PDA

View Full Version : sumptin' for all you guys wit 1000+ post


ledweightII
07-14-2009, 10:30 PM
Collecting Social Security as soon as you are eligible is a tempting proposition — but experts agree you should try to resist if you can.

The majority of people don’t follow that advice, choosing instead to start benefits early. Why wait to collect what is rightfully yunes...

That logic may sound reasonable now. But in reality, the bigger risk is that you will live to a ripe old age. You can claim Social Security any time from age 62 to 70, but the longer you wait, the larger your monthly check. And many people come out ahead if they wait at least until their full retirement age, which is different from the day you stop working for good. For people born 1943 to 1954, full retirement age is 66, and it creeps up for younger people.

What do you stand to lose by taking benefits early? Take those who are set to receive $1,000 a month at their full retirement age. If they sign up for benefits at age 62, they will collect only $750. But if they wait until 70, they will earn extra credit and receive up to $1,320 a month — nearly a third more.

At first glance, it seems that everyone should wait until they are 70. But that is not the case. The answer depends on many factors, including when you stop working, how much you have in savings, whether you are healthy, whether you are married or single and whether your spouse earns more — or less.

It may be impossible for some households to wait because the breadwinner has lost a job or is no longer able to work. And planners agree that it is smarter to collect earlier if it will prevent you from accumulating debt.

But if you can wait, think of the money you aren’t receiving during that period as a payment of sorts for an annuity that will pay a higher, guaranteed stream of income later, if you live a long time (or at least longer than your savings last), financial experts say.

“You can’t buy an inflation-adjusted annuity for anywhere near the cost of delaying Social Security,” said Henry Hebeler, a retired Boeing executive who created AnalyzeNow.com, a Web site that offers retirement advice and calculators.

For people who choose to defer benefits until age 66, it generally takes about 12 more years to collect as much as if you started getting checks at 62. So you break even, so to speak, about age 78, according to Avram Sacks, a Social Security law analyst for CCH, a tax and accounting information service. “If you are in good health, and you expect to live to 78 or longer, then the advantage goes to the person who waits,” he says. “But that’s assuming we’re all prophets and we know what’s going to happen tomorrow, and we don’t all know.”

And that is why financial advisers recommend planning for a long life. Here are some strategies to consider before signing up.

SINGLES Figuring out when to collect is easier when you do not have to worry about how your actions will affect a spouse. It usually pays to wait until your full retirement age if you can support yourself until then. (This obviously does not apply to people who are already in poor health and probably won’t live past 78, give or take a couple of years. People who are still working should also defer.)

Though many experts will tell you to delay as long as you can, waiting from 66 until 70 may not be optimal for some singles. “The reason is that they will have consumed too much of their savings in those extra four years to be able to offset the savings loss with higher Social Security payments within their lifetime,” said Mr. Hebeler, who has also written three books on retirement. “It’s surprising, but that’s what the analysis shows.”

Consider a single person with $200,000 in savings returning 5 percent a year. Instead of taking Social Security at age 62, she withdraws $19,000 annually until she turns 66. Her savings will last until age 94, but she will still have $21,000 a year in Social Security benefits. If she claimed at 62, her savings would run out at age 87 and she would be left with only $16,000 a year in Social Security.

For people with significant savings who expect to live well into their 80s, it may make sense to wait until 70, Mr. Hebeler added.

If you have already started receiving benefits, but wish you had waited, you are allowed to give it all back and start over. But this gets complicated. You will probably have to pay back more than what you actually received each month, since Medicare premiums and income taxes may have been deducted. Married people can do this, too, but some advisers caution against it.

MARRIED COUPLES Planning is more complex for married couples because there are age differences, varying retirement dates and earnings and other factors to consider. In many cases, the higher-earning spouse should delay his or her benefits until age 70, while the lower earner begins to collect at age 62. This ensures that the surviving spouse will end up with the maximum amount of benefits for the rest of his or her life. Even if the higher earner died before age 70, the survivor’s benefits would be bumped up to what the deceased spouse would have gotten, said Lesley J. Brey, a fee-only financial planner in Honolulu.

But once the higher earner hits full retirement age, there is a way for the lower earner to potentially get a bigger check by qualifying for spousal benefits. The higher earner can “file and suspend,” or file for benefits but immediately suspend them — it is perfectly legal and allows the lower-earning spouse to get up to half the higher earner’s benefits, while the higher earner’s benefits continue to accrue.

“This is the way to get the most out of the system without jeopardizing the longevity insurance aspect, which is the most important component,” Ms. Brey said. “You want the last survivor to have the highest possible payment. However, you get cash flow, which reduces the amount you have to withdraw from other sources and you don’t have to guess when anyone is going to die.”

But if the couple can afford it, should the lower earner wait until full retirement age? “It doesn’t matter because the goal is to get the most money for the person who lives the longest,” Ms. Brey said.

