Yup. Click no to the spouse question and both increase to 93. Why?
From the info box:
“ Check this box if your only beneficiary is your spouse. This can be a factor in determining whether the IRS uniform table must be used or if you are able to use the Joint Life Expectancy Table.
The new IRS rules use a uniform table to calculate all life expectancies for determining a minimum distribution. The only exception to this rule is if the only beneficiary is a spouse and he or she is more than 10 years younger than the account owner. In this situation, the joint life expectancy table is used. The Joint Life expectancy table normally produces lower required distributions.”
Interesting - that’s a new one to me.
Even then weird. It doesn’t ask for spouse age and why different large vs small starting balance if that is the only thing I changed? Odd stuff.
I was assuming that there wasn’t funds outside of the retirement funds, but yes, use those first, but you can take some money out of retirement, up to the point where your tax bit is very low. The amount obviously depends on your situation. My accountant recommended this. Five or six years doing this reduced my RMD amount. The point is to look poor to the IRS. It is especially useful if you are delaying getting Social Security, then you look real poor.
One must always consider one’s personal circumstances when deciding when to start Social Security. For most people, there is an advantage to waiting, as has been mentioned several times in this thread.
But in my case there was a substantial advantage to taking it as early as possible. That’s because I get an extra $2000 a month every month until my son turns 18 years old. (He’s 15 now.).
This is my plan. I’ll have two kids under 18 and a mother raising one kid under 16. There used to be something called “file and suspend,” but that’s not available any more, which would have let me delay my own until 67 for the full amount, but taking it early at 62 still means I’m ahead up to the age of 100 (I didn’t bother past that).