# Taking social security early, at age 62



## i_am_Lois

I will be 62 in a few months. I'm still not decided about taking the social security early at that age (and get a reduced amount) or if I should wait till I'm eligible for the full amount. I'm not in dire straits but I'd be lying if I said the extra money wouldn't come in handy now. I've had a heart attack, had a pre cancer and several other health issues. Longevity is not something that runs in my family. Both parents are deceased and I... who was the oldest of the 4 children they had, am the only one still living. I am leaning towards taking it early. 

What have you decided about your social security benefits, and why?


----------



## Kaya

I will be 62 in a few months too. I plan on going there in July to start the paperwork because it's my money and I want it nowwwwwwwwwwwwww.layful:


----------



## BobF

Lois, I decided way back then to take the early date and get some income arriving.    I then, after 6 months or so, went out and found a different job for about 3 or so more years.   Than when I decided I had enough full time jobs I went part time for entirely new jobs.   I also did voluntary jobs to help fill my time jar.   I still owed money on the house we raised my family in so much of my newer jobs went to pay that off.   Eventually we sold at a good price and moved way across the state to a small town.  This is where I took those part time jobs and did voluntary work to get to know folks and to keep my hand busy rather than laying around wondering what to do.

wToday I am about to turn 81, on July 4th.    I have had some scary times as well and watched my wife, now about to be 82, go through some scary times too.   I have had prostate cancer, a brain tumor that was removed surgically and then found not to be cancerous.   But it was big enough to cause me to become unconscious one Sunday and the wife drove me to the hospital then after some tests the ambulance drove me to another larger town an hour and a half away.   I survived the surgery and the after care classes.   My wife has also had her share of cancers and after 20 years she is still going along just fine.

I think taking it early is just fine for me and my wife and several friends that also took the payments early.   We paid plenty over our working life, so did our employers.   Why not get the benefits of the funds saved before the end of life.    Any of our inputs not taken come from left overs from those that did not live long enough to collect or shortly after signing up.

I felt no guilt having done my period of waiting after signing on and then going back to work again full time and part time.   I was able to build up a decent bank account and now live on our retirement checks and seldom need to dig into our bank accounts for necessities.   Our bank accounts help us to buy necessary things like a newer car to replace the older one starting to cost us repair moneys.   Never buy a new car, just 2 or 3 year old versions.


----------



## Denise1952

Hi Lois, 

We have a lot in common.  I pretty much decided if I am not making a "living" wage, well, I won't have a choice not to draw mine.  If I am making the amount, or up to the amount, I am allowed to make, and still draw my SS, I will draw it come December when I turn 62.  Mine won't be enough for me to live on, other than low-income housing etc. so I will supplement it best I can, and do expect to be working.  Just a one, income family here, but just one-person bills too

I think my main thought on it, is quality of life for me, if it helps with that, which it would, then I'm taking it asap.  The other thing is with the world looking the way it does, health issues etc., why wait, and possibly loose out on something I've earned.

edited, I just wanted to ad that everyone knows that I am not the "all knowing" about the "system" but what I do see, is that the SS fund is being messed with, and I don't like that.  It's the last fund that should ever be touched/dipped into by the government.  I mean maybe there is a more important fund I am not seeing at this moment, but Americans have payed into this, as BobF mentions, plus the employers put in their part.  I guess I am frightened a bit, who can't see that, but I don't want to see that money taken away from those Americans, including me.


----------



## Kaya

Yes..that is scarey too, knowing SS is being "messed with". Which is why I am taking mine. I need the extra money to survive because disability has denied me too many times even though MY doctors said I cannot work, THEIR doctors insist I can. So...in a few months, I will get what I paid in to before it disappears.


----------



## Denise1952

What I wonder is where those dollars are going instead of SS fund for people that have earned it, payed into it?  How do those things disappear without us having anything to say about it.  I suppose people vote for who they think will fight for those things, but things get changed without the "voice" of the people.  Surely anyone who has earned a living, payed into SS would never vote that it's ok for the gov to snatch those funds for other things.  I don't know, like I said, I am not "up on" all the things that go on and that's my fault for not paying attention.  Even if I did, how much good does it do people that do pay attention and do make intelligent choices on whos going to hold office or what bills get passed or don't.


----------



## Happyflowerlady

When my heart went bad, my doctor said I should file for disability SS, and they would give it to me right away, since the a-fib and CHF were only going to get progressively worse as I got older. However, SS disability denied my claim, and for the next several years, I was doing the re-applying and appeal routine; all the while going without the medicine that I needed for my heart, since I had no medical insurance, and no income to get any, either. 
Eventually, I was about to turn 62, and the SS advisor who was helping me said it was smarter to just file for the SS pension, rather than to continue to fight for the disability. So, I did that. I still didn't have any medical coverage, but there was a low-income clinic that helped me so I could at least get the heart meds, until I turned 65 and could get Medicare.
I am glad that I took mine early, and would have started even sooner if I could have gotten the disability instead.


