# Could this be good reason for taking social security sooner than later?



## Dennis K (Sep 1, 2016)

Hypothetically:  

 You retire at 62 and your retirement income will only be a taxable retirement fund and social security whenever you opt to start it.
Now you have to look at your retirement fund in a different light. Prior to retirement you were adding shares to your account by making monthly contributions. 
Now you have to remove shares you cannot replace, other than maybe some interest/dividend rollovers within your funds. When the markets is up you take out less shares to withdrawal the dollar amount you want.  On a down market you have to take out more shares to maintain the same cash flow which can hurt a retirement fund if the down turn comes early in retirement and last a long time.

You want to maintain your life style and theoretically you think your fund can survive starting out at $8,000 a month before taxes. And that is the monthly amount you decide on. 

Your social security at 62 will be $2,000. The question is, Do you take social security at the same time you start your withdrawals? Now you only need to take out $6,000 per month from your fund each month to start with. On an up market you left more shares in the fund to grow in value. On a down market you are still taking out more shares to maintain $6,000, but not as many had you been taking out $8,000. And a small tax advantage. At that amount of income you will paying taxes on your SS. But you only pay taxes on the first 85 percent of the SS amount vs. paying 100 percent if you took the $2,000 out of the retirement account.

I know there are other options available, but just think about in the terms stated above. Is there merit to this approach verses following the advice of the financial "experts" and holding off taking SS as long as possible. Please feel free to pick this theory apart.


----------



## Phoenix (Sep 1, 2016)

If I needed $8,000 a month to make it, I think I should have paid off my house and all my other bills years ago.  I set myself up in an environment I love and am doing what I like to do.  I don't need to drain my investments.  Guess I just can't relate to this kind of spending.


----------



## jujube (Sep 1, 2016)

Man, I'm glad I wasn't requiring $8000 a month to live BEFORE I retired, 'cause if I needed that now, I'd be living in a box over a steam grate.


----------



## Don M. (Sep 1, 2016)

Deciding When to take SS is a total guessing game....the outcome to be determined by how long you live.  Taking SS early results in reduced payments, but if you live long enough you can recover much more than you ever paid in.  If you delay taking the benefits until they are maxed out....and you only live a few years after that, you will probably never get back what you paid in.  Much depends upon your individual health and lifestyle, and the "longevity" in your DNA.  

Personally, the wife and I signed up for benefits as soon as we were eligible.  I know what I paid in over my working lifetime, and we have already received over double what I paid in...the wife was a homemaker.  If we live as long as our parents did, we will probably receive 5 or 6 times what I paid in...even with interest.  Therein lies the biggest problem with SS....in that many are living far longer than people used to years ago, and receiving benefits far beyond what they paid in.


----------



## Dennis K (Sep 1, 2016)

OK, then hypothetically it is $4,000 a month and SS is $1,000 a month. Or it could be $2000 a month and social security is 500 a month.The numbers were examples, not actual values. The amounts have nothing to do with the question.


----------



## Dennis K (Sep 1, 2016)

This question has nothing to do with the merits of maxing out your social security over your life time. This question relates to an option that could help decrease the chance of out living your money by increasing the life of your retirement account should the market go south for an extended period of time.  And yes there is the option of annuities, but that is not part of equation in this example.


----------



## Butterfly (Sep 1, 2016)

I think the question is one to ask a certified financial planner.


----------



## mathjak107 (Sep 2, 2016)

the real question is do you want to be more dependent on markets and interest rates for just 8 years if you delay from 62 to 70 or do you want to roll the dice forever .

if we file at 62 we will be pretty dependent on markets forever . but the 69% greater check at 70 plus colas drops our draw rate from 3.50% to 2% .

we really do not even need equity's to meet a 2% draw .

figuring spending down a balanced portfolio  while delaying break even can run 22 years . but after that the roi grows quickly .

so much so that if even one of you in a couple makes it to age 90 you can see a real return of 5% . that beats what a balanced fund has averaged after inflation  and you got it on what anounts to a guaranteed gov't bond .

you can also spend more day 1 by delaying . the bigger ss check will replace what you spent down the road .

you can spend more because unlike investing on your own which requires lots of dry powder for down years and sequence risk , ss has no sequence risk .

so we are delaying  because as a couple we are more comfortable betting on the longevity of one of us vs betting on the outcomes of markets and rates .

ss is also taxed only 85% unlike our withdrawals from our portfolio . the bigger survivor benefit is another issue .

going to one ss check after a spouse dies and having to file taxes as single can suck


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 2, 2016)

Took my SS at 66... and continued working.  Socking away the SS check.. until I really do decide to retire.  It's been gravy money.


