Rediculous to wait…I don’t need SS to retire, but I’m taking it at 65..not 67. The break even is about 82 and if I live past that point the difference isn’t the big. I would rather spend the Fed’s money at 65 forward than mine. I paid it in and I’m getting it out.
@@88888gerald The real deal breaker is if you drop dead and the Fed keeps ALL YOUR MONEY. Some of us who have saved and planned so that we don’t rely on SS but want to get as much as the Government has taken from us. I’m one of those people. I’ve got a pension and a fat retirement account and I’ll be damned if the filthy Government is keeping any more of my hard earned cash than they’ve already taken. I’m taking mine at 62 and putting it into a stable high yield savings or conservative brokerage account.
There are a number of videos on this subject and most do a fair analysis, but almost all leave out the most important point. When you die the SS payments are 0 dollars. I am 60. Both my parents, who lived clean lives, died at 63 and 65. Not one dime of SS. I will start collecting SS at 62.
My plan was to start SS at FRA, and both parents are in their late 80s, but health issues started weeks after retirement. So I started SS at 63 just in case.
My wife started collecting social security treatment at 66, saying she would be royally pissed if she died before receiving any social security. (in the midst of cancer treatment which she has survived but seemingly aged her about 8 - 10 years) At the time I told her I could absolutely guarantee that if she died before receiving social security she wouldn't care about it one way or the other. Yes, she did laugh. We have that kind of humor.
Its an insurance plan, don’t try to get the most you can, maximize the amount you get each year WHEN YOU NEED IT. E.g. delay if you can, SS becomes a reliable base for your income needs, and 9:35 you also guarantee a higher survivor benefit.
I am not sure what videos you are watching because none of the videos ignore that when you die your SS payments are 0 dollars. That is intrinsically part of the break even age at 78-80.
I took it at 62. One reason (never mentioned) is the remaining IRA asset value at the end of life. It is important to me to leave something behind...by starting SS at 62, I am preserving my IRA asset value as best I can. So that $700K remains in my asset value, sent to my heirs, rather than consumption.
@@tradespx9055 They could - should- invest that money into their own retirement. It should be set up that way. Maybe pay off a high interest mortgage. Options. As long as it's not "fun money".
These projections are so ridiculous. By the time you’re 85 you’ll be lucky to be alive and be able to walk. Most people won’t be spending a fraction of what they spent during their early retirement years. That’s why the vast majority of people using the given example will probably die with a few million in the bank. No thanks I want to die penniless and broke
I'd think twice about the third sentence for the final few years of life. If you're alive but aren't able to walk, you'll need to hire a home health aide or move into a facility of some sort--I'm a physical therapist working with many people in this life stage, and those expenses are huge, but most people are still glad overall to be alive anyway. People used to die younger and more abruptly, but now it's older with a longer period of decline. So I want to have plenty of money at that stage.
I think dying penniless and broke is a better deal as medicaid can kick in and long term care comes free. For average Joe a good portion of their retirement savings are used for long term as Medicare or medigap won't suffice.
@@pritikamath5209 If that's the only option, it is what it is--but I definitely wouldn't have Medicaid as a plan. Not all nursing homes accept Medicaid, and many of those that do have a limited number of Medicaid slots--so choice of nursing home can be limited. And to age in place at home, the number of "Medicaid home health aide" hours may be on the limited side. That's all if you start out on Medicaid. Otherwise, if you start out paying privately for a nursing home but anticipate running out, check in advance that you'll be allowed to stay (they'll convert your slot to a Medicaid one)--that's actually a pretty common scenario. And beware of for-profit nursing homes, because they seem to change ownership fairly frequently and their Medicaid policies can change too. But different states have different laws around nursing homes. And assisted living is a totally different subject all around.
@MaybeL Extending some lifespan.. But quality of life comes into play. I've been a nurse for twenty five years. I see the pain suffering and dying... Is declining.. Especially after seventy five.. This whole extending life thing is quite interesting.
It's never simple. I retired in 2020 at age 58. My wife retired in 2022 at age 58. Our Obamacare/ACA health insurance in Georgia is under $500 for the two of us. We are both healthy so it covers our routine doctor visits, dental cleanings, etc as well as our work coverage did. Maybe it's much higher in other states? SS is "guaranteed" income. The farther out you take a person's life expectancy the better it looks to take SS as late as possible. If I live to age 110, I should wait. If I expect to die before age 80-85, I should take it early. If we assume that SS is going to be a major part of our income in retirement, we should wait. If it's a smaller portion, then taking it early makes sense. I started at 62 but we will have my wife wait until at least FRA. Our benefits are almost identical, but her longevity is probably higher. Her waiting will allow one of us to have a higher benefit when one of us dies. I know about 3 people who remained in their home until age 90+. If you assume a modest increase on his home, you can add an additional $600k+ in retirement assets. Assume he downsizes at age 75, and buys a house with half the value, and you add $300k to his portfolio. Very few people spend more after age 80 than they did at age 65. I know healthcare costs increase as we age, but travel pretty much stops. My step-father died at age 97. He stopped traveling around age 90 and pretty much just stayed home, worked in the yard, met friends for breakfast at Chik Fila, and moved into assisted living at age 92. Legacy and tax efficiency are another issue that comes into play. I hope I leave all 4 kids a million dollars, but that's not my main objective. We have $2.6 million invested with half of that in deferred accounts. My wife was an RN and saved all her money in deferred accounts, so we have a partner in that portion of our assets. Uncle Sam wants his money. Our current budget is between 5-6% of our invested assets. We have our home, one rental house, and a farm we own jointly with a friend. We DO NOT include the real estate in our retirement income projections nor do we include our other possessions. Only our LIQUID assets are used for retirement projections. Our plan is to sell the rental property in about 5 years, the farm within 10 years, and probably downsize our home over the next 5 years. We are currently looking at buying a boat and doing the Great Loop once our kids get out of college. We would probably sell our home at that point to finance the venture and move to a smaller place. Save your money!!! Don't save all your money in a 401k!!!!! Put some in a Roth or brokerage account so you can play the tax game more efficiently.
I think the concept is not just getting the most money from SS but also tax efficiency like IRMAA. Ultimately, I don't want all my hard earned money to uncle Sam when I pass.
no issue with most of this strategy, but if you have the resources, you can afford to "invest" in your SS return; plus the impact of withdrawing more from the tax deferred early on decreasing RMDs and taxes in your 70s. What the market is doing may be the biggest factor. If the market tanks, it makes great sense to take the SS early to successfully weather the investment storm.
The tax strategies get real complex, especially if you have a good chunk in an IRA. Unfortunately, Sam is going to get a chunk of that money. RMD, yearly draws, or after you die, our Uncle will be waiting.@@eastwestpicayune8200
@@dacianbonta2840we have a plan to minimize taxes. We have 5 years of cash instruments on hand, so we can keep our reported income manageable while using Obamacare, and then start moving money out of the IRAs as best we can. The IRA money is just too high for us to get it all moved at low tax rates. Assuming even moderate annual growth, we will be in pretty high brackets just to keep it where it is now. I've always said that, if I have to have a retirement problem, I want it to be paying too much in taxes. I owned some restaurants and always told the managers that, if they had to have a problem, it should be running out of food on a busy night. We are just happy to be where we are. I'm an outdoors guy, so we spend our time hunting and fishing all over the USA. We travel extensively and just got back from a 2 week trip to Montana. Skiing wasn't good but seeing Yellowstone in winter was a treat.
If he takes social at 62 it allows him to hang onto more of his nest egg. Where at in video do you discuss the amount his portfolio would have grown too (I did not see where you discussed this). Would the increased amount in his portfolio then offset the fact of the reduced benefit?
I've run the numbers and every scenario breaks even at about 78. If you're going to live to 75, take early. If you're going to live to 90, take late. If you know how to make that decision on the front end, please share...
