Taking Social Security at 62

[smitcat]

A very simple question. Is there anyone who reads this thread and has collected ss since they were 62 that is remorseful or regrets the decision ?

And will admit it?

Wife and I took SS at age 62 this Jan; We don’t need it; we have a few pensions (military, corporate, school) and BH savings. We are in very good health, but both of us are cancer survivors. We have slightly above average life expectancies. We get 42K a year from SS. Wife is low earner. When I die my DW gets 32K a year. If she dies first I get 27K a year.

Having the money come in monthly frees us up to blow it. (Yes mental accounting). And we do. We took a 16 day national park tour out west to celebrate in August - stayed in Yellowstone lodge one night - lived like the farmer left the gate open. We are pretty frugal and much more likely to spend the money deposited in our checking account monthly than to withdraw from savings (the problem of spending savings is real)

If we live as long as we might live we are giving up some coin (100K?) but I contend our lives are better “spent” taking it early. And who knows what the future of the program will be. I was at a dinner with a former OMB director last month and he said to me something has to give in the future entitlement battle.

In the fighter pilot world we used to say about weapons or cigars or whatever you possess - “smoke ‘em if you got ‘em.” We need to start spending or our kids will buy stuff we should have bought with our money.

Have you, or did you do any analysis on your total portfolio plan which led you to believe that taking it at 62 was an optimum plan?
DId this analysis take into consderation these items:
- all potential results adjusted for tax and inflation
- ACA benefits
- various spousal age(s) of demise
- roth conversions
- inheritance goals
- charitable goals
Please share which one(s) had led the optimization for taking it at 62.

PS - we were at Yellowstone in Sept. and at Spring Lake lodge.

Yellowstone was our favorite part. Beautiful. Spring Lake Lodge was gorgeous too.

My discussion above pretty much details my rational for taking it at 62. We ran a few scenarios on Mike Piper’s great website opensocialsecurity.com; Mike’s tool said in an optimum case we could be giving up just short of 100K by taking it early if we live as long as average peeps do and if they don’t means test it or cut benefits, etc. We also ran a few scenarios on ORP-I few years ago. ORP-I recommended very large Roth Conversions into high tax brackets I think are excessive. We are currently doing some smaller Roth conversions. I have an mba and an engineering degree but am not overly analytical in my decision making. As Mr Bogie said in his book - we have “Enough”. We have a good COLA’d Mil pension, saved enough, and we think our quality of life in our 60’s, go go years, and slow go years will be best by having the $ deposited monthly in our checking / taking it early. I realize not digging into pralana gold and estimating future inflation, future tax rates, and future equity returns to develop a detailed plan on who may live long enough to die with the most they possibly can may drive some BH’ers crazy. Not me.

Thank you - We liked all of our time at Yellowstone as well.
I think you may already know this but just in case while opensocialsecurity will optimzie SS election alone it has no way to assess a combination anything like yours. Extended IORP had a number of issues with Roth conversions even before it became unsupported around 2019 - while there were some ways to partially work around this they still yielded results that were less than optimal.
Thank you again

[smitcat]

My breakeven number is a little different. I am almost 65. If I wait until 70, my breakeven is near 80. However, my wife is four years younger, so her breakeven, given that she'll be getting her spousal benefit starting at age 66, is therefore 76.

Tom - when you say 'breakeven' are you referring to adding up the cashflow each year? Or are you adjusting for taxes and other potential SS implications like ACA , Roth Conversions, heirs tax rates , etc and then figuring end of portfolio value?

I'm just using the standard breakeven analysis of when the benefit lines cross on the graph. That was just to point out that what happens to a spouse can be the primary driver of a decision on when to claim, especially a younger spouse who could outlive me by a number of years even with standard life expectancy.

The other factors you mention definitely play into my decision, though! I use Pralana Gold to try and get a handle on all that. So many moving parts...

I find Pralana to be a very valuable tool. We do not find 'breakeven' analysis of that type to have any value for our choices.
FWIW - if you really want to test breakeven you can run a few 'end of life early' years in Pralana and then adjust the ending balances to reflect the heirs/charities results. In our case breakeven come up much sooner than one would think - but all situations will be different.

[rockstar]

There is a reason why most fiduciary financial planners recommend that healthy people delay their social security until 70 years old in most cases.
What I find dumb is people taking their social security at 62 years old and then buying an annuity with their nest egg.
Even more disturbing to me is financial advisors recommending to their clients to take social security early and buying an annuity product with their nest egg that pays them a fat commission. Believe it or not, this happens all of the time. Some of these clients walk into their offices 200 pounds overweight short of breath as they sit down next to them, and they still try to sell them an annuity product.

Hiked with a financial advisor for years. He sure loved selling annuities. His pitch was that it was predictable income. I’m sure his commission was predictable too.

What I do find interesting is that most of the people that I meet that take it at 62 are very conservative, conspiracy types. I met a couple that want to take it early because they think it will completely go away. Like poof. But they believe in all sorts of craziness.

[privateID]

I have 3 reasons why the lower earner for us may take it earlier (still 5 years away from the decision):
1) The OpenSocialSecurity reason.
2) Believe a fix for SS may reduce benefits.
3) It may not affect SS taxation - Depending of stock returns and how they fix SS in the future, we may be at 85% of SS taxed or not. This one is hard to know in advance and may factor more into the decision when we have to make it.

I actually think it's a close call for us which probably means I shouldn't worry about too much (easier said than done). I do like the idea of longevity insurance in case we both defy the odds. Higher earner definitely waiting till 70.

[GP813]

If you look at your family history, current health, sex and ethnicity, these might all be factors to collect earlier.

[jeffyscott]

Only 10% wait until 70.

What a majority of Americans do is not on my list of "financial decision-makers I should be listening to."

More importantly, most Americans do not have the financial resources to wait that long. Many can't even last as long as FRA. The Boglehead community is far wealthier than the average.

The language around that age may be the main reason many do take it at what they call "full" retirement age? It's called "full" even though it's pretty much just one arbitrary age with little or no particular advantage or disadvantage vs. other ages. Maximum benefits occur at age 70, but using "full" to refer to the benefit and age implies otherwise and articles like the one linked also say there's no reduction:

Age 66
Unsurprisingly, beginning to collect when you're eligible for full Social Security retirement benefits was the most popular option for both sexes, with 28.4% of men and 26.5% of women beginning at this age in 2022.

"When you take it at your full retirement age, there are no reductions in benefits," says Christopher Rhim, certified financial planner for Green View Advisors in Norwich, Vermont.

In addition, you can have a disabled worker benefit automatically converted to a retired worker benefit upon reaching your full retirement age.


It also may be that last item increases the percentage for that age, too. I assume that those on a disability benefit are required to switch to a retirement benefit at that age, even though the article says "can"?

