Dedicated to Deposits: Deals, Data, and Discussion
Featured Savings Rates
Featured Accounts

Waiting To Take Social Security Is Usually The Best Bet

Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 7:17 AM
There is no one-answer-fits-all when it comes to deciding when to take Social Security.  Many factors inform the decision:  whether one believes the benefits will be available or even reduced by the time one starts receiving benefits, marital status, personal estimate of one's longevity, availability of other income/assets, etc. 

This column in The LA Times suggests that it may be worth getting a second opinion from a fee-only planner before making such an important retirement decision:
Dear Liz: When I was 62, I started Social Security and I'm currently saving half of my monthly benefit after taxes (about $750). My decision to take my benefits early was influenced by a financial columnist who suggested that if I started at 62 and invested half or more of it until I reached full retirement age, the lower early benefits would be matched by the investment returns by the time I'm 85. Is this advice still reasonable?

Read more

 
7
pearlbrownpearlbrown1,430 posts since
Nov 2, 2010
Rep Points: 6,246
1. Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 8:22 PM
I'm glad you put in the "Usually" concerning when to take Social Security.  I am an advocate of ALWAYS taking Social Security as soon as possible.  What if we wait until 65 or later and drop dead of numerous medical conditions?  No one knows what medical problems are waiting for them in the future and the older they get the more chances they have of being hit with cancer, stroke, cerebral aneurysm,  etc. etc.  Social Security is a gamble.  If we live for a certain number of years "after" taking SS, the government loses.  If we drop dead before we take SS or soon after, the government wins.   What good is that larger sum we are supposed to get by waiting if it never has to be given to us because we don't live to claim it?   I believe in the "bird in the hand" theory and would rather have less now for a longer period than more later for just a couple of years or so.  I pity the next generation because now they are making people have to wait longer than age 62 before they can claim it.  That generation sure better try to stay in good health!
2
paoli2paoli21,365 posts since
Aug 10, 2011
Rep Points: 5,982
2. Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 9:15 PM
.

My Dearest paoli2,

 
I pity the next generation because now they are making people have to wait longer than age 62 before they can claim it.

Oh ... please ... don't.

Some of us pay-up the social security taxes with complete understanding that most likely the money won't be there when it be time for us, to collect.  And we do this quite willingly without crowing about it.  :-)

Here is the link where I wrote about this very topic a while ago ... Link is given below and post I'm referring to has date/time "Thursday, March 7, 2013 - 5:22 PM"

http://www.depositaccounts.com/forum/thread/12831-how-a-lifetime-income-annuity-works.html

 
... So dear paoli2, just take the handout and be done with it.  :-)

Yours Truly,
- Anon
In FED I Trust  :-)
2
ytytytytytytytyt158 posts since
Jan 28, 2013
Rep Points: 623
3. Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 10:33 PM
People can still retire at 62. Nothing has changed. 
2
Ally6770Ally6770909 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 2,639
4. Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 6:46 AM
studies now show that there is no monetery GAIN if you wait until  full age or start at 62 i four won agree with jerry mcguire  SHOW ME THE MONEY 
1
takeahiketakeahike3 posts since
May 19, 2013
Rep Points: 3
5. Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 7:17 AM
THE EPITOMY of a rhetorical question would be all of the people who complain about low cd rates what percent of them wait until full age to collect ss not to hypocritical in other words if you can increase your cash flow stop all the bthing or do we just enjoy complaining for it is the in thing to do  timothy 2 c4 v7    
1
takeahiketakeahike3 posts since
May 19, 2013
Rep Points: 3
6. Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 8:58 AM
Rosie:  It all depends upon the year you were born as to when you can take your SS early.  The young folks from what I understand, cannot do it at 62 any longer.  I may be wrong and I am sure YT will gleefully with joy correct me if I am.  Some of the seniors just made it under the gun for SS at 62.