Hello. At around 6:21 into the video, you state that delaying from 67 until 70 gives you a 124% increase. Actually the increase is 24% not 124%. Just wanted to make that clear. Thank you.
Thought we had replied. Not sure where it went, so this may be a duplicate. Look at www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/1960-delay.html. At age 70 the benefit is 124% of your FRA benefit, meaning a 24% increase for those born 1960 or later, no compounding.
Are you sure? Look at www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/1960-delay.html and it will show that at age 70 you will get 124% of your FRA. That is a 24% increase but no compounding. Basically you get 2/3 of a percent per month of delay or 8% per year.
I'll spend SSI now when I can enjoy life rather than more later when I won't be able to. I'm a Vietnam vet so the healthcare expense part doesn't figure in. Even it does, I have enough invested that it wouldn't matter anyway.
Another very important point never discussed or factored in is the possibility (probability) of the Treasury messing with the numbers such that the delay factor is skewed and at that point depending upon your age etc having taken out earlier would have been the better move. Get it while you can and invest what you dont spend.
One reason is that if you take SS at 62 and don't have other health insurance Obamacare will be very expensive with SS. I think for a lot of people it's best to wait until 65 when medicare kicks in.
Jim's just fine. How much traveling is he going to do in his 80's and 90's, provided he even lives that long? And, Jim is still sitting on a half-million dollar home. Tell me when you're going to die and I'll tell you when you should start drawing Social Security.
The way I see it there are the go go years the slow go years and the no go years. My expenses will gradually reduce as I enter into no go years . Why not enjoy life while still active .
remember that every year you wait is essentially a n 8% increase not only in your basic check but in every cola check,. which is why it pays to delay as long as you can...barring ill health...
I don’t know if you already have a video, but can you do comparison between 62, 65, 67, & 70. If it shows the breaking age we could better decide which is the right age.
All these video's sound good but they never take all the money received from 62 to 70 and invest it. It is way more. At 70, with that stash @ about 8-10%, you will be making as much as the whole check you will be receiving. Am I wrong?
If you take SS early, then you take less out of your 401k. Does this calculate include the additional returns on the 401k since the balance remains higher. That will push the breakeven point out
a guaranteed 8% return + a COLA kicker is pretty tough to beat, sure you might beat 8% once in awhile, but if your adjusting your stock % down as you get older, not likely to beat 8% and there's also the potential of a bear market in those years between 62 and 70
Yes and no. SS has an inflation adjustment every year - even before you claim. The video has examples with higher inflation or lower inflation. If inflation is higher, then the benefit of waiting to claim gets bigger. Inflation protection is a key benefit of SS and another reason that favors claiming later.@@user-nt8kc7ho6d
There are so many factors not mentioned yet. He'll want to start moving out considerable sums each year to reduce his RMDs at 75. One suggestion is to pull out more than needed each year and put it into a rollover Roth. Buy dividend producing ETFs and stocks in the Roth, and now you have tax free cash flow after 59.5. This will be important before and after 65 due to IRMAA taxes. And if you take social security early, during this IRA drawdown, there's a good chance your social security will be taxed. You really need to run all the numbers to optimize your choices. If you can, start Roth rollovers before you need to retire and reduce the RMD tax bomb earlier to help with tax management.
I am married and in a similar situation. We have delayed SS past FRA for one year and lived off of our savings for over 2 years now. One of my biggest concerns was RMD's and having too much still left in savings.
Exactly my thought. Hold off on a social security and let it go to age 70. Pull as much money as we need out of the 401k to the maximum of our tax bracket which is 12%. We could go to the next higher tax bracket if we wanted to. We don't need all that money to live on, so live on what we need and put the rest into a brokerage account and reinvest it. The brokerage account will have capital gains taxes which are much lower. Do that for a couple years before taking social security which is going to then lift our income up. Want to try to get as much as we can out of the 401K before the rmd starts. My husband is younger than me so he will wait to 70 and he's the higher earner, gives us more time to take money out of the 401K before his Rmd would start. I will start at 70 and will have to take rmd earlier. The other option is to take all the money out & instead of putting it into a brokerage account do the Roth conversion and place the funds in the Roth. I'm not sure yet which one I want to do. Can't use the earnings for 5 years so not sure what to do yet. We don't have any heirs to leave money too so we have to fully use the money that we've saved all these years or find a good Charity to give it to. Which is another thing that we can do - qualified charitable contributions coming straight out of the IRA. So much to think about with this. If you got longevity in your family, taking at 62 is a big mistake in my mind, especially if you're married and are thinking about taking care of your spouse.
Major factor not considered in this video is political risk…. We are hearing more and more talk about changes in SS such as means testing (already being done for Medicare premiums) or general cuts in benefits. This risk factor makes taking SS as soon as possible more attractive.
Right, my last Social Security statement stated that by 2033 I only expect to receive 80% of the calculated amount because the plan will not be fully funded. At that point. That’s a lot of crap considering you paid your entire life of the program and it may be a defining Piece of your retirement plan there’s nothing to keep the government from deciding that you’re too old to be a burden on the government anymore. Kind of scary when the youth are voting on the rest of your life.
If you don’t NEED social security and you take the $24,360 a year early at 62 and invest it at 5% for 8 years, then you will start off at age 70 with $232,616.29 $232k is the cost of not taking it early and investing it if you do not NEED it. Because you won’t be getting it anyway if you don’t take it early.
What about the time value of money on the payments received and put in an index fund and withdrawal at long-term capital gainsrate? In addition he should start taking much of his 1.5 Million to optimize his lifespan tax brackets (probably $185K once per year for his wealth). in addition if he can keep his income low he will qualify for low income benefits (like utility bills, medicaid, etc.)
Pretty sure the time value of money and portfolio balance are covered by the charts, that is, the Monte Carlo analysis these perditions use, with all the randomized investment returns factored in. The likely range of investment valuations over time are shown in the light blue shaded areas of the investment vs. age charts. Since this example guy is spending his 5800 a month, plus vacation, taxes and medical insurance, that money would be either coming out of his 1.5 million portfolio, or come partially out of that, minus the money he took in via the early SS payments, so either way, the time value of his investments IS covered. I do agree with you that taxes were not covered very well in this video... I can only assume the portfolio value, given the amount withdrawn is included using the current tax rates and then post Trump tax reduction rates (should start in 26') for the amount taken out of his portfolio each year. And the blue shaded area should also account for capital gains taxes on the invested money withdrawn, based on the investment cost averaging basis. No discussion of Roth conversion here, must be in another video.
Taking social security at age 66. Assume he retires at 62 and he takes $80,000 x 4 years and he gets a 5% return on his portfolio. After 4 years of 80k per year withdrawals he will have $1,461,208 nest egg. Next scenario He retires 62 and takes social security $24,000 per year and takes $56,000 from nest egg After four years his nest egg will be $1,565,000 Or $104,000 more than the other scenario. My conclusion take at age 62 the earnings on nest egg will offset over delaying. Plus you have the money to pass on if you die before age 95 in podcast scenario. Also if the social security benefit does ever get cut you have the nest egg to fall back on.
One factor not mentioned... I'm turning 62 this summer and am considering keeping taxable income low in 2025 and 2026 to qualify for a healthcare subsidy. Spending 15k for 1k worth of healthcare rankles after a couple of years. My wife is older and has already started her Social Security benefit, almost 3700 per month. If I start SS benefit at 62 it would be difficult to keep income low enough to qualify (SS + interest, dividends, small $585 per month pension).
I think the smart play is to claim as late as possible to reduce longevity risk. The exception being if you really need the money in your 60's and expect a short life.
Is a smart player not... I see so many people in their seventies and early eighties sick suffering and dying.... Course i'm a nurse.. I'm not gonna take that chance, Knowing typically low to mid eighties is probably the most common outcome.
