Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
User avatar
Topic Author
JMacDonald
Posts: 2386
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 4:53 pm

Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by JMacDonald »

NY Times article about when to take Social Security: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/15/busin ... ecurity%2F
FOR many retirees, Social Security benefits are seen as hot money on the table, to be devoured as soon as possible. But as with preparing and savoring a fine meal, a careful approach and delayed gratification may yield the highest rewards from the program.

Many financial planners advise that you wait as long as possible before receiving benefits. Despite this, a sizable number of Americans who have reached 62 — 41 percent of men and 46 percent of women — apply for Social Security at 62, the earliest age at which you can take payments. The way Social Security works, this will lock in the lowest possible payment for life.
Best Wishes, | Joe
The Wizard
Posts: 13356
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:45 pm
Location: Reading, MA

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by The Wizard »

Not much new in that article, eh?
Attempted new signature...
User avatar
burt
Posts: 852
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:47 am

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by burt »

Everyone has different circumstances ...but for me....

Time is more valuable than money. Taking SS at 62.

burt
Johm221122
Posts: 6394
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 6:27 pm

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by Johm221122 »

burt wrote:Everyone has different circumstances ...but for me....

Time is more valuable than money. Taking SS at 62.

burt
What does time have to do with it, you don't have to take SS to retire :?:
John
User avatar
mickeyd
Posts: 4898
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 2:19 pm
Location: Deep in the Heart of South Texas

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by mickeyd »

As more boomers approach retirement we see more of these offerings, don't we? 10 years ago we saw numerous "how much should I save for retirement" articles.

For BHs it's "nothing new here folks. Just keep on movin".
Part-Owner of Texas | | “The CMH-the Cost Matters Hypothesis -is all that is needed to explain why indexing must and will work… Yes, it is that simple.” John C. Bogle
User avatar
midareff
Posts: 7711
Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:43 am
Location: Biscayne Bay, South Florida

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by midareff »

There are so many variables that there is no one rule fits all. I have seen math tht says deplete portfolio and take SS at 70 and I have seen lots of mitigating factors aginst that. IMHO you are batting on the break even point which is in the 78 or 79 year old range, and living that long has no guarantee.
For me, I started 2 yers ago at 64, made good money on th extra I could leave in the portcolio and then paid back year one and restarted at 65 (their request).
If I, m still kicking at 80 I'll work the numbers and see who really got who. ..... as if I will GAS then.
User avatar
burt
Posts: 852
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:47 am

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by burt »

Johm221122 wrote:
burt wrote:Everyone has different circumstances ...but for me....

Time is more valuable than money. Taking SS at 62.

burt
What does time have to do with it, you don't have to take SS to retire :?:
John
Yes, if you have sufficient assets, you could just skip SS.

burt
Johm221122
Posts: 6394
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 6:27 pm

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by Johm221122 »

burt wrote:
Johm221122 wrote:
burt wrote:Everyone has different circumstances ...but for me....

Time is more valuable than money. Taking SS at 62.

burt
What does time have to do with it, you don't have to take SS to retire :?:
John
Yes, if you have sufficient assets, you could just skip SS.

burt
Just save enough to last from the day you want to retire until 70, then SS should be plenty
John
User avatar
Cut-Throat
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:46 am

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by Cut-Throat »

burt wrote: Yes, if you have sufficient assets, you could just skip SS.

burt
Yes, if your portfolio is meager and you need the money, then you are pretty much forced to take SS early at 62.

