0

I noticed if I take money out starting age 60, at $N, or if at age 70, at $M. $M is close to double the amount of $N.

Is it more advantageous if I take money out later? What life expectancy age do they use to determine the "break even" point? So I suppose if I live longer than that point, it'd be more advantageous if I wait till 70?

However, is it true that the age 70 number is assuming we actually work till age 70? I wanted to put in a salary for some years and then stop, and then retire a few years later, but the website won't allow us to do that.

It is a bit of gamble and I don't like the idea of having citizen's retirement based on a gamble, but I suppose we just have to make some guess and go with it.

Improve this question
5
  • 1
    I consider money in the hand always is better than money in promise. Which would lead me to answer accordingly; it is advantageous to take them out as early as possible. What would be your definition of advantageous?
    – Stian
    Commented Jan 24, 2022 at 13:16
  • my idea was that the "break even" point they use might be age 85 or 87... so let's say if we take care of ourselves well and expect to live till 95, then let's say the extra 10 years would be $M instead of $N, which is double the amount. (not to mention due to inflation, we may need $M instead of $N)
    – Stefanie Gauss
    Commented Jan 24, 2022 at 13:18
  • having said that, it seems their assumed life expectancy age is 78. That's because from age 62 to 78 is 16 years, and age 70 to age 78 is 8 years, and they pay you double the amount if at age 70.
    – Stefanie Gauss
    Commented Jan 24, 2022 at 13:25
  • @StefanieGauss A reasonable ballpark estimate, although that calculation ignores the time value of money, and age-specific life expectancies. Getting paid $X for Y years starting now is worth more than getting paid $2X for Y/2 years starting Y/2 years from now due to compounding. A 70-year-old is also about 15% more likely to live to age 78 than a 62-year-old is, having already survived the 8 years between 62 and 70. The life expectancy at age 70 is higher than the life expectancy at age 62.
    – Nuclear Hoagie
    Commented Jan 24, 2022 at 19:23
  • There are several other factors as well. 1) Full retirement age for SS is 65 to 67, depending on what year you were born 2) Legislation can change the amount of the benefit 3) Post age 65, you have to pay the monthly Medicare premium (currently near $150). It comes out of your SS if collecting and out of pocket if not. 4) The hold harmless provision of SS limits the annual Medicare premium increase (if any) to a max of the SS COLA. If not on SS, then I suspect that your premium could be much higher.
    – Bob Baerker
    Commented Jan 25, 2022 at 14:03

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0

For me, taking SS at 62 versus 66 meant a break even at age 78. If I were to die before 78, I'd be better off having gone in at 62. If I were to live past 78, waiting until 66 would have been the better choice.

AFAIK, if I died before starting SS at 62, that 4 years of unclaimed benefit would be lost. Given that the differential will not change my life either way, and since I would rather control my destiny, I took it at 62.

Improve this answer
1
  • is it true that past the break even point (let's say it is 78), then "uh OH... from 78 to 100, I can only get half, if I had wait until age 70"... so instead of a decent studio and 3 healthy meals, change to half decent studio and 3 junk food meals...
    – Stefanie Gauss
    Commented Jan 25, 2022 at 1:37

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .