Social Security Question [Social Security Offering Lump Sum]
Social Security Question [Social Security Offering Lump Sum]
I waited until I turned 70 to collect $3214 a month from SS.
I was called by an agent asking if I would like to take a lump sum of $27,000 which would reduce my future benefits by $146 a month.
I was told that I would break even at around 15 years, but I don't think it is entirely accurate since I will probably be paying taxes on that lump sum of $27k.
$27000 lump sum + (ss payments 3068 x 12) = $64250 for the year, PLUS your earned income of about $60,000. I'm guessing i'd be in the 25% federal bracket, so that 27k will probably be more like $20k, or more like 11 years to 'break even'.
I don't want to make this decision based on my life expectancy of 11 or 15 years because even if I didn't make it that long, my wife's benefit would be based on my monthly benefit with the reduction.
I don't need the lump sum but would like to know if its a better 'deal' to take the full 3214/month- and not the lump sum.
I was called by an agent asking if I would like to take a lump sum of $27,000 which would reduce my future benefits by $146 a month.
I was told that I would break even at around 15 years, but I don't think it is entirely accurate since I will probably be paying taxes on that lump sum of $27k.
$27000 lump sum + (ss payments 3068 x 12) = $64250 for the year, PLUS your earned income of about $60,000. I'm guessing i'd be in the 25% federal bracket, so that 27k will probably be more like $20k, or more like 11 years to 'break even'.
I don't want to make this decision based on my life expectancy of 11 or 15 years because even if I didn't make it that long, my wife's benefit would be based on my monthly benefit with the reduction.
I don't need the lump sum but would like to know if its a better 'deal' to take the full 3214/month- and not the lump sum.
- TomatoTomahto
- Posts: 17158
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm
Re: Social Security Question
Called by an agent of whom?
ETA: doesn’t sound right. Sounds like one of those structured settlement cons that are advertised during daytime TV Shows.
ETA: doesn’t sound right. Sounds like one of those structured settlement cons that are advertised during daytime TV Shows.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
Re: Social Security Question
Seems Prof. Kotlikoff has reported this may in fact happen.
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/an ... -security/
http://www.seattletimes.com/business/an ... -security/
Re: Social Security Question
I too am puzzled by who is offering this.
This basically amounts to a backwards annuity of 6.5%. It effectively sounds like a loan.
Why would you defer SS to 70, presumably to get better payouts, and then turn around a get in a deal to extract money and lower your payouts on a net basis?
This basically amounts to a backwards annuity of 6.5%. It effectively sounds like a loan.
Why would you defer SS to 70, presumably to get better payouts, and then turn around a get in a deal to extract money and lower your payouts on a net basis?
Re: Social Security Question
The general consensus seems to be against taking the lump sum. Here are a few articles that might help...
http://www.uniondemocrat.com/business/5 ... er=section
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/ ... 0588fd236e
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... story.html
http://www.uniondemocrat.com/business/5 ... er=section
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/ ... 0588fd236e
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ ... story.html
- ResearchMed
- Posts: 16795
- Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:25 pm
Re: Social Security Question
You probably want to take the maximum monthly SS benefit for two reasons.donna911 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:23 pm I waited until I turned 70 to collect $3214 a month from SS.
I was called by an agent asking if I would like to take a lump sum of $27,000 which would reduce my future benefits by $146 a month.
I was told that I would break even at around 15 years, but I don't think it is entirely accurate since I will probably be paying taxes on that lump sum of $27k.
$27000 lump sum + (ss payments 3068 x 12) = $64250 for the year, PLUS your earned income of about $60,000. I'm guessing i'd be in the 25% federal bracket, so that 27k will probably be more like $20k, or more like 11 years to 'break even'.
I don't want to make this decision based on my life expectancy of 11 or 15 years because even if I didn't make it that long, my wife's benefit would be based on my monthly benefit with the reduction.
I don't need the lump sum but would like to know if its a better 'deal' to take the full 3214/month- and not the lump sum.
One, as you've noted, is that your wife's benefit will be based upon yours (not the case for all couples, but it is in yours).
Second, this will increase the survivor's benefit, for the life of the survivor.
RM
This signature is a placebo. You are in the control group.
-
- Posts: 6972
- Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 6:46 pm
- Location: Allentown–Bethlehem–Easton, PA-NJ Metropolitan Statistical Area
Re: Social Security Question
Short term gain; long term pain ...
Since I turn 70 in January, I'll expect the call in the next few months. Now I have to come up with a "phone script" (like they read from) as a comeback to their proposal.
- Ron
Since I turn 70 in January, I'll expect the call in the next few months. Now I have to come up with a "phone script" (like they read from) as a comeback to their proposal.