Some just do not have a choice.
User avatar
Toons
Posts: 14467
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:20 am
Location: Hills of Tennessee

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by Toons »

I don't spend any time thinking about what I could have had if I had waited to take Social Security at a later age.
I do know that I have received about 20k in payments since I turned 62 and have enjoyed spending every penny of it...No regrets whatsoever,the plan is working :happy
"One does not accumulate but eliminate. It is not daily increase but daily decrease. The height of cultivation always runs to simplicity" –Bruce Lee
User avatar
burt
Posts: 852
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 6:47 am

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by burt »

Toons wrote:I don't spend any time thinking about what I could have had if I had waited to take Social Security at a later age.
I do know that I have received about 20k in payments since I turned 62 and have enjoyed spending every penny of it...No regrets whatsoever,the plan is working :happy
You got it. Congratulations.


burt
freddie
Posts: 920
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:06 pm

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by freddie »

It is one the horrible ones. Notice how they didn't run the numbers:) Yes you get 8% more by waiting. You also get 1 less year of payments. For the married white college aged nonsmoking woman, delaying is a good bet. For the single black, overweight, male, smoker who has had 2 heart attacks, taking the money has a lot going for it.:) I would guess for about 30% of the population (smokers, people with diabetes and history of strokes and heart attacks,...) taking it at 62 makes a ton of sense if you goal is to maximize your SS payout not your risk.


The Wizard wrote:Not much new in that article, eh?
gerrym51
Posts: 1679
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 1:44 pm

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by gerrym51 »

Toons wrote:I don't spend any time thinking about what I could have had if I had waited to take Social Security at a later age.
I do know that I have received about 20k in payments since I turned 62 and have enjoyed spending every penny of it...No regrets whatsoever,the plan is working :happy

ditto :mrgreen:
exoilman
Posts: 881
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:38 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by exoilman »

gerrym51 wrote:
Toons wrote:I don't spend any time thinking about what I could have had if I had waited to take Social Security at a later age.
I do know that I have received about 20k in payments since I turned 62 and have enjoyed spending every penny of it...No regrets whatsoever,the plan is working :happy

ditto :mrgreen:
took it at 62 now 70 :mrgreen:

sam
Leeraar
Posts: 4109
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 7:41 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by Leeraar »

I think the numbers are,:

For a single male it's a break even thing to delay claiming SS.

For a couple, it's a very good deal (because of the higher joint life expectancy).

For a couple who both have SS entitlements, it's a great deal because one can delay while the other claims.

For the couple where the wife is much younger and the husband has a higher SS entitlement, it is such an insanely good deal that no jury in the land will ever convict.

Take a look at Mike Piper's 100-page mini-book:

http://www.amazon.com/Social-Security-M ... B009K7ZNDS

L.
You can get what you want, or you can just get old. (Billy Joel, "Vienna")
User avatar
joe8d
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 7:27 pm
Location: Buffalo,NY

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by joe8d »

burt wrote:
Toons wrote:I don't spend any time thinking about what I could have had if I had waited to take Social Security at a later age.
I do know that I have received about 20k in payments since I turned 62 and have enjoyed spending every penny of it...No regrets whatsoever,the plan is working :happy
You got it. Congratulations.


burt
+2. Took mine at 62.5.
All the Best, | Joe
hljockey
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by hljockey »

I think this mostly depends on your cash flow situation at the time of retirement. If delaying benefits will have a significant impact on your nest egg in the early years then I would question the blanket advice that it is always best to delay. In my own case of trying to decide to delay from age 68 to 70, my spreadsheet figures don't suggest that this is a good idea.
User avatar
Watty
Posts: 28860
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:55 pm

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by Watty »

Many financial planners advise that you wait as long as possible before receiving benefits. Despite this, a sizable number of Americans who have reached 62 — 41 percent of men and 46 percent of women — apply for Social Security at 62
For a couple the best claiming strategy very often involves one of the spouses starting social security at 62 so a large percentage of the people that start at 62 are actually doing the smart thing.
Leeraar
Posts: 4109
Joined: Tue Dec 10, 2013 7:41 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by Leeraar »

hljockey wrote:I think this mostly depends on your cash flow situation at the time of retirement. If delaying benefits will have a significant impact on your nest egg in the early years then I would question the blanket advice that it is always best to delay. In my own case of trying to decide to delay from age 68 to 70, my spreadsheet figures don't suggest that this is a good idea.
How can it not be a good idea?

Where else can you buy an inflation-indexed annuity that returns 8% ??

Of course, if you and your spouse both plan to die in the next few years ...

