Talk:Checklist of important retirement dates

Does this start the discussion?


 * Possible addition:
 * Age 85-95; age range at which many deferred annuity account balances (both  fixed deferred and  variable deferred) must be annnuitized; refer to specific annuity contract for precise age. --Blbarnitz 15:40, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

(Yes, this starts the discussion.) Tip: By convention, use the "Sig" icon in the editing toolbar (4th from the left) to "sign" your comments. It appears as --~, but will convert to your screen name, time and date upon Save page or Show preview. This is also done in Wikipedia, we follow their convention.

What do you consider to be a "Special case"? There are exemptions and special rules for just about every plan. I guess it depends on what's popular.

I modified the IRA contribution limit, as it depends on the calendar year when you hit 70.5. For example, if you are 70.5 in July 2011, you can contribute for 2011. But if you are 70.5 in February, you cannot contribute for 2011. IRS publication 590:

"Age 70½ rule. Contributions cannot be made to your traditional IRA for the year in which you reach age 70½ or for any later year. You attain age 70½ on the date that is six calendar months after the 70th anniversary of your birth. If you were born on or before June 30, 1940, you cannot contribute for 2010 or any later year."

--LadyGeek 21:34, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

This table is a great idea! I'm wondering why the age entries FRA(65-67)(FRA) have the additional (FRA) at the end? The reason for the redundancy isn't clear to me.--ThePrune 21:52, 31 August 2011 (EDT)


 * I removed the double FRA references, executed a few minor tweaks and added the annuity ages (shifted sigs to end of comments/per convention). --Blbarnitz 05:34, 1 September 2011 (EDT)

--ThePrune 21:39, 1 September 2011 (EDT) Am I misreading something? It looks to me like the first FRA (65 to 67) entry and the last FRA (65 to 67) entry are referring to the same thing.

According to the SS website, you are correct so I removed the duplicate entry. Also, there is a differentiation between Normal Retirement Age and Full Retirement Age and updated accordingly. I'm not familiar with the "FRA (66 to 67)" entries, so I left them alone. --LadyGeek 11:30, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

--Watty 23:43, 2 September 2011 (EDT) Under the milestones section I added a line about pension and retirement plan vesting

I also took out the line "FRA (66 to 67) If still employed, may be eligible to receive spousal social security benefits while delaying your own benefits. " because it pretty much duplicated the line just before it.

This link shows the Full Retirement age as starting at 65  under the heading "Age To Receive Full Social Security Benefits "  so I would think that 65 would be the correct beginning of the range for someone born before 1938. I didn't change this in case I am missing something.

For background most of this list came from this thread back in June and when I put it together for the Wiki  I tried to not leave much out so nothing would be missed.

The "special case" section that was asked about that referred to the older 403b contributions comes from several entries in that thread that went into way more detail than I understood but it looked like it might be important to some people so I didn't want to leave it out. Maybe "Situations to watch out for" would be a better way to phrase it. --Watty 23:43, 2 September 2011 (EDT)

--Watty 00:11, 3 September 2011 (EDT) Under 35 years of full time work I changed "will have minimal impact"  to "may have minimal impact"

Let's take another look at this table in depth. I inserted the "Under Construction" marker, as it's not ready for prime time. The entry about 401k withdrawal without penalty was backwards; you need to be separated from service at 55, not employed, to take penalty-free withdrawals. I also clarified that the reverse mortgage program is FHA.

I strongly suggest researching each of these entries and appending a credible reference, such as the IRS or Social Security Administration. The wiki has higher standards than the forum - it's used as a reference and needs to link to authoritative sources. This is the same policy as Wikipedia.

Social Security and IRS regulations (RMD) are complex; each with various exceptions and conditions which will impact when events occur. Consider that insufficient information may be correct for one individual, but incorrect for another. The table is a very good reference, but it needs to be approached with this perspective in mind.

This is a good start, please keep going. If a topic is not understood, just flag it for help - it's not a problem.

--LadyGeek 17:57, 3 September 2011 (EDT)


 * You were correct about the Full Retirement Age starting at 65. My initial SSA reference used a different table, which stopped at 1943. I updated the table with your reference and corrected the dates. Also, I added the IRS note for Survivors (the date is different). I didn't know I was using an incomplete table and the rules change if you are a Survivor. Hence the need for due diligence, as I found out by my own example. --LadyGeek 20:29, 3 September 2011 (EDT)

After further research, I think that including SSA information may not be useful. There are too many conditions and exceptions that may lead readers astray. For example, the SSA's link for Full Retirement Age mentions that the Full Retirement Age for a Survivor is "different." Follow the link to Social Security benefit amounts for the surviving spouse by year of birth and you get an entirely different chart. This level of detail, not to mention the expertise needed for interpretation, is beyond the scope for this page.

Perhaps a statement saying why Social Security is not in this table would be a better approach. I left comments in the forum thread: Social security, medicare, and RMD checklist. This table is very helpful, but perhaps not for SSA. We also need to be careful on IRA / 401(k) dates.

--LadyGeek 11:36, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

--Watty 22:24, 4 September 2011 (EDT) Under Normal Retirement Age added text "NRA, also referred to as "Full Retirement Age" " which is what it says in the left side of the SSA link that is given for normal retirement age. in addition the SSA glossary for Normal retirement age just says to see Full Retirment Age

I think that the social security dates are so critical that they should really be included, but maybe we could expand the footnotes refering the reader to the SSA web page. The FRA dates are already set as a range and there is also an entry at the age of 60 for the survivors benefit

(above comment is from Watty, 02:24, 5 September 2011) I agree they are important, but we need to go in the opposite direction. I consolidated the Social Security entries to only define the minimum benefit age, retirement age ranges, and maximum benefit age (with references). The reader has been shown that these ages are important and that the impacts must be determined on an individual basis. Let him/her decide on further action, the references for further reading are there.

From the prior revision: It's not appropriate to associate "Normal" with "Full" Retirement Age. Although they use the same dates, they are for different purposes.

--LadyGeek 23:23, 4 September 2011 (EDT)

--Watty 22:13, 20 September 2011 (EDT) There have not been any changes for a while. Is it time to take the "under construction" message off and put it in the wiki index?