I am 61 with 1.2 million (1 mil in a Roth, 200k in ira), I also have a pension of $77k with a 3% cola. My SS at 62 (April 2025) is $2696. I’m leaning towards taking it.
@@micheleyoungblood I do, and I am the high earner so that would give her more cash flow if I die before her. She has around $875k saved and will probably inherit 1.5-2 mil in the next few years (her mom is 88) so it’s probably won’t make a difference.
Take it at 62. No one is assured a long life. You can take it at 62, enjoy your life a little more and still have plenty of money later in life. Pension 77k Social security 30k 4% w/d 401 48k 155k nice!
What about the government pulling back SSI in the future, through additional taxation, overly complicated rules, income ir wealth qualifications? My bet is we will be getting less than people are counting on.
Fun example: Couple retires at 66. Monthly budget requires $6,000 a month. If we take SS at 66 it yields $6,000 a month -- Perfect! If we delay until 70 it requires we spend $360K of our own funds (6K per month for five years) IN ADDITION to not collecting $360K from SS (6K per month for five years). At age 70 we are now 'down' $720K. But wait, with a now 'higher' SS amount coming in at age 70, it "only" takes until age 87 to recoup the $720K ($360K+$360K). No thanks. We took the $6,000 at 66, we avoided spending ANY our own funds, keeping them invested and growing, and live quite comfortably on SS without ever touching our $XMillions nest egg. Oh also, read the book 'Die With Zero' by Bill Perkins.
I love this example. I want my investments to grow. Delaying seems bad unless conversions are needed. Young people should do the match for 401k, max out the Roth, and put the rest into a brokerage account. So many people and advisors say delay but very few will make it past 82 or 83 so it ends up being a small difference anyway.
If he waits to age 70 he’ll have to put 100% of his income burden on his retirement savings, withdrawing $336k in 5 years, not including any market downturns. Is your model accounting for that?
I have an annuity that structured the same as SS.. even though I’m still working at 62, I started taking it this year.. it pays me $3k per mth for life.. if I waited until 65, it would have paid me $3.4/mth.. but I wanted to start enjoying that extra money now, as I’m using it to get my house ready for retirement yrs… so u do t get hit with big home repairs once I retire, plus nice vacations
There are a lot of people producing these types of videos now. The fellow seems to only focus on numbers, like dying with the most left is the goal. I feel we need to enjoy our healthier years the most to live life to our fullest potential.
Do understand that we can’t see any of the numbers on the tv screen from our chair. You have to magnify that up if you want to continue to have an audience.
Break even at 78? If the market doesn't take another dump.....I'll take 8 percent a year over 62 until 67 or 70. Survivor benefits must be considered too.
Two topics that would be curious about 1- time value of $ if you take it early and invest it in an eft tax efficient, how would that effect a comparison on taking it later. example @ 62 take the 2030 invest it @ 8% return for 8 yrs (70) = $270,000, could draw 4% a year off that balance= $900 a month. Also factor in 8 yrs of COLA to the original $2030 , bet you it's very close to the proposed $3596 at age 70. Not to mention maybe Joe gets married or has heirs, should he pass at 74 would have something to show for the SS $. Takes the gamble out of the equation doesn't it. 2- Another biggie is Taxes, what are Joe's opportunity to be tax wise while delaying SS to maybe 70, draw down some of that massive tax bomb he has built with Qualified retirement contributions. His 1.5 mil. is really approx. 1.1 mil maybe at best after uncle sam gets his pound of flesh.
Why does “Jim” spend $5,600/month not including vacations and health care as they are separate and with home paid off? He thinks he is moderate but that is a lot. I spend about 20% of that.
So what happend to the 1.5M invest (401K), im guessing its not growing? Taking SS at 70, you are pretty much eating through your investment for 8 years.
Never hurt your assets. Your assets have to grow. If they lose money in 1 or 2 years you do not touch the asset unless it has grown larger than before and is greater than 4%. Also the asset must retain at least 4% growth each year. If you made 10% you can take no more than 6% that year.
1) 50% of us will be dead by 80. 2) why do all these financial guys only look at 62 or 70. There are 8 years or 16 half years in between those ages that make a lot more since to look at. I'm looking at 63-1/2 to 64 for my plan depending on economy to that point. 3) @ 90 with 500k or 2 mil doubt it makes a difference, except for the richest guy in the grave yard title.
Seems smart to me. Take SS @62, let investments grow for 5 years, then @ 67 suspend SS if you want to and start collecting again @ 70. You will get the 24% increase and you have a much clearer idea how you are doing financially.
Take it at 62 especially if you are a man. Life expectancy is 75 for white men (68 for black men). If you live to 70, you will most likely live another 10 years while only 25% will make it to 90. Those aren't great odds. Get the money as early as you can and enjoy your 60s and 70s. Expenses are greater early on as people generally travel a lot less as they get older. Also, having more money is always nice, but you can't take it with you.
A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush. This is the old adage to keep in mind as you think about retirement. Collect it at 62 and give it away to your relatives. We don't know when we will die.
Why did you NOT define the growth assumptions on $1.5M nest egg, while retired? Just this nebulous "good vs. poor" markets. What is good? What is poor?
Dunno, an 80 yr old male in the US has about a 30% chance of living to age 90, not great odds. I think these projections are not putting adequate weight on probability of life expectancy, those probabilities are known, based on real data, portfolio performance estimates are much less certain. Also the name of the game here should not be to accumulate a substantial nest egg at death, unless you really want to leave a chunk of $$ to heirs.
The difference between the COLA rates really does not affect the decision on taking SS early or not, as the COLAs are based on the inflation rate, so if it's higher, you really wouldn't see that as extra money to spend or leave to your estate, rather it is calculated to match (wait for it)... The increased cost of living you have from inflation. Realistically, with the SS Trust Fund now projected to run short starting in 2035, there is also the very strong potential of no COLAs or diet COLAs whenever congress faces up to reality, meaning 2034 in all likelihood. This is extra reason to take SS early, but even with reduced payments, waiting until 67 or 70 might still make sense. The break even point would likely move far out to the right.
National Center for Health Statistics for male life expectancy is 74.8 years. Why wait to claim SS if you have a good sequence of withdrawal strategy and enjoy life while you're alive and functional.
What if you enter retirement early (60) and want to delay SS to at least FRA 67 and shortly after you retire you enter sequence of return? How would you proceed and how would the Monte Carlo graph look?
I think the biggest factor is you reduce your spending significantly on a downturn and weather the financial storm for 3 to 4 years. Have at least a year plus of full spending not in the market - which you stretch out by frugal spending. And you still have an emergency fund for a roof, car, etc, in case something breaks. You might tap that to keep from selling stocks at a big loss if it's an extended downturn. Another option, depending on how much money you have in your retirement and brokerage accounts, invest in dividend funds and stocks. Then, you will not have to sell any shares during a market downturn. This is a workable option with the $1.5 million example in the video.
Not sure how Jim could possibly run out of money if he takes ss early at 62. If he earns just 5% on his 1.5 million per year , that’s 6250/month and couple that with his the 2030/month in ss he will get 8250/ month. You stated he needs 7225/month until age 65 and 6225 until age 75. Seems like he will have 1000/month extra. Even if he only manages to make 4% he breaks even until 65 and then at 65 he’s back with a 1000/month surplus. Not sure what kind of return your factoring in on his 1.5 million saved.
I have a spouse that is 12 years younger. I am 66.6 and will wait for the 8% and COLA's to pile up. Most people are weak and undisciplined. and will not wait. I don't care if i get a penny as long as my wife is better off.
Strong words for people who are good at math and know they will die before 80. However, your situation is unique and your plan is correct. Take care of the spouse is A1.
