- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Social security claiming strategy
Posted on 6/11/24 at 7:07 pm
Posted on 6/11/24 at 7:07 pm
When a husband is 5 years older than wife?
Should I wait?
Should I claim?
62?
67?
70?
Should I wait?
Should I claim?
62?
67?
70?
11
Posted on 6/11/24 at 7:09 pm to makersmark1
Build a spreadsheet and calculate your break even point for each scenario.
Posted on 6/11/24 at 7:11 pm to makersmark1
You provided none of the pertinent data 
This post was edited on 6/12/24 at 11:49 am
Posted on 6/11/24 at 7:12 pm to makersmark1
Posted on 6/11/24 at 7:52 pm to makersmark1
Posted on 6/11/24 at 7:53 pm to amgslg
Thanks.
I run the data.
I run the data.
Posted on 6/11/24 at 8:48 pm to makersmark1
Many variables but your health and need for cash are factors to consider.
Posted on 6/12/24 at 6:41 am to ItzMe1972
I think the answer most are saying is it depends. We just appplied for SS for my wife. We don't need the income and are just going to sock the money into an investment account until I decide to retire.
Posted on 6/12/24 at 6:49 am to makersmark1
Each person's circumstances and risk tolerance will vary, so it pays to run the numbers, read up as much as you can and have a financial planner experienced in Social Security matters discuss the options with you.
Waiting to claim Social Security until full retirement age (FRA) guarantees 100% of your benefits. FRA varies depending on your birth year. For anyone born in 1960 or later, FRA is 67 years old.
Either way, I don't think taking it at 62 makes financial sense. Optimal if you could do it would be to wait until 70. So somewhere in between is a "sweet spot".
In our case, we talked to our financial planner, ran the numbers, and finally decided to just take it when we reached our FRA (Ours was 66 and 4 months).
My point has been the "time value of money" and accessing our full benefits versus waiting a couple of years. Yes, waiting until age 70 allows for delayed retirement credits, resulting in a higher benefit. When one spouse dies, the surviving spouse can claim the higher monthly benefit for the rest of their life.
But who knows what the current political winds are for increasing the age, changing the benefits etc. We'd rather have it now than have the Government screw us in a couple of years and keep moving the goal posts. I paid in. It's my money and I want it.
They're discussing it!
Waiting to claim Social Security until full retirement age (FRA) guarantees 100% of your benefits. FRA varies depending on your birth year. For anyone born in 1960 or later, FRA is 67 years old.
Either way, I don't think taking it at 62 makes financial sense. Optimal if you could do it would be to wait until 70. So somewhere in between is a "sweet spot".
In our case, we talked to our financial planner, ran the numbers, and finally decided to just take it when we reached our FRA (Ours was 66 and 4 months).
My point has been the "time value of money" and accessing our full benefits versus waiting a couple of years. Yes, waiting until age 70 allows for delayed retirement credits, resulting in a higher benefit. When one spouse dies, the surviving spouse can claim the higher monthly benefit for the rest of their life.
But who knows what the current political winds are for increasing the age, changing the benefits etc. We'd rather have it now than have the Government screw us in a couple of years and keep moving the goal posts. I paid in. It's my money and I want it.
They're discussing it!
This post was edited on 6/12/24 at 6:50 am
Posted on 6/12/24 at 6:57 am to Nole Man
Wife and I are 62. Single income couple. I’ll likely work full time into 67.
We decided to file now and take early. All benefits will go directly into one or more ETF’s. VOO is likely to be the vehicle we use.
Not looking back. We figured we can likely do better with the asset value than the government going forward.
We decided to file now and take early. All benefits will go directly into one or more ETF’s. VOO is likely to be the vehicle we use.
Not looking back. We figured we can likely do better with the asset value than the government going forward.
Posted on 6/12/24 at 7:15 am to OTIS2
quote:
Wife and I are 62. Single income couple. I’ll likely work full time into 67. We decided to file now and take early. All benefits will go directly into one or more ETF’s. VOO is likely to be the vehicle we use. Not looking back. We figured we can likely do better with the asset value than the government going forward.
This was probably a bad decision, even with growth. Taxes are the main reason this was likely dumb.
Posted on 6/12/24 at 7:45 am to slackster
Given the tax (penalty) smack they’re going to take, since he’s going to continue working full time, I guess I don’t understand that reasoning either. Maybe he can elaborate further.
Posted on 6/12/24 at 8:00 am to Nole Man
quote:
Either way, I don't think taking it at 62 makes financial sense. Optimal if you could do it would be to wait until 70. So somewhere in between is a "sweet spot".
On average (key word is average) someone who starts drawing at 70 instead of 62 takes 10 years for the person who started drawing at 70 to 'catch up' to the person who started drawing at 62 payment wise. There's tons of factors at play here. Nobody on here can predict when the will die. You could start drawing at 62 and die at 70 or start drawing at 70 and die at 72. Its all a gamble. I do one one thing I would start drawing as early as financially possible because you will likely be 'grandfathered' in regardless of any changes upcoming and folks there will be massive changes to SS benefits as we get closer to 2030. If you have maxed out a 401k, Roth and HSA or have a pension I'd start drawing at 62.