"articles like the one linked also say there's no reduction:"
True - if you take benefits at your full retirement age there is no reduction in benefts from your full retirement age benefts.

Yes, just as at any other age, there is no reduction from the benefit at age X, if you take it at age X.

[smitcat]

Only 10% wait until 70.

What a majority of Americans do is not on my list of "financial decision-makers I should be listening to."

More importantly, most Americans do not have the financial resources to wait that long. Many can't even last as long as FRA. The Boglehead community is far wealthier than the average.

The language around that age may be the main reason many do take it at what they call "full" retirement age? It's called "full" even though it's pretty much just one arbitrary age with little or no particular advantage or disadvantage vs. other ages. Maximum benefits occur at age 70, but using "full" to refer to the benefit and age implies otherwise and articles like the one linked also say there's no reduction:

Age 66
Unsurprisingly, beginning to collect when you're eligible for full Social Security retirement benefits was the most popular option for both sexes, with 28.4% of men and 26.5% of women beginning at this age in 2022.

"When you take it at your full retirement age, there are no reductions in benefits," says Christopher Rhim, certified financial planner for Green View Advisors in Norwich, Vermont.

In addition, you can have a disabled worker benefit automatically converted to a retired worker benefit upon reaching your full retirement age.


It also may be that last item increases the percentage for that age, too. I assume that those on a disability benefit are required to switch to a retirement benefit at that age, even though the article says "can"?

"articles like the one linked also say there's no reduction:"
True - if you take benefits at your full retirement age there is no reduction in benefts from your full retirement age benefts.

Yes, just as at any other age, there is no reduction from the benefit at age X, if you take it at age X.

I know - that is why I found that statemnet in the article so funny.
What it does not say is that af FRA you gain full survivor benefits and you no longer have SS tax on current earnings ...if still working.

[KiwiBobs]

I'm 59 and turn 60 in June. At the end of the month I will be laid off and possibly be leaving the workplace for good. I made my decision to take SS as early as available. If my break even age is late 70s early 80s, I'm good with that decision. I also think of the things I used to enjoy in my 30s and 40s that at 59 no longer am able to do or enjoy. If I feel like this now, I'm sure it will feel more pronounced at 70 and above. I don't think there is enough money in the world to live free and make memories while my body and mind is still able to enjoy some things.

That is exactly my thinking. I want to enjoy the money when I am in my go-go years. If I don't claim, I will be a on the conservative side adjusting into the decumulation phase and miss out a lot during my go-go years. If I run my numbers in Pralana Gold, claiming will leave my net worth at X million at age 95. Claiming later it will be X+ million. I don't care if my heirs get X or X+ million.

[Tom_T]

I have 3 reasons why the lower earner for us may take it earlier (still 5 years away from the decision):
1) The OpenSocialSecurity reason.
2) Believe a fix for SS may reduce benefits.
3) It may not affect SS taxation - Depending of stock returns and how they fix SS in the future, we may be at 85% of SS taxed or not. This one is hard to know in advance and may factor more into the decision when we have to make it.

I actually think it's a close call for us which probably means I shouldn't worry about too much (easier said than done). I do like the idea of longevity insurance in case we both defy the odds. Higher earner definitely waiting till 70.

You understand that #2 could still mean that the benefits you've already claimed can be cut? There is no promise that existing recipients will be left untouched, which means that the already-low benefit you've claimed can become even lower. Point being, don't let speculation on future SS changes impact your decision.

If you like the idea of longevity insurance, then the earlier the lower earner claims, the lower the total benefit will be. It's easy enough to model the differences using one of the calculators.

[Blue456]

I have 3 reasons why the lower earner for us may take it earlier (still 5 years away from the decision):
1) The OpenSocialSecurity reason.
2) Believe a fix for SS may reduce benefits.
3) It may not affect SS taxation - Depending of stock returns and how they fix SS in the future, we may be at 85% of SS taxed or not. This one is hard to know in advance and may factor more into the decision when we have to make it.

I actually think it's a close call for us which probably means I shouldn't worry about too much (easier said than done). I do like the idea of longevity insurance in case we both defy the odds. Higher earner definitely waiting till 70.

You understand that #2 could still mean that the benefits you've already claimed can be cut? There is no promise that existing recipients will be left untouched, which means that the already-low benefit you've claimed can become even lower. Point being, don't let speculation on future SS changes impact your decision.

If you like the idea of longevity insurance, then the earlier the lower earner claims, the lower the total benefit will be. It's easy enough to model the differences using one of the calculators.

My dad worked in Poland for 55 years (since he was 15). He was eligible to claim social security many years ago but decided to wait and work longer. New laws were passed and his benefit is now lower than what it would have been had he retired earlier. He is bitter to this date about this.

[z3r0c00l]

Pension at 55 and SS at 62, tomorrow is never promised today. I intend on enjoying life while I am healthy enough to do so. I work with lots of elderly folks, most of them have tons of money, in many cases hoards of millions of dollars, and nothing fun to do with it since their health prevents them from traveling or even being that active close to home. Those 20 years from 55 - 75 are crucial, 75 - 95, if you live that long, tends to be a much downsized life for health reasons rather than lack of money. Will I plan to 95? Sure. But not going to roll the dice on some kind of high powered life fueled by maximum income in my 70s.

Balance this against a conservative portfolio with 4% SWR.

[mapleosb]

Pension at 55 and SS at 62, tomorrow is never promised today. I intend on enjoying life while I am healthy enough to do so. I work with lots of elderly folks, most of them have tons of money, in many cases hoards of millions of dollars, and nothing fun to do with it since their health prevents them from traveling or even being that active close to home. Those 20 years from 55 - 75 are crucial, 75 - 95, if you live that long, tends to be a much downsized life for health reasons rather than lack of money. Will I plan to 95? Sure. But not going to roll the dice on some kind of high powered life fueled by maximum income in my 70s.

Balance this against a conservative portfolio with 4% SWR.

+1

[Tom_T]

Pension at 55 and SS at 62, tomorrow is never promised today. I intend on enjoying life while I am healthy enough to do so. I work with lots of elderly folks, most of them have tons of money, in many cases hoards of millions of dollars, and nothing fun to do with it since their health prevents them from traveling or even being that active close to home. Those 20 years from 55 - 75 are crucial, 75 - 95, if you live that long, tends to be a much downsized life for health reasons rather than lack of money. Will I plan to 95? Sure. But not going to roll the dice on some kind of high powered life fueled by maximum income in my 70s.

Balance this against a conservative portfolio with 4% SWR.

Who said waiting to claim means not enjoying life or having money to spend?

[privateID]

I have 3 reasons why the lower earner for us may take it earlier (still 5 years away from the decision):
1) The OpenSocialSecurity reason.
2) Believe a fix for SS may reduce benefits.
3) It may not affect SS taxation - Depending of stock returns and how they fix SS in the future, we may be at 85% of SS taxed or not. This one is hard to know in advance and may factor more into the decision when we have to make it.

