# Do you know anybody that only gets 400.00 a month on Social Security?



## Robert59 (Nov 30, 2022)

Have a friend that her husband gets only 400.00 a month from Social Security. He worked off and on.


----------



## Pepper (Nov 30, 2022)

Robert59 said:


> Have a friend that her husband gets only 400.00 a month from Social Security. He worked off and on.


He also might have done off-the-books work.


----------



## Jaiden (Nov 30, 2022)

I had a former neighbor who got a little over $400. per month from SS, but he worked under the table most of his life.  He was fortunate that his wife had a high SS benefit and a good pension.  He used to think that working off the books and not paying taxes was great, but when he had to stop working, he realized it hadn't been so great after all.


----------



## Alligatorob (Nov 30, 2022)

Jaiden said:


> He used to think that working off the books and not paying taxes was great, but when he had to stop working, he realized it hadn't been so great after all.


It could have been had he saved and invested, some of those taxes he didn't pay.  I'd bet few of those people do...


----------



## Myquest55 (Dec 1, 2022)

My friend gets about $800 a month - she never paid much into the system and is on disability.  She recently turned 80.  That money doesn't go very far after rent, utilites, car insurance, etc.  We often have to help her out.  

She tried living in Florida and quickly found out that the wonderful services for Seniors there are great - IF you can pay for them!  After several years of bouncing around, she finally got (crappy) housing in CT but at least it is a roof over her head.  The appliances barely function and the manager controls the heat so its only on once in the morning and once at night!  This is the one instance to be thankful for global warming!  She has a cat - which can make things difficult BUT sometimes she feels so alone - she is grateful to have some company.


----------



## C50 (Dec 1, 2022)

My sister claims to only gets around $700 a month, which is the lowest anyone has told me about. She's was upset about that because she felt she deserved more, even though she only worked ocassional part time jobs.


----------



## Happyflowerlady (Dec 1, 2022)

I started out at just over $300 a month, but when my husband retired, they added an extra $100 because he was also on SS retirement. Over the years, it has gone up bit by bit, and is now at right around $500. If my daughter didn’t help me out, there is no way that I could survive on this, and being able to get medical assistance has probably kept me alive for the last ten years or more. 

I think that there are probably a lot of older women who have the same situation as me. 
 I married young, became a housewife and stayed home to take care of my family for most of my life.  My first husband had a good job, and a retirement fund, so that and his SS pension should have been fine for both of us when he retired. 
That didn’t happen.  
He found someone else after the kids were grown, we got divorced, and I had to enter the workforce as an unskilled worker being paid minimum wages. 
Selling vacuum cleaners and making Subway sandwiches does not go far towards saving up for retirement. 

After my heart failure and a-fib started, I was too sick to even walk to the mailbox and back, let alone hold a job; so getting old enough for medicare and having a cardiologist was a life-saver for me. 
The outcome of all this was that I simply hadn’t made enough money in my life to have much SS pension coming back , but the medical benefits helped me SO much.


----------



## Harry Le Hermit (Dec 1, 2022)

Regrettably, there are many with very low Social Security (traditional) benefits and with Medicare deductions, can be extremely stressed. It was my understanding that the Social Security Administration recognized these situations and would suggest Supplemental Security Income as an alternate method of income, dependent on financial situation. Medicaid is also helpful in these situations, but also has some drawbacks, depending on financial situation. 

This was a common practice of the SSA offices, back 20 years ago. I had some in-laws in those low income groups, that switched, when recommended by their SSA office. 

As for divorced spouses, drawing on ex-spouse's benefits is a possibility ... https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v72n1/v72n1p11.html


----------



## jujube (Dec 1, 2022)

Some people who retired from some federal jobs (or some state jobs) fall under the _Windfall Elimination Provision. _ Their paychecks didn't have federal income tax deducted, thus they are not entitled to full Social Security benefits.


----------



## Georgiagranny (Dec 1, 2022)

I keep seeing threads of this sort over and over again. The answer is simple and uncomplicated.

