SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 4489
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by willthrill81 » Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:34 pm

munemaker wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 2:49 pm
rgs92 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:06 pm
Does anyone have a histogram (or some statistics) of the ages when the general public seems to start their Social Security benefits?
Image

reference: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/09/claimin ... -move.html

Interesting that women claim earlier but live longer. Seems counter intuitive.
That chart flies in the face of the argument that husbands disregard their wives when determining when to take SS benefits. More women begin claiming early than men. This chart isn't a death knell to that argument, but it definitely doesn't support it.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

JoeRetire
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:44 pm

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by JoeRetire » Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:53 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:20 am
everyone could just start SS benefits whenever they felt it was appropriate for them in their situation, with no worry about whether their choice was 'sub-optimal' on paper.
Which is pretty much what everyone actually does. That, and look for arguments that appear to support the choice they already made.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 4489
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by willthrill81 » Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:56 pm

JoeRetire wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:53 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:20 am
everyone could just start SS benefits whenever they felt it was appropriate for them in their situation, with no worry about whether their choice was 'sub-optimal' on paper.
Which is pretty much what everyone actually does. That, and look for arguments that appear to support the choice they already made.
That's what the evidence seems to suggest is indeed happening with regard to both of your statements.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

smitcat
Posts: 1503
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by smitcat » Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:59 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:34 pm
munemaker wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 2:49 pm
rgs92 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:06 pm
Does anyone have a histogram (or some statistics) of the ages when the general public seems to start their Social Security benefits?
Image

reference: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/09/claimin ... -move.html

Interesting that women claim earlier but live longer. Seems counter intuitive.
That chart flies in the face of the argument that husbands disregard their wives when determining when to take SS benefits. More women begin claiming early than men. This chart isn't a death knell to that argument, but it definitely doesn't support it.

Here is some data on women taking SS early - some why's and what happens next ….
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/retire ... ts-n407816

JoeRetire
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:44 pm

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by JoeRetire » Sun Jul 08, 2018 4:05 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:34 pm
That chart flies in the face of the argument that husbands disregard their wives when determining when to take SS benefits. More women begin claiming early than men. This chart isn't a death knell to that argument, but it definitely doesn't support it.
I don't see how it flies in the face of anything.

The hypothesis that most husbands disregard their wives when choosing a claiming date isn't impacted one way or the other by when women claim. If more husbands coordinated their claim date with their wives' claiming, we'd see far more men claiming at 70.

Additionally it may be equally true that most wives disregard their husbands in the same situation.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 4489
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by willthrill81 » Sun Jul 08, 2018 4:24 pm

JoeRetire wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 4:05 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:34 pm
That chart flies in the face of the argument that husbands disregard their wives when determining when to take SS benefits. More women begin claiming early than men. This chart isn't a death knell to that argument, but it definitely doesn't support it.
I don't see how it flies in the face of anything.

The hypothesis that most husbands disregard their wives when choosing a claiming date isn't impacted one way or the other by when women claim. If more husbands coordinated their claim date with their wives' claiming, we'd see far more men claiming at 70.
That's possible, but it seems to only be the case for wives that are claiming the 50% of their husbands' SS benefit rather than their own, higher benefit. In the case of the latter, what's good for the gander is good for the goose.
JoeRetire wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 4:05 pm
Additionally it may be equally true that most wives disregard their husbands in the same situation.
That's very possible.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

JoeRetire
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:44 pm

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by JoeRetire » Sun Jul 08, 2018 4:56 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 4:24 pm
JoeRetire wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 4:05 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:34 pm
That chart flies in the face of the argument that husbands disregard their wives when determining when to take SS benefits. More women begin claiming early than men. This chart isn't a death knell to that argument, but it definitely doesn't support it.
I don't see how it flies in the face of anything.

The hypothesis that most husbands disregard their wives when choosing a claiming date isn't impacted one way or the other by when women claim. If more husbands coordinated their claim date with their wives' claiming, we'd see far more men claiming at 70.
That's possible, but it seems to only be the case for wives that are claiming the 50% of their husbands' SS benefit rather than their own, higher benefit. In the case of the latter, what's good for the gander is good for the goose.
No idea what you mean.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 4489
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by willthrill81 » Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:03 pm

JoeRetire wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 4:56 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 4:24 pm
JoeRetire wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 4:05 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 3:34 pm
That chart flies in the face of the argument that husbands disregard their wives when determining when to take SS benefits. More women begin claiming early than men. This chart isn't a death knell to that argument, but it definitely doesn't support it.
I don't see how it flies in the face of anything.

The hypothesis that most husbands disregard their wives when choosing a claiming date isn't impacted one way or the other by when women claim. If more husbands coordinated their claim date with their wives' claiming, we'd see far more men claiming at 70.
That's possible, but it seems to only be the case for wives that are claiming the 50% of their husbands' SS benefit rather than their own, higher benefit. In the case of the latter, what's good for the gander is good for the goose.
No idea what you mean.
A husband's choice as to when he takes SS only directly impacts his wife if she is claiming spousal benefits, which would be 50% of the husband's benefit. But if she has enough credits with the SSA to receive more than 50% of her husband's benefits by claiming her own benefits, then she should obviously do that instead. If her husband passed away, she would still keep receiving the same SS benefits, her own, as before.

