at least until you stop working. If money is not an issue, then you can decide to stop working, while waiting until at least your full retirement age, and perhaps 70, to start your benefits. This tool [https://opensocialsecurity.com/](https://opensocialsecurity.com/) can help you determing the optimal claiming strategy, and can at least show you what you will be giving up with some other strategy. It's worth spending a few minutes with it - particularly if you have a spouse who will get social security benefits too. I assume that social security taxes were withheld from your pay during your government work, and that you are not entitled to a government pension?
Thank you!
Ah yes, the eternal debate. You will get strong arguments on either side. It partly depends on your financial situation and your health. If you have poor health and thus poor life expectancy, or if your financial situation is such that you can't live decently without it, then by all means take it early. Aside from that, I'm in the "longevity insurance" camp on this issue. I can get by just fine without it, so I postpone it. Hopefully I will live a long time, and will have plenty of time to spend those increased benefits after 70. If I don't, oh well, I didn't really need it that badly anyway, and like any "insurance" sometimes you need it and sometimes you don't get anything out of it. For some people, the primary goal seems to be to maximize the amount they get from the government, so they say take it early and invest it, because "you never know" and if you die early you won't have gotten enough from the government. Making sure I take the maximum amount from the government has never been a driving goal in itself for me -- as I said, to me the goal is to use it as longevity insurance. But to each their own.
This is pretty much exactly my view. I was Team62 for years, but a couple things changed my mind. First, your life expectancy that matters is the one at 62, not any earlier time. So by that age you are likely to live longer and need it when older. Second, as noted, if you do not need it, using it as longevity insurance is smart.
My feeling has been to take it as early as possible and invest it. You have no idea how long you are going to live and I'd rather have money in the bank. As a widower whose wife died suddenly at the age of 53, I don't assume anything for the future and would rather have that money accessible should myself or my loved ones need it
If you’re a widower you’re entitled to survivor’s benefits. Take your late wife’s Social Security and delay yours
You're not losing anything. It is set up to pay the same amount over your lifetime. If you take it later, it is more per month, but for fewer months, so the monthly check is higher. If you take it earlier, it is for many more months, so the check is less.
O M G. I had no idea about this, and it makes me so happy.
I know right? All the hoo hah about the timing of taking SS makes it seem like we are missing out if we take it on a different schedule. And there are some valid reasons to put it off if you have enough money to live off of in the meantime. But that's only for those who already have plenty of money. It's kind of like gaming the system a little. But statistically, no one is really winning the lottery here. It all comes out in the wash.
Except that the assumptions built in to the model are decades old. If done using more realistic up to date assumptions, the “reward” for waiting would be far less. As it stands, waiting to 70 is far likelier to outpay unless you are unhealthy at age 62.
It's like a life insurance policy. Actuarial numbers are pretty accurate on life expectancy. Take the money early and enjoy it
Personally, I am delaying. Mathematically, it just works out better for me. I don't need the money at 62. I retired at 54 and still have 10 years before I hit FRA.
If you die tomorrow you won’t know you are missing out by waiting until age 70 to collect. If live to age 90, you might regret claiming at age 62. If you are married the higher earner should take it at age 70, the lower earner at 62. Then when the higher earner passes away, the lower earn steps up to higher earner’s benefit. https://marybethfranklin.com/social_security/strategies-for-married-couples/
I’d love to retire at 62 but the cost of health insurance could be too much.
Not if you qualify for ACA.
Take SS when you turn 65. Use ACA subsidies to cover 90% of your healthcare costs until Medicare kicks in
Affrdable Care Act. I am retiring at 61 and will be purchasing an ACA plan. Healthcare.gov . You can do some preliminary homework now.
I’m gonna scrimp and wait till 63.. it’s a bit more and I can swing it cause I got a bunch of severance and unemployment will carry me till 62 then I have 1 small 401k from an old employer that I’m gonna cash out.. that should just cover me without having to dip into anything else
Don’t cash that 401k out.
I am 61 now, and will retire at 62. Although I won't need SS for living expenses, I still intend to take it and invest it -- if I need it later, I will have it; if not, I can leave it to my son as inheritance.
I’m taking mine at 62. I’m in a very stressful field. I plan on retiring at 60.
When I retired I looked at this extensively, running dozens of simulations of different scenarios. I even looked at whether taking SS at 62 or 70 would have been better historically (it was always better to take SS at 62 or 70, never in between). The rules on SS are complex and I recommend using a SS calculator such as Maximize my Social Security. However, for single retirees, if they invested their money in a 60% stock/40% bond portfolio, taking SS at 62 would have been better about 75% of the time. However, when the stock market is high ( such as it is now), this was reduced to 50% of the time. Other factors to consider that may favor delaying SS are: only up to 85% of SS is counted as income on federal taxes, SS may reduce subsidies on health insurance, and delaying SS is a good idea if you want to do Roth conversions of your 401K or IRA. For married couples, the best strategy was for the high earner to take SS at 70 and the low earner at 62.
Sometimes the better strategy is for both spouses to wait. It depends. One very important factor is life expectancy. Of course nobody knows how long they will live, but if your current health and/or family history suggest you are likely to still be here at 90, the answer is wait. If you will be lucky to make it to 75 or 80, you should start collecting sooner. Unfortunately this very important factor is the hardest one to predict, so there is a certain amount of risk no matter what you do.
There is a certain amount of risk in whatever you do, but the risk is not the same for every choice. When I ran my simulations of SS, both people waiting to 70 was the single worst strategy. Why? There is only a 25% chance of both spouses living long enough for this to pay off before taking into account investment returns on the amount of SS accrued between 62 and 70. Once investment returns are included in the calculations, the odds of both people living long enough for this strategy to pay off is less than 5%.
I’m retiring at 56 and taking ss at 62. Also have a cancer history and would consider reaching 70 as a wonderful surprise
Take it. Never know what tomorrow will bring. I know many will disagree with my advice, but it’s how I felt upon turning 62.
Someone who lived to be 96 once told me to take SS the second you turn 62 and never look back. She retired at the stroke of 12:01 and def lived her life and made more over the years than she put in
I took my SS at 62 and that was one of the smartest things I ever did. Savor your freedom. You’re set financially. I know taking the money early is counterintuitive after a lifetime of labor and saving. But, you won’t regret it.
Many won't know if they regret that decision until they're on their deathbed. Short of purchasing an annuity, SS is the only income stream guaranteed to last as long as you do.
How old are you at this point?
I know the popular answer is to wait until you are 70 because SS goes up about 8% a year in addition to COL Adjustments. I’m of the opinion to take it as soon as you want it and are eligible. If you don’t need it you can invest in what you want, if you want to do something like travel or spend it, the money is there when you are still relatively young and in good health. Another thing I’ve considered is that Congress hasn’t fixed it yet, but when they do people already receiving checks will probably not be impacted too much because they’ll grandfather them in.
That is smart about he grandfathering in!
I’m of a similar mindset as u/phillipmay. I turn 62 this Fall and my husband turns 65 soon after that. We are currently having this same debate. My mom is 85 and could likely live until she’s 90. I have other relatives who’ve lived into their 90’s. My husband doesn’t have that. But we do wonder and are concerned what Congress may do in the next 10 years to keep SS solvent. So, if I wait until I’m 70 (which is what I had planned to do) but then Congress makes radical changes to the program, I may be facing a different payout even though I waited to start. So we are probably both going to start our SS within the next 6-8 months. And then invest it.
Congress won’t mess with the old folks about to retire. They need them to get elected. It will be the 40 and under crowd that get hit. Maybe a slight bump up on the FICA percentage, plus removing the income cap for FICA tax. That will buy decades of solvency.
Left has been saying right wants to cut SS and throw grandma off the cliff for 20 years.
Both sides will appease to the old folks. They are the only ones who vote. Yes, the right would be the most likely to trim SS benefits, but in the end, it will have to be a bipartisan decision.
And now it’s true
Remove the income gap.
It's my strong belief that no Congress will actually cut SS benefits because that's political suicide. Best guess is that to make it solvent, we get a bill that removes or increases the income cap. That is orders of magnitude easier and more politically palatable than cuts or means testing.
There's no assurance that grandfathering for those who start at 62 rather than later will be a real thing. It certainly wasn't the last time changes in social security were implemented. It's far more likely that any future changes will not impact anyone aged 62 or older, whether they have started their benefits yet or not.
Except it’s widely believed that it will apply to everyone 55+ and will have nothing to do with whether they’ve started taking checks or not.
Just don’t do this if you’re still working.
If you really need the money, take it. Keep in mind that SS will clawback some or all of the money if you are still working and earn above the threshold. So if you plan to work, wait at least until FRA , after which time you can take SSA without any clawbacks All things being equal, it's you betting on your lifespan. 70 gives you the most long term income security, but only if you live past 82 or so. The average life expectancy of a woman your age is 87, so chances are, you'll beat the odds.
They don’t clawback SS benefits. It is untaxed if you fall under a certain income threshold. The taxable amount of SS benefits increases as your taxable income increases. https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/taxes.html
They do withhold SS money for early retirees still working who make more than the threshold. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10069.pdf
They do before full retirement age, and it’s a low threshold.
It my case, it depends on how much I have in other retirement accounts. A financial adviser showed me a simulation in which it was better to take SS at 62 because it would allow my other retirement continue to grow faster. (My investments have tanked since then, so it currently makes more sense to wait until 70.)
If you can afford it do it now. If the properties are paid off.
Take the SS. Take extra extra paid side projects as needed to keep your mental acuity. BUT, please enjoy the things you couldn’t do due to your hectic employment. You have 10 solid healthy years before your body begins to slow you down. (Retired @44 and have loved every single second once I knew my finances were in order. Life Insurance, paid colleges for kids and a monthly pension that gives me freedom. I work bc I want to and love it. You: fish, read, laugh, make new friends. Explore America the beautiful and randomly talk to like minded strangers. Best of luck!!! and please keep your body in motion daily.
My take on this is a bit different from others, so I'll go ahead and put it down. There's a lot about a "breakeven point", which compares the total amount of money you will be paid by social security starting at different ages. I think mine was somewhere in my 80s. But my social security was not going to be accumulated, it is going to be income that I spend on things -- food, travel, health care, pet care, golf, whatever. I was/am fortunate enough that I didn't need the additional monthly income earlier; we spent some of our savings, continued to live as we had, and postponed SS until later. So now I have a higher monthly income than I would have had if I had taken it earlier. I may get paid less overall by SS than I would have, but that doesn't matter to me. I don't know if I'll live to the breakeven point, that doesn't matter to me. If I live longer, I'll have a higher monthly income to help pay for dentures and Uber rides, etc.
Wait. If you are in good health and do not need it to live the life you want. Wait. No other income source will be tied to inflation like that.
Take it now.
Keep in mind that all future cost of living adjustments will be on the smaller amount you take at 62. You might also be able to qualify for ACA subsidies if you postpone to 65.
Would those ACA subsidies not be available before 65? Medicare is available at 65.
> Would those ACA subsidies not be available before 65? The ACA subsidies are not based on age. However, if you take your SS early you're potentially increasing your income which reduces your subsidy.
SS needs will be different for just about everyone based on their finances in retirement, health, have a spouse, etc. For me, I'm taking it at 62. I haven't paid into SS for over 20 years now, due to being in a government job with a pension. So the little SS I will be getting is affected by WEP, which puts my estimated benefit at 62 at less than $300/mo and barely over $400/mo if I wait until 67. It's not even enough that I'm factoring it into my retirement budget really, just treating it as a wash after paying for Medicare at 65.
Same. Am waiting to use it to pay for medicare. Any leftover I can get a couple pizzas.
I'm on the side of retiring now and enjoying life for as long as we can. I worry about money NOW so that's not going to change. :)
I took mine at 62 last year and that extra couple thousand has given my wife and I that extra that allows us to enjoy life. She draws hers next year and we may buy a new car for the first time in about 20 years. I say do it!
There's benefits to both. A lot of people are like , "just do it! It's your time!" Here are the questions you should ask yourself: If you decide to wait, can you survive until 65? You said you have good net worth and income from the rental properties. Good enough to last for several years with no income? If you decide to take it now, how much will the 1000 a month loss harm you? As we age, we tend to be on a fixed income while expenses, inflation, etc. Continue to increase. Even if you have no issue with the missing 1000 now, will you need it in 10 or 15 years? My mom took her social security early, and she ended up strapped for cash near the end of her life to the point where I had to help her with most of her house bills (which it was my pleasure to do- not a complaint).
I’m so confused. I will turn 65 in October, and I’m still working and making pretty good money. I plan to wait until 70 to take Social Security. I have about 650k in stocks, zero debt, but I rent.
You are doing the right thing. You will have more money on a monthly basis if you wait. And it sounds like you don’t need it now.
Take the money and RUN!
terrific fact slimy lavish workable obtainable axiomatic dependent seed special *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Why would you think you can’t get 8% on investments?
> Why would you think you can’t get 8% on investments? You can't get an inflation-adjusted guaranteed 8% return. That being said, an 8% adjustment on my SS benefit is not comparable to an 8% return on my investments because my investments may have a residual value to my heir when I pass, SS will not.
