bean29
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 22:26:57 GMT -5
Posts: 9,887
|
Post by bean29 on Mar 18, 2022 15:38:04 GMT -5
Be sure to sign up for Medicare at 65. It’s not related to time you take SS. I made that mistake, took SS at 66 then signed for Medicare. If over 65 then you pay a penalty every month for rest of your life. Unless you have insurance through a company of over 500 people (think it’s that #}, then you’re not penalized if over 65 when you take Medicare. BUT the company may require you to sign anyway for Medicare at 65 for life?? why on earth? I know there was an issue for my FIL, I did not realize he had to sign up for Medicare, he was working for a large company (but they are self insured), I told him he had to work until my MIL was 65, so I think he was 67 when he retired. There was an issue with his Medicare, but they worked around it, I think they got the certificate of credible care, so he did not have to pay a penalty. My current employer is a small group plan, when employees reach 65 and sign up for Medicare, Medicare becomes primary, and the premium for the policy goes way down.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 1:57:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2022 15:54:13 GMT -5
The current uncertainty in the financial world would lead one to think that delaying if you can for a higher payout is a big winwin - but then the government really never actually promises or guarantees anything either, do they? In my case the uncertainty around increased taxation of SS, including all the nasty "stealth taxes" as 85% of my SS gets added into AGI and 100% into MAGI (which determines IRMAA adjustments) meant that the extra $$ I'd get by delaying to age 70 instead of 69 wasn't worth it. I know there was an issue for my FIL, I did not realize he had to sign up for Medicare, he was working for a large company (but they are self insured), I told him he had to work until my MIL was 65, so I think he was 67 when he retired. There was an issue with his Medicare, but they worked around it, I think they got the certificate of credible care, so he did not have to pay a penalty. Same with DH. He was on my employer plan till age 76, when I retired at age 61. Because he could show proof of creditable coverage from age 65 to age 76, he didn't have to pay penalties.
|
|
NoNamePerson
Distinguished Associate
Is There Anybody OUT There?
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 17:03:17 GMT -5
Posts: 25,594
Location: WITNESS PROTECTION
|
Post by NoNamePerson on Mar 18, 2022 16:27:01 GMT -5
One of the advantages of being single. It doesn't matter if I have to spend down all my assets for end of life care.
Yep- DS is my only heir and he knows my top financial priority is not outliving my savings. He's fine with that. Same with my son who is only heir. I jokingly tell him I hope the last check I write before I croak bounces! He did remind me once he was on account and I best not screw up his credit. Love that kiddo.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 9,985
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Mar 18, 2022 17:00:26 GMT -5
I will die broken hearted if I'm not leaving an even million to each child. I am hoping it will be much more, but it super bums me I am below 2 million invested and savings the past few months. I loved it when I had already acheived that goal. I think with my employer life insurance and home equity I would still make good on that promise if I fell over dead today.....
Feel like I need to add up some numbers again, but I'll wait till the April NW checkin for that.
****compulsion alert**** ****compulsion alert**** ****compulsion alert**** ****compulsion alert**** ****compulsion alert**** ****compulsion alert****
ok - I had to check. Yes, I have 2 million to leave if I include life insurance payout.
includes 401k and rollovers, roths, HSA, taxable account, ibonds, company stock, everything. Plus 2xsalary employer life insurance. Not any home equity. which accoridng to redfin is at nearly 200k, but I just never include that. too variable/uncertain/illiquid/needtoliveinit, etc.