If SS income doesn't meet federal poverty guidelines, SSI is available. So is Medicaid. It doesn't come looking for you; you have to ask. Guideline for 2022 poverty level for a single person is around $13,500.

For those retired from federal jobs, there's the federal pension, which was paid into while the person was employed by the feds.

SSDI and SSI are _not_ the same thing. _SSDI is Social Security *Disability* Income_. It stops at full retirement age and goes to SS.

SSI is *Supplemental* Security Income. It's intended to close the gap between SS and the federal poverty guideline.


----------



## Llynn (Dec 1, 2022)

Some friends don't get much but as far as I know they all get more than four hundred.


----------



## NorthernLight (Dec 1, 2022)

In Canada we have 3 different pensions. CPP is the one we "pay into" at work. Because I was a housewife, lived out of the country for a few years, and worked at low-paying jobs, I only got about USD 120 per month from CPP at first. (I now receive a bit more with inflation.)

The govt messed up both my other pensions, so I was living on just a few hundred, for more than a year. I swear they wanted me to die of stress so they wouldn't have to pay me. Others have had the same problem, but can shrug it off if they have a spouse, or if their mortgage is already paid off, etc.


----------



## Myquest55 (Dec 1, 2022)

NorthernLight said:


> I swear they wanted me to die of stress so they wouldn't have to pay me.


My friend in CT was convinced they were doing that to her too!  Common theme.

Is it her fault?  Yeah, pretty much it is - she never planned ahead and the man (who actually had soc. sec.) she was to marry, died before they could tie the knot.  It is a sad situation all around but planning ahead is key - even in your 20's!


----------



## dobielvr (Dec 1, 2022)

My sister gets $400 from SS.  I imagined it's increased some since when she first collected it at 65.
She also works as a massage therapist.  Not sure how long she plans on doing that, she's 71 now.

As long as her looks hold up, and her hands don't become arthritic, I guess she'll be ok.
Her looks are a big draw for the type of massage she gives......


----------



## Robert59 (Dec 1, 2022)

Pepper said:


> He also might have done off-the-books work.


His wife worked as a manager for years and had to quit because of her health because of the stress.


----------



## Lethe200 (Dec 1, 2022)

jujube said:


> Some people who retired from some federal jobs (or some state jobs) fall under the _Windfall Elimination Provision. _ Their paychecks didn't have federal income tax deducted, thus they are not entitled to full Social Security benefits.


Yes, that's my spouse. His employer was in SocSec but the agency later voted to withdraw and set up their own pension plan. So he has the 40 quarters, all from his early years (where for a couple of decades he was the lowest-paid employee they had, LOL).

So his SS will be reduced by 60% when he finally files at age 70. Plus.....85% of what he does get will be taxable due  to his pension! We're currently in the 24% tax bracket. 

We figure it will just barely cover his Medicare and Medigap premiums, and that's only because the agency pays for most of the Medigap policy.

It's a good thing we weren't counting on it for retirement


----------



## Nathan (Dec 1, 2022)

> Do you know anybody that only gets 400.00 a month on Social Security?


My wife gets $230 /mo. and I get $490 /mo. from S.S.     We both have public service retirements, we get penalized even though we contributed to SS.


----------



## Robert59 (Dec 3, 2022)

My girlfriend gets 1400.00 a month from her dead husbands social security.


----------



## Gary O' (Dec 3, 2022)

Do you know anybody that only gets 400.00 a month on Social Security?​
Yeah, but they're in the $500 million league
Pretty sure it's not a big issue for 'em


----------



## CarolfromTX (Dec 3, 2022)

Me. Because the government considered my teachers pension as a “windfall” payment and reduced my social security.  Never mind I paid for that windfall.


----------



## charry (Dec 3, 2022)

i get £550 a month  since retirng last august , and they took my carers allowance away
so i actually get £  240 .00 amonth ...