Isn’t it best to try not to have to tap investments particularly stock investments. If that means taking social security at age 62 then that’s fine with me. I think I will need the money and it may allow me not to have to what I have in stocks which may grow very quickly over the next decade
Why don't these guys ever talk about ACA supplement to health ins, and I am not sure if he deals with how taxes are different depending on how and when you take, and how it might decrease or increase your rate of withdrawal of qualified (taxable) funds. I fell asleep so not sure. Thats what happens when you get old. "Lots of factors to consider" he says. Except for taxes, and ACA
People say take the SS money if you need the money early.. I'm thinking take the money if you Don't need the money.... So no big deal. Retire early, Use that extra money to cover medical at least.. And guarantee getting some of your money back. That's how I see it.. I'm thinking retiring in 5 yrs at 56 with over 2 mill (estimating On low side) with my wife who's 6 years older.. Probably do part-time just to get insurance till 62/65. no real debt right now. She'll take social security early, Then I will at 62.. We should be set barring any real big issues... More bi donamic type years.. And we can always cut back our costs a little more..
Jim doesn’t need to wait to get ss benefits. Get the social security at 62. And supplement with his investments in case he dies nobody could inherit social security however his family can inherit his investments … not worth to wait specially with that kind of savings
Taking early. figuring most people live to mid 80s. Less out of retirement fund... Letting your investment still grow. And definite guarantee of getting some of your money back from the government?
Excuse me, I always find these a bit diengenuinous. Average life expectancy is 74-79 years old. I see using 85, but 95? Average is only about 30% who are now 65 live till 95 who are very healthy etc. Using 95 which I have seen no one use is very over the top. Using 85+- 5 years comes up very different $
At birth, average life expectancy is about 78. At 65, on average, you'll have 20 more years - to age 85. But that's the average. Half of 65 year olds will live beyond age 85.
Take it at 62. I would rather have the money in my own pocket and do with it what I want to then let the government hold it for me until some date in the future.
Very informative, but the video could have been 5 minutes long. Doesn’t have to be over 20 minutes. What a waste of time. There are better and SHORTER TH-cam videos
There's another things to consider: Do you have enough worked years to get full SS? If not, delaying and working will bump your benefits up per year at a higher rate.
I have over $3 million (IRAs and taxable investment account). I think it is more common then you think to have over 1 million at retirement. I am 68 recently retired and still thinking through when to take SS. Lots to consider.
Why in the hell would anyone wait until 70?? It’s going to continue to grow even if you start collecting at 62. It’s going to be the same amount when you reach 70 as it would be if you waited!
Health issues where you're unlikely to live until 80? Claim at 62. You have an income source that's covering all monthly expenses from non-retirement money? Ok to claim at 62 and invest the social security money. Other than that, waiting to full retirement age or even delaying is the far wiser course of action. From the total money standpoint, aside from being behind by age 80 if you claim at age 62 as a matter of total money received, the gap just gets bigger and bigger because it's inflation adjusted, so the percentage increase just widens the gap further and further year over year. From a security standpoint, even the best laid plans of mice and men call fall to ruin. I could retire with a few million dollars, the market bottoms out over the next decade, and I live longer than I imagined. Funny how fast a few mil can go under unfortunate circumstances. Having a maxed out and inflation adjusted guaranteed income goes a long way to mitigate the impact to our assets under those circumstances, and in the worst case, ensures that we'll be able to put food on the table even if everything goes pear shaped.
A lot of these a financial planners are completely flawed when they start talking about inflation and COLAs. They don't understand math, so are clueless. Fact is the breakeven point between 62 and 70 does not ever change based on the COLA rate. That's because the COLA adjusts for the lost in purchasing power. When doing financial planning, you should NEVER factor in inflation. The only exception to that is health care inflation, which historically outpaces general inflation. The correct place to make the adjustment is on the investment side, where the revenue should be expressed in inflation adjusted returns. And no, it's not the same thing just expressed differently because the human brain can't comprehend far future inflation in real terms. We're stuck understanding only today's prices and budgets.
This scenario was kinda dumb to me…if this person with 2mil plus in assets can’t live more than a comfortable life at age 62 and beyond, then he probably splurged too much after retiring.
I'm 59.5 and only $100k 401k after divorcer@pe 5 years ago. Health not great. Maybe can work til 62. Lucky to live to 70. Current SS wouldmbe about $1200 mo. Need about $2-2500 to live comfy in Asia. Suggestions? I'm open to moving to cheap SE Asian country. Dont need $5-6k mo American Lifestyle. Help!
![เขามัทรี - เอ็กซ์ ศุภกฤต - จอนนี่มิวสิค [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AS9ufKuQIVs/mqdefault.jpg)
Rediculous to wait…I don’t need SS to retire, but I’m taking it at 65..not 67. The break even is about 82 and if I live past that point the difference isn’t the big. I would rather spend the Fed’s money at 65 forward than mine. I paid it in and I’m getting it out.
Break even for most is 78 .
you obviously didnt check......the deal breaker is cola...
stupid does seem to run in families....
@@ada-yw1bb 82 if you’re investing the money that stays in your portfolio and not being spent
@@88888gerald The real deal breaker is if you drop dead and the Fed keeps ALL YOUR MONEY. Some of us who have saved and planned so that we don’t rely on SS but want to get as much as the Government has taken from us. I’m one of those people. I’ve got a pension and a fat retirement account and I’ll be damned if the filthy Government is keeping any more of my hard earned cash than they’ve already taken. I’m taking mine at 62 and putting it into a stable high yield savings or conservative brokerage account.
There are a number of videos on this subject and most do a fair analysis, but almost all leave out the most important point. When you die the SS payments are 0 dollars. I am 60. Both my parents, who lived clean lives, died at 63 and 65. Not one dime of SS. I will start collecting SS at 62.
My plan was to start SS at FRA, and both parents are in their late 80s, but health issues started weeks after retirement. So I started SS at 63 just in case.
My wife started collecting social security treatment at 66, saying she would be royally pissed if she died before receiving any social security. (in the midst of cancer treatment which she has survived but seemingly aged her about 8 - 10 years)
At the time I told her I could absolutely guarantee that if she died before receiving social security she wouldn't care about it one way or the other.
Yes, she did laugh. We have that kind of humor.
I am SO sorry for your losses. 💔💔
Its an insurance plan, don’t try to get the most you can, maximize the amount you get each year WHEN YOU NEED IT. E.g. delay if you can, SS becomes a reliable base for your income needs, and 9:35 you also guarantee a higher survivor benefit.
I am not sure what videos you are watching because none of the videos ignore that when you die your SS payments are 0 dollars. That is intrinsically part of the break even age at 78-80.
I took it at 62. One reason (never mentioned) is the remaining IRA asset value at the end of life. It is important to me to leave something behind...by starting SS at 62, I am preserving my IRA asset value as best I can. So that $700K remains in my asset value, sent to my heirs, rather than consumption.
You’re not ‘helping’ them IMHO
Leaving large sums of money. Most of the happiest people I know earned their money, it was not given to them.
I agree, the kids will need all the help they can get .
@@tradespx9055 They could - should- invest that money into their own retirement. It should be set up that way. Maybe pay off a high interest mortgage. Options. As long as it's not "fun money".
@@tradespx9055thats the parents job to raise hard working kids who arent parasites.
In my opinion, the end projections were not different enough to justify waiting until 70 to collect when 50% of 65 year olds will not make it to 85.
and if you're one of those living to 95? if you only live to 72, who cares what you left on the table, not you, you're dead
Agreed, when you pay into it for 50 years you want to collect what you've contributed.
Man that's quite the argument. I only have a 50 chance of going broke.
@@rogwarrior1018 EXACTLY! I don’t want those bloodsuckers keeping and giving away what IVE worked for to someone else when I pass.
wrong again.....