I actually think it's a close call for us which probably means I shouldn't worry about too much (easier said than done). I do like the idea of longevity insurance in case we both defy the odds. Higher earner definitely waiting till 70.

You understand that #2 could still mean that the benefits you've already claimed can be cut? There is no promise that existing recipients will be left untouched, which means that the already-low benefit you've claimed can become even lower. Point being, don't let speculation on future SS changes impact your decision.

If you like the idea of longevity insurance, then the earlier the lower earner claims, the lower the total benefit will be. It's easy enough to model the differences using one of the calculators.

Yes, #2 can be cut. But getting a few years at higher benefit till the cut happens certainly scores some small points for taking it earlier.

There's two considerations regarding when to take SS for longevity insurance: Lower earner, higher earner. As the odds of one living longer is much greater, the higher earner is the more important consideration. Not saying the lower earner shouldn't be considered in the longevity insurance discussion, but just not as much. All the points together are what may convince me that the lower earner should start earlier. I think a key point to remember in these conversations is the landscape is going to change. We have 5 years till we need to make a decision. We will have two new presidents between now and then. At this point I'm leaning toward the lower earner taking earlier, but am waiting for those changes to reevaluate.

[Tom_T]

I have 3 reasons why the lower earner for us may take it earlier (still 5 years away from the decision):
1) The OpenSocialSecurity reason.
2) Believe a fix for SS may reduce benefits.
3) It may not affect SS taxation - Depending of stock returns and how they fix SS in the future, we may be at 85% of SS taxed or not. This one is hard to know in advance and may factor more into the decision when we have to make it.

I actually think it's a close call for us which probably means I shouldn't worry about too much (easier said than done). I do like the idea of longevity insurance in case we both defy the odds. Higher earner definitely waiting till 70.

You understand that #2 could still mean that the benefits you've already claimed can be cut? There is no promise that existing recipients will be left untouched, which means that the already-low benefit you've claimed can become even lower. Point being, don't let speculation on future SS changes impact your decision.

If you like the idea of longevity insurance, then the earlier the lower earner claims, the lower the total benefit will be. It's easy enough to model the differences using one of the calculators.

Yes, #2 can be cut. But getting a few years at higher benefit till the cut happens certainly scores some small points for taking it earlier.

That's easy enough to model using OpenSocialSecurity. You can get different answers depending on what variables you choose.

- Life expectancy: use standard table, or enter your own
- Future cut in SS: percentage and year
- Change the discount rate

Depending on how I set each of these, I always end up with age 70 for me, but my wife's claiming age varies from 62 to 67. (Note: I'm nearly 65, so the calculation is going to be different than if I were younger.)

[tibbitts]

I think a key point to remember in these conversations is the landscape is going to change. We have 5 years till we need to make a decision. We will have two new presidents between now and then. At this point I'm leaning toward the lower earner taking earlier, but am waiting for those changes to reevaluate.

It's a key point but do you seriously see anything on the horizon in the next 5 years, or any time up until literally about 11:59pm the day before the first "mandatory" cuts, that will provide any clarity?

[privateID]

I think a key point to remember in these conversations is the landscape is going to change. We have 5 years till we need to make a decision. We will have two new presidents between now and then. At this point I'm leaning toward the lower earner taking earlier, but am waiting for those changes to reevaluate.

It's a key point but do you seriously see anything on the horizon in the next 5 years, or any time up until literally about 11:59pm the day before the first "mandatory" cuts, that will provide any clarity?

Well, one variable is the rate of returns. The higher the rate of return, the larger the RMD. So, 5 years of more returns provides a bit more clarity. Another variable is our health. Again, 5 more years to understand more. But I think you're really asking about clarity concerning the future of SS. I agree with your pessimism about clarity there.

[grabiner]

Pension at 55 and SS at 62, tomorrow is never promised today. I intend on enjoying life while I am healthy enough to do so. I work with lots of elderly folks, most of them have tons of money, in many cases hoards of millions of dollars, and nothing fun to do with it since their health prevents them from traveling or even being that active close to home. Those 20 years from 55 - 75 are crucial, 75 - 95, if you live that long, tends to be a much downsized life for health reasons rather than lack of money. Will I plan to 95? Sure. But not going to roll the dice on some kind of high powered life fueled by maximum income in my 70s.

Balance this against a conservative portfolio with 4% SWR.

If you have a large portfolio, there is no necessary relationship between when you claim SS and how much you spend. If you delay SS from 62 to 63, you take more from your portfolio at 62 and less from 63 on, which you can do safely. Similarly for delaying from one year to the next.

In particular, the 4% SWR studies usually assume that your portfolio will last for 30 years. If you do live that long, delaying until 70 can be done by selling more bonds from your portfolio at ages 62-69 and fewer bonds at ages 70-91. If you are still alive at 91, you'll have more money left, so delaying SS increases the chance that you can live 30 years at this standard of living.

This is independent of the decision to take the pension (and presumably to retire from your current job) at 55. By retiring early, you have more years to enjoy your retirement, which works well if you also have enough money to spend.

[rockstar]

Pension at 55 and SS at 62, tomorrow is never promised today. I intend on enjoying life while I am healthy enough to do so. I work with lots of elderly folks, most of them have tons of money, in many cases hoards of millions of dollars, and nothing fun to do with it since their health prevents them from traveling or even being that active close to home. Those 20 years from 55 - 75 are crucial, 75 - 95, if you live that long, tends to be a much downsized life for health reasons rather than lack of money. Will I plan to 95? Sure. But not going to roll the dice on some kind of high powered life fueled by maximum income in my 70s.

Balance this against a conservative portfolio with 4% SWR.

Who said waiting to claim means not enjoying life or having money to spend?

This is the case of wanting to retire at 62 but not saving enough to retire. This is a likely place for a lot of people.

[tibbitts]

I think a key point to remember in these conversations is the landscape is going to change. We have 5 years till we need to make a decision. We will have two new presidents between now and then. At this point I'm leaning toward the lower earner taking earlier, but am waiting for those changes to reevaluate.

It's a key point but do you seriously see anything on the horizon in the next 5 years, or any time up until literally about 11:59pm the day before the first "mandatory" cuts, that will provide any clarity?

Well, one variable is the rate of returns. The higher the rate of return, the larger the RMD. So, 5 years of more returns provides a bit more clarity. Another variable is our health. Again, 5 more years to understand more. But I think you're really asking about clarity concerning the future of SS. I agree with your pessimism about clarity there.

Agreed, good point about other aspects of clarity. Although for example with RMDs, my returns have gone from about 3.2% (all fixed income) to about 5.2% right now. And that difference is enough to dramatically change the results of all scenarios for Roth conversions, etc., but I have idea what to do with that information.