----------



## officerripley (Dec 3, 2022)

My huzz gets $195/mo. Social Security. The city that he worked for tricked--and I do mean tricked--their employees into "voting" to not contribute to Soc. Sec.


----------



## David777 (Dec 3, 2022)

Two of my 5 brothers that spent a lifetime in construction working under the table (mostly freewheeling Texas), now as seniors are reaping that reward of minimums.


----------



## StarSong (Dec 3, 2022)

I endlessly caution young people to not work under the table for exactly this reason.  

Those who fall under the windfall elimination provision are also getting a public pension, correct?


----------



## Robert59 (Dec 4, 2022)

I know of a person that never paid into Social Security and had bad medical problems at age of 35 like having a leg taken off and 3 heart surgerys. He did get like 700.00 dollars a month from SS before he died at 42.


----------



## WhatInThe (Dec 13, 2022)

Some start collecting social security too early. Some make the mistake of trying to collect the second they're eligible. The longer they wait and older they are the more one gets. The trick is wait to as long as possible. I know people who did that and sadly they never made it to see a social security check.


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Dec 16, 2022)

Not $400, but $600. That's what my mother got but it was decades ago. She's been gone now for almost 20 years. She managed to live fairly well though. She lived in public housing, which only took 1/3 of her income. I had her transferred to a newer, nicer building  closer to me. She had nice clothes and always ate well. She also had a savings account and bonds to fall back on if she needed anything extra, which she never did. In fact, she pre-paid her funeral expenses. I can't imagine anyone trying to live on $400 a month now if that's their only income!


----------



## Disgustedman (Dec 16, 2022)

Had my crippled friend get $417 a month on ABD (Aged, Blind or Disabled) HOWEVER, once he gets his SSDI, he's got to pay back ALL of his money from state. 

Unless he....um.....dies.


----------



## Paladin1950 (Dec 16, 2022)

I never got that little. I get about 3 times that now. Next month, it will be even more.


----------



## Disgustedman (Dec 16, 2022)

WhatInThe said:


> Some start collecting social security too early. Some make the mistake of trying to collect the second they're eligible. The longer they wait and older they are the more one gets. The trick is wait to as long as possible. I know people who did that and sadly they never made it to see a social security check.


That reminds me of my mother. She worked till she couldn't anymore. She retired at 70. I was commenting to some others her SS and mine. 

I had actually worked more years, but she got more as she didn't take till 70. There were surprised. But she'd never smoked, drank very sparingly and had no major medical issues. Dying at 84. Heck, I'll be lucky to hit 70, much less 68.


----------



## Murrmurr (Dec 16, 2022)

WhatInThe said:


> Some start collecting social security too early. Some make the mistake of trying to collect the second they're eligible. The longer they wait and older they are the more one gets. The trick is wait to as long as possible. I know people who did that and sadly they never made it to see a social security check.


My advisor said to absolutely file before age 70. After 70, you actually start losing benefits, not only because of longevity but also, if you file at 70, SS pays you for less than 100 months, but at, say 67, it pays for almost 200 months, and the ultimate total is higher. 

I'm not sure I remember all that right, but I remember he said the worst age to file is 62, and everyone should file by age 67.


----------



## Murrmurr (Dec 16, 2022)

Disgustedman said:


> Had my crippled friend get $417 a month on ABD (Aged, Blind or Disabled) HOWEVER, once he gets his SSDI, he's got to pay back ALL of his money from state.
> 
> Unless he....um.....dies.


Your friend should have filed for Social Security Disability from the get-go. In Calif you can only collect state disability benefits for like 9 or 10 months, and you do have to pay it back.


----------



## Della (Dec 17, 2022)

I get $727 now, it was 644 when I first started collecting at age 65.  I worked _almost_ all my adult life, but until my son was 6 years-old it was part time, usually five till ten in the evenings after my husband got home from his job.  That way we never had to put him in day care. I've had 15 different jobs.