So if it's 'good' for the husband to defer to age 70, then it's 'good' for the wife who is claiming her own benefits instead of the 50% spousal benefits to do the same thing.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

JoeRetire
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:44 pm

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by JoeRetire » Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:57 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:03 pm
A husband's choice as to when he takes SS only directly impacts his wife if she is claiming spousal benefits, which would be 50% of the husband's benefit.
Sometimes. In some cases, the husband's benefit is less than 50% of the wife's full benefit. His choice directly affects their family benefits. And there are always the survivor benefits to consider.

In almost all cases spouses should coordinate their benefit claiming strategy.
But if she has enough credits with the SSA to receive more than 50% of her husband's benefits by claiming her own benefits, then she should obviously do that instead.
Maybe. Some are grandfathered in the 2015 law, so they have other possibilities.
If her husband passed away, she would still keep receiving the same SS benefits, her own, as before.
Sometimes. Sometimes the survivor benefits are larger than her own benefits.
So if it's 'good' for the husband to defer to age 70, then it's 'good' for the wife who is claiming her own benefits instead of the 50% spousal benefits to do the same thing.
Sometimes. A detailed analysis would have to be done to determine the optimal claiming strategies.

But - I don't see anything in the charts having to do with anything you have written. So I don't see the point you are attempting to make.
Doesn't matter.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 4489
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by willthrill81 » Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:12 pm

JoeRetire wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:57 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:03 pm
A husband's choice as to when he takes SS only directly impacts his wife if she is claiming spousal benefits, which would be 50% of the husband's benefit.
Sometimes. In some cases, the husband's benefit is less than 50% of the wife's full benefit. His choice directly affects their family benefits. And there are always the survivor benefits to consider.

In almost all cases spouses should coordinate their benefit claiming strategy.
But if she has enough credits with the SSA to receive more than 50% of her husband's benefits by claiming her own benefits, then she should obviously do that instead.
Maybe. Some are grandfathered in the 2015 law, so they have other possibilities.
If her husband passed away, she would still keep receiving the same SS benefits, her own, as before.
Sometimes. Sometimes the survivor benefits are larger than her own benefits.
So if it's 'good' for the husband to defer to age 70, then it's 'good' for the wife who is claiming her own benefits instead of the 50% spousal benefits to do the same thing.
Sometimes. A detailed analysis would have to be done to determine the optimal claiming strategies.

But - I don't see anything in the charts having to do with anything you have written. So I don't see the point you are attempting to make.
Doesn't matter.
My underlying point is that this doesn't seem to be a 'husbands don't care about their wives' situation as put forward by someone else above. Both genders seem to be very often desirous to start benefits as soon as they can, females apparently more so than males.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

marcopolo
Posts: 838
Joined: Sat Dec 03, 2016 10:22 am

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by marcopolo » Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:20 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:12 pm
JoeRetire wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:57 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:03 pm
A husband's choice as to when he takes SS only directly impacts his wife if she is claiming spousal benefits, which would be 50% of the husband's benefit.
Sometimes. In some cases, the husband's benefit is less than 50% of the wife's full benefit. His choice directly affects their family benefits. And there are always the survivor benefits to consider.

In almost all cases spouses should coordinate their benefit claiming strategy.
But if she has enough credits with the SSA to receive more than 50% of her husband's benefits by claiming her own benefits, then she should obviously do that instead.
Maybe. Some are grandfathered in the 2015 law, so they have other possibilities.
If her husband passed away, she would still keep receiving the same SS benefits, her own, as before.
Sometimes. Sometimes the survivor benefits are larger than her own benefits.
So if it's 'good' for the husband to defer to age 70, then it's 'good' for the wife who is claiming her own benefits instead of the 50% spousal benefits to do the same thing.
Sometimes. A detailed analysis would have to be done to determine the optimal claiming strategies.

But - I don't see anything in the charts having to do with anything you have written. So I don't see the point you are attempting to make.
Doesn't matter.
My underlying point is that this doesn't seem to be a 'husbands don't care about their wives' situation as put forward by someone else above. Both genders seem to be very often desirous to start benefits as soon as they can, females apparently more so than males.
At the risk of putting words into the original commenter's mouth, I don't think the comment about taking the wives' interest into account necessarily has anything to do with spousal claim, or > 50% benefit. I think it is more about life expectancy.