These projections are so ridiculous. By the time you’re 85 you’ll be lucky to be alive and be able to walk. Most people won’t be spending a fraction of what they spent during their early retirement years. That’s why the vast majority of people using the given example will probably die with a few million in the bank.
No thanks I want to die penniless and broke
The only part that worries me is that science keeps extending lifespans. Who know what breakthroughs we will see by the time we are 85 haha
I'd think twice about the third sentence for the final few years of life. If you're alive but aren't able to walk, you'll need to hire a home health aide or move into a facility of some sort--I'm a physical therapist working with many people in this life stage, and those expenses are huge, but most people are still glad overall to be alive anyway. People used to die younger and more abruptly, but now it's older with a longer period of decline. So I want to have plenty of money at that stage.
I think dying penniless and broke is a better deal as medicaid can kick in and long term care comes free. For average Joe a good portion of their retirement savings are used for long term as Medicare or medigap won't suffice.
@@pritikamath5209 If that's the only option, it is what it is--but I definitely wouldn't have Medicaid as a plan. Not all nursing homes accept Medicaid, and many of those that do have a limited number of Medicaid slots--so choice of nursing home can be limited. And to age in place at home, the number of "Medicaid home health aide" hours may be on the limited side. That's all if you start out on Medicaid. Otherwise, if you start out paying privately for a nursing home but anticipate running out, check in advance that you'll be allowed to stay (they'll convert your slot to a Medicaid one)--that's actually a pretty common scenario. And beware of for-profit nursing homes, because they seem to change ownership fairly frequently and their Medicaid policies can change too. But different states have different laws around nursing homes. And assisted living is a totally different subject all around.
@MaybeL Extending some lifespan.. But quality of life comes into play. I've been a nurse for twenty five years. I see the pain suffering and dying... Is declining.. Especially after seventy five.. This whole extending life thing is quite interesting.
It's never simple.
I retired in 2020 at age 58. My wife retired in 2022 at age 58.
Our Obamacare/ACA health insurance in Georgia is under $500 for the two of us. We are both healthy so it covers our routine doctor visits, dental cleanings, etc as well as our work coverage did. Maybe it's much higher in other states?
SS is "guaranteed" income. The farther out you take a person's life expectancy the better it looks to take SS as late as possible. If I live to age 110, I should wait. If I expect to die before age 80-85, I should take it early.
If we assume that SS is going to be a major part of our income in retirement, we should wait. If it's a smaller portion, then taking it early makes sense.
I started at 62 but we will have my wife wait until at least FRA. Our benefits are almost identical, but her longevity is probably higher. Her waiting will allow one of us to have a higher benefit when one of us dies.
I know about 3 people who remained in their home until age 90+. If you assume a modest increase on his home, you can add an additional $600k+ in retirement assets. Assume he downsizes at age 75, and buys a house with half the value, and you add $300k to his portfolio.
Very few people spend more after age 80 than they did at age 65. I know healthcare costs increase as we age, but travel pretty much stops. My step-father died at age 97. He stopped traveling around age 90 and pretty much just stayed home, worked in the yard, met friends for breakfast at Chik Fila, and moved into assisted living at age 92.
Legacy and tax efficiency are another issue that comes into play. I hope I leave all 4 kids a million dollars, but that's not my main objective.
We have $2.6 million invested with half of that in deferred accounts. My wife was an RN and saved all her money in deferred accounts, so we have a partner in that portion of our assets. Uncle Sam wants his money. Our current budget is between 5-6% of our invested assets. We have our home, one rental house, and a farm we own jointly with a friend. We DO NOT include the real estate in our retirement income projections nor do we include our other possessions. Only our LIQUID assets are used for retirement projections. Our plan is to sell the rental property in about 5 years, the farm within 10 years, and probably downsize our home over the next 5 years. We are currently looking at buying a boat and doing the Great Loop once our kids get out of college. We would probably sell our home at that point to finance the venture and move to a smaller place.
Save your money!!!
Don't save all your money in a 401k!!!!! Put some in a Roth or brokerage account so you can play the tax game more efficiently.
I think the concept is not just getting the most money from SS but also tax efficiency like IRMAA. Ultimately, I don't want all my hard earned money to uncle Sam when I pass.
no issue with most of this strategy, but if you have the resources, you can afford to "invest" in your SS return; plus the impact of withdrawing more from the tax deferred early on decreasing RMDs and taxes in your 70s.
What the market is doing may be the biggest factor. If the market tanks, it makes great sense to take the SS early to successfully weather the investment storm.
The tax strategies get real complex, especially if you have a good chunk in an IRA. Unfortunately, Sam is going to get a chunk of that money. RMD, yearly draws, or after you die, our Uncle will be waiting.@@eastwestpicayune8200
@@dacianbonta2840we have a plan to minimize taxes. We have 5 years of cash instruments on hand, so we can keep our reported income manageable while using Obamacare, and then start moving money out of the IRAs as best we can. The IRA money is just too high for us to get it all moved at low tax rates. Assuming even moderate annual growth, we will be in pretty high brackets just to keep it where it is now.
I've always said that, if I have to have a retirement problem, I want it to be paying too much in taxes. I owned some restaurants and always told the managers that, if they had to have a problem, it should be running out of food on a busy night.
We are just happy to be where we are. I'm an outdoors guy, so we spend our time hunting and fishing all over the USA. We travel extensively and just got back from a 2 week trip to Montana. Skiing wasn't good but seeing Yellowstone in winter was a treat.
The break even age for most is 78
What about calculating the loss of returns from your portfolio by utilizing that in lieu of Social Security?
If he takes social at 62 it allows him to hang onto more of his nest egg. Where at in video do you discuss the amount his portfolio would have grown too (I did not see where you discussed this). Would the increased amount in his portfolio then offset the fact of the reduced benefit?
Yep, these analyses are always flawed.
This is a great illustration and very close to my own scenario. Extremely helpful to me! Thank you.
Life expectancy for a male in the US is 78 years old. Do the math. Take the money and run
Life expectancy is 78 from your date of birth. If you are already 60, your expectancy is more in the mid to late 80's ballpark.
You got it
I've run the numbers and every scenario breaks even at about 78. If you're going to live to 75, take early. If you're going to live to 90, take late. If you know how to make that decision on the front end, please share...
@@randyjohnson2794 right. the life expectancy for a 65yo male is 85, and that for a 65yo female is 86.
I know a fair number of 85 year olds, and none of them are spending much money 🤑
It all depends to every person about their financial standing whether retiring @ 62 or 67. Always have something for rainy season.God bless
Very informative, the feasibility of living off SS during retirement are significant concerns.
Hello. At around 6:21 into the video, you state that delaying from 67 until 70 gives you a 124% increase. Actually the increase is 24% not 124%. Just wanted to make that clear. Thank you.
It’s actually 25.97%, not 24%. It’s a compounding effect, not a flat increase.
Are you sure? Look at www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/1960-delay.html. It says 124% of the benefits at age 70 for someone born 1960 or later.
Thought we had replied. Not sure where it went, so this may be a duplicate. Look at www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/1960-delay.html. At age 70 the benefit is 124% of your FRA benefit, meaning a 24% increase for those born 1960 or later, no compounding.
No, 8%/yr on delayed benefits, straight up, not compounded. However one may possibly get more with COLA by delaying@@CarlWithACamera
Are you sure? Look at www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/1960-delay.html and it will show that at age 70 you will get 124% of your FRA. That is a 24% increase but no compounding. Basically you get 2/3 of a percent per month of delay or 8% per year.
I'll spend SSI now when I can enjoy life rather than more later when I won't be able to. I'm a Vietnam vet so the healthcare expense part doesn't figure in. Even it does, I have enough invested that it wouldn't matter anyway.
Taking my first check in April at 70. I have a friend that started at 62 he still complains about how he “doesn’t get enough “
Another very important point never discussed or factored in is the possibility (probability) of the Treasury messing with the numbers such that the delay factor is skewed and at that point depending upon your age etc having taken out earlier would have been the better move.