L.
You can get what you want, or you can just get old. (Billy Joel, "Vienna")
sscritic
Posts: 21853
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:36 am

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by sscritic »

We need more gymnasts who understand straddles. Point your feet out to the side in both directions.

Buy life insurance and a fixed annuity. Win either way.

Buy life insurance and delay social security. Win either way.

Buy life insurance, a fixed annuity, and social security. You have three legs, but you win three ways from Sunday.

Sure there is a cost, but once you have your straddle fixed, you can stop worrying.
fidelio
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 5:28 pm

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by fidelio »

taking it at 62 = mistake at 81. call me a fool, but i kinduv like the idea that it's a bet i'd like to lose ....
User avatar
Bustoff
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:45 pm

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by Bustoff »

If filing a joint return, and you and your spouse have a combined income that is more than $44,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.
So would taking SS at 62 provide some tax benefits ? Is it possible you might pay less taxes on both SS and RMD's at age 70 by taking SS at 62?
I ran some numbers. Full disclosure: I suck at math. But it looks like taking SS at 62 could result in zero taxes on SS for 8 years or $150,352 tax free.

Scenario 1: Delay till age 70
Assuming $1,000,000 in IRA:
Age 70 Req.Min.Dist. = $36,496
Delayed SS to Age 70 = $35,250
Income for that year* = $71,746

* the $71,746 assumes no other taxable income and thus 25% tax bracket:
Your Social Security benefit of $35,250 will be 41% taxable increasing your taxable income by $14,603 and creating a federal income tax liability of $3,651.

Scenario 2: Take SS at age 62
Now assume you take SS at 62 and get only $18,794. Also assume you earn $20,000 in taxable dividends for that year:
Your Social Security benefit of $18,794 will be 0% taxable increasing your taxable income by $0 and creating a federal income tax liability of $0.
So, over the 8 years until age 70 that looks like $150,352 tax free. Right?
Last edited by Bustoff on Sun May 18, 2014 6:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ObliviousInvestor
Posts: 4212
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:32 am
Contact:

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by ObliviousInvestor »

Leeraar wrote:I think the numbers are,:

For a single male it's a break even thing to delay claiming SS.

For a couple, it's a very good deal (because of the higher joint life expectancy).

For a couple who both have SS entitlements, it's a great deal because one can delay while the other claims.

For the couple where the wife is much younger and the husband has a higher SS entitlement, it is such an insanely good deal that no jury in the land will ever convict.

Take a look at Mike Piper's 100-page mini-book:

http://www.amazon.com/Social-Security-M ... B009K7ZNDS

L.
Thanks for recommending the book!

Also, just an additional point of clarification: The super-good deal available to married couples is specific to having the higher-PIA spouse delay benefits. While having this spouse delay benefits is a better deal than having an unmarried person delay benefits (because it's a joint lifetime annuity), having the lower-PIA spouse delay benefits is a worse deal than having an unmarried person delay benefits (because it's a first-to-die annuity).

Bustoff wrote:So would taking SS at 62 provide some tax benefits?
It's very much a case-by-case sort of thing, but as a base-case analysis, the following research article from Prudential explains why many people will benefit from a tax perspective from delaying Social Security:
http://research.prudential.com/document ... ov2012.pdf
Mike Piper | Roth is a name, not an acronym. If you type ROTH, you're just yelling about retirement accounts.
wesmouch
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2014 4:45 pm

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by wesmouch »

The key factor for me is how reliable the government is to pay me SS. I think that there is a high chance it will be means tested or cut in the future. If you are already drawing it you have a lower probability of having it taken away.
User avatar
jeffyscott
Posts: 13486
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:12 am

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by jeffyscott »

Leeraar wrote:Where else can you buy an inflation-indexed annuity that returns 8% ??
It is not an 8% return. An annuity that pays me $1080 per month starting at age 69 is not 8% more valuable than an annuity that pays me $1000 starting at age 68. Even if the 68 year old would collect for 20 years, the 19 years of benefits for the 69 year old are only 2.6% greater if the difference is 8%.