Women have longer life expectancy. So, for the sake of the surviving spouse (who is more likely to be the wife), the one with the higher benefit should delay as long as possible. I believe it is also the case, that in the majority of Soc Sec age couples, the higher benefit belongs to the husband. So, in that sense, the husbands should be delaying till age 70 for the consideration of the most likely surviving spouse. There is less of a need for the lower benefit and longer life expectancy spouse (usually the wife) to delay. In many cases it does actually make sense for the lower benefit to claim earlier.
Once in a while you get shown the light, in the strangest of places if you look at it right.

JoeRetire
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:44 pm

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by JoeRetire » Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:58 pm

marcopolo wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:20 pm
Women have longer life expectancy. So, for the sake of the surviving spouse (who is more likely to be the wife), the one with the higher benefit should delay as long as possible. I believe it is also the case, that in the majority of Soc Sec age couples, the higher benefit belongs to the husband. So, in that sense, the husbands should be delaying till age 70 for the consideration of the most likely surviving spouse.
Yes. This is exactly the situation in my family.

And that is exactly what Jane Bryant Quinn was referring to. And she was pointing out that it doesn't happen as often as it should.

smitcat
Posts: 1503
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by smitcat » Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:26 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:12 pm
JoeRetire wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:57 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 5:03 pm
A husband's choice as to when he takes SS only directly impacts his wife if she is claiming spousal benefits, which would be 50% of the husband's benefit.
Sometimes. In some cases, the husband's benefit is less than 50% of the wife's full benefit. His choice directly affects their family benefits. And there are always the survivor benefits to consider.

In almost all cases spouses should coordinate their benefit claiming strategy.
But if she has enough credits with the SSA to receive more than 50% of her husband's benefits by claiming her own benefits, then she should obviously do that instead.
Maybe. Some are grandfathered in the 2015 law, so they have other possibilities.
If her husband passed away, she would still keep receiving the same SS benefits, her own, as before.
Sometimes. Sometimes the survivor benefits are larger than her own benefits.
So if it's 'good' for the husband to defer to age 70, then it's 'good' for the wife who is claiming her own benefits instead of the 50% spousal benefits to do the same thing.
Sometimes. A detailed analysis would have to be done to determine the optimal claiming strategies.

But - I don't see anything in the charts having to do with anything you have written. So I don't see the point you are attempting to make.
Doesn't matter.
My underlying point is that this doesn't seem to be a 'husbands don't care about their wives' situation as put forward by someone else above. Both genders seem to be very often desirous to start benefits as soon as they can, females apparently more so than males.
"seem to be very often desirous to start benefits as soon as they can, females apparently more so than males"

Not desirous but instead they need to take SS as they are no longer working and need income.
- Average women earn less then men over lifesapans
- average women retire earlier then men
- electing SS earlier on average on a funtion of not working
- results include a much larger % of women livung below thje poverty level in retirement
Full article link posted above in my last post...

smitcat
Posts: 1503
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by smitcat » Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:35 pm

Cut and paste from article...

And women retire at an average age of 62, a figure that has barely budged in a decade, according to a study by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.
"Earlier drivers of working longer are no longer having a substantial impact," the study concluded.
Unfortunately, that creates a major problem for older women. The Social Security Administration reduces benefits for people who claim before their full retirement age, so by filing when she is first eligible, a woman is setting herself up for a Social Security benefit reduced by as much as 30 percent for the rest of her life.

It would be one thing if women generally had other significant sources of income in retirement. But according to Britt, women are five times as likely as men to live only on Social Security.
Social Security Advantage for Couples Shrinks
Women who are counting on spousal benefits from Social Security also see their payments diminished if they file before full retirement age. At full retirement age, a woman would be eligible for either her own full benefit or half of her spouse's, whichever is larger. But if she files at 62, she would only be eligible for her reduced benefit or as little as 32.5 percent of her partner's.
Their early claiming of benefits may be one reason why nearly 2.9 million women over 65 live in poverty, more than double the 1.3 million men in poverty, according to the National Women's Law Center. (Not only do men tend to earn more over their lifetimes, they also retire at age 64, on average, the Center for Retirement Research found.)

2pedals
Posts: 445
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 12:31 pm

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by 2pedals » Sun Jul 08, 2018 8:36 pm

smitcat wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:35 pm
Cut and paste from article...

And women retire at an average age of 62, a figure that has barely budged in a decade, according to a study by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

......

But if she files at 62, she would only be eligible for her reduced benefit or as little as 32.5 percent of her partner's.
Their early claiming of benefits may be one reason why nearly 2.9 million women over 65 live in poverty, more than double the 1.3 million men in poverty, according to the National Women's Law Center. (Not only do men tend to earn more over their lifetimes, they also retire at age 64, on average, the Center for Retirement Research found.)
The study does not look at couples as a whole. When I do OUR estimates for best value as a whole from the Open Social Security Strategy Calculator we maximize our benefits if DW (2 years younger) takes hers SS benefit at 62 and I take SS my benefit at 70. Demographics of younger women (average age difference is 2.3 years) retiring with their older husband makes sense to me if they are married. Furthermore if I die first (most likely) law says she will get 100% my delayed benefit.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 4489
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by willthrill81 » Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:01 pm

smitcat wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:35 pm
Their early claiming of benefits may be one reason why nearly 2.9 million women over 65 live in poverty, more than double the 1.3 million men in poverty, according to the National Women's Law Center. (Not only do men tend to earn more over their lifetimes, they also retire at age 64, on average, the Center for Retirement Research found.)
Part of that is very likely a result of women outliving men. There are significantly more women than men older than age 65, so it stands to reason that there are many more women "in poverty" than men over age 65.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
munemaker
Posts: 3098
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 6:14 pm

