re: S/S - Do you plan to take at 62/67/70

quote:

---

That’s not really the problem with SS. It’s not that the money isn’t there, it’s that the money isn’t coming in faster than it’s going out in the very near future.

---

The one thing I have read that makes me think it's functional long term is that the idea of "money going out faster than in" is a misunderstanding. Yes, specifically social security tax is not keeping up with the spend and the reserve fund is draining, but once that is drained the government will just fund it with tax dollars. Now the government might print the tax dollars to fund it, but it's not like the system is purely reliant on social security taxes to fund the entire system.

The person I read this from could be mistaken, so if it's wrong tell me.

I started taking SS at 64, FRA was 66.5 years.
I did the calculations, and would not start losing money until age 78.
Made sense to not leave money on the table.

A word of caution about taking it early- they wanted to “take back” $8,000 due to early retirement payouts the year I retired.
I was able to appeal the clawback and WON once I got my HR department to verify my age 64 payments were due to a severance package.

You won’t be getting much of anything. I’m 44 and don’t expect a nickel. Boomers are going to bankrupt SS and Medicare.

If I have good health wait to 70. If not looking at taking it early.

Still have 15+ years before need to make the determination

quote:

---

I have not looked at this in a while, but thought the break even age was 82. I think I did comparison of taking it at age 62. Am I remembering this incorrectly?

---

Everyone's situation is going to be unique. This may have been correct for you comparing just you taking early at 62 versus just you taking it at either FRA or 70.

Now - let's assume your income changed significantly since then. Or you have a lower income spouse who is several years younger. All of that can change the math. As it your working date/amounts.

If you continue working after you take benefits, your income will be limited. At FRA there is no limit. Without getting into a political debate about how/why it is so complicated, it is a very, very complicated calculation and not subject to easy answers.

For example - if my health takes a significant dip in the next 2 or 3 years, that might change my plans radically. I could retire in 3 years if I had to. I would have to change a bunch of things, but that would put me in the "62" camp.

I began taking ss at FRA (66 years 4 months). I still work full time. My wife recently applied to take hers starting in January (64 years 6 months) because I will be retiring in the next few months. I will still work part time for the next year and a half.

quote:

---

You won’t be getting much of anything. I’m 44 and don’t expect a nickel. Boomers are going to bankrupt SS and Medicare.

---

I'd love to hear a rational explanation from someone arguing that this is not a Ponzi scheme.

62 without hesitation. Rules will change if you don't

I am waiting.

I did just enroll in medicare this year as I became eligible. There are penalties in some sections of it if you wait.

Warning to business owners--medicare is not cheap. It is income based and if you have LLCs flowing enough income through to your personal tax return they will hit you with high premiums. It sucks considering I also pay that income tax surcharge for medicare. My premiums are no less than they were on Blue Cross but my deductibles are less.