Social Security

[Randy_Pants]

The answer to your question can be obtained from a social security agent or on line at social security administration .gov (one word)
What I understand of it is, if you early retire that is the amount you will get even after age 66.

[NAF1138]

@Randy_Pants

The answer to your question can be obtained from a social security agent or on line at social security administration .gov (one word)
What I understand of it is, if you early retire that is the amount you will get even after age 66.

While the answer to the original question was answerable by a social security agent (and indeed was answered almost immediately in the tjread) it is usually a bad idea to ask your social security agent for help with your social security. Often they don’t know much other than what paperwork to fill out and they are not allowed to give advice, only to answer direct questions.

[NAF1138]

@Voyager

Detailed answer - probably too much for most people. My wife has been freelancing and her benefits at FRA will be less than half of mine, so it makes sense for her to go on my spousal benefits. But I’m not going to file until I was 70 (I was a perfect candidate for file and suspend, curse you Congress!) So I was investigating if it made sense for her to file now (she is over 62) and then go on spousal benefits when I file. (We were both born before 1/1/53.)
It recommended that she wait until RFA, file, then I can file for spousal benefits, and we both switch the other way when I hit 70. Which seems overly complicated, and some stuff I’ve seen says that I am considered to be filing for my benefits when I file for spousal benefits. I might have misled it by saying I was going to stop working at 66, which is true but not true in the sense of filing then.
I think we’ll just let her file, since even if she files early and is locked into the pre-RFA amount the delta between my benefits and her benefits is > 1/2 of my benefits, so she’ll always get the full 50%.
I’m not doing anything until I talk to our financial planner and the local SSA office, which is in walking distance from my house. I’d not do their plan this year anyhow since I have way too much income to make it useful.
Almost all the hits I got when investigating this was for taking spousal benefits first and then shifting to your benefits, not the other way around.

(The rest of you can wake up now.)

That’s a neat idea. I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t follow that plan. Did it say how much more you stood to make that way over filing the way you had planned?

[Voyager]

@NAF1138

That’s a neat idea. I don’t see any reason why you couldn’t follow that plan. Did it say how much more you stood to make that way over filing the way you had planned?

It gave NPV for our stated lifetimes, and it was over $1 million.
I reran setting my retirement age to 70, and the new advice is for my wife to start getting benefits at FRA, me getting spousal benefits then, and the switching when I hit 70. There appears to be some way of me getting spousal benefits without starting my regular benefits. We have a few years to go, so I can check closer to the time, but I’m glad you like the idea, since you seem to know what you are doing.

[Algernon]

@Munch

It mostly involves buying out the country’s supply of used tennis balls, rendering all walker-assisted elderly immobile.

After I retire; and after I die; I am surely going to hell because this made me laugh out loud.

[Omar_Little]

@Mean_Mr.Mustard

This is an interesting and relevant thread.

Will the seemingly infinite number of variables involved in the decision on when to retire there is one aspect that I never see mentioned.

I often read of the benefits of taking social security earlier vs. later. Mainly, that you will be paid in ‘today’s’ dollars, which are more valuable than tomorrow’s. Also, you while your monthly checks will be less, overall you will likely receive more when all is said and done due to the additional years you will be collecting SS.

What this argument seems to discount, though, is the additional years of earning PLUS the additional years of funding your 401k if you postpone retirement another 4 or 5 years. To me this seems to vastly trump the stated reasons for retiring earlier.

In other words, I feel as if I would be *much *better off retiring at 67 vs. retiring at 63 (assuming continued good health).

I’m interested in others’ thoughts on this.
mmm

I think that you are ignoring the fact that you can elect to receive SS benefits and continue working as well. It would behoove you to begin taking SS benefits once you reach the age of full retirement (67 for people born after 1959) even if you wish to continue working.

[NAF1138]

@Omar_Little

I think that you are ignoring the fact that you can elect to receive SS benefits and continue working as well. It would behoove you to begin taking SS benefits once you reach the age of full retirement (67 for people born after 1959) even if you wish to continue working.

Right. And with typical life expectancy you give up more my waiting at that stage than you gain with the bump in benefits. Unless you have spousal benefits that you are taking instead of your current benefits so you can grow your own benefits you should probably start taking ssi by age 68 at the very very latest.