|
|
|
Post by minnesotapaintlady on Mar 18, 2022 17:34:38 GMT -5
I'm fine with not leaving any inheritance. It's stressful enough to just make sure I have enough without planning for excess. I'm not opposed if it happens and won't set up my will to leave everything to the cats or anything like that though. I hope I'm able to at least pass the house/land on, but if not...oh well. I'm not from a family where inheritance is a thing. My mom was from a large family so even though my grandparents did well, they lived into their 90's and had 9 kids. I think they each got about 25K.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 1:57:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2022 17:42:57 GMT -5
I was reading this thread while I was at work, but didn’t have time to post. I understood a lot of the points Lizard Queen was making. As I said before, I don’t see me being able to be a full time caregiver for my Mom, unpaid family, as Lizard Queen called it. I still couldn’t do it even if I was paid though. Mom didn’t plan and doesn’t have any money saved, so am I supposed to pay for help and assistance for her since I can’t do it? Then what happens when I’m old myself and need money for care, if I’ve spent a lot of my money on my Mom’s care? If I still have my house, sell it? When that runs out, then what? Not to mention how that brings up one of the points Lizard Queen was making about passing down assets and generational wealth. My Grandmother kept her “extra” house for so long because she wanted her children and grandchildren to always have a place to live if they needed it. And if not for my Mom and my brother, we’d have 2 houses in the family, thanks to my Grandmother. Instead, we have zero. That bothers me, because I understood how important it was to my Grandmother to try to pass down real estate to her descendants. So I started thinking, maybe I could do that for my own children and grandchildren. My income isn’t such that I can plan and save for myself and my Mom too. What if she needs a caregiver while I’m still working? I can’t just quit my job. If I did, there goes my retirement funds. So, is it better to help pay for my Mom, or end up helping pay for my Mom AND for me eventually? My retirement planning consists of the classic 3 legged stool, a pension, my TSP (similar to a 401k) and SS. I am trying to plan to live off of only 2, for as long as I can. That is why my starter house had become my forever house over a decade ago. I realized I really, really wanted to retire ASAP and I felt like moving to a more expensive house would hinder that, so I decided to stay put. I will technically be eligible to retire in about 7 years. In my brain though, I can’t retire until I’m 58 or 59yo. Since my house would be paid off by then, I could squeak by just on my pension. I don’t see that being much fun long term though. So I’ll either need to start using my TSP money or apply for SS, sooner rather than later. Idk whether it would be better to start using my TSP money or get SS at age 62. If nothing crazy happens, I don’t think I’ll absolutely need all 3 for a while. If I start getting SS at 62, I can leave most of my TSP alone until I really need it. That kinda makes more sense to me, but I’m clearly not the best YM’er anyway, so I don’t really know. I don’t include Mister in my retirement planning. I need to know that I can be ok without him, so that is how I continue to plan.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 1:57:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2022 17:47:45 GMT -5
I'm fine with not leaving any inheritance. <snip>I'm not from a family where inheritance is a thing. My mom was from a large family so even though my grandparents did well, they lived into their 90's and had 9 kids. I think they each got about 25K. Same here. I remember my grandmother telling me she buried her mother with her wedding ring on because "it was the only thing she had that was hers". I over-saved for retirement (while enjoying some of my earnings along the way) and I'm happy for the measure of conservatism, especially with the market's performance this year so far and knowing the approximate cost of my late father's LTC in the 18 months before he died. I'm grateful he was able to get into a place near my siblings that provided decent care. Did I mind that it reduced my inheritance by a big chunk? Heck, no. That's what it was there for and what was left was split with my 4 siblings, anyway. It was never part of my retirement plan and the bulk of it will go towards my grandchildren's education and most of the rest to charity. If I start getting SS at 62, I can leave most of my TSP alone until I really need it. That kinda makes more sense to me, but I’m clearly not the best YM’er anyway, so I don’t really know. That's the reason a lot of pretty sharp people on the Early Retirement board are planning to file at 62.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 1:57:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2022 18:10:15 GMT -5
I would love to be able to be retired and feel like I “over saved”. I’ll be happy to have saved “just enough” to be comfortable though.
I’ve made decent money for where I live since I was 26yo. I was raising 2 children though, with little financial help (or any other kind) from their Dad, my ex-husband. I still always saved at least 5% of my salary in my TSP, and my employer contributed another 5%. BUT! Retirement seemed like a million years away until sometime in my 30’s, so I did use some money in my retirement account a few times, so my account isn’t what it could be if I’d been smarter.
The middle class does get screwed a lot. They make too much money for some things and not enough money for other things. The poor qualify for assistance, the wealthy have more money to make money off of and more ways to shelter their income from taxes. The ones in the middle just get to be grateful they aren’t poor, I guess. As long as nothing really bad happens and messes everything up, that is.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 9,985
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Mar 18, 2022 18:11:03 GMT -5
I'm fine with not leaving any inheritance. It's stressful enough to just make sure I have enough without planning for excess. I'm not opposed if it happens and won't set up my will to leave everything to the cats or anything like that though. I hope I'm able to at least pass the house/land on, but if not...oh well. I'm not from a family where inheritance is a thing. My mom was from a large family so even though my grandparents did well, they lived into their 90's and had 9 kids. I think they each got about 25K. well, if you have your pot o gold, and the 4% rule holds, you never dig into principal, and the principal should also increase to cover inflation. Why I figured when I had a 2m balance, that I met the 1m each kid goal. ....but if we are entering stagflation years, that puts a rip in it and I'm not sure how long I can continue working. if it last a decade, I sure can't make it through....