Get it while you can and invest what you dont spend.
One reason is that if you take SS at 62 and don't have other health insurance Obamacare will be very expensive with SS. I think for a lot of people it's best to wait until 65 when medicare kicks in.
Jim's just fine. How much traveling is he going to do in his 80's and 90's, provided he even lives that long? And, Jim is still sitting on a half-million dollar home. Tell me when you're going to die and I'll tell you when you should start drawing Social Security.
yep u said it
The way I see it there are the go go years the slow go years and the no go years. My expenses will gradually reduce as I enter into no go years . Why not enjoy life while still active .
Spot on! Enjoy it while you have some youth in those legs!
I see the opposite. Costs will increase the longer you live.
@@Mitzi73 But that's why he says, he has reduced his spending as he gets older. No doubt cost will always increase.
@@Mitzi73💯
@@Mitzi73Yes, but as you age you’ll spend less on traveling and more on healthcare.
I’m hoping to retire at 61 and not have to get social security until 65. Need to start converting some of my 401k to Roth at a lower rate.
great idea..I did for four years from 66 to 70
remember that every year you wait is essentially a n 8% increase not only in your basic check but in every cola check,. which is why it pays to delay as long as you can...barring ill health...
I don’t know if you already have a video, but can you do comparison between 62, 65, 67, & 70. If it shows the breaking age we could better decide which is the right age.
All these video's sound good but they never take all the money received from 62 to 70 and invest it. It is way more. At 70, with that stash @ about 8-10%, you will be making as much as the whole check you will be receiving. Am I wrong?
If you take SS early, then you take less out of your 401k. Does this calculate include the additional returns on the 401k since the balance remains higher. That will push the breakeven point out
Also, the returns on the 401k could potentially be higher than the 8% per year bump to SS!
a guaranteed 8% return + a COLA kicker is pretty tough to beat, sure you might beat 8% once in awhile, but if your adjusting your stock % down as you get older, not likely to beat 8% and there's also the potential of a bear market in those years between 62 and 70
@@MatthewJohnson-zx9zs The 8% is for delaying. Doesn’t the cola kicker only apply once you start taking SS?
Yes and no. SS has an inflation adjustment every year - even before you claim. The video has examples with higher inflation or lower inflation. If inflation is higher, then the benefit of waiting to claim gets bigger. Inflation protection is a key benefit of SS and another reason that favors claiming later.@@user-nt8kc7ho6d
There are so many factors not mentioned yet. He'll want to start moving out considerable sums each year to reduce his RMDs at 75.
One suggestion is to pull out more than needed each year and put it into a rollover Roth. Buy dividend producing ETFs and stocks in the Roth, and now you have tax free cash flow after 59.5.
This will be important before and after 65 due to IRMAA taxes.
And if you take social security early, during this IRA drawdown, there's a good chance your social security will be taxed.
You really need to run all the numbers to optimize your choices.
If you can, start Roth rollovers before you need to retire and reduce the RMD tax bomb earlier to help with tax management.
I am married and in a similar situation. We have delayed SS past FRA for one year and lived off of our savings for over 2 years now. One of my biggest concerns was RMD's and having too much still left in savings.
Exactly my thought. Hold off on a social security and let it go to age 70. Pull as much money as we need out of the 401k to the maximum of our tax bracket which is 12%. We could go to the next higher tax bracket if we wanted to. We don't need all that money to live on, so live on what we need and put the rest into a brokerage account and reinvest it. The brokerage account will have capital gains taxes which are much lower. Do that for a couple years before taking social security which is going to then lift our income up. Want to try to get as much as we can out of the 401K before the rmd starts. My husband is younger than me so he will wait to 70 and he's the higher earner, gives us more time to take money out of the 401K before his Rmd would start. I will start at 70 and will have to take rmd earlier. The other option is to take all the money out & instead of putting it into a brokerage account do the Roth conversion and place the funds in the Roth. I'm not sure yet which one I want to do. Can't use the earnings for 5 years so not sure what to do yet. We don't have any heirs to leave money too so we have to fully use the money that we've saved all these years or find a good Charity to give it to. Which is another thing that we can do - qualified charitable contributions coming straight out of the IRA.
So much to think about with this. If you got longevity in your family, taking at 62 is a big mistake in my mind, especially if you're married and are thinking about taking care of your spouse.
Major factor not considered in this video is political risk…. We are hearing more and more talk about changes in SS such as means testing (already being done for Medicare premiums) or general cuts in benefits. This risk factor makes taking SS as soon as possible more attractive.
Right, my last Social Security statement stated that by 2033 I only expect to receive 80% of the calculated amount because the plan will not be fully funded. At that point. That’s a lot of crap considering you paid your entire life of the program and it may be a defining Piece of your retirement plan there’s nothing to keep the government from deciding that you’re too old to be a burden on the government anymore. Kind of scary when the youth are voting on the rest of your life.
Wouldn’t ever be a problem but the government stole from ss and never paid it back.
If you don’t NEED social security and you take the $24,360 a year early at 62 and invest it at 5% for 8 years, then you will start off at age 70 with $232,616.29
$232k is the cost of not taking it early and investing it if you do not NEED it. Because you won’t be getting it anyway if you don’t take it early.
Seems like so many talk about the difference between 62 or 70. Im going for middle of the road at 65.
What about the time value of money on the payments received and put in an index fund and withdrawal at long-term capital gainsrate? In addition he should start taking much of his 1.5 Million to optimize his lifespan tax brackets (probably $185K once per year for his wealth). in addition if he can keep his income low he will qualify for low income benefits (like utility bills, medicaid, etc.)
Pretty sure the time value of money and portfolio balance are covered by the charts, that is, the Monte Carlo analysis these perditions use, with all the randomized investment returns factored in. The likely range of investment valuations over time are shown in the light blue shaded areas of the investment vs. age charts. Since this example guy is spending his 5800 a month, plus vacation, taxes and medical insurance, that money would be either coming out of his 1.5 million portfolio, or come partially out of that, minus the money he took in via the early SS payments, so either way, the time value of his investments IS covered. I do agree with you that taxes were not covered very well in this video... I can only assume the portfolio value, given the amount withdrawn is included using the current tax rates and then post Trump tax reduction rates (should start in 26') for the amount taken out of his portfolio each year. And the blue shaded area should also account for capital gains taxes on the invested money withdrawn, based on the investment cost averaging basis. No discussion of Roth conversion here, must be in another video.
Taking social security at age 66. Assume he retires at 62 and he takes $80,000 x 4 years and he gets a 5% return on his portfolio. After 4 years of 80k per year withdrawals he will have $1,461,208 nest egg.
Next scenario
He retires 62 and takes social security $24,000 per year and takes $56,000 from nest egg
After four years his nest egg will be $1,565,000
Or $104,000 more than the other scenario.
My conclusion take at age 62 the earnings on nest egg will offset over delaying. Plus you have the money to pass on if you die before age 95 in podcast scenario.
Also if the social security benefit does ever get cut you have the nest egg to fall back on.
One factor not mentioned... I'm turning 62 this summer and am considering keeping taxable income low in 2025 and 2026 to qualify for a healthcare subsidy. Spending 15k for 1k worth of healthcare rankles after a couple of years. My wife is older and has already started her Social Security benefit, almost 3700 per month. If I start SS benefit at 62 it would be difficult to keep income low enough to qualify (SS + interest, dividends, small $585 per month pension).
@@_-Karl-_ Each based on individual earnings. Smaller benefit is more than half the other so spousal benefit will not apply.
I think the smart play is to claim as late as possible to reduce longevity risk. The exception being if you really need the money in your 60's and expect a short life.