----------



## mathjak107 (Sep 2, 2016)

even having a pension and ss is a nice deal if you do not have to spend down assets .

all the decisions really stem from when you have to live off assets with little other income if you delay .

not everyone will have that choice . you need the assets to have choices .  i don't like to see anyone have to commit more than 25% of assets to delaying .

but delaying does offer lots of advantages . the question should never be what if i die . dying has no issues , the real issue is what if you and your spouse live .

we would like to be as little dependent on the markets eventually as we can so fidelity has a new tool  which is in house only,  that optimizes your ss . it is not an on line tool .

for us it mapped out maximizing ss  for the most  spending and potentially greatest balance left .

my wife is 66 but she started collecting at 62 . she will stop her benefit now and let it grow until 70 . when she resumes at 70 i will be 68-10 months at which point i will get 1/2 her's using restricted application as file and suspend is off the table for us .

at 70 i will file for mine and she gets a 4500.00 adder to hers since 1/2 mine is more than her full .

that will maximize both spending and potentially if one of us even lives to 85 a bigger balance left .. we go from the 3.50% draw rate now off our portfolio to 2% once all the ss kicks in . that is a huge break in market depenency .


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 2, 2016)

We have 5 different pensions of varying amounts coming in.   I think we will be ok.


----------



## mathjak107 (Sep 2, 2016)

i am sooooooooooooooo jealous . we are on the YOYO  plan .

you are on your own   ha ha ha


----------



## QuickSilver (Sep 2, 2016)

Well they are not HUGE pensions.. but nice... and for life..    Fortunately we both worked at a time when companies were still giving pensions.

We each have an annuity with a lifetime guaranteed monthly amount.. don't know if that's a good thing or not.. but that is for life too... no matter what the market does.. they are locked in.


----------



## mathjak107 (Sep 2, 2016)

we live in nyc (queens) so our yearly needs are pretty high .  we have a 20k small pension coming in but everything else is all on us .

we had substainial real estate holdings in manhattan but sold them off the last 13 years . we don't want to be landlords and ill-liquid in retirement .

the one thing we wanted to keep were some commercial lease rights we held on the 200 central park south building . they were golden spinning off 25k a year for us in income .

but we only held a 10% stake in them and our senior partner  wanted to sell . so he did and in one of nyc's biggest lease right sales ever he sold the leases to an investor group  right before we retired .

i can't get anything close to that return after the taxes on the sale .

so basically we are looking to reduce our market dependency .

we already have enough invested in the markets so we will likely start laddering spia's to develop an income base .

one thing i want to mention is no one should ever buy an annuity before they max out delaying ss .

for the money you give up delaying you could never buy an inflation adjusted annuity anywhere like it  for close to that price that is inflation adjusted ,passes to a spouse  and pays out anywhere near the difference you get between taking it at 62 vs 70 .  . delaying ss is the best value in annuity's -period .


----------



## mathjak107 (Sep 2, 2016)

here is a nice chart by michael kitces showing how spending down from a balanced fund and delaying ss compares to taking ss early .

as you see around 22 years in , delaying ss takes on a very powerful edge . by age 90 you can see a  real return ,  that is after inflation , about 5% .  that rivals a balanced fund in good times and yet has zero risk .


----------



## Brookswood (Sep 2, 2016)

mathjak107 said:


> we live in nyc (queens) so our yearly needs are pretty high .  we have a 20k small pension coming in but everything else is all on us .
> 
> we had substainial real estate holdings in manhattan but sold them off the last 13 years . we don't want to be landlords and ill-liquid in retirement .
> 
> ...



Thanks for the chart.


----------



## Dennis K (Sep 2, 2016)

I heard a guy say he wanted to take SS at 62, because if he died early he would never see any of it. I am sure if you think about it, you can see the flaw in that type of reasoning. And I like the thinking of not looking at when you will die, but how long you will live. There is a difference between the two. As long as your spouse is taken care of, if you have one, not much will matter after you die, so focus on living.  As they say, the only certain things in life are death and taxes, and that starts becoming more relevant, the longer we live. Sad thing is, even after death, the government will be collecting taxes off of you.