[jeffyscott]

Pension at 55 and SS at 62, tomorrow is never promised today. I intend on enjoying life while I am healthy enough to do so. I work with lots of elderly folks, most of them have tons of money, in many cases hoards of millions of dollars, and nothing fun to do with it since their health prevents them from traveling or even being that active close to home. Those 20 years from 55 - 75 are crucial, 75 - 95, if you live that long, tends to be a much downsized life for health reasons rather than lack of money. Will I plan to 95? Sure. But not going to roll the dice on some kind of high powered life fueled by maximum income in my 70s.

Balance this against a conservative portfolio with 4% SWR.

If you have a large portfolio, there is no necessary relationship between when you claim SS and how much you spend. If you delay SS from 62 to 63, you take more from your portfolio at 62 and less from 63 on, which you can do safely. Similarly for delaying from one year to the next.

In particular, the 4% SWR studies usually assume that your portfolio will last for 30 years. If you do live that long, delaying until 70 can be done by selling more bonds from your portfolio at ages 62-69 and fewer bonds at ages 70-91. If you are still alive at 91, you'll have more money left, so delaying SS increases the chance that you can live 30 years at this standard of living.

This is independent of the decision to take the pension (and presumably to retire from your current job) at 55. By retiring early, you have more years to enjoy your retirement, which works well if you also have enough money to spend.

That and there's also the fact that not everyone see's spending more and more money as the way to meet the goal of "enjoying life while I am healthy enough to do so".

My spouse and I could easily spend $50K per year more than we do...but on what? Are we to be forced to dine out in expensive restaurants, move to a more expensive house, get luxury accomodations on trips, even though we would not enjoy any of those things? Must I really bear this burden of finding something/anything to spend an additional $1000 per week on just because our portfolio and pensions (and possibly future SS) are larger than our worst case pre-retirement estimates?

[Johm221122]

I'm 59 and turn 60 in June. At the end of the month I will be laid off and possibly be leaving the workplace for good. I made my decision to take SS as early as available. If my break even age is late 70s early 80s, I'm good with that decision. I also think of the things I used to enjoy in my 30s and 40s that at 59 no longer am able to do or enjoy. If I feel like this now, I'm sure it will feel more pronounced at 70 and above. I don't think there is enough money in the world to live free and make memories while my body and mind is still able to enjoy some things.

That is exactly my thinking. I want to enjoy the money when I am in my go-go years. If I don't claim, I will be a on the conservative side adjusting into the decumulation phase and miss out a lot during my go-go years. If I run my numbers in Pralana Gold, claiming will leave my net worth at X million at age 95. Claiming later it will be X+ million. I don't care if my heirs get X or X+ million.

Actually you can spend more while delaying
viewtopic.php?t=102609

[HeavyChevy]

Pension at 55 and SS at 62, tomorrow is never promised today. I intend on enjoying life while I am healthy enough to do so. I work with lots of elderly folks, most of them have tons of money, in many cases hoards of millions of dollars, and nothing fun to do with it since their health prevents them from traveling or even being that active close to home. Those 20 years from 55 - 75 are crucial, 75 - 95, if you live that long, tends to be a much downsized life for health reasons rather than lack of money. Will I plan to 95? Sure. But not going to roll the dice on some kind of high powered life fueled by maximum income in my 70s.

Balance this against a conservative portfolio with 4% SWR.

If you have a large portfolio, there is no necessary relationship between when you claim SS and how much you spend. If you delay SS from 62 to 63, you take more from your portfolio at 62 and less from 63 on, which you can do safely. Similarly for delaying from one year to the next.

In particular, the 4% SWR studies usually assume that your portfolio will last for 30 years. If you do live that long, delaying until 70 can be done by selling more bonds from your portfolio at ages 62-69 and fewer bonds at ages 70-91. If you are still alive at 91, you'll have more money left, so delaying SS increases the chance that you can live 30 years at this standard of living.

This is independent of the decision to take the pension (and presumably to retire from your current job) at 55. By retiring early, you have more years to enjoy your retirement, which works well if you also have enough money to spend.

That and there's also the fact that not everyone see's spending more and more money as the way to meet the goal of "enjoying life while I am healthy enough to do so".

My spouse and I could easily spend $50K per year more than we do...but on what? Are we to be forced to dine out in expensive restaurants, move to a more expensive house, get luxury accomodations on trips, even though we would not enjoy any of those things? Must I really bear this burden of finding something/anything to spend an additional $1000 per week on just because our portfolio and pensions (and possibly future SS) are larger than our worst case pre-retirement estimates?

To each his/her own.

We are not "forced" to spend more. But we enjoy eating out regularly. We have two residences and a boat. I am just about to the point of traveling business class if economy+ is full. I greatly enjoy these things and they justify the things we went without while living below our means and saving for our entire professional lives.

(gonna claim at 65. FRA is 66 10 mo)

[Wannaretireearly]

https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/so ... ter%20time.

If you’re poor, you’ll likely claim earlier (great option, rather than being homeless).

If you're middle class BH, you discuss and debate this to death.

If you’re rich you don’t even think about this decision. I wonder how many ultra HNW folks just don’t claim?

Now for all us middle class BH, it’s simple. Claim if you need it and it will help your lifestyle. Delay if you really don’t need the $ to live. Note: having the money come in earlier likely has a psychological impact. Using a monthly paycheck is just easier to do than withdraw the same amount from your nest egg. Not a financial decision.

Will delaying stop me from going on a major cruise or vacation? If so I’ll start taking it. It’s nice you can claim at any point between 62-70.

Current plan is to take lower earning SS at 62, delay the other til 70 (or until I feel like I ‘want’ to use the SS money).

Actuarially neutral should mean it doesn’t matter and don’t think about this too much. Reality is a poor investment or AA decision will have a much bigger financial impact than getting SS ‘wrong’.

[DNeal]

I have a friend that I tried to talk out taking SS at his FRA of 66 just for the tax implications. He's still working and told me recently that he wished that he waited until 70 when he going to retire and he hates the extra taxes. Yeah, tax planning matters. I am almost exactly eight years older than my wife. I had the largest salary and paid the most into the system. I took mine at 70 and she took hers at 62. If I pass before her, which is most likely, she will lose hers but still receive my much larger amount. I learn a lot from fellow Boglehead, Mike Piper book on SS strategies. I highly recommend it.

[Tom_T]

I have a friend that I tried to talk out taking SS at his FRA of 66 just for the tax implications. He's still working and told me recently that he wished that he waited until 70 when he going to retire and he hates the extra taxes. Yeah, tax planning matters. I am almost exactly eight years older than my wife. I had the largest salary and paid the most into the system. I took mine at 70 and she took hers at 62. If I pass before her, which is most likely, she will lose hers but still receive my much larger amount. I learn a lot from fellow Boglehead, Mike Piper book on SS strategies. I highly recommend it.