 I didn't work during the three years we lived in England.  English employers would say "Why should we give an American a job when some of our own people need jobs?"  We received quite a bit of anti-American animosity while we were there.  No one seemed to remember that the reason the USAF kept a presence in England was because they _asked _us to do that after WWII.

I don't know how I would be able to live on that $727 if we didn't own this house. If my husband died I would continue to get his $1975 a month less my $727. He didn't start taking his SS until age 70.  His Air Force retirement pay would stop completely -- that's just the way he set it up.


----------



## charry (Dec 17, 2022)

is that 400 pounds or dollars ?


----------



## Georgiagranny (Dec 17, 2022)

Della said:


> If my husband died I would continue to get his $1975 a month less my $727.


_Double check that with an actual phone conversation with a rep at SS_...I believe the way it works is that you will get_ your_ $727 plus the difference of $1248 for a _total _of $1975. You will no longer get a check for $727; you will get one check for $1975.

When my DH died 14 years ago, that's how it was done. My SS benefit plus the difference between mine and his is what I started getting, along with the COLA each year, of course. Doubt that the rules for that have changed.


----------



## StarSong (Dec 18, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> My advisor said to absolutely file before age 70. After 70, you actually start losing benefits, not only because of longevity but also, if you file at 70, SS pays you for less than 100 months, but at, say 67, it pays for almost 200 months, and the ultimate total is higher.
> 
> I'm not sure I remember all that right, but I remember he said the worst age to file is 62, and everyone should file by age 67.


The break even point for SS age claims, which is when the dollar value of claiming benefits at a later age surpasses the value of taking them earlier, comes at roughly 78 years, 8 months, regardless of which age between 62-70 one first files their claim.  If you live past 78/8, it will benefit you to have waited.  

Delaying past 70 makes no sense, since maximum benefits are attained at 70.  

The difference between 62 and 70 is 8 years = 96 months. The difference between 67 and 70 = 36 months. Don't know where your advisor came up with the difference between 67-70 being 100 months. If you file at 70 and live to 85, that's 180 months of payout. If you file at 67 and live to 85, that's 216 months of payout. 

I claimed at 65. DH delayed his benefits until age 70, a few months from now (and from age 66 forward he received a spousal benefit of 50% of my SS, so we've gotten 150% of my benefits for four years). As @Georgiagranny and @Della pointed out, surviving spouses receive the higher of the two benefits; while both alive we'll receive both his and mine.

True, we've worked longer than many (semi-retired at 64 and consulting ever since), but the work hasn't been overly difficult or stressful and is often enjoyable. Between our income and my SS, our retirement accounts remained intact.

We're bthe roughly 70 and our current life expectancy is 86/6 for me and 84/3 for him.
https://coolconversion.com/heath/life-expectancy-calculator-us/Life-expectancy-at-age_70_in-US_w

All four of our parents lived into their 90s.  DH & I are in good health with no chronic or other medical conditions, so chances are quite good that one or both of us will receive the larger monthly check from his delayed filing until at least the break even point.


----------



## Murrmurr (Dec 18, 2022)

StarSong said:


> The break even point for SS age claims, which is when the dollar value of claiming benefits at a later age surpasses the value of taking them earlier, comes at roughly 78 years, 8 months, regardless of which age between 62-70 one first files their claim.  If you live past 78/8, it will benefit you to have waited.
> 
> Delaying past 70 makes no sense, since maximum benefits are attained at 70.
> 
> ...


Ok, yeah that's it. I wrote it as "under 100" (or whatever) in my post because I don't remember the number he said, I just remember it was less than 100 and the other number was less than 200. 

Also, the reason I even had an advisor is because I'd been awarded a sumly amount in a lawsuit and still had quite a chunk of it left, so I'm sure his advice centered around that. But I remember him saying that the part about the months and the ultimate payout applied to most full-time workers.


