Video on not taking social security at age 65

[billt460]

I can't count the times I heard the whole, "What are you going to do if you retire? Sit around all day scratching your rear end". I have NEVER been bored since I retired. Not one single day.

On the contrary, I can't believe how fast the time has gone by since I retired. 10 years seems like 10 months. A day seems like a few hours. A week is like a day. Our garbage day is Thursday. It seems like it's every other day.

When I was working, the time dragged. There is a lot of truth in the saying, "Time flies when you're having fun!"

 

[AZjeff]

When I was working, the time dragged. There is a lot of truth in the saying, "Time flies when you're having fun!"

So maybe you can extend your life by not having fun all the time? If time drags when you're working or bored....

Nah, not going back to work.

 

[wtd]

I retired 7 1/2 years ago at age 50 with a full pension, health insurance, and a decent sized TSP that has more than doubled since I retired. I'm also debt free. I planned for retirement the day I started my career at age 24.

I'm still taking SS at age 62 even though I won't need it to live on. I will use my SS to enjoy in my younger years. Watching plenty of my former co-workers pass away before or not long after retirement convinced me to take mine early. Watching my stepfather who was hardly ever sick his whole life pass away from pancreatic cancer at age 66 further convinced me to take it early.

Everyone's circumstances are different, and you have to do what you think is best for you and your family.

 

[billt460]

You bring up a good point about health. The older you get, the greater the chance you won't have the mobility to enjoy your life. I can certainly feel the difference in age from 62 (when I took my S.S.), to now at 72.

I am still healthy, but I certainly feel more aches and pains. And I know people who have deteriorated far more than I have in that same time frame.

 

[Vil_Riker]

So maybe you can extend your life by not having fun all the time? If time drags when you're working or bored....

Nah, not going back to work.

you just prolong the suffering

 

[doitmyself]

Watching plenty of my former co-workers pass away before or not long after retirement convinced me to take mine early.

Everyone's circumstances are different, and you have to do what you think is best for you and your family.

My take; retirement = death Therefore, never retire?

LOL, this topic is about beaten to death. Each and every one of us are correct and in agreement.

 

[wtd]

You bring up a good point about health. The older you get, the greater the chance you won't have the mobility to enjoy your life. I can certainly feel the difference in age from 62 (when I took my S.S.), to now at 72.

I am still healthy, but I certainly feel more aches and pains. And I know people who have deteriorated far more than I have in that same time frame.

At age 40, I started noticing more aches and pain and at almost 58, I can really feel them. With that being said, I still do resistance training 5 days a week to try and keep my body halfway in shape and try not to eat pure junk.

 

[alarmguy]

I can't count the times I heard the whole, "What are you going to do if you retire? Sit around all day scratching your rear end". I have NEVER been bored since I retired. Not one single day.

On the contrary, I can't believe how fast the time has gone by since I retired. 10 years seems like 10 months. A day seems like a few hours. A week is like a day. Our garbage day is Thursday. It seems like it's every other day.

When I was working, the time dragged. There is a lot of truth in the saying, "Time flies when you're having fun!"

Absolutely 100% agree, it's almost scary how fast life is passing by now that I am retired. The words in your post fit me perfectly.

" A day seems like a few hours. A week is like a day. Our garbage day is Thursday. It seems like it's every other day."

..

 

[wtd]

My take; retirement = death Therefore, never retire?

LOL, this topic is about beaten to death. Each and every one of us are correct and in agreement.
View attachment 263450

Not at all. I love retirement and have not worked a day since I did. I worked in Federal Law Enforcement doing shift work and a lot of overtime, so our life expectancy is not considered very high though plenty have lived quite a long time, but plenty have not.

 

[alarmguy]

You bring up a good point about health. The older you get, the greater the chance you won't have the mobility to enjoy your life. I can certainly feel the difference in age from 62 (when I took my S.S.), to now at 72.

I am still healthy, but I certainly feel more aches and pains. And I know people who have deteriorated far more than I have in that same time frame.

Yes again no one knows what will be tomorrow.
I have really been mostly blessed with good health which includes taking care of myself, Im still VERY active and yet, here I am, right past my 68th birthday I find out I have prostate cancer. Wow, talk about life changing event, glad I am still living to my fullest, the future unknown yet outlook is very very good although, there will be side effects of radiation, my doctor says I will be "cured" cancer free but still 10% of people in my position will die within 15 years, so ... like you, glad I am living life to the fullest. I was very proactive almost insisting on biopsies for the least 7 years, 4th one less than 6 months ago turned up cancer.