Also I don't think there is any compounding :?: ...so one year delay would be an 8% increase, $12,000 would go to $12,960 but an additional year would increase it by another $960, rather than 8% of $12,960. If so, then by the third year the increase is about 6.9%, rather than 8%.
Ron
Posts: 6972
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:46 pm
Location: Allentown–Bethlehem–Easton, PA-NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by Ron »

jeffyscott wrote:Also I don't think there is any compounding :?: ...so one year delay would be an 8% increase, $12,000 would go to $12,960 but an additional year would increase it by another $960, rather than 8% of $12,960. If so, then by the third year the increase is about 6.9%, rather than 8%.
U R confusing compound vs cumulative return. SS adjustments over four years (FRA of 66 to age 70) is 8% x 4 years, or an increase of 32% over the base amount at FRA.

You can't compare taking it at age 67 (8% increase) and multiply that return vs. the subsequent year and so on or as you are doing, specifying it as a cumulative return, which it is not.

While I'll agree that those that need the money should take it at 62, I'll also agree that it may not make sense for a single person delaying it from FRA until age 70. However, for total spousal benefits it does make a big difference in the possible total benefits returns received, beyond the increased life annuity if the higher SS receipient passes first.

You can run the numbers in your own situation using: http://individual.troweprice.com/public ... urity-Tool

- Ron
User avatar
Bustoff
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:45 pm

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by Bustoff »

ObliviousInvestor wrote:
Bustoff wrote:So would taking SS at 62 provide some tax benefits?
It's very much a case-by-case sort of thing, but as a base-case analysis, the following research article from Prudential explains why many people will benefit from a tax perspective from delaying Social Security:
http://research.prudential.com/document ... ov2012.pdf
Mike- Thank you for the reference to the article. Correct me if I'm wrong, but do you think the Prudential analysis goes out of its way to make its point.
They compared a retiree who took Social Security at 70 but had to take $25,000 less in IRA withdrawals in order to reduce the SS taxes vs. the other retiree who took Social Security at 62, but also starts taking IRA withdrawals at 62 rather than 70.

In my example you could collect SS of $18,794 at 62, plus have $20,000 of dividend income (so there would be no need for IRA withdrawals) and still pay zero taxes.
Last edited by Bustoff on Tue May 20, 2014 4:50 am, edited 3 times in total.
hljockey
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by hljockey »

Leeraar wrote:
hljockey wrote:I think this mostly depends on your cash flow situation at the time of retirement. If delaying benefits will have a significant impact on your nest egg in the early years then I would question the blanket advice that it is always best to delay. In my own case of trying to decide to delay from age 68 to 70, my spreadsheet figures don't suggest that this is a good idea.
How can it not be a good idea?

Where else can you buy an inflation-indexed annuity that returns 8% ??

Of course, if you and your spouse both plan to die in the next few years ...

L.
As one of the big bosses at work likes to say, "it's all about the numbers".

If I don't take SS @ 68 my nest egg will decrease by $72k in the next two years while I delay (3k * 12 * 2). Projecting that out to my life expectancy amounts to a lot of money on the spreadsheet even using very conservative figures for returns and inflation. And I mean several hundred thousand $.

Same thing with my wife who is 17 years younger. If she takes $800 at age 62, our joint SS income of $3800/month up to the end of my life looks a lot better than if she delays until 67 to get $1240. If there was an increase in the survivor benefit by delaying it would be a better deal but there is not. The figures remain unchanged when I die whether I delay or not.

So that's why I don't like the blanket statement that it is always best to delay. I understand the reasoning but everybody's situation is different. The $3800 annuity with a COLA is fine for us as we intend to retire overseas in my wife's native homeland and that will probably be more than enough to cover our living expenses all by itself.