----------



## OneEyedDiva (Dec 18, 2022)

@StarSong _You said: "The break even point for SS age claims, which is when the dollar value of claiming benefits at a later age surpasses the value of taking them earlier, comes at roughly 78 years, 8 months, regardless of which age between 62-70 one first files their claim. If you live past 78/8, it will benefit you to have waited."_
I believe I saw that my break even age is 78 too. Taking it early and investing it with investments that do well can actually be better than waiting. I've already done the projections. When financial analysts finally starting getting real and publishing reports stating that waiting isn't always best for everybody, one of the reasons they gave for not waiting was investing (wisely, of course) their SS.


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 19, 2022)

Breakeven is different for all of us .

if one is laying out the ss they are not getting with money that is either invested or could be invested then break even is much longer .

it can take until about age 90 for delaying to equal early ss at 62 and a balanced portfolio.

plus there are no spousal benefits paid if the higher earner delays .that adds to the time too.

I would run away from any advisor that makes blanket statements about the worst age to take ss is 62…. It depends on so much more


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 19, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> My advisor said to absolutely file before age 70. After 70, you actually start losing benefits, not only because of longevity but also, if you file at 70, SS pays you for less than 100 months, but at, say 67, it pays for almost 200 months, and the ultimate total is higher.
> 
> I'm not sure I remember all that right, but I remember he said the worst age to file is 62, and everyone should file by age 67.


I would avoid that advisor ….blanket statements like that , about 62  are just wrong as well as the age 67 comment

there is no best age .. it all depends on each persons situation and plan …

there are as many reasons for filing at 62 as there are at 70 , and every age in between..
we all have different situations


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 19, 2022)

Star song. ,Keep in mind life expectancy is different for couples than singles …

with a couple there are two horses in the race and either can outlive the other .

for a 65 year old couple the odds of one of them seeing 85 is a whopping 73% …odds of one seeing 90 is 47% or pretty close to a coin toss .

so those odds are much higher then either would be individually


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 19, 2022)

WhatInThe said:


> Some start collecting social security too early. Some make the mistake of trying to collect the second they're eligible. The longer they wait and older they are the more one gets. The trick is wait to as long as possible. I know people who did that and sadly they never made it to see a social security check.


Again  , this is not true for everyone .. delaying for some can be a poor choice and a dangerous choice if they are retiring at 62 and spending assets dangerously low laying out the ss they are not getting .

retiring at 62 and delaying until 70 needs a whole lot of money to lay out or if you have other sources, that is a lot of money not to get that could be invested

odds are better as well that early ss and not spending invested assets down or money that could be invested if you had early ss  will beat the balance and income you would have delaying .

also the worst question to ask is what if I die ?.

dead is dead .

the most important question to ask is what if I or my spouse live.

so these generizations about whats best are just false as one size fits all advice.

the catch 22 is most of those who retire at 62 and need the extra money at 70 , cant afford to delay until 70 since they need to live on that money or they will deplete assets to low


----------



## Supernatural (Dec 19, 2022)

charry said:


> i get £550 a month  since retirng last august , and they took my carers allowance away
> so i actually get £  240 .00 amonth ...


Oh thanks for the info, as I was wondering about my carer's allowance, as what will happen to it when and if I get pension at 66. However, you should get help with rent, cost of living and the government energy scheme, if not check with DWP.

By the way, there's a current situation with British Gas customers not receiving the monthly government payment. Most received Oct and Nov but Dec hasn't showed up on meters or as vouchers through the mail (strikes there are one cause) so it might come later this week, hopefully!

Currently, it's less than £500 a month to get by and I managed to save quite a lot as I'm thrifty, always finding bargains here and there. I've a set budget, regular monthly payments, so that makes things easier but food has been wee bit pricier. Due to postal strikes, pandemic and all, getting news through mail has been difficult times enough. I'm hopeful that the New Year will bring good news ... Well fingers-crossed hey?


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 19, 2022)

Robert59 said:


> I know of a person that never paid into Social Security and had bad medical problems at age of 35 like having a leg taken off and 3 heart surgerys. He did get like 700.00 dollars a month from SS before he died at 42.