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by munemaker » Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:50 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:12 pm
My underlying point is that this doesn't seem to be a 'husbands don't care about their wives' situation as put forward by someone else above. Both genders seem to be very often desirous to start benefits as soon as they can, females apparently more so than males.
I don't think the claiming age decision is (in most cases) a matter of either gender not caring. The general population doesn't study this stuff like us Bogleheads. They look to their friends and get swayed my media noise that social security will go bankrupt, get cut and the like. They don't understand the benefits of waiting and the costs of not waiting, and they do not understand the interaction, consequences and benefits for married couples. Bad claiming decisions are more out of ignorance than not caring, IMHO.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 4489
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by willthrill81 » Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:51 pm

munemaker wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:50 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:12 pm
My underlying point is that this doesn't seem to be a 'husbands don't care about their wives' situation as put forward by someone else above. Both genders seem to be very often desirous to start benefits as soon as they can, females apparently more so than males.
I don't think the claiming age decision is (in most cases) a matter of either gender not caring. The general population doesn't study this stuff like us Bogleheads. They look to their friends and get swayed my media noise that social security will go bankrupt, get cut and the like. They don't understand the benefits of waiting and the costs of not waiting, and they do not understand the interaction, consequences and benefits for married couples. Bad claiming decisions are more out of ignorance than not caring, IMHO.
:sharebeer Bingo.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

smitcat
Posts: 1503
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by smitcat » Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:33 am

willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:01 pm
smitcat wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:35 pm
Their early claiming of benefits may be one reason why nearly 2.9 million women over 65 live in poverty, more than double the 1.3 million men in poverty, according to the National Women's Law Center. (Not only do men tend to earn more over their lifetimes, they also retire at age 64, on average, the Center for Retirement Research found.)
Part of that is very likely a result of women outliving men. There are significantly more women than men older than age 65, so it stands to reason that there are many more women "in poverty" than men over age 65.
Women leave work more than 2 years earlier than men on average after receiving less pay during their working years. They need to take SS when they leave the workforce just like most folks retiring as they have no real savings to support the retirement. I really doubt that there are 223% more woemn alive in retirment than men (2.9/1.3). Since women do live longer and both their FRA and their spouse's filing date affects their income best to think that solution thru completely.

smitcat
Posts: 1503
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by smitcat » Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:37 am

munemaker wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:50 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:12 pm
My underlying point is that this doesn't seem to be a 'husbands don't care about their wives' situation as put forward by someone else above. Both genders seem to be very often desirous to start benefits as soon as they can, females apparently more so than males.
I don't think the claiming age decision is (in most cases) a matter of either gender not caring. The general population doesn't study this stuff like us Bogleheads. They look to their friends and get swayed my media noise that social security will go bankrupt, get cut and the like. They don't understand the benefits of waiting and the costs of not waiting, and they do not understand the interaction, consequences and benefits for married couples. Bad claiming decisions are more out of ignorance than not caring, IMHO.
The general population has little of no savings for retirement purposes - a very larger percentage on that population takes SS exactly when they are out of work as they really have little choice.
They don't study this stuff like Bogles because they have no savings at all, or maybe they have no savings because they never studied this stuff. In any case if you have no substantial savings and you are out of work then you take SS as an 'only choice".

smitcat
Posts: 1503
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by smitcat » Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:40 am

# males vs females by age group ...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/241 ... x-and-age/

smitcat
Posts: 1503
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by smitcat » Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:11 am

Choices are limited by the amount of funds people have available to live off of.
This is what the general population has saved for retirement by age group...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/241 ... x-and-age/

hoops777
Posts: 2261
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:23 pm

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by hoops777 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 9:53 am

munemaker wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:50 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:12 pm
My underlying point is that this doesn't seem to be a 'husbands don't care about their wives' situation as put forward by someone else above. Both genders seem to be very often desirous to start benefits as soon as they can, females apparently more so than males.
I don't think the claiming age decision is (in most cases) a matter of either gender not caring. The general population doesn't study this stuff like us Bogleheads. They look to their friends and get swayed my media noise that social security will go bankrupt, get cut and the like. They don't understand the benefits of waiting and the costs of not waiting, and they do not understand the interaction, consequences and benefits for married couples. Bad claiming decisions are more out of ignorance than not caring, IMHO.
Double bingo :D
The general population in no way resembles the people who post on this forum.This situation is being over analyzed here and munemaker pretty much nailed it.
K.I.S.S........so easy to say so difficult to do.

rgs92
Posts: 1984
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:00 pm

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by rgs92 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:12 pm

Thanks everyone for the stats on this subject.
It's funny, but if you read the comments on the many Yahoo Finance articles on Social Security (and other sites) , it seems like 99% of the people are vehemently in favor of taking it as early as possible (62).