That's a great thing you did for her. I plan on the same.

[grabiner]

https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/so ... ter%20time.

Actuarially neutral should mean it doesn’t matter and don’t think about this too much. Reality is a poor investment or AA decision will have a much bigger financial impact than getting SS ‘wrong’.

This would be correct if it were actually actuarially neutral, but it isn't. Part of the reason is that the adjustments are based on older life expectancy tables, which makes it now more favorable to wait. In addition, the actuarial adjustment is not constant; the break-even for delaying from 68 to 69 is one year longer than for delaying from 67 to 68, but actuarial tables say that it should be shorter since 68-year-olds have a life expectancy which is almost a full year less.

Another issue is the situation for survivors. Even if delaying were actuarially neutral for singles, it would be desirable for the higher-earning spouse in a couple to delay until age 70, because the increased benefit lasts until the second spouse dies,

[Cah]

Pension at 55 and SS at 62, tomorrow is never promised today. I intend on enjoying life while I am healthy enough to do so. I work with lots of elderly folks, most of them have tons of money, in many cases hoards of millions of dollars, and nothing fun to do with it since their health prevents them from traveling or even being that active close to home. Those 20 years from 55 - 75 are crucial, 75 - 95, if you live that long, tends to be a much downsized life for health reasons rather than lack of money. Will I plan to 95? Sure. But not going to roll the dice on some kind of high powered life fueled by maximum income in my 70s.

Balance this against a conservative portfolio with 4% SWR.

Who said waiting to claim means not enjoying life or having money to spend?

Point is many who claim at 62 use that additional money to enhance their lives even further. And I think those same don't assume those who don't claim at 62 don't have money or enjoy life.

[rgs92]

It seems to me that the common argument that you should take social security early to get the money while you are young enough to enjoy it would also mean the you should also just spend down most of your portfolio right away so you can enjoy that money also.

[Tom_T]

Pension at 55 and SS at 62, tomorrow is never promised today. I intend on enjoying life while I am healthy enough to do so. I work with lots of elderly folks, most of them have tons of money, in many cases hoards of millions of dollars, and nothing fun to do with it since their health prevents them from traveling or even being that active close to home. Those 20 years from 55 - 75 are crucial, 75 - 95, if you live that long, tends to be a much downsized life for health reasons rather than lack of money. Will I plan to 95? Sure. But not going to roll the dice on some kind of high powered life fueled by maximum income in my 70s.

Balance this against a conservative portfolio with 4% SWR.

Who said waiting to claim means not enjoying life or having money to spend?

Point is many who claim at 62 use that additional money to enhance their lives even further. And I think those same don't assume those who don't claim at 62 don't have money or enjoy life.

That's fine, but I've seen you insist very strongly that 62 is the proper age to claim. You literally advised people to claim the money and have fun. You argued with anyone who posted reasons for delaying. Understanding the reasons and motivations of others is a two-way street, no?

[Dave5280]

The monthly amount can be maximized, and/or the total amount received can be maximized but there’s no way to know that without knowing how long you will live.

The time value of money, inflation, mortality probability, investment returns, COLAs, personal preference and knowledge of others deaths and social security, health, employment, earnings history - these and more can be considered.

The best part is that everyone gets to evaluate everything and decide when they want to take social security.

[CyclingDuo]

I'm 59 and turn 60 in June. At the end of the month I will be laid off and possibly be leaving the workplace for good. I made my decision to take SS as early as available. If my break even age is late 70s early 80s, I'm good with that decision. I also think of the things I used to enjoy in my 30s and 40s that at 59 no longer am able to do or enjoy. If I feel like this now, I'm sure it will feel more pronounced at 70 and above. I don't think there is enough money in the world to live free and make memories while my body and mind is still able to enjoy some things.

That is exactly my thinking. I want to enjoy the money when I am in my go-go years. If I don't claim, I will be a on the conservative side adjusting into the decumulation phase and miss out a lot during my go-go years. If I run my numbers in Pralana Gold, claiming will leave my net worth at X million at age 95. Claiming later it will be X+ million. I don't care if my heirs get X or X+ million.

Actually you can spend more while delaying
viewtopic.php?t=102609

I've always enjoyed that thread. Considering the tools available these days to purchase a bridge/gap/ladder - or whatever term you want to use - from age 62 to 70 (TIPS, I Bonds, CD's, high yield savings, etc.) for the portion Cut-Throat labeled "stash in your savings account", it's an easily viable strategy to accomplish the goal of spending more in retirement that Cut-Throat laid out in that thread.

CyclingDuo

[smitcat]

Pension at 55 and SS at 62, tomorrow is never promised today. I intend on enjoying life while I am healthy enough to do so. I work with lots of elderly folks, most of them have tons of money, in many cases hoards of millions of dollars, and nothing fun to do with it since their health prevents them from traveling or even being that active close to home. Those 20 years from 55 - 75 are crucial, 75 - 95, if you live that long, tends to be a much downsized life for health reasons rather than lack of money. Will I plan to 95? Sure. But not going to roll the dice on some kind of high powered life fueled by maximum income in my 70s.

Balance this against a conservative portfolio with 4% SWR.

Who said waiting to claim means not enjoying life or having money to spend?

Point is many who claim at 62 use that additional money to enhance their lives even further. And I think those same don't assume those who don't claim at 62 don't have money or enjoy life.

"Point is many who claim at 62 use that additional money to enhance their lives even further."
And the key pont is that those that wait can spend the exact same amount or more than those that take it at 62 to enhance their lives.

[smitcat]

Pension at 55 and SS at 62, tomorrow is never promised today. I intend on enjoying life while I am healthy enough to do so. I work with lots of elderly folks, most of them have tons of money, in many cases hoards of millions of dollars, and nothing fun to do with it since their health prevents them from traveling or even being that active close to home. Those 20 years from 55 - 75 are crucial, 75 - 95, if you live that long, tends to be a much downsized life for health reasons rather than lack of money. Will I plan to 95? Sure. But not going to roll the dice on some kind of high powered life fueled by maximum income in my 70s.

Balance this against a conservative portfolio with 4% SWR.

If you have a large portfolio, there is no necessary relationship between when you claim SS and how much you spend. If you delay SS from 62 to 63, you take more from your portfolio at 62 and less from 63 on, which you can do safely. Similarly for delaying from one year to the next.

In particular, the 4% SWR studies usually assume that your portfolio will last for 30 years. If you do live that long, delaying until 70 can be done by selling more bonds from your portfolio at ages 62-69 and fewer bonds at ages 70-91. If you are still alive at 91, you'll have more money left, so delaying SS increases the chance that you can live 30 years at this standard of living.

This is independent of the decision to take the pension (and presumably to retire from your current job) at 55. By retiring early, you have more years to enjoy your retirement, which works well if you also have enough money to spend.

