# Going to sign up for SS soon



## shorttime1 (Oct 27, 2016)

I have been waffling back and forth weather to sign up for SS soon or wait until full retirement age. I think I will do now instead of waiting, please let me know if there is something that I am overlooking.
  My father used to say that two heads are better than one even if one is a head of cabbage

Here's my situation. I have been self employed for 37 years with a metal fabricating business and have done well through the years, not rich by any means but comfortable. My house is free and clear and I currently rent out my former shop in CT which is also paid off. I have two more years to go on the larger building I am in now and that will be paid off. I have no other notes on equipment or vehicles.

   If I take SS now I will be penalized if I make more than 16 grand or so a year as pay, but if I take up to the limit in pay and then increase the small rent that I take for the building that I own separate from my business corp. to make up the difference the penalties won't kick in as it's not payroll.

Is there something that would cause me trouble with this ? I will be talking to my accountant soon but I would like to hear from someone that had a similar situation.

I will be 64 Next march and my wife is 68 and has been retired for ten years now. She would be REAL happy if I pulled the plug


----------



## Butterfly (Oct 27, 2016)

Hi, shorttime1 -- welcome to the forum!

I think  you should either call and talk to SS at their 800 number, where you'll get the true scoop on your situation, or wait and talk with your accountant, as he/she will have the answers, too.  

I'm not trying to be snippy or off putting, but decisions like the one you are about to make are SO important, and the rules change all the time, and you don't want to make a bad decision that will impact you the rest of your life based on either out-of-date or faulty information.  You need professional advice, because you don't want to inadvertently fail to dot an i or cross a t and screw yourself up.

Again, welcome.


----------



## mathjak107 (Oct 28, 2016)

social security reps know very little about what you should do when it comes to integrating ss with your own plan. 

the biggest question is where is your income going to be coming from  ?

80% of our income comes from our investments . that means if we take ss early we will be heavily dependent on markets and rates forever , that is something we want to cut down .

so by me delaying as long as possible , perhaps even to 70 to collect  we spend down our own money reducing future rmd's , increase our check and cut market dependency greatly once a 69% bigger check kicks in plus colas .

we can refill what we laid out early on  once we no longer need so much from our own funds .


it is all going to be an individual choice based on more factors than an ss clerk can deal with .  many folks can't retire and delay because to have that choice you need to be able to safely spend down your assets . what is a safe level will be unique to you , that is nothing ss can tell you .

there are excellent websites like social security solutions that combine social security planning with your financial situation and give you the best options .

they charge different prices depending how comprehensive you want the work up to be .

i used the new fidelity investments optimizing social security tool , which is an in house tool for use by their reps trained in it only , coupled with feeding the  scenario's in to the fidelity retirement planner and seeing all the potential outcomes .

the optimum plan the software came up with was my wife collecting an early benefit at 62 . she then suspends at her fra and leaves it to grow . at 70 she files for her benefit. i will be 68 when she files so i will file restricted application and take 1/2 hers at 70  . we have to do restricted application since file and suspend is dead for us .


at 70 i take mine and she gets an adder of 4200.00 to her benefit at that point since 1/2 my full is more than her full .

that delaying lets us spend more up front early on before filing because social security when we get it has no sequence of return risk so no powder has to be kept dry for worst case scenario's happening .

no one who delays and retires actually waits until 70 to spend more . the greater spending is done all along . you just refill later once the bigger check comes in .


----------



## shorttime1 (Nov 1, 2016)

Thanks for the input, you are 100% correct in that everybody's situation is different and there is no "magic answer" that fits all. My situation is that no one on either side of my parents family made it past their mid to late 70's my mother passed at 51,  It really made me think.

I do not have a lot of cash in the mattress, but we have IRA's that are doing well and the bulk of my retirement is in commercial real estate and I will be selling one this year and the ideal situation for me is to hold the note on it for steady income.
I can take SS early (at 64) and put that into my our IRA's and other savings until I fully retire in a couple of years. I will never completely stop working as long as my health permits as I really enjoy what I do and my son and foreman will be running the business. I will be available to help when needed but I do not want to be putting in 60 to 70 hrs a week as I sometimes do now.

 I guess that time is more important to me now than breaking my butt to make more money that I might never have a chance to enjoy. My wife had five major surgeries in the past four years and it really turned my head around as to how I want to spend my time. 
 We do not have a large lifestyle and really enjoy the simpler things so I cannot foresee our spending to increase during retirement. The money coming in from the commercial real estate and SS will be greater than I am taking as pay from my business.  

