Comments on: Take Social Security now or later? Answer not so simple Fri, 05 Dec 2014 11:27:18 +0000 hourly 1 By: Hutchista Wed, 16 May 2012 11:49:17 +0000 Well, this article leaves out an important point which leaves the reader to think accumulation of benefits occurs if you have stopped working prior to the age you intend to receive your benefit. If you stop working at age 62, you will get penalized for not continuing to add to S.S. unless you have maxed out your benefit for 35 years, which most people have not. So, if you stop at 62 and delay until 66, you will get a penalty. There is a whole lot more that goes into the calculation than just should I delay or not delay, and it should be solely based on your financial plan. Talk to an advisor that understand S.S. benefits and you will walk out a winner.

By: sjason Thu, 14 Apr 2011 23:32:23 +0000 For those who are interested here is a website that provides free calculators that use the information on your social security statement page 2 to illustrate Social Security Benefits at various ages 62-70. The website also has a calculator that help determine the taxable amount of social security benefits.

By: Middleclassman Wed, 30 Mar 2011 17:11:45 +0000 Here’s our situation:

1. A “Union Sheet Metal Worker” who was able to receive a PENSION @ age 52 (Local pension)

2.International (Union pension) was acquired at age 59 1/2 yrs old.

3. Started receiving (EARLY) S.S @ 62.

4. Started a (IRA) CD a few years ago (Another source of small/steady income!)

Due to a “GOUT” affliction I acquired in my late forties I could see the “Writing on the Wall” as far a my physical/work/abilities were concerned!
That’s why (I) retired when the getting was GOOD!!!

I might add that we’ve got ABSOLUTELY NO REGRETS!

By: breezinthru Wed, 30 Mar 2011 11:39:05 +0000 I originally planned to take an early retirement from what I do for a living and start my own business in a field related to what I do for fun.

I had to change my mind a few years ago when the economy tanked.

I considered the government’s options for resolving this mess:

1. nationalizing the banks (debts AND assets including their money-generating apparatus)

2. widespread financial hardship and austerity on a grand scale

3. government-sponsored inflation on a grand scale

(It never really occurred to me that the government would choose to nationalize corporate debt on such a grand scale. I didn’t think that was legally possible and I didn’t think Americans would stand for it.)

I really underestimated the heinous nature of our elected officials.

I ended up setting aside my self-employment aspirations due to increased economic uncertainties and a painful drop in the value of my assets. Fortunately, I still have my job so I can try to replace what was stolen from me.

I wouldn’t enjoy excessive amounts of leisure. The key to happiness is balance.

The way I see it now, if I drop dead at work 15 years beyond my original retirement date, the Social Security system will be just a little better off for it. Sadly, the labor market will be just a little worse off for it.

And I’m still hoping to get a chance to strike out on my own.

By: TFF Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:57:16 +0000 On average, discounting the payments appropriately, the total value of your Social Security benefits will be the same whether you start early or wait to collect.

Yet for those without a pension, Social Security offers a valuable promise — lifetime income. You could purchase a private annuity, but those are VERY expensive and benefit the insurance company more than the buyer.

When planning your retirement, take a stab at four different scenarios:
(1) You die at the age of 70 from a sudden heart attack.

(2) You die at the age of 80 with your final year spent in a nursing home.

(3) You live a (relatively) healthy and active life through the age of 90, then another five years with assisted living before you finally die at the age of 95.

Planning for the first scenario is easy. Almost everybody will have enough money saved for THAT option. The second scenario is what financial planners typically focus on. This is pretty much the norm. But the third scenario is increasingly common, and a POSSIBILITY in most cases.

Delaying Social Security offers greater protection in the “difficult” scenario, thus it is the better choice for those who can afford to do so. Of course if you have no savings, there isn’t really any choice at all.

By: beofaction Wed, 30 Mar 2011 09:07:36 +0000 I didn’t see where anyone included a time value of money calculation on the early payments of SS. In most cases it takes the “breakeven” beyond age 73 – especially for those who will not meet full retirement age until 66. The other factor is this: WE ARE OVER $14 TRILLION IN DEBT!!! Yet people still believe in government “guarantees”? Pensions don’t work either. That’s why most corporations -at least those in control of their businesses instead of unions – provide 401k’s instead. If you are already collecting one, great. Aside from probably never getting a COLA you may have made it under the wire. Otherwise, each of us must be responsible for our own financial lives! Why do so many want to be serfs?

By: pHenry Wed, 30 Mar 2011 04:08:09 +0000 @ARJT – “0 dark hundred” been awhile since I heard that. I went hard for Uncle Sam long enough to retire. Diversity, patience and perseverance still pays dividends. Free spirits reap rewards the rest never know.

By: HurleyRez Tue, 29 Mar 2011 22:48:56 +0000 First off, about Social Security payments keeping up with inflation cost of living increases ; it IS not and HAS not for several years gone up, especially for people disabled or suddenly unable to work. So for all prices rising, these people are struggling with paying bills.
The way it was worked around,was the government stated there were no cost increases for the past 3 years, and they are saying there will be none for the next 2…

2nd Deferred SS ; SS for disabled and suddenly unable to work people is capped, based on income, and size of household.

3rd Deferred ; Deferring in my opinion is not wise, they are talking about cutting the amount a person would get in future for ‘new’ SS recipients. Better to take what you paid in and legally have the right to now, than roll the dice and hope you get what you paid in later.

With all the hoopla, its better to be safe and practical vs greedy.

By: ARJTurgot2 Tue, 29 Mar 2011 22:03:02 +0000 This is not a wholly mathematical question. I went at 57 on a defined benefits plan. The difference in money is roughly equivalent to SSA, but the fact is you have exactly one life, and if there is any time left to do wild and crazy, it is in the years before 65. Yes, you can have a good life after 65, but your knees, stamina, and general conditioning do degrade. In the two years since I retired I have sailed the oceans, lived like both the rich and poor in foreign lands, rafted the rivers, read the books, drank the wine, dug deep holes and planted trees, cleaned streams for trout, and flirted with every woman that seemed faintly interesting. Day one, week one, 0 dark hundred, I watched +10,000 Snow Geese take off at one time headed for breakfast. I am NOT going back in the box.

By: robb1 Tue, 29 Mar 2011 17:42:08 +0000 u can use the money when u r still young.

At 70+ u might not be healthy enough to enjoy, so what is good to have more $ if u r sitting on a sofa all day?

Unless u just want to leave more $ to your heirs… but that’s a different story.