And then there is the threatened reduction to 75% of benefits when the trust fund runs out which I haven't even factored into my numbers. If that happens, I'm pretty sure that taking earlier will look even better.
PharmerBrown
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 6:50 pm
Location: Pennsylvania

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by PharmerBrown »

The biggest effect for Bogleheads is probably what early SS allows your portfolio to do by not removing the money. This is likely the bigger determinant than when you die (if you were able to look back and determine your outcome when comparing the two scenarios as some of you have referenced). At either extreme (not removing funds during a bear or strong bull) you may be better off but Goldilocks could make waiting look better. Nonetheless, enjoy your retirement and don't look back.
User avatar
Cut-Throat
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:46 am

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by Cut-Throat »

hljockey wrote: As one of the big bosses at work likes to say, "it's all about the numbers".
OK, here are the Numbers !

Here is a pretty simple calculation for those that wish to spend more money in retirement and do not care about leaving an estate. For those that have a Big enough Portfolio and can afford to wait until 70 to take SS, you'll have more to spend every year of retirement.

Let's Say you retire this year at age 62 with the $1 Million Portfolio and decide to take a 4% SWR. You get Social Security of $19,476 per year at age 62 and delaying to age 70 would get you $34,092 per year. Let's assume no inflation for ease of calculations.

Scenario age 62. Your SWR is $40K per year and Social Security of $19,476 gets you a Spending total of $59,476 for each year of your retirement period.

Scenario age 70.
You stash 8 years of $34,092 from your portfolio into a savings account for a total of $272,736. Your portfolio is now down to $727,264. Your 4% SWR is now $29,090 per year and you remove $34,092 from your savings account giving you a total of $63,182 to spend each year for the rest of your 30 year retirement period.

The Delay to age 70 gives you $3,706 more every year starting at age 62 with no more increased risk.

No need for any stupid 'break even analysis'.

If your WR is more conservative, such as a majority of the people here and myself, the results are even more compelling. At a 3% WR plus SS at age 62 scenario is a total of $49,476 and the age 70 scenario is $55,910. The delay of SS to age 70 now increases your annual spending by $6,434.
User avatar
SnapShots
Posts: 915
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 12:39 pm

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by SnapShots »

exoilman wrote:
gerrym51 wrote:
Toons wrote:I don't spend any time thinking about what I could have had if I had waited to take Social Security at a later age.
I do know that I have received about 20k in payments since I turned 62 and have enjoyed spending every penny of it...No regrets whatsoever,the plan is working :happy

ditto :mrgreen:[/quot

took it at 62 now 70 :mrgreen:

sam
Quote from SSA: Getting less per month is better than waiting and sinking into debt or financial ruin. Yes, you'll be getting less, but you'll also start collecting earlier, and you might be surprised how long it takes to make up the difference.

The government uses the example of someone who can receive $750 a month at 62 or $1,000 a month at a full retirement age of 66. A person starting early earns $3,000 less a year, but he or she also has collected $36,000 in benefits by age 66.

It will take 12 years, until age 78, to make up that difference.
U.S. Average life expectancy is 78.5

My CPA once told me, on average people only collect social security for about 6 years. He died at 63. I don't know if that number is correct or not, but it made an impression on me. I'm now at an age where I'm reading my friend's obituaries. While I know people in their 80s, there are not many of them left.

Husband retired at 65 and took social security at full retirement. I took it at 62.

If you don't need it, one could save and invest the money.

In situations where there is a much younger spouse; the higher earner waiting until 70 may make good sense.
Last edited by SnapShots on Sun May 18, 2014 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
the best decision many times is the hardest to do
sscritic
Posts: 21853
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:36 am

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by sscritic »

Bustoff wrote:If filing a joint return, and you and your spouse have a combined income that is more than $44,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.
So would taking SS at 62 provide some tax benefits ? Is it possible you might pay less taxes on both SS and RMD's at age 70 by taking SS at 62?
I ran some numbers. Full disclosure: I suck at math. But it looks like taking SS at 62 could result in zero taxes on SS for 8 years or $150,352 tax free.
How are you at taxes?

You have a married couple age 70 who not only don't take the bonus standard deduction for being over 65, they don't take the regular standard deduction or any exemptions for themselves.