I see your point on using the IRA money before SS, but I do not want to leave my money in the SS system as my sons can benefit from any savings left after we both pass on to the happy hunting grounds


----------



## Knight (Nov 5, 2016)

Time left [best guess actuarial table] and the health of both you and your wife play a big part in decision making. From what you describe financially you would be OK living the lifestyle that works for you. 

I retired 22 years ago took Soc. Sec. early at 62. We live well and pay taxes on our Soc. Sec. I don't regret paying taxes since the intent was to enjoy whatever time is left for us. Think about time left like this. 8 hours sleeping, 2 hours typical chores & personal hygiene. 10 hours minimum out of  the 24 hour day leaves you 14 hours to do whatever. A little over 1/3 of the years left you plan to enjoy gone. 

Typically travel tops the list when 1st. retired. That gets old once you have been to and seen everywhere you wanted to go and see. The biggest obstacle many face is what to do with their time and the social inter action they used to have.



Lots to think about above and beyond the financial aspect.


----------



## mathjak107 (Nov 6, 2016)

shorttime1 said:


> Thanks for the input, you are 100% correct in that everybody's situation is different and there is no "magic answer" that fits all. My situation is that no one on either side of my parents family made it past their mid to late 70's my mother passed at 51,  It really made me think.
> 
> I do not have a lot of cash in the mattress, but we have IRA's that are doing well and the bulk of my retirement is in commercial real estate and I will be selling one this year and the ideal situation for me is to hold the note on it for steady income.
> I can take SS early (at 64) and put that into my our IRA's and other savings until I fully retire in a couple of years. I will never completely stop working as long as my health permits as I really enjoy what I do and my son and foreman will be running the business. I will be available to help when needed but I do not want to be putting in 60 to 70 hrs a week as I sometimes do now.
> ...



the fact is that with a couple one of you will go well beyond  break even . the 69% bigger check  at 70 than 62  actually means that  for life you will be pulling less money out of your own savings once ss kicks in .

if you are concerned about leaving heirs the biggest balance you likely are making the wrong choice . that reduced draw rate delaying  leaves a bigger balance with most outcomes .

our delaying cuts our draw rate from savings by almost 1/2 once ss kicks in


----------



## Knight (Nov 6, 2016)

I don't want to sound morbid but there is no guarantee as to how long anyone lives. Then there is the idea that Soc. Sec. payments are meant to be a safety net not retirement income. 


 Only you know your true circumstances. If you could live well without Soc. Sec. as an income then the decision should be easy. Soc. Sec. will either be extra fun money or pay debt.


----------



## mathjak107 (Nov 6, 2016)

it makes little sense  to delay taking ss and  wait until 70 to  spend more . you should be able to take your full intended draw rate day 1 . it would make no sense drawing a partial income because you delay taking ss .

the benefit of delaying is to spend down some assets up front  reducing rmd's and drawing either the same or even a bit more than you would once ss kicks in .

because your draw rate drops so much once the checks start you refill later on down the road . as an example drawing the amount in retirement we want our draw rate is 3.50% without ss. once ss kicks in it drops to 2.50% .

that difference refills what we spent early on .

delaying ss is not an option everyone has unless they have either the assets or the income coming in . you don't have the option to delay unless you have enough assets to take your full draw rate safely and comfortably from your savings .


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Nov 16, 2016)

Shorttime1: Here is the most comprehensive explanation I've seen on how to decide when it's the right time to sign up. The author "runs the numbers" for you using percentages and hypothetical amounts (base $1,000) according to what age one decides to retire. And I like that she doesn't follow that rigid school of thought that you must wait until age 66 or 70 if you're going to survive financially. Hope this helps.
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/social-security-timing-082013?opentranscript=true


----------



## Gary 1958 (Dec 10, 2016)

Congratulations on getting to this point in life and having so many positive options.  My opinion is that spending time with a wife would be the biggest factor.  You didn't say if you were still working everyday.  If it was me I'd take the money now and enjoy the years of good health.  You won't always be able to travel and spend time exploring our great Country.

You can save and plan forever and most likely will never have "enough" but once your health goes there's nothing you can do but sit and look out the window.


----------



## aeron (Dec 10, 2016)

Die Schutzstaffel?

Dis nationalsozialistische Organisation in der Weimarer Republik und der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus?