- Ron
Re: Social Security Question
There are 2 ways of looking at Social Security. One is "best return". The other is "longevity insurance". Where you start pretty much determines where you end up.
If you want maximum return and you don't know how long you will live, you will probably take as much as soon as possible. Since you might die at 65-70-75, maybe you should claim at 62, etc. This is what the lump sum is offering - if you die early at least you have gotten "your share".
I come from the longevity insurance view. Waiting until 70 assures my wife (on an actuarial basis she should outlive me) the maximum inflation protected income if she lives into her 90s. Don't take the lump sum if you take this view.
If you want maximum return and you don't know how long you will live, you will probably take as much as soon as possible. Since you might die at 65-70-75, maybe you should claim at 62, etc. This is what the lump sum is offering - if you die early at least you have gotten "your share".
I come from the longevity insurance view. Waiting until 70 assures my wife (on an actuarial basis she should outlive me) the maximum inflation protected income if she lives into her 90s. Don't take the lump sum if you take this view.
It's not an engineering problem - Hersh Shefrin | To get the "risk premium", you really do have to take the risk - nisiprius
-
- Posts: 7189
- Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:25 am
Re: Social Security Question [Social Security Offering Lump Sum]
Obvious answer..... why would an "agent" con man spend time calling hundreds or thousands of people trying to find a willing victim to fleece, if it was anything but good deal for him and consequently a bad deal for you?
Don't ever answer such cold calls.
Welcome to the forum!
JW
Retired at Last
- fishandgolf
- Posts: 794
- Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 1:50 pm
Re: Social Security Question [Social Security Offering Lump Sum]
JW-Retired wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2017 7:39 pmObvious answer..... why would an "agent" con man spend time calling hundreds or thousands of people trying to find a willing victim to fleece, if it was anything but good deal for him and consequently a bad deal for you?
Don't ever answer such cold calls.
Welcome to the forum!
JW
+1.......I totally agree!
-
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:55 pm
- Location: Montana
Re: Social Security Question [Social Security Offering Lump Sum]
I am 68 and sorta thinking about filing at 69 or so. I won't have a spouse or survivor to worry about. But I would hate to mess up my current zero tax bracket with a lump sum.
I wonder if you could claim it ratably over 5 years.
I wonder if you could claim it ratably over 5 years.
Re: Social Security Question [Social Security Offering Lump Sum]
Run.....don't walk away from this scam
If past history was all that is needed to play the game of money, the richest people would be librarians.
-
- Posts: 1240
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:19 am
Re: Social Security Question [Social Security Offering Lump Sum]
An article in Kiplinger's indicates this is legit but may or may not be a good deal for you. It sounds like if you are past full retirement age, they give you the option of getting six months retroactive benefits but they then adjust your benefit amount as if you had started collecting benefits six months sooner.
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/retire ... youts.html
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/retire ... youts.html
Re: Social Security Question [Social Security Offering Lump Sum]
That's what I though the OP was describing, as well. Except that, while I also thought the retro payout offer was for 6 months, the OP's $27k seems to be closer to 9 months. That is puzzling.IowaFarmBoy wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2017 8:22 pm An article in Kiplinger's indicates this is legit but may or may not be a good deal for you. It sounds like if you are past full retirement age, they give you the option of getting six months retroactive benefits but they then adjust your benefit amount as if you had started collecting benefits six months sooner.
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/retire ... youts.html
-
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:55 pm
- Location: Montana
Re: Social Security Question [Social Security Offering Lump Sum]
You mean it's not really the SSA offering, or that it's a bad deal?
I might go for a 6 mo lump sum for a 4% permanent reduction, since I was thinking of filing a bit earlier anyway.
But it's troubling that they would call instead of write. I hope it isn't a sign of desperation.
Re: Social Security Question [Social Security Offering Lump Sum]
Considering taxes does not significantly change the 15 year break even. The marginal tax rate as SS increases [*] with these values for SS and other income is about 11% or 13%, not 25%. This is shown at the bottom of the table below comparing these three cases. (I prepared the table with the Compare sheet of my Marginal Tax Rates spreadsheet for a 2017 Joint return with the standard deduction for an age 65+ couple.)donna911 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:23 pmI was told that I would break even at around 15 years, but I don't think it is entirely accurate ... $27000 lump sum + (ss payments 3068 x 12) = $64250 [s/b $63,816] for the year, PLUS your earned income of about $60,000. I'm guessing i'd be in the 25% federal bracket, so that 27k will probably be more like $20k, or more like 11 years to 'break even'.