----------



## mathjak107 (Sep 2, 2016)

those who do things based on what if i die generally find out they really should have planned around what if i live .

what if i live has the most ramifications if  you are  wrong .

you see folks buying the wrong products for the wrong reasons too . they buy whole life as a product for what if i live .  that is product bought for dying . annuity's are a product based on what if i live .

so many times you see them buy whole life policy's for the cash value . that is the wrong thing to do .


----------



## Brookswood (Sep 2, 2016)

Take SS early because the government will cancel or greatly reduce it, so  you'll want to get yours now and be grand-fathered in to the higher benefits.  

Does anybody believe the above?


----------



## mathjak107 (Sep 2, 2016)

ss is such an in grained part of american culture there is no doubt it will be fully funded when the time comes . as far as changes , yep there will always be some nudging along the way  but usually you are grand fathered and given a time frame to do what it is you have to do . we saw that with the recent changes . if you were of age you could  file and get what you wanted to get .

delaying is not an all or nothing . play it by ear , each year that goes by is another year of increases . if change is looming  just file


----------



## Phoenix (Sep 2, 2016)

I agree with the idea that this needs to be discussed with a financial planner that you trust.  Until you talk to a person well-versed in the field who knows your specifics, this is entirely a guessing game.  What the government is going to do with SS is also a guessing game.  They spend our SS money to finance wars and other programs.  Then they complain that we are running out of SS money.  In a pig's eye.  Everyone knows that the SS money they take from us should not be touched.  But the government does what it wants, and the people who make those decisions, never have to deal with the consequences in their own personal lives.


----------



## mathjak107 (Sep 2, 2016)

the problem is there are few planners really versed in the 2nd half of the game -retirement . most planners know the first half okay , the accumulation stage but they are not up to date on current study's and thinking of modern day research .

most planners i know are old school and run on old myths and teachings .

it is really hard to find someone who really knows the decumulation stage .

i know i couldn't and i live in nyc . i learned on my own who the best academics in this field were and i learned all i could from them and their research papers .

nothing beats learning who the smart people are and learning on your own so at least you can identify whether or not a planner is well schooled in the 2nd half of the game .

as i learned more and more from the "smart people " my own views changed so much on a lot of things .

today i have very different views on planning with products like whole life , spia's , rising glide paths , and tax planning than i did just a few years ago


----------



## Phoenix (Sep 2, 2016)

My husband and I have an excellent one.  He is not old school.  He's about forty.  He made money for us even when the market went to crud.  He's in Portland, Oregon.  Contrary to the myth, NYC is not always better.


----------



## mathjak107 (Sep 2, 2016)

the  2nd half generally  isn't  primarily about making money . it is about laying the blocks in place early on for  taking advantage of all the perks and avoiding all the pitfalls in retirement planning because so much is linked to taxable income in retirement .

had i known years ago what i know now my tax structure would be very different . i would certainly have done far more contributions to  roths , over funded life policy's and planned better for aca subsidy's ,zero tax capital gains brackets , rmd's and would have avoided possibly getting our ss taxed by manipulating tax free sources of income .  we got a 300% medicare premium increase because of poor timing selling an asset years earlier .  quite a few planners were not even aware of the fact medicare goes back two years tax wise and even though you were not retired or on medicare you can get slammed  if you time a sale wrong .

there is way way more involved in the 2nd half of the game then making money . the like's  of an ed slott is quite rare . most planners can set you up in a portfolio  , tell you about college planning and give you some info on retirement account types but most are not really well versed enough themselves .

it isn't their fault . they have been following the boomers all these years so the accumulation stage is what they know . but now that boomers are retiring this is all new territory to most of them . they only know what they were taught many years ago . a lot of which has been found not to be the best way .

the added problem is most americans are pretty financially ignorant themselves so they have no clue how good their planner is in these other areas until it is to late to correct what they did .

it is like we used to tease my friend about marrying a virgin . we told him he had the easiest job in the world because she never knew if he was good or bad  ha ha ha


----------



## Phoenix (Sep 2, 2016)

My point is that the investment guy we use knows about the kinds of things you are addressing and knows how to advise us.  He uses a holistic approach.  We didn't find this guy until eight years ago.  Prior to that we followed bad advice.  He's made a huge difference in how we approach things and how we have handled our retirement.

As for virgins, there's an old aeronautical acronym that to remember its substance, one recites, "True virgins make dull company, add whiskey."  Grin.