Iesu Grist, only when I read back did I understand!

You had me wondering what kind of forum I had enrolled in!


----------



## Bullie76 (Dec 11, 2016)

The arguments for delaying SS are compelling and if you live long enough the numbers make sense. I'm fortunate enough that I could delay a few years, but the proposed changes(see below) scare me. I realize most bills are not passed in their original form and this could be debated for quite some time in congress, but I do believe changes are coming. Just a matter of when. I turned 62 in July and planned to delay a couple of years, but I think I'm going to go ahead and punch my ticket. I'm a single geezer with no children so dependent planning is not a factor with me. Longevity has been all over the map in my family, so hard to project life expectancy. And I'm a bird in the hand kind of guy too. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ial-security-cuts_us_584b1bb8e4b0e05aded3ff3c


----------



## Don M. (Dec 11, 2016)

Bullie76 said:


> The arguments for delaying SS are compelling and if you live long enough the numbers make sense. I'm fortunate enough that I could delay a few years, but the proposed changes(see below) scare me. I realize most bills are not passed in their original form and this could be debated for quite some time in congress, but I do believe changes are coming. Just a matter of when. I turned 62 in July and planned to delay a couple of years, but I think I'm going to go ahead and punch my ticket. I'm a single geezer with no children so dependent planning is not a factor with me. Longevity has been all over the map in my family, so hard to project life expectancy. And I'm a bird in the hand kind of guy too.
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...ial-security-cuts_us_584b1bb8e4b0e05aded3ff3c




That is pretty much where I was when I decided to take SS.  Longevity runs in our family, but Who Knows?  IMO, there is a lot to be said for the "A Bird in the Hand, is Worth more than 2 in the Bush", philosophy.  Besides, I trust the government and politicians about as far as I could throw them....better to take SS while it still exists, rather than trust Washington to do the right thing in the future.


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 11, 2016)

what you have to remember about delaying if not working is you need the resources to delay  properly . not everyone has a choice .

you DO NOT wait until 70 to draw your full income level .that would be ridiculous . rather you take your full draw you intend to live on day 1 and once ss kicks in you draw less from savings .

the beauty of going more ss vs your own investing is ss has zero sequence risk .

with the higher ss you can draw a higher income day 1  of retirement because unlike your own investing which needs more dry powder for the worst case scenario's  ss does not need that reserve .

also rmd's are fully taxed where ss even if taxed is only taxed on 85%  so delaying has a lot more advantages then just balances . but delaying is not a choice everyone has because they do not have the assets to lay out safely up front .


----------



## nvtribefan (Dec 11, 2016)

aeron said:


> Die Schutzstaffel?
> 
> Dis nationalsozialistische Organisation in der Weimarer Republik und der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus?
> 
> ...




No, not *that* SS.


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 12, 2016)

Knight said:


> I don't want to sound morbid but there is no guarantee as to how long anyone lives. Then there is the idea that Soc. Sec. payments are meant to be a safety net not retirement income.
> 
> 
> Only you know your true circumstances. If you could live well without Soc. Sec. as an income then the decision should be easy. Soc. Sec. will either be extra fun money or pay debt.



with a higher earning couple able to get as much as 80k a year from ss it can be far more than a safety net . funding retirement is all about what if i or my spouse live . last memo i got said  dead is dead . game over so planning around what if i die will not be the best plan .  the real question to ask yourself is what if we live .

it is ironic that those who file earlier are usually those who can't afford to lay out the resources to delay yet they opt to leave their spouse with reduced ss payments for life .

survivor benefits are something to think about too . don't forget rmd's can be most painful when a spouse dies since now not only do they lose an ss check and have to file taxes as a single .

those who take reduced payments for life give up part of that safety net their spouse may very well need .

what if i die is likely the most popular reason  folks give for filing early yet on a scale of 1-10 it is likely a 2 or 3   in importance  since dead is dead .

all the other factors like dependency on markets , survivor benefits  ,taxes  , rmd planning can be so much more important .

i am not saying don't file early if your situation warrants it . but i am saying if you have choices do not base that choice solely on what if i die .

one of the most popular regrets in retirement forum polls is taking ss to early .  it is usually a case of where nothing is a problem , until it's a problem . being to dependent on markets in a downturn  that scare folks out and death of a spouse are the main reasons that crop up over and over


----------



## Bullie76 (Dec 12, 2016)

mathjak107 said:


> with a higher earning couple able to get as much as 80k a year from ss it can be far more than a safety net . funding retirement is all about what if i or my spouse live . last memo i got said  dead is dead . game over so planning around what if i die will not be the best plan .  the real question to ask yourself is what if we live .
> 
> it is ironic that those who file earlier are usually those who can't afford to lay out the resources to delay yet they opt to leave their spouse with reduced ss payments for life .
> 
> ...