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 1:57:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2022 18:12:59 GMT -5
I'm fine with not leaving any inheritance. <snip>I'm not from a family where inheritance is a thing. My mom was from a large family so even though my grandparents did well, they lived into their 90's and had 9 kids. I think they each got about 25K. Same here. I remember my grandmother telling me she buried her mother with her wedding ring on because "it was the only thing she had that was hers". I over-saved for retirement (while enjoying some of my earnings along the way) and I'm happy for the measure of conservatism, especially with the market's performance this year so far and knowing the approximate cost of my late father's LTC in the 18 months before he died. I'm grateful he was able to get into a place near my siblings that provided decent care. Did I mind that it reduced my inheritance by a big chunk? Heck, no. That's what it was there for and what was left was split with my 4 siblings, anyway. It was never part of my retirement plan and the bulk of it will go towards my grandchildren's education and most of the rest to charity. If I start getting SS at 62, I can leave most of my TSP alone until I really need it. That kinda makes more sense to me, but I’m clearly not the best YM’er anyway, so I don’t really know. That's the reason a lot of pretty sharp people on the Early Retirement board are planning to file at 62.Ahhhh, so maybe it’s not necessarily a dumb idea, huh. I started to not even type that, for fear of sounding like a dummy lol.
|
|
|
Post by minnesotapaintlady on Mar 18, 2022 18:41:43 GMT -5
I'm fine with not leaving any inheritance. It's stressful enough to just make sure I have enough without planning for excess. I'm not opposed if it happens and won't set up my will to leave everything to the cats or anything like that though. I hope I'm able to at least pass the house/land on, but if not...oh well. I'm not from a family where inheritance is a thing. My mom was from a large family so even though my grandparents did well, they lived into their 90's and had 9 kids. I think they each got about 25K. well, if you have your pot o gold, and the 4% rule holds, you never dig into principal, and the principal should also increase to cover inflation. Why I figured when I had a 2m balance, that I met the 1m each kid goal. ....but if we are entering stagflation years, that puts a rip in it and I'm not sure how long I can continue working. if it last a decade, I sure can't make it through.... I think it could fall apart a lot towards the end too, especially if you're suddenly dealing with assisted living or other expensive long-term care. Or you just get up there and realize you have all this money, way more than you could ever spend with your current expenses, and decide to live it up a little knowing you have plenty. Make some big donations or pay your grandkids way through college...basically doling it out ahead of time. If I have millions in my 80's I'm going to have some pretty loose purse strings.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,107
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 18, 2022 18:51:21 GMT -5
Same here. I remember my grandmother telling me she buried her mother with her wedding ring on because "it was the only thing she had that was hers". I over-saved for retirement (while enjoying some of my earnings along the way) and I'm happy for the measure of conservatism, especially with the market's performance this year so far and knowing the approximate cost of my late father's LTC in the 18 months before he died. I'm grateful he was able to get into a place near my siblings that provided decent care. Did I mind that it reduced my inheritance by a big chunk? Heck, no. That's what it was there for and what was left was split with my 4 siblings, anyway. It was never part of my retirement plan and the bulk of it will go towards my grandchildren's education and most of the rest to charity. That's the reason a lot of pretty sharp people on the Early Retirement board are planning to file at 62.Ahhhh, so maybe it’s not necessarily a dumb idea, huh. I started to not even type that, for fear of sounding like a dummy lol.No, it is not necessarily a dumb idea. Unfortunately, it is not necessarily a smart idea either. There are advantages and disadvantages either way. When to claim SS is an individual decision based on each person's individual circumstances. Do not lock yourself into one idea and expect it to remain unchanged forever. What you need to do is give yourself options and then evaluate those as the time gets closer. Continue to save as if SS is uncertain to even be there. That is the first step to guaranteeing your future. There is a lot that goes into the decision of when to claim SS. Trying to make the decision now won't work.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 9,985
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Mar 18, 2022 18:56:49 GMT -5
well, if you have your pot o gold, and the 4% rule holds, you never dig into principal, and the principal should also increase to cover inflation. Why I figured when I had a 2m balance, that I met the 1m each kid goal. ....but if we are entering stagflation years, that puts a rip in it and I'm not sure how long I can continue working. if it last a decade, I sure can't make it through.... I think it could fall apart a lot towards the end too, especially if you're suddenly dealing with assisted living or other expensive long-term care. Or you just get up there and realize you have all this money, way more than you could ever spend with your current expenses, and decide to live it up a little knowing you have plenty. Make some big donations or pay your grandkids way through college...basically doling it out ahead of time. If I have millions in my 80's I'm going to have some pretty loose purse strings. same.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 1:57:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2022 20:15:12 GMT -5