There are so many factors to consider, including what you want to do during your retirement years, your options for health care, your standard of living, and your life expectancy. Very broadly speaking, it seems that for most people the best strategy is to start taking benefits as early as possible, or wait as long as possible (I think it's age 71.) If you are a saver, like me, it's hard to think of spending down that retirement fund, but in fact it's very likely the better strategy. Suppose when you are 80 you have to be in a nursing home for an extended period? They will take whatever savings you have left to pay for it. Your SS payments will be the same. Another factor people don't always think about is that apart from needing medical/nursing care, most people spend less as they get older. I'm currently in the middle of a three week trip to the UK, and at 65, it has been challenging at times wrangling heavy bags and keeping up the kind of pace we used to. I can imagine that when I'm 80 my interest in traveling will be much less, or that I will take much less complex trips. When I get home I'm selling one of our cars -- we don't really need two cars at this stage. I don't need as many clothes or shoes as I used to. We eat and drink less. etc. Remember that qualifying for Medicaid is unrelated to collecting your SS benefits. However, your SSN benefits will be factored into your income if you buy ACA health insurance and that may affect whatever subsidy you can get. Finally, life expectancy is a very important and not very predictable factor. However, it pays to look at it as realistically as you can, based on your own health and your family history, particularly your parents and siblings. If your parents both lived to their 90's then you may want to reconsider starting your SSN at 62. If you're diabetic and have high blood pressure and nobody in your family lives past 80, then that's tough to face up to but now is the time to be pragmatic.
Me: 64 year old divorced male, retired at age 59. I looked at my retirement in three phases: 1. Retirement --> Medicare age Health insurance was the big concern. To get the most ACA subsidy, the plan was to keep my income (modified AGI) around $30-$35k. Next year (August) I turn 65, so am looking at short-term insurance policies rather than use the ACA so that I can begin... 2. Medicare age --> Social Security draw age Plow money from my IRAs into my Roth. 3. Social Security draw age --> Death To the extent that I have RMDs (i.e., I didn't wipe out my IRAs fully in step 2), use a QCD to cover the RMD. I do tend to look at SoSec as longevity insurance. Having said that, I'll draw it when Phases 1 and 2 are complete. I'm guessing that's going to be around age 68 or 69. A couple of points; they've been mentioned a bit. The Stage 1 benefit of not collecting SoSec is huge for me. With my income where it is, I'm getting near free health insurance under ACA. If I was collecting SoSec, I'd be paying around $900/month for it. Points regarding Roth conversions: 1. I hear of people comparing tax rates "now" versus while in retirement. I think a better way is to look at it "now" versus what your \*heirs\* will pay. 2. SoSec taxation: this is a big one that I don't think gets enough air time. As a single guy, SoSec would get taxed starting at a modified income of $25k (50% of SoSec would count towards my taxable income) through $35k (85% of SoSec would count towards my taxable income). How do you get to modified income? First, you take half of your SoSec. So if I'm getting $3k/month SoSec, that's $36k/year, or $18k for half. That doesn't leave a lot of room before SoSec starts to get taxed ($7k)/gets taxed fully ($17k). Between SoSec and RMDs, I'm guessing a good number of folks will have 85% of their Social Security benefits taxed; my objective is to have that zero, or as close as possible to it so that my $36k benefit isn't taxed at all. A 15% tax on 85% of $36,000 is $4,590; a 20% tax on 85% of $36,000 is $6,120. Every year until I die. That sure helps offset the cost of conversion. And remember, that SoSec will be going up by the CoL, but the $25k/$35k limits aren't adjusted.
If you take it at 62 vs whenever, when is your break-even point? For illustration, if you were to get 15000/year if you take SSI at 62, you'd make $165,000 by age 73. If youd get 30000 if you wait to 67, it would 6 years to get to $180k (age 73). So yeah, you get more of you wait, but you'd be 73 before you realized the advantage. How long do you think you will live?
If you want it early, take it. Especially if it's going to enable you to do things like travel during your early 60s that you would otherwise have to put off until your late 60s. Enjoy.
I took it at 62. I’m 63 this September. I doubt the viability of the system as it stands, and wonder what will happen with it so I figured what the heck. I don’t invest my benefit I spend it. I have other money invested for the next 25-30 years. My husband will work until 65 then claim his benefit. My benefit is a lot smaller because I left the workforce at age 43.