That and there's also the fact that not everyone see's spending more and more money as the way to meet the goal of "enjoying life while I am healthy enough to do so".

My spouse and I could easily spend $50K per year more than we do...but on what? Are we to be forced to dine out in expensive restaurants, move to a more expensive house, get luxury accomodations on trips, even though we would not enjoy any of those things? Must I really bear this burden of finding something/anything to spend an additional $1000 per week on just because our portfolio and pensions (and possibly future SS) are larger than our worst case pre-retirement estimates?

"My spouse and I could easily spend $50K per year more than we do...but on what?"
Just a few thoughts might be:
- travel to places you may never see
- do things you liked before, there is no expiration date for fun
- volunteer at places you always wanted to
- give to your heirs at the 'best' times
- support extended family that may not have as much

[Silk McCue]

Pension at 55 and SS at 62, tomorrow is never promised today. I intend on enjoying life while I am healthy enough to do so. I work with lots of elderly folks, most of them have tons of money, in many cases hoards of millions of dollars, and nothing fun to do with it since their health prevents them from traveling or even being that active close to home. Those 20 years from 55 - 75 are crucial, 75 - 95, if you live that long, tends to be a much downsized life for health reasons rather than lack of money. Will I plan to 95? Sure. But not going to roll the dice on some kind of high powered life fueled by maximum income in my 70s.

Balance this against a conservative portfolio with 4% SWR.

Who said waiting to claim means not enjoying life or having money to spend?

Point is many who claim at 62 use that additional money to enhance their lives even further. And I think those same don't assume those who don't claim at 62 don't have money or enjoy life.

"Point is many who claim at 62 use that additional money to enhance their lives even further."
And the key pont is that those that wait can spend the exact same amount or more than those that take it at 62 to enhance their lives.

This doesn’t work if they are married with modest retirement savings and they spend money down those funds substantially and pass away prior to claiming at say 67 - 70. That leaves the surviving spouse in an inferior financial position.

Cheers

[jeffyscott]

Another issue is the situation for survivors. Even if delaying were actuarially neutral for singles, it would be desirable for the higher-earning spouse in a couple to delay until age 70, because the increased benefit lasts until the second spouse dies,

You can see this by playing with the discount rate in open SS. I have to raise the discount rate to at least 3.5% in order for a lower age than 69 or 70 to be recommended. Were I single, it tells me to start now at any discount rate above 1.5%. (This was with a 25% cut and using the default mortality tables)

Even with non-smoker prefered mortality, no cut and the current 2.2% default discount rate, it doesn't have me delay all the way to 70 as a single. With my married status and those selections, it takes a discount rate of 4.4% to begin moving below 70 for me.

Were I single, I'd be much less inclined to delay.

[smitcat]

Pension at 55 and SS at 62, tomorrow is never promised today. I intend on enjoying life while I am healthy enough to do so. I work with lots of elderly folks, most of them have tons of money, in many cases hoards of millions of dollars, and nothing fun to do with it since their health prevents them from traveling or even being that active close to home. Those 20 years from 55 - 75 are crucial, 75 - 95, if you live that long, tends to be a much downsized life for health reasons rather than lack of money. Will I plan to 95? Sure. But not going to roll the dice on some kind of high powered life fueled by maximum income in my 70s.

Balance this against a conservative portfolio with 4% SWR.

Who said waiting to claim means not enjoying life or having money to spend?

Point is many who claim at 62 use that additional money to enhance their lives even further. And I think those same don't assume those who don't claim at 62 don't have money or enjoy life.

"Point is many who claim at 62 use that additional money to enhance their lives even further."
And the key pont is that those that wait can spend the exact same amount or more than those that take it at 62 to enhance their lives.

This doesn’t work if they are married with modest retirement savings and they spend money down those funds substantially and pass away prior to claiming at say 67 - 70. That leaves the surviving spouse in an inferior financial position.

Cheers

That is true and why everyone needs to run their own numbers for their entire portfolio not just SS.
It is true for the majority of folks per the research I have read ....which would apply to Cah's situation based on his past inputs.

[smitcat]

Another issue is the situation for survivors. Even if delaying were actuarially neutral for singles, it would be desirable for the higher-earning spouse in a couple to delay until age 70, because the increased benefit lasts until the second spouse dies,

You can see this by playing with the discount rate in open SS. I have to raise the discount rate to at least 3.5% in order for a lower age than 69 or 70 to be recommended. Were I single, it tells me to start now at any discount rate above 1.5%. (This was with a 25% cut and using the default mortality tables)

Even with non-smoker prefered mortality, no cut and the current 2.2% default discount rate, it doesn't have me delay all the way to 70 as a single. With my married status and those selections, it takes a discount rate of 4.4% to begin moving below 70 for me.

Were I single, I'd be much less inclined to delay.

I find it impossible to model the optimum claiming age for SS without taking into consideration the entire portfolio and the possible effects from ACA, taxes, and Roth conversions.

[jeffyscott]

"My spouse and I could easily spend $50K per year more than we do...but on what?"
Just a few thoughts might be:
- travel to places you may never see
- do things you liked before, there is no expiration date for fun
- volunteer at places you always wanted to
- give to your heirs at the 'best' times
- support extended family that may not have as much

We travel where, when, and how we want to already. We also do what we want and have no desire to have a job as a volunteer. (edit: Well, I'd spend at least maybe 3 months, rather than 1, somewhere warmer if my spouse would allow that. But I am stuck being married to someone who, for some reason, likes winter )

We will pass money on to our children early, but it is not time for that yet. For one thing none of them need it now, so it would effectively be transferring assets from our tax deferred accounts to their tax deferred or taxable accounts. There's no extended family that we are interested in giving money to, instead of eventually giving to our own children.

In addition to the previously mentioned not wanting to eat out more or at more expensive restaurants, we also have no desire to own multiple residences or a boat. All our economic needs and wants are met at our current spending level, which I estimate is about 1/3 of the maximum that we could spend.

[jeffyscott]

Another issue is the situation for survivors. Even if delaying were actuarially neutral for singles, it would be desirable for the higher-earning spouse in a couple to delay until age 70, because the increased benefit lasts until the second spouse dies,

You can see this by playing with the discount rate in open SS. I have to raise the discount rate to at least 3.5% in order for a lower age than 69 or 70 to be recommended. Were I single, it tells me to start now at any discount rate above 1.5%. (This was with a 25% cut and using the default mortality tables)

Even with non-smoker prefered mortality, no cut and the current 2.2% default discount rate, it doesn't have me delay all the way to 70 as a single. With my married status and those selections, it takes a discount rate of 4.4% to begin moving below 70 for me.

Were I single, I'd be much less inclined to delay.

I find it impossible to model the optimum claiming age for SS without taking into consideration the entire portfolio and the possible effects from ACA, taxes, and Roth conversions.