----------



## Denise1952

Happyflowerlady said:


> When my heart went bad, my doctor said I should file for disability SS, and they would give it to me right away, since the a-fib and CHF were only going to get progressively worse as I got older. However, SS disability denied my claim, and for the next several years, I was doing the re-applying and appeal routine; all the while going without the medicine that I needed for my heart, since I had no medical insurance, and no income to get any, either.
> Eventually, I was about to turn 62, and the SS advisor who was helping me said it was smarter to just file for the SS pension, rather than to continue to fight for the disability. So, I did that. I still didn't have any medical coverage, but there was a low-income clinic that helped me so I could at least get the heart meds, until I turned 65 and could get Medicare.
> I am glad that I took mine early, and would have started even sooner if I could have gotten the disability instead.



Hi Happy,

I had to go since 97 without insurance, and 2, uninsured surgeries.  I can relate in that respect.  I wasn't working a job that paid any health insurance.  I was never disabled, and still am not, fortunately, but if I were, I would have tried to get disability, that would have given me more of my SS than the pension at 62.  But alas, that is history now, and just hoping for a better future  Glad you are set now with insurance.  You are a survivor!!  We have to be don't we, in many ways


----------



## Kaya

Happyflowerlady said:


> When my heart went bad, my doctor said I should file for disability SS, and they would give it to me right away, since the a-fib and CHF were only going to get progressively worse as I got older. However, SS disability denied my claim, and for the next several years, I was doing the re-applying and appeal routine; all the while going without the medicine that I needed for my heart, since I had no medical insurance, and no income to get any, either.
> Eventually, I was about to turn 62, and the SS advisor who was helping me said it was smarter to just file for the SS pension, rather than to continue to fight for the disability. So, I did that. I still didn't have any medical coverage, but there was a low-income clinic that helped me so I could at least get the heart meds, until I turned 65 and could get Medicare.
> I am glad that I took mine early, and would have started even sooner if I could have gotten the disability instead.



Yes. I experienced the same thing. They denied me 4 times. I finally gave up.


----------



## SeaBreeze

I'll be 62 next year, but haven't decided anything about SS benefits yet.  This article, as the last paragraph suggests, says to take it early...http://wallstreetonparade.com/2014/...-social-security-carefully-consider-your-ira/


----------



## Denise1952

Yes, and what I got most out of that article is that each situation is unique, each person's.  Good article and thank you SB


----------



## CPA-Kim

I plan on retiring when I'm 62 (three years away) and will take both my pension and Social Security.


----------



## SeaBreeze

nwlady said:


> Yes, and what I got most out of that article is that each situation is unique, each person's.  Good article and thank you SB



You're welcome Nwlady!  I'm not very financially minded, and my husband usually makes decisions on what we should or shouldn't do, after discussing it with me of course.  Here's Charles Schwab saying to wait...http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/When-Should-You-Take-Social-Security


----------



## SifuPhil

"Grab th' booty 'n' run", say the pirates.

Good advice.

If i make it through the next 6 years I'll be applying at the earliest moment. Like Lois my family has a history of dying off early and I'm the last survivor of the family line (beside my two sons, of course), so I'm not going to give SSA the satisfaction of keeping my money when it could be going in my pocket.

A little now is better than a lot later.


----------



## rkunsaw

As said, each situation is different. I waited until full retirement age because both my social security and my company pension were a lot more plus I had nearly three more years to add to my 401k.

I now have a lot more income than I would have if I retired at 62. In my case I'm glad I waited. I would figure out what my total income would be in each situation and then decide whats best.


----------



## Bullie76

There are lots of good arguments on the net about the pros and cons of taking SS early. I'm undecided but have a couple of more years to go before reaching 62. My FA at my brokerage firm recommends waiting. He thinks of it as buying longevity insurance. But with the SS program being in poor shape, hard to argue with the 'bird in the hand' approach. 

So not sure at this point. Might wait a couple of years for an additional bump. I know I don't have it in me to wait until 70.


----------



## GeorgiaXplant

I took SS at 62, and it was barely $1K at the time. DH waited until then to start collecting. After he died, the SS people explained to me how the benefits work. DH's benefit was much higher than mine and when he died, my benefit went up by the amount it took to make up the difference between what he'd been getting and what I was getting.

If I'd waited until I could get the full benefit, I'd be getting the same as I am now because it still would have been the difference between what I got and what he'd been getting. So in my particular case, it really made no difference at all.


----------



## GeorgiaXplant

Another thing...just in case there's anybody out there who's unaware...if you're divorced but were married 10 years or longer, you can get benefits based on your spouse's SS history if they were higher earners than you were. SS usually catches this but not always, so ask!!!