- Case L71+: Age 71 and after if take lower benefit
- Case H70+: Age 70 and after if take higher benefit
- Case L70: Age 70 including lump sum if take lower benefit
Code: Select all
Social Security 50% threshhold 32,000 -------------->
Social Security 85% threshhold 44,000 -------------->
Ord Income Tax Bracket 15% 18,650 -------------->
Ord Income Tax Bracket 25% 75,900 -------------->
Ord Income Tax Bracket 28% 153,100 -------------->
Code: Select all
L71+ H70 L70
------ ------ ------
Non-SS Ordinary Income 60,000 60,000 60,000
Social Security Benefit 36,816 38,568 63,816
SS Relevant Income 78,408 79,284 91,908 [*]
50% SS taxable 6,000 6,000 6,000
85% SS taxable 25,294 26,783 40,722
Total SS taxable 31,294 32,783 46,722
Adjusted gross income 91,294 92,783 106,722
Deductions plus Exemptions 23,300 23,300 23,300
Taxable Income 67,994 69,483 83,422
Code: Select all
Ordinary taxable @ 25% - - 7,522
Ordinary taxable @ 15% 49,344 50,833 57,250
Ordinary taxable @ 10% 18,650 18,650 18,650
Ordinary tax @ 25% - - 1,880
Ordinary tax @ 15% 7,402 7,625 8,588
Ordinary tax @ 10% 1,865 1,865 1,865
Total tax 9,267 9,490 12,333
Income after tax 87,549 89,078 111,483
Increased SS benefit 1,752 25,248
Increased tax 223 2,843
Increased incom after tax 1,529 22,405 <--
Marginal tax rate 12.75% 11.26%
The following table of the year-by-year cash flows also shows the breakeven around that long (age 85). The far right column also shows the implicit Internal Rate of Return (IRR) from taking the higher benefit. For example it shows that if either you or your spouse live to age 90, you'll get a 3.2% after tax real return by forsaking the lump sum. (Calculated with the Excel IRR function).
Code: Select all
--- Benefit --- -- Difference --
Age Reduced Full Year Cum IRR
Code: Select all
70 111,483 89,078 (22,405) (22,405)
71 87,549 89,078 1,529 (20,876)
72 87,549 89,078 1,529 (19,347)
73 87,549 89,078 1,529 (17,818)
74 87,549 89,078 1,529 (16,289)
75 87,549 89,078 1,529 (14,760)
76 87,549 89,078 1,529 (13,231)
77 87,549 89,078 1,529 (11,702)
78 87,549 89,078 1,529 (10,173)
79 87,549 89,078 1,529 (8,644)
80 87,549 89,078 1,529 (7,115)
81 87,549 89,078 1,529 (5,586) (4.5%)
82 87,549 89,078 1,529 (4,057) (2.9%)
83 87,549 89,078 1,529 (2,528) (1.7%)
84 87,549 89,078 1,529 (999) (0.6%)
85 87,549 89,078 1,529 530 0.3%
86 87,549 89,078 1,529 2,059 1.1%
87 87,549 89,078 1,529 3,588 1.7%
88 87,549 89,078 1,529 5,117 2.3%
89 87,549 89,078 1,529 6,646 2.7%
90 87,549 89,078 1,529 8,175 3.2% <--
91 87,549 89,078 1,529 9,704 3.5%
92 87,549 89,078 1,529 11,233 3.9%
93 87,549 89,078 1,529 12,762 4.1%
94 87,549 89,078 1,529 14,291 4.4%
95 87,549 89,078 1,529 15,820 4.6%
96 87,549 89,078 1,529 17,349 4.8%
97 87,549 89,078 1,529 18,878 5.0%
98 87,549 89,078 1,529 20,407 5.2%
99 87,549 89,078 1,529 21,936 5.3%
100 87,549 89,078 1,529 23,465 5.4%
It looks like 9 months to me also. The age 70 benefit is $3,214 this means the Primary Insurance Amount (PIA) at age 66 normal retirement age (NRA) would be $2,435 (3214 / 1.32). A $146 reduction is almost exactly 6% of this. 6% is 9/12 of the 8% annual increase one gets by delaying beyond NRA.
After applying online to begin benefits at age 70, someone from the SS administration phoned to confirm my application. She made a similar offer. I don't remember the specifics since I was determined to take the higher benefit and quickly declined the offer.
* This low marginal rate comes about because only 50% of SS benefits are included in "relevant income". (See Taxation of Social Security benefits in the Wiki for an explanation.) The marginal rate as SS benefits increase is completely different from the marginal rate as non-SS ordinary income increases.