Sure, I consider those factors as well, but the point remains that it is far more beneficial for the higher earner of a couple to delay than it is for a single person or for the lower earner of the couple.

The output from open SS can be used to deal with at least some of those things. For example by, I used it to confirm that my spouse should start at 62, despite the added cost of ACA.

[smitcat]

Another issue is the situation for survivors. Even if delaying were actuarially neutral for singles, it would be desirable for the higher-earning spouse in a couple to delay until age 70, because the increased benefit lasts until the second spouse dies,

You can see this by playing with the discount rate in open SS. I have to raise the discount rate to at least 3.5% in order for a lower age than 69 or 70 to be recommended. Were I single, it tells me to start now at any discount rate above 1.5%. (This was with a 25% cut and using the default mortality tables)

Even with non-smoker prefered mortality, no cut and the current 2.2% default discount rate, it doesn't have me delay all the way to 70 as a single. With my married status and those selections, it takes a discount rate of 4.4% to begin moving below 70 for me.

Were I single, I'd be much less inclined to delay.

I find it impossible to model the optimum claiming age for SS without taking into consideration the entire portfolio and the possible effects from ACA, taxes, and Roth conversions.

Sure, I consider those factors as well, but the point remains that it is far more beneficial for the higher earner of a couple to delay than it is for a single person or for the lower earner of the couple.

The output from open SS can be used to deal with at least some of those things. For example by, I used it to confirm that my spouse should start at 62, despite the added cost of ACA.

"but the point remains that it is far more beneficial for the higher earner of a couple to delay than it is for a single person or for the lower earner of the couple."
I agree that this is the best for most situations.

"The output from open SS can be used to deal with at least some of those things. For example by, I used it to confirm that my spouse should start at 62, despite the added cost of ACA."
Other calculators can help solve for the ACA and many more things while also modeling SS at the same time. It really comes down to how many of these items may be applicable to any persons situation

[smitcat]

"My spouse and I could easily spend $50K per year more than we do...but on what?"
Just a few thoughts might be:
- travel to places you may never see
- do things you liked before, there is no expiration date for fun
- volunteer at places you always wanted to
- give to your heirs at the 'best' times
- support extended family that may not have as much

We travel where, when, and how we want to already. We also do what we want and have no desire to have a job as a volunteer. (edit: Well, I'd spend at least maybe 3 months, rather than 1, somewhere warmer if my spouse would allow that. But I am stuck being married to someone who, for some reason, likes winter )

We will pass money on to our children early, but it is not time for that yet. For one thing none of them need it now, so it would effectively be transferring assets from our tax deferred accounts to their tax deferred or taxable accounts. There's no extended family that we are interested in giving money to, instead of eventually giving to our own children.

In addition to the previously mentioned not wanting to eat out more or at more expensive restaurants, we also have no desire to own multiple residences or a boat. All our economic needs and wants are met at our current spending level, which I estimate is about 1/3 of the maximum that we could spend.

Sounds fantastic - in our case we did not know what we were missing untill we tried some of the things we did.

[privateID]

The output from open SS can be used to deal with at least some of those things. For example by, I used it to confirm that my spouse should start at 62, despite the added cost of ACA.

It was the other things that started to shift me in the other direction for the lower earner. For example, being able to do more Roth conversions (causing smaller RMDs) coupled with the higher SS payout when both wait potentially caused less SS to be taxed.

I will add that recently I have had a reversal of thought, as mentioned earlier in this thread, and have come to believe that 85% of my SS will most likely end up being taxed. That being said, I am back to the lower earner starting SS at 62. However, pretty easy for me to change an assumption or two where it will be better for the lower earner to wait till 70. So this exercise of trying to figure out the lower earner is really just an exercise at this point for me and the final decision will be made probably right before my wife turns 62.

[JakeyLee]

Take it early. I understand the "longevity insurance" argument, but what about quality of life? I'd rather have the extra money in my senior citizen go-go years than have bigger payments in my no-go years when I am really, really old and likely incapacitated to a significant degree.

And some people feel empowered to spend down more of their portfolio from 62 to 70, knowing that they have a much higher guaranteed, inflation-protected, tax-beneficial, perhaps survivor-beneficial income stream starting for them at 70. Thus, they maximize their "go-go years" without jeopardizing their "no-go years".

Money is fungible. It doesn't know where it came from.

I just re-read this thread this morning, as I’ve been pondering SS lately. This particular quote from JoeRetire really speaks to me.

A very close buddy of mine has been practicing law for 30 years now. The entirety of his career has been in estate planning (trusts, wills, probate, etc..). We were up late one night, having a scotch and telling war stories when I asked him, “what’s the most common tragic stuff you see in your practice?” His answer: (paraphrased) “The sheer amount of retirees that amass retirement investments/savings, and die after living years as a broke person.” He went on to explain that many retirees can’t give themselves permission to spend the savings that spent so many years to build.

Well, this “problem” is fairly well discussed here amongst Bogleheads. So I’m not surprised. But I pushed him for solutions to this phenomenon. He told me that the overwhelming majority of these folks take SS early… they don’t want to spend down their nest eggs, they “don’t need the money”. So they lock in a reduced standard of living (early SS), and the frugality and penny pinching continues until their demise. By the time many retirees are in the later 70’s and 80’s.. the go-go years just become no-go years, due to health, lack of energy, etc..

I don’t know much about anything. But for MY situation it’s obvious: I can spend more money over my lifetime by delaying SS. With a reduced risk of running out of assets. If I die on my 70th birthday. So be it. But I’ll tell you what… I know I will have slept better those years leading up to that fateful day. Sorry for the long winded ramble. Happy Thanksgiving to all

[rockstar]

Take it early. I understand the "longevity insurance" argument, but what about quality of life? I'd rather have the extra money in my senior citizen go-go years than have bigger payments in my no-go years when I am really, really old and likely incapacitated to a significant degree.

And some people feel empowered to spend down more of their portfolio from 62 to 70, knowing that they have a much higher guaranteed, inflation-protected, tax-beneficial, perhaps survivor-beneficial income stream starting for them at 70. Thus, they maximize their "go-go years" without jeopardizing their "no-go years".

Money is fungible. It doesn't know where it came from.

I just re-read this thread this morning, as I’ve been pondering SS lately. This particular quote from JoeRetire really speaks to me.

A very close buddy of mine has been practicing law for 30 years now. The entirety of his career has been in estate planning (trusts, wills, probate, etc..). We were up late one night, having a scotch and telling war stories when I asked him, “what’s the most common tragic stuff you see in your practice?” His answer: (paraphrased) “The sheer amount of retirees that amass retirement investments/savings, and die after living years as a broke person.” He went on to explain that many retirees can’t give themselves permission to spend the savings that spent so many years to build.