Is a smart player not... I see so many people in their seventies and early eighties sick suffering and dying.... Course i'm a nurse.. I'm not gonna take that chance, Knowing typically low to mid eighties is probably the most common outcome.
I am 61 with 1.2 million (1 mil in a Roth, 200k in ira), I also have a pension of $77k with a 3% cola. My SS at 62 (April 2025) is $2696. I’m leaning towards taking it.
If you have a spouse you should look to wait to 70. You have plenty to live on it sounds like
@@micheleyoungblood I do, and I am the high earner so that would give her more cash flow if I die before her. She has around $875k saved and will probably inherit 1.5-2 mil in the next few years (her mom is 88) so it’s probably won’t make a difference.
@@Liledgy100 great, you are set lol
Take it at 62. No one is assured a long life. You can take it at 62, enjoy your life a little more and still have plenty of money later in life.
Pension 77k
Social security 30k
4% w/d 401 48k
155k nice!
What about the government pulling back SSI in the future, through additional taxation, overly complicated rules, income ir wealth qualifications? My bet is we will be getting less than people are counting on.
Fun example: Couple retires at 66. Monthly budget requires $6,000 a month. If we take SS at 66 it yields $6,000 a month -- Perfect! If we delay until 70 it requires we spend $360K of our own funds (6K per month for five years) IN ADDITION to not collecting $360K from SS (6K per month for five years). At age 70 we are now 'down' $720K. But wait, with a now 'higher' SS amount coming in at age 70, it "only" takes until age 87 to recoup the $720K ($360K+$360K). No thanks. We took the $6,000 at 66, we avoided spending ANY our own funds, keeping them invested and growing, and live quite comfortably on SS without ever touching our $XMillions nest egg. Oh also, read the book 'Die With Zero' by Bill Perkins.
I love this example. I want my investments to grow. Delaying seems bad unless conversions are needed. Young people should do the match for 401k, max out the Roth, and put the rest into a brokerage account. So many people and advisors say delay but very few will make it past 82 or 83 so it ends up being a small difference anyway.
If he waits to age 70 he’ll have to put 100% of his income burden on his retirement savings, withdrawing $336k in 5 years, not including any market downturns. Is your model accounting for that?
Yes, all Monte Carlo sims assume that $336k is being spent out of his investment and also models the stock market is doing terribly during those years
I have an annuity that structured the same as SS.. even though I’m still working at 62, I started taking it this year.. it pays me $3k per mth for life.. if I waited until 65, it would have paid me $3.4/mth.. but I wanted to start enjoying that extra money now, as I’m using it to get my house ready for retirement yrs… so u do t get hit with big home repairs once I retire, plus nice vacations
But the money you put into the annuity you will never see again. Also value of 3000 today will be greatly reduced 10 years down the road
There are a lot of people producing these types of videos now. The fellow seems to only focus on numbers, like dying with the most left is the goal. I feel we need to enjoy our healthier years the most to live life to our fullest potential.
Now I'm going to watch "8 GOOD REASON to File for Social Security at Age 62". I wonder if one them will be "get it while you still can".
Do understand that we can’t see any of the numbers on the tv screen from our chair. You have to magnify that up if you want to continue to have an audience.
Break even at 78? If the market doesn't take another dump.....I'll take 8 percent a year over 62 until 67 or 70. Survivor benefits must be considered too.
There is NO 8% increase until you reach FRA (in this example =67) then the delayed credits DO amount to 8% annually
Two topics that would be curious about
1- time value of $ if you take it early and invest it in an eft tax efficient, how would that effect a comparison on taking it later.
example @ 62 take the 2030 invest it @ 8% return for 8 yrs (70) = $270,000, could draw 4% a year off that balance= $900 a month. Also factor in 8 yrs of COLA to the original $2030 , bet you it's very close to the proposed $3596 at age 70. Not to mention maybe Joe gets married or has heirs, should he pass at 74 would have something to show for the SS $. Takes the gamble out of the equation doesn't it.
2- Another biggie is Taxes, what are Joe's opportunity to be tax wise while delaying SS to maybe 70, draw down some of that massive tax bomb he has built with Qualified retirement contributions. His 1.5 mil. is really approx. 1.1 mil maybe at best after uncle sam gets his pound of flesh.
A 3.6% cola, yet a 5% Executive Order for federal workers a month later.
Any body concerned about means testing to reduce future SS amounts!
Why does “Jim” spend $5,600/month not including vacations and health care as they are separate and with home paid off? He thinks he is moderate but that is a lot. I spend about 20% of that.
Pretty sure when I’m 70, I’m not going to have a desire to do the things I want to do when I’m 60.
The yearly COLA adjustments are higher at 67 vs 62 SS amounts . You have to figure in taking a smaller CPLA amount if you take SS at 62.
So what happend to the 1.5M invest (401K), im guessing its not growing? Taking SS at 70, you are pretty much eating through your investment for 8 years.
One thing that jumped out of my calculations is that the higher your SS benefits are the quicker the taxes kick in if you have any other income.
Never hurt your assets. Your assets have to grow. If they lose money in 1 or 2 years you do not touch the asset unless it has grown larger than before and is greater than 4%. Also the asset must retain at least 4% growth each year. If you made 10% you can take no more than 6% that year.
He forgot to include the extra interest made on the 1.5 million in savings by taking SS at 62.
Can you run the numbers if Jim has a wicked addiction to five guys double bacon cheeseburgers costing him $125 per week?
Actually, I ran the simulation and Jim ended up dead at age 71.
Go with the single pattie and bacon every other visit, longevity planning!
1) 50% of us will be dead by 80. 2) why do all these financial guys only look at 62 or 70. There are 8 years or 16 half years in between those ages that make a lot more since to look at. I'm looking at 63-1/2 to 64 for my plan depending on economy to that point. 3) @ 90 with 500k or 2 mil doubt it makes a difference, except for the richest guy in the grave yard title.
I’d like to hear more about starting at 62, suspend at 67, then starts again at 70.
Seems smart to me. Take SS @62, let investments grow for 5 years, then @ 67 suspend SS if you want to and start collecting again @ 70. You will get the 24% increase and you have a much clearer idea how you are doing financially.
So take it at 62. Bank it or invest it if you don't need it. That serves as a hedge against dying younger.
Take it at 62 especially if you are a man. Life expectancy is 75 for white men (68 for black men). If you live to 70, you will most likely live another 10 years while only 25% will make it to 90. Those aren't great odds. Get the money as early as you can and enjoy your 60s and 70s. Expenses are greater early on as people generally travel a lot less as they get older. Also, having more money is always nice, but you can't take it with you.
A bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush. This is the old adage to keep in mind as you think about retirement. Collect it at 62 and give it away to
your relatives. We don't know when we will die.
I'll take the early SS because who knows what congress may do with SS. and if you are 70 and in bad health, you cant enjoy that money.
Why did you NOT define the growth assumptions on $1.5M nest egg, while retired? Just this nebulous "good vs. poor" markets. What is good? What is poor?
Why letting others 26:46 pick anything? Decisions should be made by the individual. Don’t ever give it away.
What is 5 years of your life worth?
Dunno, an 80 yr old male in the US has about a 30% chance of living to age 90, not great odds. I think these projections are not putting adequate weight on probability of life expectancy, those probabilities are known, based on real data, portfolio performance estimates are much less certain. Also the name of the game here should not be to accumulate a substantial nest egg at death, unless you really want to leave a chunk of $$ to heirs.
The difference between the COLA rates really does not affect the decision on taking SS early or not, as the COLAs are based on the inflation rate, so if it's higher, you really wouldn't see that as extra money to spend or leave to your estate, rather it is calculated to match (wait for it)... The increased cost of living you have from inflation. Realistically, with the SS Trust Fund now projected to run short starting in 2035, there is also the very strong potential of no COLAs or diet COLAs whenever congress faces up to reality, meaning 2034 in all likelihood. This is extra reason to take SS early, but even with reduced payments, waiting until 67 or 70 might still make sense. The break even point would likely move far out to the right.