- teen persuasion
- Posts: 2327
- Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2015 1:43 pm
Re: Social Security Question [Social Security Offering Lump Sum]
Could the apparent 9 months vs 6 months be due to a spousal application? IOW, both the OP's 6 months retroactive payments + 6 months retroactive spousal payments (somewhat less than half the OP's payment).
Re: Social Security Question [Social Security Offering Lump Sum]
I just wanted to thank everyone for their quick responses to my Social Security question.
You all provided me with great information and I have decided not to accept the lump sum payout.
Thanks again
You all provided me with great information and I have decided not to accept the lump sum payout.
Thanks again
Re: Social Security Question [Social Security Offering Lump Sum]
Don't these calculations assume that the earned income remains a constant?
Also, if the lump sum is not needed, perhaps it could be invested. What if they could return 5% over the next 15 years?
-
- Posts: 7189
- Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:25 am
Re: Social Security Question [Social Security Offering Lump Sum]
I think you made the right decision. Mainly since, as much as possible, this minimizes the cut in family SS income if your wife becomes a widow. (Which they more often than not do.)donna911 wrote:I just wanted to thank everyone for their quick responses to my Social Security question.
You all provided me with great information and I have decided not to accept the lump sum payout.
Thanks again
I'm still flabbergasted that real SS agents are calling people and offering this kind of do over. I'm sure they have better things they could be doing.
JW
Retired at Last
- TomatoTomahto
- Posts: 17158
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm
Re: Social Security Question [Social Security Offering Lump Sum]
I’m sure it’s not the worst thing my tax dollars are funding, but I’m sure it’s not the best either.JW-Retired wrote:I'm still flabbergasted that real SS agents are calling people and offering this kind of do over. I'm sure they have better things they could be doing.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
Re: Social Security Question
The only script you need is: "No, thanks."
Answering a question is easy -- asking the right question is the hard part.
Re: Social Security Question [Social Security Offering Lump Sum]
If you search the forum, you will find an old thread where a poster had a similar situation and sscritic and penguin provided excellent and in-depth replies, including quotes from relevant SSA POMs. The situation is called PROTECTIVE FILING.donna911 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 25, 2017 4:23 pm I waited until I turned 70 to collect $3214 a month from SS.
I was called by an agent asking if I would like to take a lump sum of $27,000 which would reduce my future benefits by $146 a month.
I was told that I would break even at around 15 years, but I don't think it is entirely accurate since I will probably be paying taxes on that lump sum of $27k.
$27000 lump sum + (ss payments 3068 x 12) = $64250 for the year, PLUS your earned income of about $60,000. I'm guessing i'd be in the 25% federal bracket, so that 27k will probably be more like $20k, or more like 11 years to 'break even'.
I don't want to make this decision based on my life expectancy of 11 or 15 years because even if I didn't make it that long, my wife's benefit would be based on my monthly benefit with the reduction.
I don't need the lump sum but would like to know if its a better 'deal' to take the full 3214/month- and not the lump sum.
viewtopic.php?t=59733
- TomatoTomahto
- Posts: 17158
- Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 1:48 pm
Re: Social Security Question [Social Security Offering Lump Sum]
If I knew more about SS than I do, I might think that if the OP called three months before the 70th birthday and established a protective filing date, six months retroactivity from that date would explain the nine months.
I get the FI part but not the RE part of FIRE.
Re: Social Security Question [Social Security Offering Lump Sum]
Tomato tomahto,
I agree with your math. BTW, you have a very sharp mind in math.
I agree with your math. BTW, you have a very sharp mind in math.
Re: Social Security Question [Social Security Offering Lump Sum]
Yes, they did. I didn't realize the original post referred to $60,000 of earned income, rather than just other income. Since "earned" implies wages or the like, it's quite possible the amount might decline after age 70 when the original poster or the spouse stops working.
So I recalculated the additional after tax income from taking the higher benefit versus the lower benefit for ages 71 to 100. [*] Instead of just using $60,000 of non-SS ordinary income, I also calculated the results for three other amounts: $15,000, $30,000, and $45,000. The results are shown in the table below. It shows that with the three lower amounts of non-SS income, taking the higher SS benefit produces better returns versus taking the lump sum and the lower benefit.
For example with $60,000 of non-SS income, taking the higher SS benefit has an Internal Rate of Return (IRR) of 3.2% if benefits continue to age 90. But if non-SS income were $15,000, $30,000, or $45,000 the IRR would be 4.7%, 4.0%, or 3.9% respectively at that age.