You almost never see a comment about waiting to FRA (much less 70) as is common here.

As Munemaker's chart shows (thanks munemaker!) only 2% of men wait until 70 (4% of women).
That's almost statistically zero.

hoops777
Posts: 2261
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2011 12:23 pm

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by hoops777 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:46 pm

rgs92 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:12 pm
Thanks everyone for the stats on this subject.
It's funny, but if you read the comments on the many Yahoo Finance articles on Social Security (and other sites) , it seems like 99% of the people are vehemently in favor of taking it as early as possible (62).

You almost never see a comment about waiting to FRA (much less 70) as is common here.

As Munemaker's chart shows (thanks munemaker!) only 2% of men wait until 70 (4% of women).
That's almost statistically zero.
Can 98 pct of the people be wrong? :happy
I think the other factor is that people love free stuff and instant gratification.I know SS is not free because you pay into it,but it seems like free money in a sense,because all you have to do is ask for it.How many people in today’s world can turn down money,right now vs waiting?
K.I.S.S........so easy to say so difficult to do.

pennywise
Posts: 451
Joined: Sat May 31, 2014 6:22 am

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by pennywise » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:50 pm

marcopolo wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 6:20 pm

Women have longer life expectancy. So, for the sake of the surviving spouse (who is more likely to be the wife), the one with the higher benefit should delay as long as possible. I believe it is also the case, that in the majority of Soc Sec age couples, the higher benefit belongs to the husband. So, in that sense, the husbands should be delaying till age 70 for the consideration of the most likely surviving spouse. There is less of a need for the lower benefit and longer life expectancy spouse (usually the wife) to delay. In many cases it does actually make sense for the lower benefit to claim earlier.
Exactly--in the NBC article linked earlier in this discussion, this is not even mentioned! For a married woman claiming at 62, it's not at all a certainty that she is dooming herself to a diminished social security benefit for the rest of her life.

As marcopolo posits, she will probably end up with her husband's larger benefit as her own if she becomes a widow. Obviously people have a vast range of input and outcome variables but there are sure a heckuva lot of married couples who can and should consider having him wait as long as possible to ensure a more secure LIFETIME benefit for her.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 4489
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by willthrill81 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:04 pm

smitcat wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:33 am
willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:01 pm
smitcat wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:35 pm
Their early claiming of benefits may be one reason why nearly 2.9 million women over 65 live in poverty, more than double the 1.3 million men in poverty, according to the National Women's Law Center. (Not only do men tend to earn more over their lifetimes, they also retire at age 64, on average, the Center for Retirement Research found.)
Part of that is very likely a result of women outliving men. There are significantly more women than men older than age 65, so it stands to reason that there are many more women "in poverty" than men over age 65.
Women leave work more than 2 years earlier than men on average after receiving less pay during their working years. They need to take SS when they leave the workforce just like most folks retiring as they have no real savings to support the retirement. I really doubt that there are 223% more woemn alive in retirment than men (2.9/1.3). Since women do live longer and both their FRA and their spouse's filing date affects their income best to think that solution thru completely.
Apparently you overlooked where I said "part."

If we make the assumption that people are more likely to move into "poverty" as they age, then it stands to reason that women will be at higher risk than men. According to the 2010 Census, there were 1.8 million men between the ages of 80-84, whereas there were 3.1 million females. For 85 to 89 year olds, there were 877k men and 1.9 million females, 217% more females, shockingly close to the ratio of females to males over age 65 in poverty. So yes, "part" of the reason that there are more women than men in poverty over the age of 65 is likely due to women having more of a 'longevity problem' than men.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

JoeRetire
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:44 pm

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by JoeRetire » Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:15 pm

rgs92 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:12 pm
Thanks everyone for the stats on this subject.
It's funny, but if you read the comments on the many Yahoo Finance articles on Social Security (and other sites) , it seems like 99% of the people are vehemently in favor of taking it as early as possible (62).

You almost never see a comment about waiting to FRA (much less 70) as is common here.

As Munemaker's chart shows (thanks munemaker!) only 2% of men wait until 70 (4% of women).
That's almost statistically zero.
Well the number of readers here is almost statistically zero, too.

User avatar
munemaker
Posts: 3098
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 6:14 pm

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by munemaker » Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:18 pm

smitcat wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:33 am

Women leave work more than 2 years earlier than men on average after receiving less pay during their working years. They need to take SS when they leave the workforce just like most folks retiring as they have no real savings to support the retirement.
I believe this but it seems counter-intuitive. If one earned less money and is expected to live longer, wouldn't you expect that person to work longer (assuming they are able) and retire at a later age? Some are not able, I understand.