Ahhhh, so maybe it’s not necessarily a dumb idea, huh. I started to not even type that, for fear of sounding like a dummy lol.No, it is not necessarily a dumb idea. Unfortunately, it is not necessarily a smart idea either. There are advantages and disadvantages either way. When to claim SS is an individual decision based on each person's individual circumstances. Do not lock yourself into one idea and expect it to remain unchanged forever. What you need to do is give yourself options and then evaluate those as the time gets closer. Continue to save as if SS is uncertain to even be there. That is the first step to guaranteeing your future. There is a lot that goes into the decision of when to claim SS. Trying to make the decision now won't work. It’s still just an idea. For now, my strategy is just to save as much as I can, and figure out the rest later. Despite my efforts, and even if I suck it up for a couple of years, I’m pretty sure that I will need 2 sources of my income around the time I turn 62yo. Just trying to be able to suck it up for 2 or 3 years, is a lot for my brain to try to deal with right now. That is why I keep saying I will try to figure out the details when I get closer. Idk why I have such a big issue with thinking about and planning for retirement, like I have some kind of mental block in regards to it, but I honestly do. I am not locking myself into any position. As far as my TSP, I’ve been increasing my contributions recently, mostly just because I could. That is why I started asking about the need for after tax savings in retirement, because I’m trying to have options, even if they are meager. I learned a lot by asking about it. I’m not saying I’m planning to take SS as soon as I’m eligible. I’m just saying that I’m applying for it whenever it makes sense for me, even if that’s when I’m only 62yo.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Mar 18, 2022 20:26:28 GMT -5
I like the strategy of figuring out how little you can live comfortably on now, and saving the rest.
|
|
❤ mollymouser ❤
Senior Associate
Sarcasm is my Superpower
Crazy Cat Lady
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 16:09:58 GMT -5
Posts: 12,857
Today's Mood: Gen X ... so I'm sarcastic and annoyed
Location: Central California
Favorite Drink: Diet Mountain Dew
|
Post by ❤ mollymouser ❤ on Mar 18, 2022 20:53:12 GMT -5
I am disabled and have a myriad of health issues. I will take my Social Security at 62.... five years from now.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,107
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 18, 2022 22:41:28 GMT -5
No, it is not necessarily a dumb idea. Unfortunately, it is not necessarily a smart idea either. There are advantages and disadvantages either way. When to claim SS is an individual decision based on each person's individual circumstances. Do not lock yourself into one idea and expect it to remain unchanged forever. What you need to do is give yourself options and then evaluate those as the time gets closer. Continue to save as if SS is uncertain to even be there. That is the first step to guaranteeing your future. There is a lot that goes into the decision of when to claim SS. Trying to make the decision now won't work. It’s still just an idea. For now, my strategy is just to save as much as I can, and figure out the rest later. Despite my efforts, and even if I suck it up for a couple of years, I’m pretty sure that I will need 2 sources of my income around the time I turn 62yo. Just trying to be able to suck it up for 2 or 3 years, is a lot for my brain to try to deal with right now. That is why I keep saying I will try to figure out the details when I get closer. Idk why I have such a big issue with thinking about and planning for retirement, like I have some kind of mental block in regards to it, but I honestly do. I am not locking myself into any position. As far as my TSP, I’ve been increasing my contributions recently, mostly just because I could. That is why I started asking about the need for after tax savings in retirement, because I’m trying to have options, even if they are meager. I learned a lot by asking about it. I’m not saying I’m planning to take SS as soon as I’m eligible. I’m just saying that I’m applying for it whenever it makes sense for me, even if that’s when I’m only 62yo. Plans change, even if they seem "right." I went part-time at 56, planning to continue until 62 because, "Why not?" I retired shortly after turning 58 when the company was sold and the location closed. I didn't want to look for another job, so I didn't. I would live off savings until 59.5 when I could access my IRAs, doing additional Roth conversions to lower my IRA balances. Instead, my ex died, giving me the option to take survivors' benefits at 60. Because survivors' benefits are independent of worker's benefits, I could claim those and still delay my own. Given that over a quarter-million dollars of free money is hard to pass up, especially when it would cover all of my necessary expenses with money left over, I did that. I'm now left with a seven-figure investment balance that I basically don't even need. Do I regret over-saving? Not at all. I would have been good either way, and the saving/investing ensured that. Continue to do what you are doing. Keep saving, and keep seeking information. You'll be fine with those two things. Don't make yourself crazy with it though. You're getting to the fun part! And as far as work stress goes, I found that it decreases tremendously when you realize that you don't really have to be there.