National Center for Health Statistics for male life expectancy is 74.8 years. Why wait to claim SS if you have a good sequence of withdrawal strategy and enjoy life while you're alive and functional.
What if you enter retirement early (60) and want to delay SS to at least FRA 67 and shortly after you retire you enter sequence of return? How would you proceed and how would the Monte Carlo graph look?
I think the biggest factor is you reduce your spending significantly on a downturn and weather the financial storm for 3 to 4 years. Have at least a year plus of full spending not in the market - which you stretch out by frugal spending.
And you still have an emergency fund for a roof, car, etc, in case something breaks. You might tap that to keep from selling stocks at a big loss if it's an extended downturn.
Another option, depending on how much money you have in your retirement and brokerage accounts, invest in dividend funds and stocks. Then, you will not have to sell any shares during a market downturn.
This is a workable option with the $1.5 million example in the video.
You not considering SS losing its solvency in 2035. 20 percent cut in benefits.
Buy rentals early. You won’t have to do any of these calculations.
Not sure how Jim could possibly run out of money if he takes ss early at 62. If he earns just 5% on his 1.5 million per year , that’s 6250/month and couple that with his the 2030/month in ss he will get 8250/ month. You stated he needs 7225/month until age 65 and 6225 until age 75. Seems like he will have 1000/month extra. Even if he only manages to make 4% he breaks even until 65 and then at 65 he’s back with a 1000/month surplus. Not sure what kind of return your factoring in on his 1.5 million saved.
I have a spouse that is 12 years younger. I am 66.6 and will wait for the 8% and COLA's to pile up. Most people are weak and undisciplined. and will not wait. I don't care if i get a penny as long as my wife is better off.
which is a much better reason to delay taking SS than simply dying at age 95 with more $$ in the bank.
Strong words for people who are good at math and know they will die before 80. However, your situation is unique and your plan is correct. Take care of the spouse is A1.
Isn’t it best to try not to have to tap investments particularly stock investments. If that means taking social security at age 62 then that’s fine with me. I think I will need the money and it may allow me not to have to what I have in stocks which may grow very quickly over the next decade
What did you advise him to do is what I want to know.
Why don't these guys ever talk about ACA supplement to health ins, and I am not sure if he deals with how taxes are different depending on how and when you take, and how it might decrease or increase your rate of withdrawal of qualified (taxable) funds. I fell asleep so not sure. Thats what happens when you get old. "Lots of factors to consider" he says. Except for taxes, and ACA
People say take the SS money if you need the money early.. I'm thinking take the money if you Don't need the money.... So no big deal. Retire early, Use that extra money to cover medical at least.. And guarantee getting some of your money back. That's how I see it.. I'm thinking retiring in 5 yrs at 56 with over 2 mill (estimating On low side) with my wife who's 6 years older.. Probably do part-time just to get insurance till 62/65. no real debt right now. She'll take social security early, Then I will at 62.. We should be set barring any real big issues... More bi donamic type years.. And we can always cut back our costs a little more..
That's a big leap no one knows how long you will live.
Jim doesn’t need to wait to get ss benefits. Get the social security at 62. And supplement with his investments in case he dies nobody could inherit social security however his family can inherit his investments … not worth to wait specially with that kind of savings
Taking early. figuring most people live to mid 80s. Less out of retirement fund... Letting your investment still grow. And definite guarantee of getting some of your money back from the government?
Excuse me, I always find these a bit diengenuinous. Average life expectancy is 74-79 years old. I see using 85, but 95? Average is only about 30% who are now 65 live till 95 who are very healthy etc. Using 95 which I have seen no one use is very over the top. Using 85+- 5 years comes up very different $
At birth, average life expectancy is about 78. At 65, on average, you'll have 20 more years - to age 85. But that's the average. Half of 65 year olds will live beyond age 85.
Take it at 62. I would rather have the money in my own pocket and do with it what I want to then let the government hold it for me until some date in the future.
Very informative, but the video could have been 5 minutes long. Doesn’t have to be over 20 minutes. What a waste of time. There are better and SHORTER TH-cam videos
Can I take teacher pension at age 62, spousal benefit ar age 67 and my own retirement benefit at age 70?
How do you count say a $3,000 a month pension?
Cost of living increase will produce more dollars if wait till 70.
There's another things to consider: Do you have enough worked years to get full SS? If not, delaying and working will bump your benefits up per year at a higher rate.
Jim needs a few dividend-paying stocks.
Buy it with what cash source? He’s 100% in tax deferred retirement funds
If Jim downsized his house at some point he could bank a couple hundred thousand
Honestly how many people have over a million dollars when they retire 🤔
I have over $3 million (IRAs and taxable investment account). I think it is more common then you think to have over 1 million at retirement. I am 68 recently retired and still thinking through when to take SS. Lots to consider.
Why in the hell would anyone wait until 70?? It’s going to continue to grow even if you start collecting at 62. It’s going to be the same amount when you reach 70 as it would be if you waited!
Not sure why people need all that much money. Must eat out a lot.
Now if we only had a crystal ball! If he wants to retire early, he might have to go back to work for a little extra money.
Good luck finding a job that pays well when you are over 60, regardless of your qualifications with a few exceptions.
Health issues where you're unlikely to live until 80? Claim at 62. You have an income source that's covering all monthly expenses from non-retirement money? Ok to claim at 62 and invest the social security money. Other than that, waiting to full retirement age or even delaying is the far wiser course of action.
From the total money standpoint, aside from being behind by age 80 if you claim at age 62 as a matter of total money received, the gap just gets bigger and bigger because it's inflation adjusted, so the percentage increase just widens the gap further and further year over year.
From a security standpoint, even the best laid plans of mice and men call fall to ruin. I could retire with a few million dollars, the market bottoms out over the next decade, and I live longer than I imagined. Funny how fast a few mil can go under unfortunate circumstances. Having a maxed out and inflation adjusted guaranteed income goes a long way to mitigate the impact to our assets under those circumstances, and in the worst case, ensures that we'll be able to put food on the table even if everything goes pear shaped.
Taxes trap us all too😢
A lot of these a financial planners are completely flawed when they start talking about inflation and COLAs. They don't understand math, so are clueless. Fact is the breakeven point between 62 and 70 does not ever change based on the COLA rate. That's because the COLA adjusts for the lost in purchasing power.
When doing financial planning, you should NEVER factor in inflation. The only exception to that is health care inflation, which historically outpaces general inflation. The correct place to make the adjustment is on the investment side, where the revenue should be expressed in inflation adjusted returns. And no, it's not the same thing just expressed differently because the human brain can't comprehend far future inflation in real terms. We're stuck understanding only today's prices and budgets.
Easy. 62.
Take at 62 if you plan to retire
I don't care about lifetime income from Social Security Benefits. I only care about minimizing risk. I'm waiting until 70.
Good luck
This scenario was kinda dumb to me…if this person with 2mil plus in assets can’t live more than a comfortable life at age 62 and beyond, then he probably splurged too much after retiring.
I'm 59.5 and only $100k 401k after divorcer@pe 5 years ago. Health not great. Maybe can work til 62. Lucky to live to 70. Current SS wouldmbe about $1200 mo. Need about $2-2500 to live comfy in Asia. Suggestions? I'm open to moving to cheap SE Asian country. Dont need $5-6k mo American Lifestyle. Help!
$1.50 saves?
That's pretty rough!
(Maybe you should spell-check your video title b4 posting.)
Poor Jim.... He only has 1. 5 million$$$ Poor Jim. this example is ridiculous....
Do you want to spend your money, or "their" money?
What was his family history?
Sha la la la la la
Live for today
And don’t worry about tomorrow hey