The Wizard
Posts: 11883
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 1:45 pm
Location: Reading, MA

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by The Wizard » Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:27 pm

JoeRetire wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:15 pm
rgs92 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:12 pm
Thanks everyone for the stats on this subject.
It's funny, but if you read the comments on the many Yahoo Finance articles on Social Security (and other sites) , it seems like 99% of the people are vehemently in favor of taking it as early as possible (62).

You almost never see a comment about waiting to FRA (much less 70) as is common here.

As Munemaker's chart shows (thanks munemaker!) only 2% of men wait until 70 (4% of women).
That's almost statistically zero.
Well the number of readers here is almost statistically zero, too.
Lying with statistics is great fun, yes...
:happy
Attempted new signature...

JoeRetire
Posts: 1025
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 2:44 pm

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by JoeRetire » Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:38 pm

The Wizard wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:27 pm
JoeRetire wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:15 pm
rgs92 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:12 pm
Thanks everyone for the stats on this subject.
It's funny, but if you read the comments on the many Yahoo Finance articles on Social Security (and other sites) , it seems like 99% of the people are vehemently in favor of taking it as early as possible (62).

You almost never see a comment about waiting to FRA (much less 70) as is common here.

As Munemaker's chart shows (thanks munemaker!) only 2% of men wait until 70 (4% of women).
That's almost statistically zero.
Well the number of readers here is almost statistically zero, too.
Lying with statistics is great fun, yes...
:happy
No lies. Just relative statistics.

If 2% - 4% of everyone on social security is almost statistically zero, then certainly the count of members here is even more so. It's no even close.

smitcat
Posts: 1503
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by smitcat » Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:09 pm

willthrill81 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:04 pm
smitcat wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:33 am
willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:01 pm
smitcat wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:35 pm
Their early claiming of benefits may be one reason why nearly 2.9 million women over 65 live in poverty, more than double the 1.3 million men in poverty, according to the National Women's Law Center. (Not only do men tend to earn more over their lifetimes, they also retire at age 64, on average, the Center for Retirement Research found.)
Part of that is very likely a result of women outliving men. There are significantly more women than men older than age 65, so it stands to reason that there are many more women "in poverty" than men over age 65.
Women leave work more than 2 years earlier than men on average after receiving less pay during their working years. They need to take SS when they leave the workforce just like most folks retiring as they have no real savings to support the retirement. I really doubt that there are 223% more woemn alive in retirment than men (2.9/1.3). Since women do live longer and both their FRA and their spouse's filing date affects their income best to think that solution thru completely.
Apparently you overlooked where I said "part."

If we make the assumption that people are more likely to move into "poverty" as they age, then it stands to reason that women will be at higher risk than men. According to the 2010 Census, there were 1.8 million men between the ages of 80-84, whereas there were 3.1 million females. For 85 to 89 year olds, there were 877k men and 1.9 million females, 217% more females, shockingly close to the ratio of females to males over age 65 in poverty. So yes, "part" of the reason that there are more women than men in poverty over the age of 65 is likely due to women having more of a 'longevity problem' than men.

This link shows the numbers in 2016 by age group....
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241 ... x-and-age/

smitcat
Posts: 1503
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by smitcat » Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:16 pm

munemaker wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:18 pm
smitcat wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:33 am

Women leave work more than 2 years earlier than men on average after receiving less pay during their working years. They need to take SS when they leave the workforce just like most folks retiring as they have no real savings to support the retirement.
I believe this but it seems counter-intuitive. If one earned less money and is expected to live longer, wouldn't you expect that person to work longer (assuming they are able) and retire at a later age? Some are not able, I understand.
Yes - I agree it is unexpected, same way I felt when I first read it. But it does then match up with the fact that most everyone takes SS when the stop working and also that most everyone has very little saved for retirement. It appears that for the general public there really is not to much to decide.

edit - perhaps one of the reasons is because women are more likely to leave the workforce to care for someone else in the family.
Last edited by smitcat on Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

smitcat
Posts: 1503
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by smitcat » Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:20 pm

smitcat wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:09 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:04 pm
smitcat wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:33 am
willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:01 pm
smitcat wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:35 pm
Their early claiming of benefits may be one reason why nearly 2.9 million women over 65 live in poverty, more than double the 1.3 million men in poverty, according to the National Women's Law Center. (Not only do men tend to earn more over their lifetimes, they also retire at age 64, on average, the Center for Retirement Research found.)
Part of that is very likely a result of women outliving men. There are significantly more women than men older than age 65, so it stands to reason that there are many more women "in poverty" than men over age 65.
Women leave work more than 2 years earlier than men on average after receiving less pay during their working years. They need to take SS when they leave the workforce just like most folks retiring as they have no real savings to support the retirement. I really doubt that there are 223% more woemn alive in retirment than men (2.9/1.3). Since women do live longer and both their FRA and their spouse's filing date affects their income best to think that solution thru completely.
Apparently you overlooked where I said "part."