Sometimes I wonder if I will be one of those people that deteriorate. Anyone who knows me would never guess the treatments I am going though, Im still 100% fit I just wonder what next year will bring. I would have gone nuts if I waited until 67 to retire.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

My wife is a couple years younger than me and retired at 65, I quit my job and coattailed on her group health insurance until she retired. So I was able to easily wait until I was a few months past full retirement age (FRA).

I had been doing a budget spread sheet and knew how much my monthly expenses are. She did not. I get 500 more a month than her in my SS bene and she has a budget shortfall (we do NOT comingle salaries).

Using the AARP tax estimator (great tool!) It showed we could take about 17 grand out of the Rollover IRA before we had to start paying taxes. So I showed her this and she was able to "squeak by" with that money, LOL. I would like to take some of my IRA for some mad money later this year, I hope she doesn't get mad with me digging into her reserve!

Note to those retired - maximize and withdraw all you can get by tax free at fiscal year end - you can always throw it in 6mo CD.

And those getting near retirement age - maximize ROTH contributions- I would even rebalance allotments and steer some % pre tax 401K $$ that way if allowed. If you have not opened one yet do so immediately, as they have a 5 year countdown clock before you can start withdrawing earnings tax and penalty free. Also, ROTH money earns tax free and is not subject to RMD rules.

As for any tax on Social Security? - If your household budget is meager (approx under $85,000 total provisional income) and you are over 65 you will pay no taxes.

They should not mess with this - any TAX on social security goes right back to SSA not the general fund and it is MAJOR contributor to SS solvency.

- Arco

 

[doitmyself]

And those getting near retirement age - maximize ROTH contributions- I would even rebalance allotments and steer some % pre tax 401K $$ that way if allowed. If you have not opened one yet do so immediately, as they have a 5 year countdown clock before you can start withdrawing earnings tax and penalty free. Also, ROTH money earns tax free and is not subject to RMD rules.

Taking the original topic sideways here. I've been building up my Roth for about a decade, but being close to retirement, the pros and cons of Roth conversions is confusing me a bit. I.E., any money I convert this year is not available for 5 years without penalty? I'm very close to jumping tax brackets, so I have to be very careful to avoid too large of Roth conversion. It also seems to matter if you will be making more vs. less in retirement regarding the Roth pros/cons.

Comments?

 

[supton]

Taking the original topic sideways here. I've been building up my Roth for about a decade, but being close to retirement, the pros and cons of Roth conversions is confusing me a bit. I.E., any money I convert this year is not available for 5 years without penalty? I'm very close to jumping tax brackets, so I have to be very careful to avoid too large of Roth conversion. It also seems to matter if you will be making more vs. less in retirement regarding the Roth pros/cons.

Comments?

https://www.schwab.com/ira/roth-ira/withdrawal-rules

If you have been putting in for 10 years, I would think you'd be ok, as long as you don't touch the money you do conversions on today for 5 years. 10 years should be a good chunk of money.

If you might need the money you convert today within the next 5 years, then it sounds like the wrong path.

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Taking the original topic sideways here. I've been building up my Roth for about a decade, but being close to retirement, the pros and cons of Roth conversions is confusing me a bit. I.E., any money I convert this year is not available for 5 years without penalty? I'm very close to jumping tax brackets, so I have to be very careful to avoid too large of Roth conversion. It also seems to matter if you will be making more vs. less in retirement regarding the Roth pros/cons.

Comments?

I am not generally a fan of the Roth conversion fad. Talk to a tax attorney and your FA, there are immediate and substantial tax implications of the converted amount**, and that hefty tax can mean lost earning potential.

But a conversion(s) can work in the long run for some. Run a full analysis Try with big blocks up front vs smaller blocks stretched

Being we are in strange times, I tend towards conservativism, I am also not wealthy.

As regards to Sec 408A Roth after-tax contributions, the principal contribution can always be withdrawn without penalty, the earnings are subject to further rules and regs. Much more stringent rules apply to conversions as this is recharacterized pretax monies.

I offer no firm advice other than to seek the advice of professionals
_______________________________________________

** taxed as regular income on the full amount

For the wealthy, inheriting a Roth can be easier for your beneficiaries.

 

[supton]

I've wondered if Roth conversions might make sense if one retires early... perhaps before taking SS. Idea being, pull some money from existing Roth's to get by with, and make new Roth conversions. Since income is "zero" then whatever you are converting is the only income you could be taxed on, and thus, you can pull just enough to fill the low tax brackets and pay little on the conversion(s). Does it make sense? I'll bet every person's situation is different, and there's a number of conflicting variables to sort through first. Thus it's hard to say, short of pulling out actual real numbers.