Takeahike:  That's "your" interpretation of Timothy.  Personally I don't think he would agree with you.  People are not hypocrites because they expect to receive what their government says will be theirs at a certain age.  If they complained more maybe the politicians would learn how to run the government without lying to us and clean up all the waste in government.  
1
paoli2paoli21,365 posts since
Aug 10, 2011
Rep Points: 5,982
7. Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 9:59 AM
Re:  Rosie  3. Saturday, May 18, 2013 - 10:33 PM and Paoli2 6. Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 8:58 AM:

Rosie, you are right that nothing has changed and people can still retire at 62.  However, if that is not your FRA (full retirement age) you will receive a reduced benefit.    The SSA retirement age calculator highlights that in 1983 the full retirement age was increased from 65 years of age for people born in 1938 or later.  For example, people born in 1960 or later who retire at 62 will receive only 70% of the benefit they would have received at age 67, which is their full retirement age.
2
pearlbrownpearlbrown1,430 posts since
Nov 2, 2010
Rep Points: 6,246
8. Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 10:21 AM
Pearl:  Thanks for supplying the chart.  For some reason, I was sure I had read the 62 age was pushed later on for others.  Evidently I was wrong going by the chart you posted.  Thanks for the correction.
1
paoli2paoli21,365 posts since
Aug 10, 2011
Rep Points: 5,982
9. Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 11:03 AM
pa i am not interpertating timothy at all where did i say that i fought the good fight  ie work hard and retire early at 49 and finished the race and will always keep the faith need a bible study class perchance /?? 
1
timothy2c4v7timothy2c4v73 posts since
May 19, 2013
Rep Points: 6
10. Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 12:21 PM
Timothy:  It is not that particular verse I had a problem with but the fact that you quoted it in connection with calling people "hypocrites".  What you quoted from Timothy is correct but I don't see how it fits in with the rest of your post.  No, I don't need a bible study class but I do know that the verses can have different meanings depending on the context you use them in.  In the good "old" days, we had some of our biggest arguments at our bible studies.  :)
1
paoli2paoli21,365 posts since
Aug 10, 2011
Rep Points: 5,982
11. Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 1:54 PM
.

My Dear paoli2,

 
It is not that particular verse I had a problem with but the fact that you quoted it in connection with calling people "hypocrites".

Don't sugercoat it by generalizing.  There is no such thing like "people" who are getting callied hypocrite, but a  specific person - you - who is getting called a hypocrite!  :-)

For that matter even I did that in reference to you. For your drives around town in search of maximum "Usary" you can get, yet claiming to believe in the bible.  :-)

Yours Truly,
- Anon
In FED I Trust  :-)

.
2
ytytytytytytytyt158 posts since
Jan 28, 2013
Rep Points: 623
12. Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 2:39 PM
My Dear YT:  You show me ONE verse in the Scriptures where it states "I" since we are making this personal, can't drive around looking for the best CD rate I can find and I will show you 100 verses which state the opposite.  My duty is to do the best I can for my family .  What is the difference between what I am doing and those who strive to get better rates with stocks, bonds, mutual funds etc. etc.  We are all doing what we feel is best for OUR lives.  If I am a hypocrite, so are you and everyone who wants to do better with their finances. 

Jumping Jehovah beans, what does that make our Ken?  HE is leading us into utter ****ation!!  He actually puts those ****able 2% CDs on a list and causes me to hunger and go seek for them!!  Woe are we who follow after the accursed CD!  "Paoli C1 V2"  YOU don't want to read what V1 says!    Please don't use the blessed Scriptures to argue with me in this group.  I have had my say and won't respond to your utterly troublemaking and stupid posts after this.
1
paoli2paoli21,365 posts since
Aug 10, 2011
Rep Points: 5,982
13. Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 3:16 PM
.

Dear Paoli2,

1) Site: http://www.openbible.info/topics/usury
“If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him."

You shall not charge interest on loans to your brother, interest on money, interest on food, interest on anything that is lent for interest."

Lends at interest, and takes profit; shall he then live? He shall not live. He has done all these abominations; he shall surely die; his blood shall be upon himself."

2) Site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury

3) Check the meaning under "archaic" because the Bible/Scriptures were published a while ago.

   http://www.thefreedictionary.com/usury

4) Check the meaning under "archaic" because the Bible/Scriptures were published a while ago.

   http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/usury


So my dear, any interest - not matter how small - charged/received is sinful to those who believe in bible.  And you my dear, who drives around town seeking the max possible interest/usary, are a sinner.  You claim about belief in the bible, yet act in stark contradiction!