If we make the assumption that people are more likely to move into "poverty" as they age, then it stands to reason that women will be at higher risk than men. According to the 2010 Census, there were 1.8 million men between the ages of 80-84, whereas there were 3.1 million females. For 85 to 89 year olds, there were 877k men and 1.9 million females, 217% more females, shockingly close to the ratio of females to males over age 65 in poverty. So yes, "part" of the reason that there are more women than men in poverty over the age of 65 is likely due to women having more of a 'longevity problem' than men.

This link shows the numbers in 2016 by age group....
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241 ... x-and-age/
It appears that the 2010 census shows 41% male and 59% female for all ages that are above 65. That would correlate to the article about # folks living in poverty above 65.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 4489
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by willthrill81 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:05 pm

smitcat wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:20 pm
smitcat wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:09 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:04 pm
smitcat wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:33 am
willthrill81 wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:01 pm


Part of that is very likely a result of women outliving men. There are significantly more women than men older than age 65, so it stands to reason that there are many more women "in poverty" than men over age 65.
Women leave work more than 2 years earlier than men on average after receiving less pay during their working years. They need to take SS when they leave the workforce just like most folks retiring as they have no real savings to support the retirement. I really doubt that there are 223% more woemn alive in retirment than men (2.9/1.3). Since women do live longer and both their FRA and their spouse's filing date affects their income best to think that solution thru completely.
Apparently you overlooked where I said "part."

If we make the assumption that people are more likely to move into "poverty" as they age, then it stands to reason that women will be at higher risk than men. According to the 2010 Census, there were 1.8 million men between the ages of 80-84, whereas there were 3.1 million females. For 85 to 89 year olds, there were 877k men and 1.9 million females, 217% more females, shockingly close to the ratio of females to males over age 65 in poverty. So yes, "part" of the reason that there are more women than men in poverty over the age of 65 is likely due to women having more of a 'longevity problem' than men.

This link shows the numbers in 2016 by age group....
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241 ... x-and-age/
It appears that the 2010 census shows 41% male and 59% female for all ages that are above 65. That would correlate to the article about # folks living in poverty above 65.
So to go along with munemaker's point above, it is counter-intuitive at least for women to claim SS benefits at age 62 due to them typically earning less income and, hence, receiving lower SS benefits, along with living longer as well. The numbers seem to suggest that women are at higher risk of 'retirement poverty' than men, so deferring SS as long as possible would make sense. Perhaps there is data specifically indicating the reasons why women typically start SS benefits earlier than men. Is it due to them retiring earlier? Is it to supplement their already lower income? Is it to take care of family members?
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

User avatar
munemaker
Posts: 3098
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2014 6:14 pm

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by munemaker » Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:31 am

willthrill81 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:05 pm
Perhaps there is data specifically indicating the reasons why women typically start SS benefits earlier than men. Is it due to them retiring earlier? Is it to supplement their already lower income? Is it to take care of family members?
I did find this article (written in 2015) that shows women's retirement age had been steadily increasing at a faster rate than men's (see graph on page 4), although at the time the paper was written, women were still retiring at younger age than men.

http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/20 ... 08_rev.pdf

One factor mentioned in the paper is that, on average, women are 3 years younger than their husbands. So if they chose to retire at the same time, she is retiring at a younger age.

bradpevans
Posts: 204
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2018 1:09 pm

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by bradpevans » Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:34 am

willthrill81 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:05 pm
smitcat wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:20 pm
smitcat wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:09 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:04 pm
smitcat wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:33 am


Women leave work more than 2 years earlier than men on average after receiving less pay during their working years. They need to take SS when they leave the workforce just like most folks retiring as they have no real savings to support the retirement. I really doubt that there are 223% more woemn alive in retirment than men (2.9/1.3). Since women do live longer and both their FRA and their spouse's filing date affects their income best to think that solution thru completely.
Apparently you overlooked where I said "part."

If we make the assumption that people are more likely to move into "poverty" as they age, then it stands to reason that women will be at higher risk than men. According to the 2010 Census, there were 1.8 million men between the ages of 80-84, whereas there were 3.1 million females. For 85 to 89 year olds, there were 877k men and 1.9 million females, 217% more females, shockingly close to the ratio of females to males over age 65 in poverty. So yes, "part" of the reason that there are more women than men in poverty over the age of 65 is likely due to women having more of a 'longevity problem' than men.

This link shows the numbers in 2016 by age group....
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241 ... x-and-age/
It appears that the 2010 census shows 41% male and 59% female for all ages that are above 65. That would correlate to the article about # folks living in poverty above 65.
So to go along with munemaker's point above, it is counter-intuitive at least for women to claim SS benefits at age 62 due to them typically earning less income and, hence, receiving lower SS benefits, along with living longer as well. The numbers seem to suggest that women are at higher risk of 'retirement poverty' than men, so deferring SS as long as possible would make sense. Perhaps there is data specifically indicating the reasons why women typically start SS benefits earlier than men. Is it due to them retiring earlier? Is it to supplement their already lower income? Is it to take care of family members?