|
|
buystoys
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 30, 2012 4:58:12 GMT -5
Posts: 5,650
|
Post by buystoys on Mar 19, 2022 4:46:34 GMT -5
Be sure to sign up for Medicare at 65. It’s not related to time you take SS. I made that mistake, took SS at 66 then signed for Medicare. If over 65 then you pay a penalty every month for rest of your life. Unless you have insurance through a company of over 500 people (think it’s that #}, then you’re not penalized if over 65 when you take Medicare. BUT the company may require you to sign anyway for Medicare at 65 for life?? why on earth? So people don't wait until they're sick to sign up.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 1:57:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2022 8:20:23 GMT -5
There are advantages and disadvantages either way. When to claim SS is an individual decision based on each person's individual circumstances. Do not lock yourself into one idea and expect it to remain unchanged forever. What you need to do is give yourself options and then evaluate those as the time gets closer. Continue to save as if SS is uncertain to even be there. That is the first step to guaranteeing your future. There is a lot that goes into the decision of when to claim SS. Trying to make the decision now won't work. I agree. My initial plans (around age 55) were done anticipating that SS wouldn't be there for me. (I have no concern that it will ever be totally eliminated but could see it taxed away someday for those with high incomes.) I had a vague plan to retire at 65 even though my FRA was 67. I retired at 61 when I got fed up with toxic politics and added SS into my projections and the numbers looked pretty good. DH was collecting SS but I wasn't eligible for Spousal till age 67 and chose not to file on my own record at 62. Remember the guy who wrote a book on the "File and Suspend" option? At FRA I would have been able to file for Spousal and let mine grow till age 70. It was kind of funny to watch every financial guru and her brother publish a clickbait article on "The $12,000 Social Security Benefit Most Seniors Don't Know About". Then the gubmint decided too many people were taking advantage of it and eliminated that provision for people born after a certain date. I would have been eligible but DH died when I was 63, meaning I could collect what he was getting as a Survivor Benefit and let my own grow. That made the decision pretty easy. As I noted before, though, I decided to start at age 69 rather than 70. So yes, things change. I know I keep citing the Early Retirement Board but they're a great resource. Every few months someone will start a "When should I file for SS?" thread and the rest will point out the numerous threads on the subject already created.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,357
|
Post by Tiny on Mar 19, 2022 9:06:07 GMT -5
The only other common reasons I've seen have been ill health (and thus anticipated shorter life expectancy), fear that SS won't be there if they delay, and wanting to delay withdrawing from tax-deferred accounts. My reasoning would be thinking I could do better investing it than letting it grow on it's own in the form of increased payout later. But, the discussion here is leading me to believe I'd be pretty hard pressed to do so without considerable risk. Another couple of considerations I've seen with the "when to take SS" 1.) if you are married - you need to take into consideration what income streams the surviving spouse will have. (the surviving spouse may have a smaller "survivor pension benefit" and a smaller SS survivor benefit AND be in a higher tax bracket because they are now filing single - even with the smaller benefits.) 2.) The idea of a base of "guaranteed" income - from SS (and maybe a pension ) and how if you have moderate savings/investments at retirement (say the 25X expenses) but expect to need retirement income for 30 or 40 years - it might be better to take SS as late as possible to build up the "guaranteed" base income - as your investments need to last a llllloooonnnngggg time and it's difficult to predict the future. I think the best course of action is to pay attention to and learn about how SS works in the years before you turn 62. So you can make a good decision about it. I'm kind of surprised when people make assumptions about "how something works based on what they've heard other people say about in polite conversation" and then however they've formulated it in their head - is how they believe it works and then make decisions based on that belief. Or maybe it's more of they hear from someone how it worked BEST for that someone - and assumed that's the way it would work BEST for them. I kind of fell into that with some aspects of retirement and investing advice - I'm not married - but most advice is for married people (even though that is never mentioned).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 1:57:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2022 9:13:54 GMT -5
1.) if you are married - you need to take into consideration what income streams the surviving spouse will have. (the surviving spouse may have a smaller "survivor pension benefit" and a smaller SS survivor benefit AND be in a higher tax bracket because they are now filing single - even with the smaller benefits.) Yes, and this is one of the decisions that affects women disproportionately since they tend to live longer. It also lets you be more aggressive with your investments (e.g. higher % in equities for higher returns over the long run) if a higher % of your expenses are covered by fixed, predictable income. One sad statistic I read was that some high % of seniors (around 50%?) believed that after your spouse dies you continue to collect the Spousal plus the primary wage earner's benefit. You don't, of course- you just get the primary wage earner's benefit. Imagine being a new widow and finding THAT out.
|
|
Tiny
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 21:22:34 GMT -5
Posts: 13,357
|
Post by Tiny on Mar 19, 2022 9:33:21 GMT -5
My current plan is built around me not needing to take SS until I'm 70 and expecting to live to 90 or beyond. But that could change, I'm 58 and 70 is 12 years away and things could change health wise and especially since I am on a path to FIre "early" well before my FRA of 67.