To be honest, as I've got at least a decade to go... I've not put too much thought into this, as the variables may change between now and then. Since it's at least 14 years before I could think of taking early SS I have taken the position of listening to the arguments but not taking any position.

 

[GON]

Article has a theory that people earning over $250k per year will not be eligible for social security payments.

"If You're Approaching Retirement Age and Somewhat Wealthy, There Is a Good Chance Your Social Security Benefits Are Cut"

https://247wallst.com/investing/202...chance-your-social-security-benefits-are-cut/

 

[alarmguy]

Article has a theory that people earning over $250k per year will not be eligible for social security payments.

"If You're Approaching Retirement Age and Somewhat Wealthy, There Is a Good Chance Your Social Security Benefits Are Cut"

https://247wallst.com/investing/202...chance-your-social-security-benefits-are-cut/

Everyone in this forum and country also has a theory, just because Austin Smith writes one means nothing. Generated news stories.
You can't have a trust fund, force people to contribute and then exclude them. I suspect you can raise income limits and cheat them by not giving them back on the scale of the same formula they give but ... my theory is no one will ever be excluded.

The Social Security Retirement age is way to young now. The average person now lives 10 to 15 or 20 years longer than when the program was developed. It's simple math. I suspect we will kick the can down the road and more the min retirement age from 62 to 65, as well as other adjustments. It only makes sense, as much as an uproar will take place, 3 years longer is not terrible and more than reasonable as well as the max benefit age to 73 as an example.
In 1950 56% of the male population lived to the age of 65 now that is about 76% in 2025

If you want to see what your life expectancy is, here is the Social Security Calculator.
Remember, at one time is was around 65 years old

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/population/longevity.html

 

[GON]

Everyone in this forum and country also has a theory, just because Austin Smith writes one means nothing. Generated news stories.
You can't have a trust fund, force people to contribute and then exclude them. I suspect you can raise income limits and cheat them by not giving them back on the scale of the same formula they give but ... my theory is no one will ever be excluded.

Surly, it can happen.

And maybe it should happen because we (MACRO) elected people that allowed social security to become what would be called a Ponzi scheme if this same plan was sold by a financial services organization.

The question is (not a political question), can an elected official be re-elected if they make hard decisions in an effort to keep social security solvent?

 

[alarmguy]

Surly, it can happen.

And maybe it should happen because we (MACRO) elected people that allowed social security to become what would be called a Ponzi scheme if this same plan was sold by a financial services organization.

The question is (not a political question), can an elected official be re-elected if they make hard decisions in an effort to keep social security solvent?

I honestly see no problem with the sustainability of Social Security. Makes a great talking point but it's not going broke and current benefits are not going to be reduced.

What is going to happen is retirement age and contributions will be adjusted. I think we missed the chance to make Social Security private a long time ago which I am pretty sure a certain president wanted to do. That would have solved everything.

I do sort of agree that it is possible to cheat a minority of very wealthy people out of their fair share but then again, they are the ones with the deep pockets so maybe they will not if they want to keep their checks coming.

To answer your question directly, the answer is no they would fear to not get re-elected or we would not have this problem (below) right now. This is why Social Security wont go broke. Amazing isnt it? The Social Security trust fund is ALWAYS in the black and solvent, but the country is always in the red. Social Security will always be "solvent." When you think of the use of that word it is kind of corrupted as it seems to matter for Social Security but not the operating budget. (no politics) Just budget talk?

Im never quite sure why the public doesnt address the real issue. As modern day Americans, we always take the easy route. Kick the can down the road.

https://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

[billt460]

The problem with Social Security is that it is based on the principal of nickels in, and dollars back. That principal will work. But in order for it to, you have to religiously put the nickels in..... And never touch them again. S.S. has since turned into a giant political slush fund, where they're shoveling it out the back end, faster than it's coming in the front.

All because these politicians could not keep their hands off it. They saw all that cash building up, and they had to spend it. And that cash has mostly being replaced with I.O.U.'s. All of which have exactly zero earning power.

If the government had kept their money grubbing hands off of it, Social Security would be so fat today, they would be LOWERING the retirement age. Not RAISING it.

What's happening to S.S. today, is no different than what happens to an employee who constantly keeps raiding, (read borrowing), from his 401K to remodel their kitchen. Take vacations. Or buy new cars. They finally reach retirement age, then realize they can't, because they were stupid with their money.

There are 2 basic ways to handle money. Earn and invest it... Or else spend it. Sadly the government, along with most people in this country are doing the latter.