Posted on 6/12/24 at 8:00 am to slackster
I don’t think the tax man is escapable. I preferred to take control of my “investment “ in the SS program sooner rather than later.
FWIW, my income is structured through a professional corporation. So, my SS investment is not as high as it would have been.
FWIW, my income is structured through a professional corporation. So, my SS investment is not as high as it would have been.
Posted on 6/12/24 at 9:38 am to makersmark1
I’d take it as soon as you could get it.
Posted on 6/12/24 at 9:47 am to slackster
This was probably a bad decision, even with growth. Taxes are the main reason this was likely dumb.
________
Hard to make this statement blindly. Health concerns and other factors at play. We all know that if one lives into their 90s, then the best route is to wait. But if he doesn't get out of his 70s, then taking it earlier is best.
Just financially speaking, why are you taking this stance? If he keeps it invested and earns 15% (says VOO is his plan), then not so sure it is a bad move for him.
Fyi, wife and I are 64, 63. I have always been the higher earner. She just started taking hers. She wanted hers. I am waiting and will revisit the decision annually.
________
Hard to make this statement blindly. Health concerns and other factors at play. We all know that if one lives into their 90s, then the best route is to wait. But if he doesn't get out of his 70s, then taking it earlier is best.
Just financially speaking, why are you taking this stance? If he keeps it invested and earns 15% (says VOO is his plan), then not so sure it is a bad move for him.
Fyi, wife and I are 64, 63. I have always been the higher earner. She just started taking hers. She wanted hers. I am waiting and will revisit the decision annually.
Posted on 6/12/24 at 11:00 am to BabyTac
quote:
I’d take it as soon as you could get it.
That's my plan when I turn 62. I've been retired early going on 5 years. All of our income is non-earned income from savings, Roth and traditional IRAs, interest and dividend income. I'm taking SS early when I do turn 62 because I don't think SS will be intact like it is in the next 5 to 10 years.
Posted on 6/12/24 at 11:23 am to ronricks
You raised some good points.
Good article on the subject!
We went round and round with this decision as noted. Considering the max benefit at 70 etc. We concluded our "sweet spot" was 67. Water under the bridge now anyway.
But...
Deciding when to take Social Security benefits is a significant decision that depends on various personal factors. I think one's health and financial situation would drive a lot of that.
Good article on the subject!
We went round and round with this decision as noted. Considering the max benefit at 70 etc. We concluded our "sweet spot" was 67. Water under the bridge now anyway.
But...
Deciding when to take Social Security benefits is a significant decision that depends on various personal factors. I think one's health and financial situation would drive a lot of that.
Posted on 6/12/24 at 11:24 am to Nole Man
Don't these 2 statements sort of contradict each other?
I'm in my mid-40s and my wife is in her late-30s; so we have awhile before we will be eligible. But part of our investment planning now has factored in the impact of collecting SS at the various trigger points; while our forecasting budget is based on SS being defunct. Obviously, as we get closer, we will fine tune the planning.
Just looking on the surface, without factoring in TVM or taxes, if comparing 62 vs 67, the breakeven would not be until I'm 77. If comparing 67 vs 70, the breakeven would not be until I'm 81. If comparing 62 vs 70, the breakeven would not be until I am 79. Early 80s seems to be the sweet spot for my family, so 62 may end up making sense as I won't be out that much...obviously TBD once TVM & taxes are considered
quote:
Either way, I don't think taking it at 62 makes financial sense
But who knows what the current political winds are for increasing the age, changing the benefits etc. We'd rather have it now than have the Government screw us in a couple of years and keep moving the goal posts
I'm in my mid-40s and my wife is in her late-30s; so we have awhile before we will be eligible. But part of our investment planning now has factored in the impact of collecting SS at the various trigger points; while our forecasting budget is based on SS being defunct. Obviously, as we get closer, we will fine tune the planning.
Just looking on the surface, without factoring in TVM or taxes, if comparing 62 vs 67, the breakeven would not be until I'm 77. If comparing 67 vs 70, the breakeven would not be until I'm 81. If comparing 62 vs 70, the breakeven would not be until I am 79. Early 80s seems to be the sweet spot for my family, so 62 may end up making sense as I won't be out that much...obviously TBD once TVM & taxes are considered
This post was edited on 6/12/24 at 11:34 am
Posted on 6/12/24 at 11:59 am to OTIS2
quote:
Wife and I are 62. Single income couple. I’ll likely work full time into 67.
This sounds more like the ideal case to delay. By delaying you would increase your SS and hers assuming she is drawing based on your work history as single income couple.
Also, by continuing to work you likely exceed the threshold for SS payments to be taxable.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News