(I just found out that FIre comes with the assumption you are in your 30's or 40's and retiring... NOT that you are retiring in your 50's or early 60's - before the typically thought of retirement age for Boomers of 65 (or I imagine it will shift to 67 as retirement planning starts to shift more to GenX and Millennials rather than Boomers.
I was assuming FIre meant you didn't have to work until the day of your ability to get Medicare and the biggest SS payout possible. Silly me. )
Anyway I'm 58 and expect to "FIre" soon - before 59 I'm waiting to lose my job.
I'm confident my "financial plan" to get me from 58 to 62 (the next 4-5 years) is solid. I think I can predict "typical" things that will happen and what kinds of expenses I will have for the next 4-5 years with some accuracy. After that it starts to get a little fuzzier.
I'm hoping I don't need to take SS at 62. But it's a decision I will have to make as I approach it (perhaps my health will take a dive or perhaps something else will happen).
I'm fairly confident my "financial plan" will get me to 65 when my Pension kicks in. I will have to make another SS decision at that point.
And then again when I reach 67 (my FRA). Hopefully I will be in good health and good financial standing and will be able to continue to delay SS until I'm 70. This path means living to 90 or beyond is more than likely for me...and SS along with my Pension will be a solid "base income" no matter how long I live.
IF you are actively working towards having a Big Pile of Money (savigns/investments) to fund your retirement (and or have a pension and are supplementing it with a Pile of Money (savings and investments) I don't think the decision of when to take SS is a "one and done" I think it's a decision that needs to be made as you come up to the various SS milestones.
I think not planning much and not saving much for retirement may make when to take SS more of a "one and done" decision as SS will be more important to your quality of life in retirement.
My retirement planning was built around on building a Big Pile of Money and what my pension pay out would be covering my retirement expenses - and SS being the "life jacket" or "icing on the cake" in my retirement.
|
|
CCL
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 19:34:47 GMT -5
Posts: 7,571
|
Post by CCL on Mar 19, 2022 9:37:27 GMT -5
There are advantages and disadvantages either way. When to claim SS is an individual decision based on each person's individual circumstances. Do not lock yourself into one idea and expect it to remain unchanged forever. What you need to do is give yourself options and then evaluate those as the time gets closer. Continue to save as if SS is uncertain to even be there. That is the first step to guaranteeing your future. There is a lot that goes into the decision of when to claim SS. Trying to make the decision now won't work. I agree. My initial plans (around age 55) were done anticipating that SS wouldn't be there for me. (I have no concern that it will ever be totally eliminated but could see it taxed away someday for those with high incomes.) I had a vague plan to retire at 65 even though my FRA was 67. I retired at 61 when I got fed up with toxic politics and added SS into my projections and the numbers looked pretty good. DH was collecting SS but I wasn't eligible for Spousal till age 67 and chose not to file on my own record at 62. Remember the guy who wrote a book on the "File and Suspend" option? At FRA I would have been able to file for Spousal and let mine grow till age 70. It was kind of funny to watch every financial guru and her brother publish a clickbait article on "The $12,000 Social Security Benefit Most Seniors Don't Know About". Then the gubmint decided too many people were taking advantage of it and eliminated that provision for people born after a certain date. I would have been eligible but DH died when I was 63, meaning I could collect what he was getting as a Survivor Benefit and let my own grow. That made the decision pretty easy. As I noted before, though, I decided to start at age 69 rather than 70. So yes, things change. I know I keep citing the Early Retirement Board but they're a great resource. Every few months someone will start a "When should I file for SS?" thread and the rest will point out the numerous threads on the subject already created. Why would you have to wait til 67 to collect a spousal benefit?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 1:57:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2022 10:05:46 GMT -5
Why would you have to wait til 67 to collect a spousal benefit? I wanted to wait and let it grow. People in my family tend to live a long time. From the SS site: "You can claim spousal benefits as early as age 62, but you won't receive as much as if you wait until your own full retirement age. For example, if your full retirement age is 67 and you choose to claim spousal benefits at 62, you'd receive a benefit that's equal to 32.5% of your spouse's full benefit amount.". I ended up collecting a Survivor benefit at age 63.5 anyway.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,026
|
Post by teen persuasion on Mar 19, 2022 10:10:40 GMT -5
My current plan is built around me not needing to take SS until I'm 70 and expecting to live to 90 or beyond. But that could change, I'm 58 and 70 is 12 years away and things could change health wise and especially since I am on a path to FIre "early" well before my FRA of 67. (I just found out that FIre comes with the assumption you are in your 30's or 40's and retiring... NOT that you are retiring in your 50's or early 60's - before the typically thought of retirement age for Boomers of 65 (or I imagine it will shift to 67 as retirement planning starts to shift more to GenX and Millennials rather than Boomers. I was assuming FIre meant you didn't have to work until the day of your ability to get Medicare and the biggest SS payout possible. Silly me. ) Anyway I'm 58 and expect to "FIre" soon - before 59 I'm waiting to lose my job. I'm confident my "financial plan" to get me from 58 to 62 (the next 4-5 years) is solid. I think I can predict "typical" things that will happen and what kinds of expenses I will have for the next 4-5 years with some accuracy. After that it starts to get a little fuzzier. I'm hoping I don't need to take SS at 62. But it's a decision I will have to make as I approach it (perhaps my health will take a dive or perhaps something else will happen).