You left off one off. The fear of the unknown. Some people file early because they fear SS will be cut and figure they might as well collect what they can now. As I mentioned earlier....a bird in the hand motto. Are you not worried about the future of SS? I can afford to delay but plan to file soon for this very reason. BUT I am single and do not have dependents to figure into my equation.


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 12, 2016)

any major changes to ss like we just had  that effects those of age have been grandfathered . I don't see them playing with baby boomer benefits to much with 80 million voting boomers . it would be crazy .

 so few took advantage of things like file and suspend or paying back social security in full years later and refiling that it really was not a big deal to alter . even then you could still take advantage if you were of age before it was phased out.

I have made it a life long policy of never planning around what if's.

I prefer to plan around what was ,what is and what stands a reasonable chance of continuing . just leave some slack in the plan to nudge things if they look like they may change.

it is very unlikely that you will not be allowed to file before the effective date of any changes  and be grandfathered . they just don't do away with something in the blink of an eye and it's over .


----------



## Ken N Tx (Dec 12, 2016)

mathjak107 said:


> any major changes to ss like we just had  that effects those of age have been grandfathered . I don't see them playing with baby boomer benefits to much with 80 million voting boomers . it would be crazy .
> 
> .



I hope and pray you are correct....


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 12, 2016)

I think they have to be very careful here with 80 million boomers . they can be unemployed all to easy if boomers do not like the changes .

my opinion is also that if you are cutting things so close to the bone that an adjustment in ss is a deal breaker , maybe you can't afford to retire so young either .

.


----------



## Bullie76 (Dec 12, 2016)

mathjak107 said:


> any major changes to ss like we just had  that effects those of age have been grandfathered . I don't see them playing with baby boomer benefits to much with 80 million voting boomers . it would be crazy .
> 
> so few took advantage of things like file and suspend or paying back social security in full years later and refiling that it really was not a big deal to alter . even then you could still take advantage if you were of age before it was phased out.
> 
> ...



You may be correct, but I do factor in what 'if's'. It has served me well to this point. Plus I have run my numbers through firecalc and there is very little difference between taking it now vs delaying to 70 based on 92 age projection(now 62). Little difference as to ending balance.


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 12, 2016)

yes , there is usually not a big difference balance wise or success rate wise . the big difference is on dependency on markets and rates , taxes and survivor benefits .

our draw drops from 3.50% to a bit over 2% if we delay . that is a lot less dependent on the whims of mr market


----------



## Knight (Dec 12, 2016)

mathjak107 said:


> with a higher earning couple able to get as much as 80k a year from ss it can be far more than a safety net . funding retirement is all about what if i or my spouse live . last memo i got said  dead is dead . game over so planning around what if i die will not be the best plan .  the real question to ask yourself is what if we live .
> 
> it is ironic that those who file earlier are usually those who can't afford to lay out the resources to delay yet they opt to leave their spouse with reduced ss payments for life .
> 
> ...



Mathjak107 I understand your response that dead is dead, the point is that is an unknown as to when.Natural causes is the preferred way after a long life but that is not guaranteed. As I pointed out Soc. Sec. was supposed to be a safety net not the financial support system. But it is understood that not everyone has the ability to provide for themselves or their spouse that outlives them. 

Can I support myself and my spouse if I have one without drawing Soc. Sec.? The answer to that is a personal question and can only be answered by the person contemplating drawing on that financial source. 

We began when I was in my early 30's to buy stocks and bonds. 44 years later we are in the fortunate position that answers your other input about the financial survival of which ever spouse remains. I wasn't offering advice only opining that each person knows what they can or can't do and death has to be a part on the consideration.   

Every point you made was discussed and decided on by my wife and I. We've even drawn up a list of every thing we can think of that has to be done should we both die at the same time. We've given that list along with a copy of our wills so each child knows what to look for in our portfolios.


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 12, 2016)

It sounds like you looked at all the angles. unfortunately most folks do not. they run on what if I die instead of what if I live and they end up shooting themselves in the foot  because of all those other aspects


----------