Unless it was a spousal benefit  if he didn’t pay in it would be ssi and not social security .ssi is a welfare program.

it is for those who don’t qualify for ssdi which is social security disability


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 19, 2022)

Fidelity investments had come out with their own optimizing social security software …

it was for their own internal use…

we were one of the first to put it to the test .

it really did find the biggest payment with some complex moves .

but I pointed out that it did not interface with our entire financial picture  and may not be the best  choice for us .

they agreed that without looking at everything from potential aca subsidy’s to taxes to rmds , etc it really was not ready for client use and they pulled it back .

for those interested , this is what is came up with .

my wife is 2 years older and was already collecting her 62 benefit .

so it had  her  stopping her early Benefit  at her fra ….

she would start again at 70 ..

I would be 68 and so it had me filing restricted application for half her benefit .

at 70 I would file and at that point she would file for spousal and get an adder to her benefit .

but that didn’t do as well as me filing pre fra  and stopping the spending down of money to advance ourselves the ss ,and just leaving that money invested


----------



## StarSong (Dec 19, 2022)

OneEyedDiva said:


> @StarSong _You said: "The break even point for SS age claims, which is when the dollar value of claiming benefits at a later age surpasses the value of taking them earlier, comes at roughly 78 years, 8 months, regardless of which age between 62-70 one first files their claim. If you live past 78/8, it will benefit you to have waited."_
> I believe I saw that my break even age is 78 too. Taking it early and investing it with investments that do well can actually be better than waiting. I've already done the projections. When financial analysts finally starting getting real and publishing reports stating that waiting isn't always best for everybody, one of the reasons they gave for not waiting was investing (wisely, of course) their SS.


You're a rare bird, as we already know, Diva.   Relatively few people invest SS (wisely or not) when they take it early; they use it for living expenses while also spending down their retirement savings.


mathjak107 said:


> Star song. ,Keep in mind life expectancy is different for couples than singles …
> 
> with a couple there are two horses in the race and either can outlive the other .
> 
> ...


Absolutely agree.  Chances are high that either DH or I will live past the breakeven point.  

Had DH and I stopped working at 62 and drawn SS, it would have meant drawing approx $3K monthly from our nest egg to float our living expenses or downsize considerably. No thanks. We opted to work part time and delay SS. When we retire fully late 2023, thanks to bigger SS checks we'll only need $1K monthly from the nest egg to meet those same expenses. 

Working longer hasn't done us any harm, believe me, and it's a family tradition, so to speak. 
My father worked into his 90s because he loved it. Same with my grandfather into his late 80s. Mom didn't work outside the home, but believe me, she worked hard inside it until her spinal stenosis forced her into a wheelchair at 90. My in-laws took a very generous early retirement golden parachute, but neither of them sat still after that. FIL was always remodeling their home, or helping with their kids' homes. No sitting on the porch whittling during retirement for any of them.

To be fair, DH & my work isn't particularly physically demanding.  Construction, caregiving, factory work, and many other occupations beat up one's body to the point where working longer isn't possible, and many seniors are downsized out of jobs (despite ageism being illegal), so I understand the need and lure of taking SS at 62.  

Another important consideration: we hope, plan and expect to leave our children nice inheritances, just as we were from our parents.


----------



## Murrmurr (Dec 19, 2022)

mathjak107 said:


> I would avoid that advisor ….blanket statements like that , about 62  are just wrong as well as the age 67 comment
> 
> there is no best age .. it all depends on each persons situation and plan …
> 
> ...


His advice has served me well.


----------



## StarSong (Dec 19, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> His advice has served me well.


That's what matters most.


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 19, 2022)

first Of all , most people can not evaluate an advisor properly .

any advisor that would say. What he did as one size fits all ,  lost My respect as an advisor because what he said is just wrong as a blanket statement .

people usually have no bench mark for measuring just how good an advisor is …

but so far he blew it with his social security advice ..

it may be good advice for you but not for others …

there is no one size is best in this stuff


----------



## Murrmurr (Dec 19, 2022)

mathjak107 said:


> first Of all , most people can not evaluate an advisor properly .
> 
> any advisor that would say. What he did as one size fits all ,  lost My respect as an advisor because what he said is just wrong as a blanket statement .
> 
> ...