Therefore my dear, you are a hypocrite - plain and simple !!! :-

Yours Truly,
- Anon
In FED I Trust  :-)

.
2
ytytytytytytytyt158 posts since
Jan 28, 2013
Rep Points: 623
14. Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 3:48 PM
YT:  Remember what I said about people twisting the Scriptures to mean what they want it to mean?  That is exactly what you are doing and you are very bad at it.  First of all,  those Scriptures were written for a different day and age in which we live.  Second,  read the part about lending money to someone "who is poor".  Do I seem POOR to you?  If I am a sinner, you had better clear out all the Churches because I think you will find tons of others just like me except for one important thing and even YOU won't know the answer to that.  I won't stoop to your level by calling you names.   Your name is already written and known and so is your eternity.  So I suggest you stop playing with the Bible in this group.

   I do hope the DELETERS will soon put a stop to your sick troublemaking posts and delete all of them, including my own.  Goodbye.
1
paoli2paoli21,365 posts since
Aug 10, 2011
Rep Points: 5,982
15. Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 3:54 PM
pa i agree  with you as a former divinity student  only made it through 2 years due to unforseen circumstances   one must always remembes phillippians that all things through are possible and i para phrase  
1
timothy2c4v7timothy2c4v73 posts since
May 19, 2013
Rep Points: 6
16. Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 4:09 PM
Another analogy to a CD CAN BE FOUND IN  MARK 4 and the value is
1
MATHEW1924MATHEW19242 posts since
May 19, 2013
Rep Points: 5
17. Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 4:58 PM
Dear Paoli2,

No no no ... I would never bother to clear the churches, for the US Constitution, grants evenyone, including the hyprocite like yourself the right to practice any religion that you see fit, and practice it whatever hypocritical manner that you choose, including driving around town trying to grab max usary you can find!  :-)

BTW dear in your post at 2:39 PM you proclaimed "I have had my say and won't respond to your utterly troublemaking and stupid posts after this", yet you responded promptly at 3:48 PM

What's going on my dear?  Are you adding being a liar, to your previous qualification of being a hypocrite?  :-)

Yours Truly,
- Anon
In FED I Trust  :-)
2
ytytytytytytytyt158 posts since
Jan 28, 2013
Rep Points: 623
18. Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 6:12 PM
Tim:  Are you referring to Mat 19:26 instead of Phillippians?  That's my favorite.  So it is amazing what a group we have here in Ken's fantastic financial blog.  Preachers, former divinity students, and many such worthy people even if one of group thinks we are liars etc. and unworthy. 

YT:  BTW, I had to run an errand so I fully intended not to respond to you hoping you would have gone to bed like old men should at this time of day.  Since you are still awake and name calling, I just had to defend my honor.  Can you not find any proper Scriptures to make your case against me?.  After all, we are trying to have a Bible Study here while interest rates are so low. 
1
paoli2paoli21,365 posts since
Aug 10, 2011
Rep Points: 5,982
19. Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 6:18 PM
Thanks Pearl. I should have stated the increased age and that the % collected at 62 was reduced. .Think it was increased in 2000. My brother could collect 80% at 62 I could collect 75% at 62 and my children will collect 70% if they collect at 62. 
1
Ally6770Ally6770909 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 2,639
20. Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 6:50 PM
bud fox aqui and do not 4 get psalm 23.4
1
budfoxaquibudfoxaqui1 posts since
May 19, 2013
Rep Points: 1
21. Sunday, May 19, 2013 - 8:02 PM
Back on topic: It is a YMMV case no matter how one looks at it.  It depends on (1) personal health and life expectancy, (2) social security "health" and likelihood of default (or reduction of benefits in the future), (3) personal financial strength to delay the claim of social security benefits, (4) other factors built into the social security laws and conditions (e.g., inflation, switch of spousal benefits and own benefits).

We all need to take careful and detailed study of our own situation against all our options and alternatives; there is not set rule on what the optimum age to claim social security, IMHO.
4
51hh51hh1,476 posts since
Jan 16, 2010
Rep Points: 6,425
Reply