I'm fairly confident my "financial plan" will get me to 65 when my Pension kicks in. I will have to make another SS decision at that point.
And then again when I reach 67 (my FRA). Hopefully I will be in good health and good financial standing and will be able to continue to delay SS until I'm 70. This path means living to 90 or beyond is more than likely for me...and SS along with my Pension will be a solid "base income" no matter how long I live. IF you are actively working towards having a Big Pile of Money (savigns/investments) to fund your retirement (and or have a pension and are supplementing it with a Pile of Money (savings and investments) I don't think the decision of when to take SS is a "one and done" I think it's a decision that needs to be made as you come up to the various SS milestones. I think not planning much and not saving much for retirement may make when to take SS more of a "one and done" decision as SS will be more important to your quality of life in retirement. My retirement planning was built around on building a Big Pile of Money and what my pension pay out would be covering my retirement expenses - and SS being the "life jacket" or "icing on the cake" in my retirement. That's the nice thing about SS - every month you have the option to change your mind/plans and start benefits, if you like or need. You don't need to lock yourself into "I'm waiting to 70" permanently. Situation changes, ok, start my SS benefits now. Or, situation looks rosy, wait on SS to get increased benefits later. ETA: Someone on Bogleheads was even debating waiting to 70.5 to apply for SS. Benefits don't increase beyond 70, why delay? When you apply, you have the option to get 6 months of back payments. If the timing is right waiting the extra 6 months could put you into the next tax year, possibly giving you one more year for Roth conversions w/o SS benefits pushing up income and tax. Then you recover the missed payments in the new year. Clever trick.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 9,985
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Mar 19, 2022 13:20:24 GMT -5
My current plan is built around me not needing to take SS until I'm 70 and expecting to live to 90 or beyond. But that could change, I'm 58 and 70 is 12 years away and things could change health wise and especially since I am on a path to FIre "early" well before my FRA of 67. (I just found out that FIre comes with the assumption you are in your 30's or 40's and retiring... NOT that you are retiring in your 50's or early 60's - before the typically thought of retirement age for Boomers of 65 (or I imagine it will shift to 67 as retirement planning starts to shift more to GenX and Millennials rather than Boomers. I was assuming FIre meant you didn't have to work until the day of your ability to get Medicare and the biggest SS payout possible. Silly me. ) Anyway I'm 58 and expect to "FIre" soon - before 59 I'm waiting to lose my job. I'm confident my "financial plan" to get me from 58 to 62 (the next 4-5 years) is solid. I think I can predict "typical" things that will happen and what kinds of expenses I will have for the next 4-5 years with some accuracy. After that it starts to get a little fuzzier. I'm hoping I don't need to take SS at 62. But it's a decision I will have to make as I approach it (perhaps my health will take a dive or perhaps something else will happen).
I'm fairly confident my "financial plan" will get me to 65 when my Pension kicks in. I will have to make another SS decision at that point.
And then again when I reach 67 (my FRA). Hopefully I will be in good health and good financial standing and will be able to continue to delay SS until I'm 70. This path means living to 90 or beyond is more than likely for me...and SS along with my Pension will be a solid "base income" no matter how long I live. IF you are actively working towards having a Big Pile of Money (savigns/investments) to fund your retirement (and or have a pension and are supplementing it with a Pile of Money (savings and investments) I don't think the decision of when to take SS is a "one and done" I think it's a decision that needs to be made as you come up to the various SS milestones. I think not planning much and not saving much for retirement may make when to take SS more of a "one and done" decision as SS will be more important to your quality of life in retirement. My retirement planning was built around on building a Big Pile of Money and what my pension pay out would be covering my retirement expenses - and SS being the "life jacket" or "icing on the cake" in my retirement. That's the nice thing about SS - every month you have the option to change your mind/plans and start benefits, if you like or need. You don't need to lock yourself into "I'm waiting to 70" permanently. Situation changes, ok, start my SS benefits now. Or, situation looks rosy, wait on SS to get increased benefits later. ETA: Someone on Bogleheads was even debating waiting to 70.5 to apply for SS. Benefits don't increase beyond 70, why delay? When you apply, you have the option to get 6 months of back payments. If the timing is right waiting the extra 6 months could put you into the next tax year, possibly giving you one more year for Roth conversions w/o SS benefits pushing up income and tax. Then you recover the missed payments in the new year.
