Social Security question

[MBAtarga]

If I live to be 85, it's better for me to take the SS at 70. If I live to be 84, waiting until 67 is better than taking it at 62. I've got good genetics on my side and expect to live at least that long God willing.

The other thing to consider - if you're married - is you/your spouse gets the higher of the two payments when the other dies. And odds are - our women will far outlive us. That will add up as my calculated SS payment is about $1-1.2K higher than hers.

[dan88911]

And your spouse may find themself in a higher tax bracket following your demise.
Filing as single

[fintstone]

It might be unwise to ensure that one's spouse is significantly better off financially if one is deceased.

It might impact one's longevity.

[Crowbob]

I'm shooting' for 85. I can live with having a few thousand bucks left over when I croak. From here on out, the goal is comfort, not speed.

[KFC911]

Originally Posted by MBAtarga

If I live to be 85, it's better for me to take the SS at 70. If I live to be 84, waiting until 67 is better than taking it at 62. I've got good genetics on my side and expect to live at least that long God willing.

The other thing to consider - if you're married - is you/your spouse gets the higher of the two payments when the other dies. And odds are - our women will far outlive us. That will add up as my calculated SS payment is about $1-1.2K higher than hers.

Methinks one's marital status, discrepencies between you, and whether you "need" the SS income, or simply reinvest it at a nice return (say 7%) for the duratuon, or risk getting nothing (if single) back matters. I think it's "play money" for many on this board ....

At 70, I would rather have several hundred K from SS $$$ already accumulated (a lump sum that's mine to do as I please with) rather than just starting to collect.

There is no "right" answer .... unless you know yer "croaked on date" .

My best childhood friend and college roommate .... a healthnut, died from Covid at 61. I've had a couple of "close calls" from idjuts blowing through red lights, and my elderly parents' don't even consume what they draw from SS each year....

I sell crystal balls for 19.95 on TV too!

If I were married, I would consider having the lower recipient begin drawing early too.... and investing it.

No "one size fits all" .... and no guarantees in life....

Except death and taxes

[Seahawk]

My "Full Retirement" age is 66 years and 4 months....meaning no penalty on SSN payments if I continue to work, which I will. I start receiving SSN next month.

The math is really simple: 3 years and 8 months of SSN benefits at, let's pick a number, $3k a month: That equates to $132k before taxes - which is why I will soon be a SC resident since they do not tax SSN benefits - accrued by age 70.

You folks can do the monthly/yearly investment math if you don't need to use the benefit money every month and invest the entire sum, which is what I will do because I will work until at least age 70, god willing.

If I make it to 80, add another $360k at 3K a month, or a total of $492k before investments.

If I wait until 70, I gain another grand or so a month but I lose the 3 years and 8 months of income and investment opportunity and SSN stays solvent.

Now, that is not a lot of money per year but it can provide a very real safety net if you can go the investment route.

[Superman]

Originally Posted by stevej37

I signed up for mine at age 65. I wanted it when I could use it for fun, instead of more for a new and better wheelchair.

Exactly.

[Superman]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

My "Full Retirement" age is 66 years and 4 months....meaning no penalty on SSN payments if I continue to work, which I will. I start receiving SSN next month........Now, that is not a lot of money per year but it can provide a very real safety net if you can go the investment route.

This is the same conclusion, only with an "invest" purpose instead of a "have fun" purpose. In both, the time value/current value of money is respected.

[rfuerst911sc]

My decision was fairly simple . I paid into the system from age 15-60 when I retired . My wife basically the same . When we retired early we had to pay for health insurance ( ouch ) . Paid out of pocket for 3.5 years and then said screw it . Started taking SS and haven't looked back.

We both are on Medicare now so our SS income plus our pensions go into the kitty . Everything we have is owned free and clear so we have substantial $$$ left over each month . And this is without touching the nest egg .

Did I leave $$$ on the table by drawing early ? Maybe yes maybe no it just depends on our end dates . Without knowing the end dates we are enjoying the $$$ while we are healthy in mind and body . Works for us may not work for you .

[wdfifteen]

My parents lived to be 84 and 86, and at 65 I was significantly more healthy that they were at that age. I decided I would wait until age 70 to collect the larger amount. So far, so good.

[KFC911]

I just hope to live longer than Keef does

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by wdfifteen

My parents lived to be 84 and 86, and at 65 I was significantly more healthy that they were at that age. I decided I would wait until age 70 to collect the larger amount. So far, so good.

There really is no "right answer"...at least in my mind.

My wife has worked all her life and is 9 years younger than I am. She plans on waiting until she reaches 70 as well.

[Por_sha911]

The decision as to when to signup has a ton of variables. For me, I income and the company supported health plans are so valuable that I will continue to work since I still enjoy what I do.

Here is some info from Medicare.gov about signup, penalties, and exceptions

[Por_sha911]

[fintstone]

I just want to point out that one does not need to start social security to get Medicare.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by fintstone

I just want to point out that one does not need to start social security to get Medicare.

Yeah, but you won't get Part A for free.

Snipped from AAPP's site:

"Even if you don’t qualify for Social Security, you can sign up for Medicare at 65 as long you are a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident."

[Sooner or later]

Zeke, I don't believe that is correct. Unless I am misunderstanding what you are saying.

https://www.aarp.org/retirement/social-security/questions-answers/enroll-medicare-not-ss.html#:~:text=You%20will%20have%20to%20pay%20Med icare%20directly%20for%20all%20coverage,get%20Part %20A%20for%20free).

Part A is free if you qualify for Social Security, even if you have not claimed benefits yet, but Part B carries a premium. In 2023, the standard Part B premium is $164.90 a month; it goes up for beneficiaries with incomes above $97,000 for someone who files an individual tax return and $194,000 for a married couple filing jointly.

If you are not yet receiving Social Security benefits, you will have to pay Medicare directly for Part B coverage. Once you are collecting Social Security, the premiums will be deducted from your monthly benefit payment.

[Zeke]

Well, the same site goes on to say,

"You will have to pay Medicare directly for all coverage, including Part A..."

I'm not an expert, soooooo.... I did read through the whole Medicare book they send every year. I even bought a book on the subject many years ago when I was in my 60's. I'll say this, the Medicare book from SS is painfully lacking in detail. No one could read it if it was complete.

[Sooner or later]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Well, the same site goes on to say,

"You will have to pay Medicare directly for all coverage, including Part A..."

I'm not an expert, soooooo.... I did read through the whole Medicare book they send every year. I even bought a book on the subject many years ago when I was in my 60's. I'll say this, the Medicare book from SS is painfully lacking in detail. No one could read it if it was complete.

You left out a key part.

Even if you don’t qualify for Social Security, you can sign up for Medicare at 65 as long you are a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. You will have to pay Medicare directly for all coverage, including Part A (unless you or your spouse are among the small number of state and local government employees who paid Medicare taxes but not Social Security taxes; in this case, you may be able to get Part A for free).

[Zeke]

Key part? Small number of government employees?

However, that happens to be germane to the thread as JB used to work for a government agency in CA. In CA, government employees pay into a state system call CalPERS and they don't have SS deductions. I have 3 teachers in the close family, one retired. She gets her CalPERS pension and IDK what she does about heath ins. The other 2 are working so they are covered with the usual contract health ins provided with school district employment.

It may just be that JB is getting a CalPERS pension, or state disability as he WAS injured. So now at age 65 he has to make this go right. And it's not easy. So far, good info in this thread.

The kye takeaway is that one MUST address Medicare at age 65. I was covered until age 68 under my wife's employment. When I finally signed up for Medicare 3 years later, they wanted to pile on the penalties. I had to get a letter from my wife's HR to indicate that my part of her health plan was indeed deducted from her check. Had they gone out of business or something of that nature I would have had a lot of hoops to jump through.

Furthermore, I know a person that has big bucks and ignored the Medicare requirement age. When he finally figured out that Medicare with a comprehensive Supplemental plan was going to be his best bet, they nailed him with a life time penalty of 30% added. Plus his interest income is substantial so he's already paying a lot more than I.

He is 76 and is pretty uninsurable on the open market with his income. Lifetime smoker too, so he's out to lunch.