----------



## mathjak107 (Sep 3, 2016)

ed slott trains a group of tax adviser's  that operate through out the country .  they are basically accountants trained under ed and are retirement specialists . for anyone interested ,you  can  check your area on ed's site .

ed , himself is the master of retirement tax planning . i have read his books  and he has pretty good ideas and concepts . most of ed's idea's have to be implemented way before .

since we don't know what we don't know we generally don't know about these things until it is to late to do much about our structure  .

odds are if one's adviser didn't tell them about how to do such things as manipulate life insurance to make forever taxed retirement money in ira's  in to never taxed money , rising glide paths  or about over funding life policy's there is a pretty good chance the adviser may not be as well schooled in this half as you thought .


----------



## Floridatennisplayer (Oct 1, 2016)

SS payouts are based upon an actuarial table. So it will really end up paying you the same amount regardless of when you take it. The key is what will be your expenses? How much additional will you need to cover the difference? Do you have enough in assets to draw down from over a long period of time? If not, you might need to wait until a later age to narrow that gap.


----------



## mathjak107 (Oct 2, 2016)

No , it is not even steven anymore and has not been for a long time. Today a 65 year old couple has a 74% chance of one of them seeing 85. In fact the 50% point is around almost 90 today for a 65 year old couple. Being a couple greatly alters things. But even singles are living longer. We have been adding 1 more year of life every 4 years since 2000. 

Those are not odds i would want to bet against. Odds are pretty good the benefit of delaying for a couple will be greater.

But the bottom line is really , if you are dependent on generating your income from ss and your portfolio do you want to bet more on the whims of the markets and interest rates or bet more on your own longevity and what amounts to a gov't bond. We rather bet on markets and rates for just 8 years instead of decades so we are delaying


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Nov 1, 2016)

I took my SS at age 62 partly because of the uncertainty of how long I'd live.  I had a sister who planned to wait until age 65 and she died at age 62. We had a similar heart ailment. Another reason is because I planned to (and do) save/invest my SS. According to my calculations, in 9 years (my SS break even age), the earnings from my investments will provide me with $568 more a month than if I'd waited until age 66 to collect and $135 more a month than if I'd waiting until age 70 to collect. Truth be told for reason #1, I never would have waited until age 70. As I've said in another thread however, unless there's a major illness, catastrophe or I have to move, I won't need to take distributions (other than RMDs) because my pension and SS provide more than enough income. I have come across articles by some "experts" who think outside the box and do recommend taking it early.


----------



## Bobw235 (Nov 1, 2016)

I suspect I'll be taking it next year when I turn 62. Between my pension and SS, I'll be able to let my retirement savings grow. The following year my wife turns 62 and she'll likely do the same. Will be having my financial planner run some numbers early next year.


----------



## wasserball (Jan 7, 2017)

I rather have money to spend when I am able at 62, than having more money but being unable to spend it because I am crippled at 66.


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Jan 8, 2017)

Dennis: I am a proponent of taking SS early and I did so. I figured I'd waited long enough since I retired at age 50, also wasn't sure with my health issues at the time that I'd make it to 66 or 70.  My oldest sister, who had a similar condition decided to wait until full retirement age but she died at age 63. According to what I have read by financial "experts" who also say take it early (a contrarian view in the financial advisor world), good reasons for taking SS early are:
1. You don't expect to have longevity based upon current health issues and/or family history.
2. You don't need it so will take it early and invest it. (What I have been doing).
3. You really need the money to live on...couldn't pay your rent, bills and eat without having that income.

That being said, financial "experts" also say that if you have a retirement nest egg and are able to draw on it until full retirement age and feel you have a good chance of living that long, take withdrawals from your nest egg first. You will get a much higher SS benefit by waiting.  One of the downsides to taking SS AND withdrawing that much money (or any decent amount) on a monthly basis is that with both coming in, you will undoubtedly pay more in taxes, unless the nest egg you draw from is a Roth. Here is a refreshing article I posted in another thread that gives a realistic view on when to take SS. There' are also charts showing how much an individual can expect to receive based upon what age he/she starts benefits and the total amounts one would receive by age 75 and age 90 depending on if taken earliest, at full retirement age or latest (70).  https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/social-security-timing-082013?opentranscript=true


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 8, 2017)

tax wise delaying can be excellent .

the tax gods give us a gift . we can draw up to 22k tax free from our retirement money TAX FREE  and up to 40k at as little as a 4.50% effective tax rate just using standard exemptions and deductions . that is money you deducted at as high as the rates of your peak earning years .  throw in some roth income ,  tax free money from the zero capital gains bracket's  and cash set a side and you can have a 100k plus income and pay very little tax .all while your ss increases at 6% a year from 62 to fra and about 8% after that point .

unless you have a pension or other income sources , by delaying ss you can spend down up to 8 years  of retirement money you already deducted , at very low  or even no tax , while reducing potentially high tax rates on rmd's .

remember ss is only taxed up to 85% of it. rmd's are taxed on 100% .

if a couple the odds of one in a couple seeing 90 is almost 50% today. that can give one of them  a real return of 5% after inflation . that rivals a balanced portfolio under the better  conditions only the ss return has no sequence risk at all .

while yes you have to lay out the assets from 62 to 70 the fact is you will draw less from savings  with an almost 80% bigger check with cola's  for decades . that results in generally not only a higher spending rate but bigger balance for heirs .

so there are a lot of advantages to delaying but the big one for us is we cut dependency on markets a lot .  our draw goes from 3.50-3.75% all the way down to 2.50% once ss kicks in .

if you wanted to buy a commercial annuity for the amount of money you lay out from 62 to 70 there is nothing better than delaying ss . the amount you get , the inflation adjusting , the passing on to a spouse , is far better than what you could ever buy .

no one should ever buy an annuity before delaying ss . it makes no sense.

but delaying is not for everyone . in fact most folks do not have that choice .  you can't delay ss while having no other income if laying out the money for 8 years leaves you dangerously low . that would be a poor idea .

so delaying is only for those with choices .

quite frankly it boils down to whether you want market risk more or longevity risk more .
\
the big advantage to longevity risk is a couple gets two horses with one bet . market risk stays the same regardless  so there is no edge if a couple ..


----------



## Aunt Bea (Jan 8, 2017)

IMO the less financial resources you have the more it makes sense to delay SS as long as you can, even up to age 70.

I took it at 62 because it allows me to leave money in a tax deferred IRA instead of taking withdrawals and paying taxes on that money.  Also, because my health is not the greatest so my chances of getting back what I paid in are iffy even with taking it early.

It's definitely not a one size fits all, each person needs to perform an analysis and determine what is best for them.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 8, 2017)

taking ss early or late when you have the choice is very difficult because so much is linked to retirement incoime . in your case longevity is one issue but depending on income taking ss for tax reasons may be not a good idea .

as i said above , you can pull up to 22k out of ira's and 401k's tax free and up to 40k with as little as 4.50% tax if you are delaying and have little other income sources .

if you could pull that much money out at those rates compared to when rmd's kick in that is a tax saving of a life time , not to mention spending down the rmd' money while growing an ss check .

lots of folks think backwards and lose this great tax gift by filing early only to get hammered at rmd time .. the trade off is also rmd's are taxed on 100% , ss only a max of 85% ,


----------



## Brookswood (Jan 8, 2017)

IMHO, it's best to have multiple sources of income during retirement.  I would recommend taking SS at a time that best allows for a person to the best combination of income sources. So..    I would not recommend draining one's retirement accounts early and being nearly completely dependent on SS at age 70 for income. Nor would I recommend taking SS early, and having a very large investment portfolio but a relatively  small SS payment.  Obviously, there are a lot of in between places here where taking SS will provide the best overall combination of retirement income.     

Also, if one falls into that group that can collect on a spouse's SS account while letting one's own payment grow in the years from age 66 to 70, that is another reason where waiting may be good and a bit less painful. 

It's a very individual decision. 

  For me, one thing to consider is that I do not have LTC insurance as I find the current policy benefits somewhat limited while the ability to raise premiums, as I get more likely to use the insurance, seems to be unlimited.   So, for me taking SS at 70 seems a good way to help offset some LTC costs, albeit I will need other sources also.   And, if I don't require LTC, I can spend most of the money on women and booze, and waste the rest.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 8, 2017)

as i mentioned above not everyone has the option to delay. you need either a source of income in the mean time or the assets to safely delay. it is a poor idea to spend down to far delaying and leaving yourself to low


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 9, 2017)

Brookswood said:


> IMHO, it's best to have multiple sources of income during retirement.  I would recommend taking SS at a time that best allows for a person to the best combination of income sources. So..    I would not recommend draining one's retirement accounts early and being nearly completely dependent on SS at age 70 for income. Nor would I recommend taking SS early, and having a very large investment portfolio but a relatively  small SS payment.  Obviously, there are a lot of in between places here where taking SS will provide the best overall combination of retirement income.
> 
> Also, if one falls into that group that can collect on a spouse's SS account while letting one's own payment grow in the years from age 66 to 70, that is another reason where waiting may be good and a bit less painful.
> 
> ...



i think of our ltc coverage as i do my health and auto insurance . i pay each year for the coverage whether i am likely to need it or not .

my co-worker who is 55 fell off a ladder painting . he broke his hip and during hip surgery he had a stoke and is now paralyzed in a snf . his family was impoverished by it .

so i don't look at it as paying for something off in the future . my payments are for each year . in 64 years i have never ever  had even a fraction of the bills for my healthcare as i paid for my health  insurance . whatever i paid in was for each years coverage , not for when i most likely will need it off in the future .

so if they raise my ltc premiums more than i want to pay , then i am done with the policy , but regardless all i paid for was the coverage i already got


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Jan 9, 2017)

mathjak107 said:


> tax wise delaying can be excellent .
> 
> the tax gods give us a gift . we can draw up to 22k tax free from our retirement money TAX FREE  and up to 40k at as little as a 4.50% effective tax rate just using standard exemptions and deductions . that is money you deducted at as high as the rates of your peak earning years .  throw in some roth income ,  tax free money from the zero capital gains bracket's  and cash set a side and you can have a 100k plus income and pay very little tax .all while your ss increases at 6% a year from 62 to fra and about 8% after that point .
> 
> ...


Mathjak: That's good to know about the percentages. But if one is charitable and has his/her RMDs sent directly to a charity, those distributions will be tax free. Of course, if one is getting a huge RMD, that may not be desirable. I never checked to see if part can be sent to charity and the other to the individual and still have that person get the charitable tax free benefit on the donation portion. Since only a small portion of my investments is in a traditional IRA, I will have donations sent directly to one of my charities. It will amount to only a small annual increase in what I've been donating these past few years and I usually raise it every year anyway. My RMDs start later this year so I may ask that question when I call to make the arrangement.


----------



## rkunsaw (Jan 9, 2017)

When to retire? The number one goal is to have enough to live comfortably after you retire. For many that makes early retirement impractical.
The extra years between age 62 and your full retirement age increase the amount of social security you'll get. But it also gives extra years to add to your 401k or IRAs. Also more years to pay off your mortgage or other debts.
That said, your health and family situation also has to be considered.


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 9, 2017)

The delaying comparison in this case is not about delaying retiring but rather retiring and delaying taking ss


----------



## Myquest55 (Jan 9, 2017)

I see a lot of talk about taking Soc. Sec. at 62 or 70 but we are focused on FRA at 66-1/3.  DH (recently turned 60) has Parkinsons but this will probably be the last year he CAN work.  It is our plan for him to apply for the Long Term Disability Insurance he has been paying for all these years and apply for Federal Disability until FRA.  Is it possible to do that or do they make you take Soc. Sec. at 62?

If he can qualify for Fed. Disability we will be fine but our financial advisors have said we have enough to take us to 66-1/3 if we need to do that but it will put a big dent in our savings.  We both had a parent who died young and one who lived into their nineties so...crap shoot!  Guess we focus on living those extra years and hope for the best.


----------



## Brookswood (Jan 9, 2017)

mathjak107 said:


> The delaying comparison in this case is not about delaying retiring but rather retiring and delaying taking ss



YUP!  People often confuse the two.  Retirement age and SS age may be two very different numbers.


----------



## 401Paul (Jan 12, 2017)

SS and timing are often hotly debated topics. I might suggest charting specifically what you would receive at 62, FRA (full retirement age) and a couple years beyond FRA, just so you know. Also, Now that accumulation is over, and you are about to begin decumulation, do you have a suitable way to measure the risk/return on where your money is currently being managed/stored? I know there may be other opinions, but sometimes keeping all your eggs in one basket can be catastrophic in a down market. In the interest of staying on topic, I will limit my sharing to just this. Being informed and knowing your options, to me, is a great starting point!


----------



## mathjak107 (Jan 12, 2017)

i like the portfolio's i use to have at least 40% equity but not much more


----------