$14,600 + $7,800 = $22,400
Scenario 1: Delay till age 70
Assuming $1,000,000 in IRA:
Age 70 Req.Min.Dist. = $36,496
Delayed SS to Age 70 = $35,250
Income for that year* = $71,746
taxable income is 36,496 + 14,603 - 22,400 = $28,699

You are required to use the tax tables.

Tax on 28000 is 3311
Tax on 29000 is 3461
additional tax per $1000 is $150. (not 25%)
sscritic
Posts: 21853
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:36 am

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by sscritic »

Bustoff wrote: In my example you could collect SS of $18,794 at 62, plus have $20,000 of dividend income (so there would be no need for IRA withdrawals) and still pay zero taxes.
Why did the $20,000 of dividends disappear when the couple got to 70? Did they sell all their stocks and buy a yacht at age 69?
sscritic
Posts: 21853
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:36 am

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by sscritic »

hljockey wrote: Same thing with my wife who is 17 years younger. If she takes $800 at age 62, our joint SS income of $3800/month up to the end of my life looks a lot better than if she delays until 67 to get $1240. If there was an increase in the survivor benefit by delaying it would be a better deal but there is not. The figures remain unchanged when I die whether I delay or not.

So that's why I don't like the blanket statement that it is always best to delay.
Where have you read that it is best for the younger lower earning spouse to delay? Not around here, not as a blanket statement. Just read Mike in this thread.
having the lower-PIA spouse delay benefits is a worse deal than having an unmarried person delay benefits
Seems pretty clear to me. Worse means worse, as in not as good, as in not good at all in this case.
Professor Emeritus
Posts: 2628
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:43 am

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by Professor Emeritus »

SnapShots wrote: U.S. Average life expectancy is 78.5
.

of no importance at all
Your life expectancy at age 62 is 21 years for men and 23 for women on average
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

and this include a whole lot of people who already know they have reduced life expectancy. For those without such knowledge at age 62 , estimates differ but cluster around 25 years.
hljockey
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 10:05 am

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by hljockey »

Cut-Throat wrote:
hljockey wrote: As one of the big bosses at work likes to say, "it's all about the numbers".
OK, here are the Numbers !
Thanks for the info Cut-Throat but I had already read that thread in its entirety.

No offense intended, but those figures started to overload the circuitry in my brain in much the same was as an annuity salesman did a few years ago and I have a tendency to tune out at that point. Probably an age thing.

I like my own spreadsheet better (actually it's a fancy C++ program I wrote myself).
User avatar
jeffyscott
Posts: 13486
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:12 am

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by jeffyscott »

Ron wrote:U R confusing compound vs cumulative return. SS adjustments over four years (FRA of 66 to age 70) is 8% x 4 years, or an increase of 32% over the base amount at FRA.

You can't compare taking it at age 67 (8% increase) and multiply that return vs. the subsequent year and so on or as you are doing, specifying it as a cumulative return, which it is not.
Sure I can, each annual (or monthly) decision to start taking it or not is independent. At 66 I am comparing $X per month starting now vs. $1.08X starting one year later. At 69, I am comparing $Y per month starting now vs. $1.069Y starting one year later.

Anyway, the more important point is an 8% increase in benefits delayed by 1 year is not an 8% return.
sscritic
Posts: 21853
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:36 am

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by sscritic »

Ron and jeffy agreed; they just didn't see it. Read below the lines, not just on their surface.
User avatar
Wildebeest
Posts: 1204
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 1:36 pm

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by Wildebeest »

SnapShots wrote:U.S. Average life expectancy is 78.5

My CPA once told me, on average people only collect social security for about 6 years. He died at 63. I don't know if that number is correct or not, but it made an impression on me. I'm now at an age where I'm reading my friend's obituaries. While I know people in their 80s, there are not many of them left.

Husband retired at 65 and took social security at full retirement. I took it at 62.

If you don't need it, one could save and invest the money.

In situations where there is a much younger spouse; the higher earner waiting until 70 may make good sense.
The average life expectancy for a 62 year old woman is 22 years old per SSA table if I read the table correctly. The average life expectancy for 84 year old woman is 7 1/2 years.