Clever trick. wow - that is next level crafty!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 29, 2024 1:57:51 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2022 13:28:58 GMT -5
wow - that is next level crafty! And that's one of the reasons I hang out on bulletin boards with perfect strangers. I once asked my brother, a retired tax CPA, if it was possible to get someone who could just go through my investments and tax returns and make suggestions for tax-reduction strategies. The one I did consult wanted to run a fancy-schmancy Monet Carlo simulation of my finances into the future and charge $1,000 for it. I get that already form another source. Brother said that kind of advice is hard to come by and expensive. So, I'm mostly picking up advice and insights along the way. (Mutual finds with low turnover, ETFs even better, in taxable accounts, stocks such as Berkshire in taxable accounts, high-turnover finds and anything else with potential short-term gains in IRAs, etc.) The Bogleheads one is really clever. It wouldn't have helped me since my birthday is in February.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,107
|
Post by tallguy on Mar 19, 2022 13:40:38 GMT -5
That's the nice thing about SS - every month you have the option to change your mind/plans and start benefits, if you like or need. You don't need to lock yourself into "I'm waiting to 70" permanently. Situation changes, ok, start my SS benefits now. Or, situation looks rosy, wait on SS to get increased benefits later. ETA: Someone on Bogleheads was even debating waiting to 70.5 to apply for SS. Benefits don't increase beyond 70, why delay? When you apply, you have the option to get 6 months of back payments. If the timing is right waiting the extra 6 months could put you into the next tax year, possibly giving you one more year for Roth conversions w/o SS benefits pushing up income and tax. Then you recover the missed payments in the new year.
Clever trick. wow - that is next level crafty! I was going to try that with the survivors benefit but the rule is different. Those benefits are not retroactive so it isn't allowed to manipulate the system the same way.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,026
|
Post by teen persuasion on Mar 20, 2022 22:42:28 GMT -5
wow - that is next level crafty! And that's one of the reasons I hang out on bulletin boards with perfect strangers. I once asked my brother, a retired tax CPA, if it was possible to get someone who could just go through my investments and tax returns and make suggestions for tax-reduction strategies. The one I did consult wanted to run a fancy-schmancy Monet Carlo simulation of my finances into the future and charge $1,000 for it. I get that already form another source. Brother said that kind of advice is hard to come by and expensive. So, I'm mostly picking up advice and insights along the way. (Mutual finds with low turnover, ETFs even better, in taxable accounts, stocks such as Berkshire in taxable accounts, high-turnover finds and anything else with potential short-term gains in IRAs, etc.) The Bogleheads one is really clever. It wouldn't have helped me since my birthday is in February. Yep, that's why I am on Bogleheads and read all sorts of threads about situations we'll probably never reach - but you never know what little tidbits might get mentioned, or trigger a brainstorm. I've gotten fascinated by McQ's threads. He seems to be an older professor who enjoys researching retirement issues and writing papers on his theories. Once he discovered Bogleheads, he started posting his early concepts there for tons of feedback and critique - it really gets into the weeds on fine details. Generally he's trying to figure out whether Roth converting is worth the tax cost, and when you should optimally touch the Roth balances (never), and if there's truly a surviving spouse tax torpedo.
|
|
seriousthistime
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 20:27:07 GMT -5
Posts: 4,679
|
Post by seriousthistime on Mar 21, 2022 12:25:04 GMT -5
ETA: Someone on Bogleheads was even debating waiting to 70.5 to apply for SS. Benefits don't increase beyond 70, why delay? When you apply, you have the option to get 6 months of back payments. If the timing is right waiting the extra 6 months could put you into the next tax year, possibly giving you one more year for Roth conversions w/o SS benefits pushing up income and tax. Then you recover the missed payments in the new year.
If I'd done this, (which I could have, birthday is in November) anything I saved on taxes would have been eaten up by an even higher IRMAA adjustment.
There's a lot to consider.
|
|