Okie-dokie, good sir.


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 19, 2022)

It’s important that everyone understand there is no such thing as a best time to take ss for all .

in fact the reality is those that retire at 62  and want to delay or need to delay , may not even be able to safely delay if they need to use their own assets to live on .

so those that need the money the most are the same ones who may be putting themselves in danger by depleting to much of their own nest egg trying to delay .

a big factor can be spousal benefits when delaying , as a spouse may get thousands of dollars in a spousal benefit. ..yet they can’t get any of that until the higher earner files .

so the longer they delay the more they give up while delaying ,  and the harder it is to get a head .

also , when you are collecting , what you pay for Medicare is capped by the amount of the cola adjustment under the hold harmless provision .

they can’t raise you more than the cola .

if you delay you are uncapped  And unprotected….while I was delaying and my wife was collecting I paid more for Medicare when I started on it.

there can be Medicare surcharges triggered by delaying with the bigger check and rmds .

there can be tax ramifications as well delaying .

so there is no way what is good for one person may be the same for all.

 I would seriously have to question using an advisor who throws out canned advice as being good for all as to when to take ss


----------



## Murrmurr (Dec 19, 2022)

mathjak107 said:


> It’s important that everyone understand there is no such thing as a best time to take ss for all ....


...but there certainly is for some. Depends on your lifetime earnings, holdings and investments, even your health. My financial advisor even considered my beneficiaries. He's awesome.


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 19, 2022)

Murrmurr said:


> My advisor said to absolutely file before age 70. After 70, you actually start losing benefits, not only because of longevity but also, if you file at 70, SS pays you for less than 100 months, but at, say 67, it pays for almost 200 months, and the ultimate total is higher.
> 
> I'm not sure I remember all that right, but I remember he said the worst age to file is 62, and everyone should file by age 67.



what i take issue with is that last line where he said the worst age to file is 62 and everyone should file by 67 ..

That is  just poor advice as a statement for all.

I can list loads of reasons why that isn’t good advice starting with what I said above and we haven’t even discussed survivor benefits and planning


----------



## Murrmurr (Dec 19, 2022)

mathjak107 said:


> what i take issue with is that last line where he said the worst age to file is 62 and everyone should file by 67 ..
> 
> That is  just poor advice as a statement for all.
> 
> I can list loads of reasons why that isn’t good advice starting with what I said above and we haven’t even discussed survivor benefits and planning


He was talking to _me_. In my circumstance, it was excellent advice, and I shared it here assuming most people who saw it would look into it before deciding when's the best time for them. There are better and worse times depending on your circumstances.


----------



## mathjak107 (Dec 19, 2022)

Realize though that is not what was conveyed in your post …

that last line doesn’t sound like it’s advice to you ….it reads like you passing on advice he said  which is as a blanket statement and no one other then you should assume that advice is meant for them to listen to.

after all you did say  he said everyone should file by 67 ….as well as he said 62 is the worst age 

which spurred my comments on that .


----------



## Murrmurr (Dec 19, 2022)

mathjak107 said:


> Realize though that is not what was conveyed in your post …
> 
> that last line doesn’t sound like it’s advice to you ….it reads like you passing on advice he said  which is as a blanket statement and no one other then you should assume that advice is meant for them to listen to.
> 
> after all you did say  he said everyone should file by 67 ….as well as he said 62 is the worst age .


I don't know why you insist

From beginning to end my post conveys what my adisor said....to _me_, obviously. It's unfortunate, I guess, that you somehow interpreted it differently, so, my apologies for whatever caused that to happen.


----------



## Georgiagranny (Dec 19, 2022)

For heaven's sake, y'all. Stop beating a dead horse! We get it; there are only so many ways to say the same thing.


----------