Married people with similar earnings may also consider another strategy. Here, one person claims spousal benefits at full retirement age and switches to his or her own, and presumably higher, benefits later, said Alicia H. Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

To get a more precise idea about how to maximize your benefits, go to the Social Security’s retirement estimator, which uses your actual earnings record in its calculation. (Click on “create scenarios” to how retiring at different ages affects benefits). AnalyzeNow.com offers calculators that will help determine the best time for singles and couples to take Social Security.

If figuring it all out on your own proves too difficult, have a fee-only financial planner run the analysis for you. "It is worth it," Mr. Hebeler said, "to spend the money.":D

sprtsracer
07-14-2009, 10:52 PM
I fall into one of those categories mentioned as "depending on health". Havingf had three battles with the big "C" which I hope I've finally "whupped" and triple bypass last year, I opted to take it at 62 (today, as a matter of fact, LOL). That $1000 per month NOW, on top of my Army retirement, will suit me just fine. I'm not willing to gamble on lasting until I'm 78. Good info for those who are healthier than me, though.

RuddeDogg
07-15-2009, 09:12 AM
Age is just a number. It's not that I ca't grow up, I absolutely REFUSE to!!!!!!!!. I got about 20 years to go for SS.

Mark G
07-15-2009, 11:52 AM
The way they keep talking about Social Security "running out", sort of seems like the thing to do is get out what you can-- as soon as you can, as fast you can !!!!!

:D OK just kidding, it does pay to have a plan-- good informative post..

It does pay to remember-- the sytem was intentionally designed around the fact that many will die before collecting-- as health care continues to improve our longevity-- they will keep raising the age limit on full benefits.

kooler
07-15-2009, 12:49 PM
the way im calculating it, it would take about 11 years to reach the breakeven point of taking the money at 70 rather than at 62:

$750 per mo. x 12 mo. x 8 years = $72,000
$1320 - $750 per mo. = $570 per mo. difference
$72,000 divided by $570 = 126.3 months divided by 12 = 10.5 years

so as for me i will take when i hit 62 God willing. i guess if we all had crystal balls that could tell us the exact day we were gonna pass we would hope to spend all our money and hope the last check bounces. (old joke but its still funny i think).

moral of the story is save a much as you can for retirement and some inheritance cant hurt and dont expect social security to make you rich even though we have all paid in for all these years.

BubbaHoTep
07-15-2009, 02:57 PM
. . . .It does pay to remember-- the sytem was intentionally designed around the fact that many will die before collecting-- as health care continues to improve our longevity-- they will keep raising the age limit on full benefits.

Bingo. On this subject, I always think about my uncle up in Ohio, who started drawing SS when JFK was President and collected SS until he passed away in 1998 at the age of 98. I don't think the system was designed for that. :)

I won't say that I "worry" about what it's going to be like in 25 years or so for me and my wife, but I do think about it. I think my age limit for full benefits is 70, and my wife's is 67 (I think). In the county where I work, a lot of people who can retire with 30 yrs service are in their early 50's (because they started working in their early 20's). Because they have 8-10 years to be eligible for SS, most of them don't retire at 30 yrs. I guess this is common for a lot of people.

That was an interesting post, ledweight.

Blackbird
07-15-2009, 04:26 PM
Great post, Kooler. And if you're unlucky enough to meet your maker a year after waiting all those years for a bigger check, you and your family have REALLY been screwed. If any corporation ever provided a retirement plan that operated like social security, the CEO & other officers would be in jail.

Tacpayne
07-15-2009, 05:39 PM
Or to throw a kink in things, you could be like me and drawing Social Securitiy disabilitiy benefits starting at the age of 25. I know I couldnt pick when I became disabled but it does affect the amount of money there to pay out in the future. In the grand scheme of things I couldnt have possibly paid in as much as I have already been paid. But if I had it my was I would be at work right now, and not having to worry about medical problems, Oh and Im just 29 now

Blackbird
07-15-2009, 06:29 PM
Or to throw a kink in things, you could be like me and drawing Social Securitiy disabilitiy benefits starting at the age of 25. I know I couldnt pick when I became disabled but it does affect the amount of money there to pay out in the future. In the grand scheme of things I couldnt have possibly paid in as much as I have already been paid. But if I had it my was I would be at work right now, and not having to worry about medical problems, Oh and Im just 29 now

I agree, Tacpayne. You prove the exception to the rule. Yet I can't help thinking that those smarter than I could figure out a way to combine a type of insurance program with soc sec to cover the deserving exceptions to the norm like yourself. My Mom is 96, still going strong & no doubt collecting more than she paid in, but she's also an exception. I'm 67, started collecting about a year ago when I figured out it would take about 8 or 9 more years to make up the difference I wouldn't collect if I waited till age 70, & don't know how long I'll be around to enjoy the higher checks. My Dad died at 58 & never saw a dime. They gave Mom a check for $225 & said "have a nice day," in return for him paying in all his life. Kinda like a lottery.

J_Lannon
07-15-2009, 06:50 PM
Excellent post. I have been procrastinating over what I'll do when it comes time to collect. You have me thinking hard about it now.