My take would be that the women take early to generate some income and the man, who had a higher earnings in his career, delays till 70. Then the max benefit stays till the end regardless of who is the remaining spouse

The women living into poverty, it could just be an artifact that women live longer, and at that point there is only one Social Security, and married filing single tax status
Last edited by bradpevans on Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

smitcat
Posts: 1503
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 10:51 am

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by smitcat » Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:47 am

bradpevans wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:34 am
willthrill81 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:05 pm
smitcat wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:20 pm
smitcat wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:09 pm
willthrill81 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:04 pm


Apparently you overlooked where I said "part."

If we make the assumption that people are more likely to move into "poverty" as they age, then it stands to reason that women will be at higher risk than men. According to the 2010 Census, there were 1.8 million men between the ages of 80-84, whereas there were 3.1 million females. For 85 to 89 year olds, there were 877k men and 1.9 million females, 217% more females, shockingly close to the ratio of females to males over age 65 in poverty. So yes, "part" of the reason that there are more women than men in poverty over the age of 65 is likely due to women having more of a 'longevity problem' than men.

This link shows the numbers in 2016 by age group....
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241 ... x-and-age/
It appears that the 2010 census shows 41% male and 59% female for all ages that are above 65. That would correlate to the article about # folks living in poverty above 65.
So to go along with munemaker's point above, it is counter-intuitive at least for women to claim SS benefits at age 62 due to them typically earning less income and, hence, receiving lower SS benefits, along with living longer as well. The numbers seem to suggest that women are at higher risk of 'retirement poverty' than men, so deferring SS as long as possible would make sense. Perhaps there is data specifically indicating the reasons why women typically start SS benefits earlier than men. Is it due to them retiring earlier? Is it to supplement their already lower income? Is it to take care of family members?

My take would be that the women take early to generate some income and the man, who had a higher earnings in his career, the first till seven day. Then the max benefit stays till the end regardless of who is the remaining spouse

The women living into poverty, it could just be an artifact that women live longer, and at that point there is only one Social Security, and married filing single tax status
Men over 65 represent 41% of population.
Men over 65 represent 31% of population living in poverty.

User avatar
willthrill81
Posts: 4489
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:17 pm
Location: USA

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by willthrill81 » Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:30 am

munemaker wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:31 am
willthrill81 wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:05 pm
Perhaps there is data specifically indicating the reasons why women typically start SS benefits earlier than men. Is it due to them retiring earlier? Is it to supplement their already lower income? Is it to take care of family members?
I did find this article (written in 2015) that shows women's retirement age had been steadily increasing at a faster rate than men's (see graph on page 4), although at the time the paper was written, women were still retiring at younger age than men.

http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/20 ... 08_rev.pdf

One factor mentioned in the paper is that, on average, women are 3 years younger than their husbands. So if they chose to retire at the same time, she is retiring at a younger age.
Thanks for the article. Both spouses retiring at approximately the same time seems to be a very logical reason to me as to why women would start SS benefits earlier than men in terms of age. There can definitely be pressure on one spouse to retire if the other already has or desire to.
bradpevans wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 9:34 am
The women living into poverty, it could just be an artifact that women live longer, and at that point there is only one Social Security, and married filing single tax status
Women's relative longevity is very likely a contributing factor to their increased risk of retirement poverty. But how much of a factor it is compared to everything else involved is as yet unknown.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” J.R.R. Tolkien,The Lord of the Rings

2pedals
Posts: 445
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 12:31 pm

Re: SS taken at 62 vs. 70, but measured from 70+

Post by 2pedals » Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:31 am

smitcat wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:16 pm
munemaker wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:18 pm
smitcat wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:33 am

Women leave work more than 2 years earlier than men on average after receiving less pay during their working years. They need to take SS when they leave the workforce just like most folks retiring as they have no real savings to support the retirement.
I believe this but it seems counter-intuitive. If one earned less money and is expected to live longer, wouldn't you expect that person to work longer (assuming they are able) and retire at a later age? Some are not able, I understand.
Yes - I agree it is unexpected, same way I felt when I first read it. But it does then match up with the fact that most everyone takes SS when the stop working and also that most everyone has very little saved for retirement. It appears that for the general public there really is not to much to decide.

edit - perhaps one of the reasons is because women are more likely to leave the workforce to care for someone else in the family.
Perhaps dear husbands are on average 2.3 year older than dear wives and both want to retire (and take SS) near the same time period to enjoy life experiences together. None of this is a failure with the social security system in my view (other than people not taking the time to evaluate and understand what is best for their situation). The free choice is the same for both dear husband or dear wife. The gender pay gap may be a problem as well but that is a different subject.

Post Reply