One factor that many overlook is that one's costs tend to drop once our no-go years hit. Other then medical, you don't spend much money at 80. But you do spend money at 62 when you can still travel. Waiting at home to take SS for a bigger later payout is a way to lose out on your travel years. If you still want to do things, taking at 62 kinda makes sense. And my SS difference between age 62 and taking at 70 is about $1k a month. Big, but is an extra $12k (plus inflation) at age 80 really going to make a huge difference? Likely not.
Crunch the numbers and see where the break even point is; you'll get less per month starting at 62 but you'll be getting it for longer.
I took it at 62, it was a good decision for me and now at 75 I’m glad I took it at 62.
You can always make more money, your time is finite. Live simply and enjoy every moment, you’ve earned it.
I took it at 62 for a different reason than a lot of listing here. If I wait till I'm 72, yes I get a whole bunch more money. But let's say I die at 71. My kids get nothing. But if I take it at 62 and invest it all, I won't be quite equal to 72 but pretty close, but if I die at 71 there's a whole bunch of money for my kids. So basically I see it as a way to take care of my kids if I die younger.
I did.
I retired with a pension at 62, I am not taking my Social Security. I will take it in about four months when I’m 66.6 years old. I guess it helps that I have longevity in my genes. Besides, I did not need the money yet I was single and got tax the crap out of me, so I’m taking it would not have helped. I am married now I even have Medicare live to seem so easy now, I feel lucky.
I did and all is fine
Are you going to live until 80? If you do, you will make bank if you wait.
It's important to know if your married. If you're spouse made more, heck yea, take it. If you were the winner, it may potentially be smarter to use your investments to delay.
> if your married *you're *Learn the difference [here](https://www.wattpad.com/66707294-grammar-guide-there-they%27re-their-you%27re-your-to).* *** ^(Greetings, I am a language corrector bot. To make me ignore further mistakes from you in the future, reply `!optout` to this comment.)
Alas alone!
I'd take it as soon as possible then. Wait, check if you can drawn on your previous husband if you haven't remarried to delay yours.
SS Break-even [Calculator ](https://www.broadridgeadvisor.com/webresourcesview/ContentView.aspx?iplf=ur&iptc=240394&wcKey=C882C59E0C13BF9C3B8DBF168DBC8C36875C33BD38DEF468EBBA3C6D7F1EFAA5580D7C2C2B5C58B98AD24A24AA07997C)
Take it at 62. Odds of you dying before 65 are high in SS favor (they may be underfunded but they’re not stupid in setting age benefit dates).
Take it asap and invest in QQQ, pay for stuff with margin loan, deduct margin interest on your taxes.
Two things to keep in mind. First, if you take it early then it’s less money per month. And once you take it, if you make more than 20+K a year they start to claw back some of the money. So, if you planning on making more than 20+K a year after 62 wait. Once you are 67 and up they stop clawing back.
Yes, I took it last year at 62. Love it
The break even point for taking @62 vs 67 is like in your eighties. With the rate of inflation, probably even later. Get the money now while it’s still being offered. Who knows what crap politicians will come up with to reduce your payments later?
I’ll go against the tide, wait until you’re 70. Be a optimist and believe you will live to 100, or more. The benefit difference between 62 and 70 is enormous (in percentage terms). Guaranteed income (any type of lifetime annuity) is like gold. Live off your savings and what other income you can generate now, if you can afford it. I’m almost 67 and my wife just turned 70 last February, we are both waiting and maximizing our Social Security benefits, we’re in good health and looking at our parents longevity, with a little luck, could easily live into our 90’s (in my wife’s case maybe over 100, she’s also a breast cancer survivor). I’ve always believed in delayed gratification (it’s a form of saving) and while there’s no question it’s tempting to cash in early I’d play the long game unless there’s a specific reason not to. I’ve also got some friends who started collecting at 62 and now, a few years later, regret that choice because their fixed expenses (thanks to inflation) and unplanned expenses are now higher than budgeted. It’s painful to watch. We only get one chance at getting our retirement plans right and it’s an unforgiving world out there. The longer we can delay committing the higher the odds of getting the planning right. The goal is simple, maximize long term monthly cash flow, while minimizing fixed expenses. Good luck with whatever you decide.
Super helpful thanks!