Code: Select all
Cash Flow Given non-SS Ord Income IRR Given non-SS Ord Income
--------------------------------- ------------------------------
15,000 30,000 45,000 60,000 15,000 30,000 45,000 60,000
Code: Select all
70 (22,405) (22,405) (22,405) (22,405)
71 1,752 1,677 1,640 1,529
72 1,752 1,678 1,640 1,529
73 1,752 1,660 1,641 1,529
74 1,752 1,640 1,641 1,529
75 1,752 1,640 1,640 1,529
76 1,752 1,640 1,641 1,529
77 1,752 1,640 1,641 1,529
78 1,752 1,640 1,640 1,529
79 1,752 1,640 1,641 1,529
80 1,752 1,641 1,640 1,529
81 1,752 1,640 1,640 1,529 (2.4%) (3.4%) (3.4%) (4.5%)
82 1,752 1,641 1,640 1,529 (1.0%) (1.9%) (1.9%) (2.9%)
83 1,752 1,641 1,640 1,529 0.2% (0.6%) (0.7%) (1.7%)
84 1,752 1,640 1,640 1,529 1.2% 0.4% 0.3% (0.6%)
85 1,752 1,640 1,640 1,529 2.1% 1.2% 1.2% 0.3%
86 1,752 1,641 1,640 1,529 2.8% 2.0% 1.9% 1.1%
87 1,752 1,641 1,614 1,529 3.4% 2.6% 2.5% 1.7%
88 1,752 1,641 1,548 1,529 3.9% 3.1% 3.0% 2.3%
89 1,752 1,640 1,529 1,529 4.3% 3.6% 3.5% 2.7%
90 1,752 1,641 1,529 1,529 --> 4.7% 4.0% 3.9% 3.2% <--
91 1,740 1,640 1,529 1,529 [5.0%] 4.3% 4.2% 3.5%
92 1,699 1,640 1,529 1,529 5.3% 4.6% 4.5% 3.9%
93 1,677 1,641 1,529 1,529 5.6% 4.9% 4.7% 4.1%
94 1,677 1,640 1,529 1,529 5.8% 5.1% 5.0% 4.4%
95 1,678 1,641 1,529 1,529 6.0% 5.4% 5.2% 4.6%
96 1,677 1,641 1,529 1,529 6.1% 5.5% 5.4% 4.8%
97 1,678 1,640 1,529 1,529 6.3% 5.7% 5.5% [5.0%]
98 1,677 1,640 1,529 1,529 6.4% 5.9% 5.7% 5.2%
99 1,677 1,640 1,529 1,529 6.5% 6.0% 5.8% 5.3%
100 1,677 1,640 1,529 1,529 6.6% 6.1% 5.9% 5.4%
The IRR columns of the table show this. For example, with my original assumption of $60,000 of non-SS other income, taking the higher SS benefit produces the same cash value at age 97 as taking the lower benefit and investing the $22,405 after tax result of the lump sum at a 5% after tax real return. If the non-SS other income were only $15,000, one would match the 5% return by age 91.jbuffett in same post wrote:Also, if the lump sum is not needed, perhaps it could be invested. What if they could return 5% over the next 15 years?
* I calculated the after tax income for ages 71 to 100 for both the lower and higher SS benefits. The amounts in the table are the differences of these two amounts. I assumed 2% inflation and therefore reduced the 50% and 85% SS thresholds 2% per year. This is necessary because my analysis treats the income (both SS and non-SS) in constant dollar terms. Since tax brackets, the standard deduction, and exemptions are indexed to inflation, they need not be modified. But the SS thresholds are not indexed to inflation. Therefore to put them on a constant dollar basis it is necessary to reduce their nominal values by the inflation rate.
-
- Posts: 295
- Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 6:46 pm
Re: Social Security Question [Social Security Offering Lump Sum]
Did you file and suspend? If so, SS wants to know if you want the benefits that you forwent since you suspended in a lump sum or if you want only the higher annuity payments that you're otherwise entitled to. I'm expecting the same question in a few years and will take the higher monthly payments. Single individuals might be better off with the lump sum if they have a short life expectancy. The option to decide is one advantage of filing and suspending.
Re: Social Security Question [Social Security Offering Lump Sum]
This is no longer possible since The Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015. You can no longer file and suspend then as for a lump sum back to the filing date.testing321 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 28, 2017 1:45 pm Did you file and suspend? If so, SS wants to know if you want the benefits that you forwent since you suspended in a lump sum or if you want only the higher annuity payments that you're otherwise entitled to. I'm expecting the same question in a few years and will take the higher monthly payments. Single individuals might be better off with the lump sum if they have a short life expectancy. The option to decide is one advantage of filing and suspending.
You can get a lump sum of the past 6 months' worth, but no more.
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
Re: Social Security Question
Let me save you some time working up your phone script. Here it is in complete detail, "No thank you".