Well, this “problem” is fairly well discussed here amongst Bogleheads. So I’m not surprised. But I pushed him for solutions to this phenomenon. He told me that the overwhelming majority of these folks take SS early… they don’t want to spend down their nest eggs, they “don’t need the money”. So they lock in a reduced standard of living (early SS), and the frugality and penny pinching continues until their demise. By the time many retirees are in the later 70’s and 80’s.. the go-go years just become no-go years, due to health, lack of energy, etc..

I don’t know much about anything. But for MY situation it’s obvious: I can spend more money over my lifetime by delaying SS. With a reduced risk of running out of assets. If I die on my 70th birthday. So be it. But I’ll tell you what… I know I will have slept better those years leading up to that fateful day. Sorry for the long winded ramble. Happy Thanksgiving to all

My concern for my no go years is medical costs.

[Cah]

Pension at 55 and SS at 62, tomorrow is never promised today. I intend on enjoying life while I am healthy enough to do so. I work with lots of elderly folks, most of them have tons of money, in many cases hoards of millions of dollars, and nothing fun to do with it since their health prevents them from traveling or even being that active close to home. Those 20 years from 55 - 75 are crucial, 75 - 95, if you live that long, tends to be a much downsized life for health reasons rather than lack of money. Will I plan to 95? Sure. But not going to roll the dice on some kind of high powered life fueled by maximum income in my 70s.

Balance this against a conservative portfolio with 4% SWR.

Who said waiting to claim means not enjoying life or having money to spend?

Point is many who claim at 62 use that additional money to enhance their lives even further. And I think those same don't assume those who don't claim at 62 don't have money or enjoy life.

That's fine, but I've seen you insist very strongly that 62 is the proper age to claim. You literally advised people to claim the money and have fun. You argued with anyone who posted reasons for delaying. Understanding the reasons and motivations of others is a two-way street, no?

I am only responding with my opinion to the original questions about when to take ss. I respect everyone's personal decision on when to take it. I also give examples of why it has made me happy to take ss at the earliest possible opportunity. There will always be those that are happy with the decision to wait. I'm glad they get the same satisfaction as those that take early.

[Wannaretireearly]

https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/so ... ter%20time.

Actuarially neutral should mean it doesn’t matter and don’t think about this too much. Reality is a poor investment or AA decision will have a much bigger financial impact than getting SS ‘wrong’.

This would be correct if it were actually actuarially neutral, but it isn't. Part of the reason is that the adjustments are based on older life expectancy tables, which makes it now more favorable to wait. In addition, the actuarial adjustment is not constant; the break-even for delaying from 68 to 69 is one year longer than for delaying from 67 to 68, but actuarial tables say that it should be shorter since 68-year-olds have a life expectancy which is almost a full year less.

Another issue is the situation for survivors. Even if delaying were actuarially neutral for singles, it would be desirable for the higher-earning spouse in a couple to delay until age 70, because the increased benefit lasts until the second spouse dies,

Thanks grabiner. Trying to wrap my head around the first point, I think I get it .

Doesn’t the fact that life expectancy has declined over the last 5 years also play into this?

[rockstar]

https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/so ... ter%20time.

Actuarially neutral should mean it doesn’t matter and don’t think about this too much. Reality is a poor investment or AA decision will have a much bigger financial impact than getting SS ‘wrong’.

This would be correct if it were actually actuarially neutral, but it isn't. Part of the reason is that the adjustments are based on older life expectancy tables, which makes it now more favorable to wait. In addition, the actuarial adjustment is not constant; the break-even for delaying from 68 to 69 is one year longer than for delaying from 67 to 68, but actuarial tables say that it should be shorter since 68-year-olds have a life expectancy which is almost a full year less.

Another issue is the situation for survivors. Even if delaying were actuarially neutral for singles, it would be desirable for the higher-earning spouse in a couple to delay until age 70, because the increased benefit lasts until the second spouse dies,

Thanks grabiner. Trying to wrap my head around the first point, I think I get it .

Doesn’t the fact that life expectancy has declined over the last 5 years also play into this?

What’s surprising here is that gap between male and female deaths has widened.

[Silk McCue]

https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/so ... ter%20time.

Actuarially neutral should mean it doesn’t matter and don’t think about this too much. Reality is a poor investment or AA decision will have a much bigger financial impact than getting SS ‘wrong’.

This would be correct if it were actually actuarially neutral, but it isn't. Part of the reason is that the adjustments are based on older life expectancy tables, which makes it now more favorable to wait. In addition, the actuarial adjustment is not constant; the break-even for delaying from 68 to 69 is one year longer than for delaying from 67 to 68, but actuarial tables say that it should be shorter since 68-year-olds have a life expectancy which is almost a full year less.

Another issue is the situation for survivors. Even if delaying were actuarially neutral for singles, it would be desirable for the higher-earning spouse in a couple to delay until age 70, because the increased benefit lasts until the second spouse dies,

Thanks grabiner. Trying to wrap my head around the first point, I think I get it .

Doesn’t the fact that life expectancy has declined over the last 5 years also play into this?

What’s surprising here is that gap between male and female deaths has widened.

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-car ... 20epidemic.

Since you didn’t and likely won’t die from Covid and If you don’t do illegal drugs your life expectancy has not likely declined.

For the second year in a row, life expectancy in the U.S. declined—this time to the lowest level since 1996.

That marks a disturbing turn from the historical trend. In 1900, U.S. life expectancy was 47 years, and by 2019 it hit 79. But in 2020, life expectancy fell to 77 and dropped further to 76.4 in 2021, according to a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This alarming trend is clearly not an anomaly and is primarily due to heart disease, cancer, COVID-19 and the ongoing drug-overdose epidemic. Heart disease remains the leading cause of death, followed by cancer and COVID-19, which accounted for about 60% of the decline in life expectancy. Meanwhile, overdose deaths—which account for more than one-third of all accidental deaths in the United States—have risen five-fold over the past two decades.

Cheers

[jeffyscott]

https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/so ... ter%20time.

Actuarially neutral should mean it doesn’t matter and don’t think about this too much. Reality is a poor investment or AA decision will have a much bigger financial impact than getting SS ‘wrong’.

This would be correct if it were actually actuarially neutral, but it isn't. Part of the reason is that the adjustments are based on older life expectancy tables, which makes it now more favorable to wait. In addition, the actuarial adjustment is not constant; the break-even for delaying from 68 to 69 is one year longer than for delaying from 67 to 68, but actuarial tables say that it should be shorter since 68-year-olds have a life expectancy which is almost a full year less.

Another issue is the situation for survivors. Even if delaying were actuarially neutral for singles, it would be desirable for the higher-earning spouse in a couple to delay until age 70, because the increased benefit lasts until the second spouse dies,

Thanks grabiner. Trying to wrap my head around the first point, I think I get it .

Doesn’t the fact that life expectancy has declined over the last 5 years also play into this?

Get all the vaccine shots you can and don't get hooked on fetanyl and probably most of that decline goes away.