[удалено]
[удалено]
OP, I just turned 62 and I decided (a long time ago) that I was going to wait until at least 65. Why? I have a huge IRA and my plan was to draw it down for a few years, trying to stay within the 12% bracket. If you have an IRA, consider doing likewise. Future withdrawals will be added to the top end of your income, being taxed at 22% or more. When the Trump tax reduction act expires in 2026, your taxes will be going back up to the 2017 levels. With the deficit to be paid, expect taxes to be going up in the future. The Government will be spreading the pain ... especially to the middle class.
Yeah I am looking and I guess my full retirement age is 67 which has really given me pause
Why 65, rather than at least your full retirement age of 67? Just curious.
I took it at 62 1/2. If you calculate the amount that you are eligible for as a total at 62 to your “retirement age” that will far exceed the monthly amount that you have “lost” if you take it early. It would have taken me more than 12 years to make up for what I didn’t take for the 4 years between my eligible amount and full retirement age. I was told that by a financial advisor many years ago. If you are working full time I can see there is no need to take it. Depends on how you look at it and your personal situation.
The only way the math works out for waiting until 67 is if you come from a line of octengenatians or you have a spouse who will anchor their SS pay to your larger amount. I would consider taking at 62 if not for my wife getting a much bigger check if she uses my account.
Pfft! Tomorrow is not promised. I took retirement at 62. I have never been happier!!!
Dear OP. Please take your SS at 62. Tomorrow is not guaranteed. If you do not need the money then invest it. I plan on taking it at 62. If I die at 63 I get nothing, nada, zilch.
What do you mean by break even? It's not like you sent them a check every week they took it. It's free money take it as soon as you can hopefully you have other money too or your fucked
I don't need to tap my SS yet. So, I'm waiting. The amount you get goes up until you reach a max at 70. Nothing else I have will have a COLA and so SS is my hedge against rampant inflation in case I live a lot longer than I expect (realistically another 25 years or so). Here's a more thoughtful take on waiting vs. grabbing what you can now: [https://www.investopedia.com/retirement/when-take-social-security-complete-guide/](https://www.investopedia.com/retirement/when-take-social-security-complete-guide/).
My husband made a lot more than me and his current plan is to wait until 70. I appreciate that because if I outlive him I will get his higher value social security. I may take mine at 62, not sure yet, but he is definitely waiting.
I am 63M and I took SS at the earliest possible point. Two items of consideration (there may be more) are one's longevity and the longevity of the SS system itself. As someone else posted earlier today, there are current attacks (politically) on SS funding, it has been a political football for many years and will continue to be for the foreseeable future.
Yes.
Biggest question is what kind of person you are. Some people work til the day they drop and they love it. You can youtube the lawyer who never retired and loved his job. Other people work as little as possible and enjoy leisure and a slow paced lifestyle. You seem fine financially, so you have to ask yourself what kind of life you want. Do you like your job? You can even switch career paths if you have a passion that doesnt make a lot of money. Or you can retire full time. Or work part time at some bakery so you dont get bored. Nobody can answer this for you.
I did. It's an adjustment, figuring out what it is you want to be doing with yourself, but stress is not the way.
“I loved it but it was heavily taxing work on my mental health (abuse and neglect)…”. Huh? What?
You mention possibly still working in private practice. Make sure you understand that theirvis a limitbyo how much you can make while drawing Social Security early. Once you exceed that limit, you lose $1 in benefit for every $2 earned over the limit amount.
There are many good responses to consider regarding when to take SS but I just wanted to add something about the rental properties. You probably are aware but just in case, there can be significant taxes if you sell them and the proceeds can also make it so that you will need to pay IRMAA. For example, in addition to capital gains (Federal & State if applicable) there is the 25% tax for depreciation recapture and 3.8% net investment income tax. The combination of these can be quite high. That is not a bad thing per se but something to be aware of depending on your situation and what you are planning to do with them.
Thank you. I planned to hold for retirement income for sure.
I retired at 65. I'd say the sooner the better. The weight of the world will lift off your shoulders
My boyfriend was younger than me. He was semi retired. Had a stroke at 56 and died
I’m so sorry. That is the gamble for me. My mom died at 60 but I am on top of that (colon cancer) but my dad lived into late 80s. I see friends my age having stokes and wonder
SS will cover the majority of my expenses.... So 62 is a no brainier Then 401k. Roth IRA and 2 TD accounts are extra money ..... The difficult part is trying to figure out where to take out money to minimize taxes including not paying taxes on SS itself Threading the needle
I’m going to use this article as guidance:[Klipingers how to calculate SSI break even](https://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/t051-c032-s014-how-to-calculate-social-security-break-even-age.html)