I do think that the average Boglehead woman has a much longer life expectancy than is indicated by these tables because of wealth, soundness of mind and discipline.

I agree that is "All about the numbers". Taking SS at 70 makes the most sense unless you do not have a spouse and will expire shortly.
The Golden Rule: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
User avatar
Bustoff
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:45 pm

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by Bustoff »

sscritic wrote:
Bustoff wrote:If filing a joint return, and you and your spouse have a combined income that is more than $44,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.
So would taking SS at 62 provide some tax benefits ? Is it possible you might pay less taxes on both SS and RMD's at age 70 by taking SS at 62?
I ran some numbers. Full disclosure: I suck at math. But it looks like taking SS at 62 could result in zero taxes on SS for 8 years or $150,352 tax free.
How are you at taxes?

You have a married couple age 70 who not only don't take]the bonus standard deduction for being over 65, they don't take the regular standard deduction or any exemptions for themselves.

I used the calculator below, do you think it didn't apply the deductions?
http://www.calcxml.com/calculators/how- ... n=#results

$14,600 + $7,800 = $22,400
Scenario 1: Delay till age 70
Assuming $1,000,000 in IRA:
Age 70 Req.Min.Dist. = $36,496
Delayed SS to Age 70 = $35,250
Income for that year* = $71,746

taxable income is 36,496 + 14,603 - 22,400 = $28,699
What is the 14,603 ?

You are required to use the tax tables.

Tax on 28000 is 3311
Tax on 29000 is 3461
additional tax per $1000 is $150. (not 25%)

Thank goodness for sscritic!
Last edited by Bustoff on Tue May 20, 2014 4:58 am, edited 2 times in total.
sscritic
Posts: 21853
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:36 am

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by sscritic »

Bustoff wrote: What is the 14,603 ?
Bustoff earlier wrote:Your Social Security benefit of $35,250 will be 41% taxable increasing your taxable income by $14,603
Now add your other income and subtract your standard deduction and exemptions.
User avatar
Bustoff
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:45 pm

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by Bustoff »

sscritic wrote:
Bustoff wrote: What is the 14,603 ?
Bustoff earlier wrote:Your Social Security benefit of $35,250 will be 41% taxable increasing your taxable income by $14,603
Now add your other income and subtract your standard deduction and exemptions.
I used the calculator below in my original example, I don't know why it wouldn't have applied the standard deductions and exemptions.
http://www.calcxml.com/calculators/how- ... n=#results
sscritic
Posts: 21853
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:36 am

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by sscritic »

We agree as to what part of your example SS is taxable. What we don't agree on is the marginal tax rate to be applied to your last dollars of taxable income. Don't you take deductions and exemptions on your own return before figuring out taxable income?

What is on lines 40, 41, 42, and 43 of your 1040? I get to subtract twice. Don't you?

Deductions and exemptions have nothing to do with what part of your SS is taxable, but they do have something to do with the tax you pay on it.
gerrym51
Posts: 1679
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 1:44 pm

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by gerrym51 »

Bustoff wrote:
sscritic wrote:
Bustoff wrote: What is the 14,603 ?
Bustoff earlier wrote:Your Social Security benefit of $35,250 will be 41% taxable increasing your taxable income by $14,603
Now add your other income and subtract your standard deduction and exemptions.
I used the calculator below in my original example, I don't know why it wouldn't have applied the standard deductions and exemptions.
http://www.calcxml.com/calculators/how- ... n=#results


i have used this calculator in the past-in my calculation by taking ss at 62(me and the wife) i save about 2500 a year in taxes when the wife and i both have to do rmd's in 7 years.

the problem i see is that the ss brackets are not indexed for inflation
Professor Emeritus
Posts: 2628
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 6:43 am

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by Professor Emeritus »

hljockey wrote:
If I don't take SS @ 68 my nest egg will decrease by $72k in the next two years while I delay (3k * 12 * 2). Projecting that out to my life expectancy amounts to a lot of money on the spreadsheet even using very conservative figures for returns and inflation. And I mean several hundred thousand $.
.
Wow that is one heck of an investment
at a 3% rate of return over inflation i get 72 k turning into about 108K in 14 years

What are your assumptions?
User avatar
Cut-Throat
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:46 am

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by Cut-Throat »

hljockey wrote:
Thanks for the info Cut-Throat but I had already read that thread in its entirety.

