It could be that more children would be the answer because at least you might have one that will look after you .
Ha! Mrs. Goofyâs parents had that theory. Unfortunately the mother had a mental illness and the father was such a jerk that none of them wanted to deal with them at all.
Me, of course, I am a perfectly pleasant, reasonable, honest and thoughtful human being, so that could never happen to me. 
Except my kids would likely be Millenials, so they would be selfish brats and probably have nothing to do with me.
5 Likes
My âactuarialâ plan is to delay SS til age 70.
Thatâs cause, right now, in the real world, my income is covering my expenses.
And, I WILL be taxed on 85% of SS no matter when I take it. *
In the real world my plan is fluid. If some situation happens, that signals âtake SS ASAPâ⌠Iâll get it going.
Iâm blessed.
I have options - because I PLANNED to have options..
I wish everyone had options.
There are consequences.
ralph
Delay delay delay. *
4 Likes
I remember a SS conference for soon to be, retirees, it was too soon for me, still in my 50âs, but it was interesting in any case. A presenter from our local SS office made some points I hadnât considered, one being that none of us can know the future, our health risks, accidents, whatever, so his point was to go for it as soon as itâs a viable option⌠The other note was a reminder that 62 is 62, not a flexible option like 65 was, in my case it would have been 65 & 8 months⌠At the time I thought I was heading for thatâŚ
But things changed, the telecom world changed, what seemed a forever job, local, or at least West coast work would always be there⌠Nope, after we spun off as Lucent, cell phones kicked in, some funny gaming up top meant we had too many people, Offers for early out came along, I ignored them at first, but as I neared 62, one came along that I thought was maybe the last one, so I grabbed it, surprised management a bit, but my known solid managers from 1st level through 3rd, 4th were forced out early, so only newbie managers who didnât really have my back were taking over. Local work orders were rougher as a lot of fellow talented folks had already left⌠All the signs were there, it was time to goâŚ
A little snug at first, took me weeks to sort out all the Bell bits n pieces, see what I had, Iâd dumped too much into LU, lost that effectively. But a working wife, similar pay, SS at 62, pension, plus an annuity, it worked out, and since then dividends from Telecom shares, and a huge boost from early APPL shares/dividends, it worked out well.. We managed lots of overseas travel in addition to RV wanderingsâŚ
In the end, get out as early as possible, none of us have any guarantees on our own or family health, just keep on moving! Covid slowed us down, recovery is slow, but that was 2002 when I bailed, so here it is, a couple decades later, no regrets⌠There was no way I could have gone to 70, even if LU had survived, other telecom work dried up, where part of the plan was to do some of it, not it vaporized⌠Looked at retail, Lowes, Home Depot, but being on my feet all day, nah, wasnât going to happenâŚ
Get out, see the world, well, thatâs not so great now, bombing, etc., but one day it will ease, hopefullyâŚ
weco
9 Likes
Youâre still not understanding the arithmetic Goofy. Itâs not âmore money laterâ. Itâs $100,000 to $300,000 in extra money you can spend at any time. You just model out the cashflow over the next 20 or 30 years if you live that long, and decide when to spend it.
If youâre willing to bet that your spending requirements will be less as you age, you can spend more of your money today.
intercst
2 Likes
Maybe thereâs another way to look at the arithmetic. If you are prudently withdrawing (âspendingâ) 4% a year inflation adjusted (to avoid running out of money due to a worse than 1928 or 1966 start of retirement), then one could look at the social security question as follows. If you take social security at age 62, you will get $2,831/mo, but if you delay to age 70, you will get $5,108/mo. So, the monthly difference is $5,108 - $2,831, or $2,277/mo. That is $27,324/yr. So, very roughly, if you were to want $27,324 a year, and you are prudently withdrawing 4% to get that amount, you need to have investments (letâs say 60/40 or whatever you choose for your investments) of $683,100. Now you have a choice, you can take social security at age 70, and NOT NEED that $683,100 anymore from age 70 to death. That means that to cover the 8 years of zero social security ($2,831 x 12 x 8), you need $271,776, or investments that produce that amount over that period. If you are in the situation where you can CHOOSE whether to take it at 62 or at 70 (you donât absolutely need the money at age 62 to survive), then it is clearly better to wait till age 70, because the extra money between having an extra $683,100 (to provide from age 62 to death), or having $271,776 (to provide between age 62 and 70 with zero social security) can be SPENT anytime you please between age 62 and death. You can go an a bunch of nice cruises at 64, 65, 66, etc. Or you can treat yourself to very nice dinners out every few weeks, or you can buy some cool toys, or whatever you want to do before you begin your eventual decline. Itâs very hard for people like us, who properly saved for retirement, to visualize because we are so used to the sequence of saving for a bunch of years and then spending it later. But it also works in the other direction - if you have something that will provide more income in the future (like social security at age 70, or like an annuity that begins paying out at some point, or like a pension that begins paying out at some point, etc) then you can spend more of your money NOW.
5 Likes
Excellent description Mark
intercst
But that isnât what Intercst is doing. He is still following the 4% rule from everything I have read. So that would seem that there must be something causing him to believe the Annuity might not be a guaranteed annuity.
Intercst hasnât been following the â4% ruleâ since about 1997 when his retirement portfolio quadrupled in value over the first 3 years of retirement and his withdrawal rate dropped to 1%.
An inflation-adjusted life annuity is actually the highest quality retirement asset you can hold â especially if Uncle Sam is willing to sell you one at a big discount to what a commercial insurer would charge for the same increase in your monthly Social Security check by waiting until age 70.
intercst
2 Likes
Right so then what Mark stated doesnât apply to you. If you believed what Mark was saying you should have increased your spending instead. You are doing what everyone else is doing. Making adjustments because of the possibility of Social Security either decreasing or being gone for certain people. That is why you canât claim that Social Security is a stable annuity and is why everyone has to do what is best for them and their families. Not everyone is going down the same path.
1 Like
Iâm spending what I need to spend on things that provide value to me. Just because my portfolio has greatly increased in value over the years, Iâm not going to start lighting cigars with $100 bills just because I can afford it.
intercst
2 Likes
I did not say that anyone âshouldâ increase their spending, I said that they âcanâ increase their spending if they choose to do so.
1 Like
I can increase my spending if I choose to take Social Security early also so it looks like we all have choices.
1 Like