No offense intended, but those figures started to overload the circuitry in my brain in much the same was as an annuity salesman did a few years ago and I have a tendency to tune out at that point. Probably an age thing.

I like my own spreadsheet better (actually it's a fancy C++ program I wrote myself).
Math is Math, and coming up with your own spreadsheet does not mean you can come up with 'Your own Math'
User avatar
Kevin M
Posts: 15789
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 3:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by Kevin M »

ObliviousInvestor wrote:
Bustoff wrote:So would taking SS at 62 provide some tax benefits?
It's very much a case-by-case sort of thing, but as a base-case analysis, the following research article from Prudential explains why many people will benefit from a tax perspective from delaying Social Security:
http://research.prudential.com/document ... ov2012.pdf
Good article. I like that it discussed the tax impact of large RMDs, which seems often not to be included much, if at all, in these discussions.

Kevin
If I make a calculation error, #Cruncher probably will let me know.
User avatar
Nestegg_User
Posts: 2112
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by Nestegg_User »

to calculate break point, use table "Effect of Early or Delayed Retirement" fromSSA: http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/ProgData/ar_drc.html
{LadyGeek -- table should be in wiki}

so for us, break point self-only is: .725*(n+8)*P = n*1.28*P (where P is PIA) so break point gives n= 10.45 additional year (80.45 years or ~80 1/2 yrs old)

where for joint (if spousal is able to be taken) [.725 *(n+8)*P] + .725/2*3*P = 1.28*n*P + 1.28/2*3*P where break point gives n= 8.95 additional year (78.95 yrs or ~79 yrs old)


run the numbers for your specific case to see your break even
TravelforFun
Posts: 2799
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:05 pm

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by TravelforFun »

Cut-Throat wrote:
hljockey wrote: As one of the big bosses at work likes to say, "it's all about the numbers".
OK, here are the Numbers !

Here is a pretty simple calculation for those that wish to spend more money in retirement and do not care about leaving an estate. For those that have a Big enough Portfolio and can afford to wait until 70 to take SS, you'll have more to spend every year of retirement.

Let's Say you retire this year at age 62 with the $1 Million Portfolio and decide to take a 4% SWR. You get Social Security of $19,476 per year at age 62 and delaying to age 70 would get you $34,092 per year. Let's assume no inflation for ease of calculations.

Scenario age 62. Your SWR is $40K per year and Social Security of $19,476 gets you a Spending total of $59,476 for each year of your retirement period.

Scenario age 70.
You stash 8 years of $34,092 from your portfolio into a savings account for a total of $272,736. Your portfolio is now down to $727,264. Your 4% SWR is now $29,090 per year and you remove $34,092 from your savings account giving you a total of $63,182 to spend each year for the rest of your 30 year retirement period.

The Delay to age 70 gives you $3,706 more every year starting at age 62 with no more increased risk.

No need for any stupid 'break even analysis'.

If your WR is more conservative, such as a majority of the people here and myself, the results are even more compelling. At a 3% WR plus SS at age 62 scenario is a total of $49,476 and the age 70 scenario is $55,910. The delay of SS to age 70 now increases your annual spending by $6,434.
These calculations make a lot of sense to me.
User avatar
Flobes
Posts: 1771
Joined: Mon Feb 15, 2010 11:40 pm
Location: Home

Re: Social Security at 62? Let’s Run the Numbers

Post by Flobes »

My timeline, as a solo retired person:

Age 62-65
Control income to maximize ACA subsidy and cost-sharing benefits. (Saves me $15,000 /year.)
Collecting Social Security would slam this window shut.

Age 66-69
Roth convert (in low tax bracket).
Collecting Social Security would shut this window.

Age 70
Enjoy maximized Social Security (and no RMDs).
Post Reply