If your former spouse remarried, and the new partner collects on those benefits, they are not affected at all in the amount of benefits paid.


----------



## Lon

I am 79 and have been receiving my Social Security since age 62 and have never been sorry for doing so instead of waiting longer to get a higher benefit. As required by law I started taking RMD (Required Minimum Distribution from my IRA account at 70 1/2.


----------



## i_am_Lois

Well I went ahead and applied for my early (age 62) social security benefits. My husband had applied for and gotten his 2 years ago. He told me what to expect. The form he filled out requested the name of the hospital where he was born, then they followed up with a phone call where they asked him his mother's maiden name and a few other questions. I collected all that information about myself and kept it handy. The form I filled out did not ask any questions about my parents or what hospital I was born in. I never got a phone call about my mom's maiden name. My husband then became very upset thinking I had gone to a fake social security site and provided personal information plus my social security number. But he within a few days I got a letter in the mail from them saying I was eligible, my claim was processed and my checks will start coming. So the social security department must occasionally change what they feel is required information to process claims.


----------



## ClassicRockr

I took my SS at 62 (Early Retirement), b/c I was still unemployed and had used all of my UI benefits up. Wife and I decided that having some money come in for me was better than none coming in. My SS is now down to a little over $700 a month now due to my Medicare B monthly Premium each month. Wife wants to wait, if she can, til she turns 70 in 3 yrs./3 months. "If she can" means staying healthy and on the job! She does like working b/c it keeps her mind occupied somewhat more than being at home. Anyway, after she turns 70, we will REALLY "downsize" stuff we have.


----------



## ronaldj

I ran the numbers and then I ran to the bank at 62....


----------



## BobF

ClassicRockr said:


> I took my SS at 62 (Early Retirement), b/c I was still unemployed and had used all of my UI benefits up. Wife and I decided that having some money come in for me was better than none coming in. My SS is now down to a little over $700 a month now due to my Medicare B monthly Premium each month. Wife wants to wait, if she can, til she turns 70 in 3 yrs./3 months. "If she can" means staying healthy and on the job! She does like working b/c it keeps her mind occupied somewhat more than being at home. Anyway, after she turns 70, we will REALLY "downsize" stuff we have.



Are the rules different now than when I retired several years ago.   For me I could quite, start my SS at 63, then after a period of time passed, not sure but I think 6 months then, so I could go get a job and still collect my SS.    So I did and was really glad as the ability to go back to work gave me something to do and the money was nice to have also.   Let us see, I am 81 now and retired at 63 so I have been retired for 18 years.    I have not worked for several years now but when I could I worked in manufacturing, stores like WalMart, unpaid part time in visitors centers for the state and community, part time volunteer for watching old time native American sites with cliff dwellings remaining.   Some very interesting ways to spend the time and if you can make some money.   Something to think about as you start your SS.


----------



## rkunsaw

Taking SS at age 62 is fine if you can afford it. I hear so many people complaining though about SS being their only or main source of income and how hard it is to get by. Many of them are among those who took it early.


----------



## Ameriscot

GeorgiaXplant said:


> Another thing...just in case there's anybody out there who's unaware...if you're divorced but were married 10 years or longer, you can get benefits based on your spouse's SS history if they were higher earners than you were. SS usually catches this but not always, so ask!!!
> 
> If your former spouse remarried, and the new partner collects on those benefits, they are not affected at all in the amount of benefits paid.



I took my SS at 62 and was shocked to learn that my Scottish husband who has never lived or worked or earned any money in the US was entitled to SS as my spouse because we've been married more than 10 years.  The UK/US have pensions agreements, but the one where spouses of Brits living in the US were entitled to a UK pension was stopped a year or so ago.  The UK reported my UK pension to SS so I get about $50 less per month because of that. 

I only worked in the US for 17 years and never at a high paying job.  So our SS payments aren't huge but enough to make a big dent in the expenses of traveling.  I also get a small university pension from one I worked at in TN and got that one at age 60.  

I also get a UK pension at 62 because I worked here for 7 years and also get more based on my husband getting a full pension.  

Our living expenses are covered by my husband's work pension that he's been getting since he retired at 55 - 10 years.  The majority of our other pensions go for travel.  

We were very pleasantly surprised to learn we were getting a lot more than we'd planned on!  And we became eligible for 4 of the pensions (2 US 2 UK) at almost the same time since hubby turned 65 just a few months before I turned 62.  

And, of course, with the NHS we never have medical expenses.  I feel extremely fortunate to be retired here.


----------



## Ameriscot

rkunsaw said:


> Taking SS at age 62 is fine if you can afford it. I hear so many people complaining though about SS being their only or main source of income and how hard it is to get by. Many of them are among those who took it early.



It I had stayed single instead of moving to the UK in 2000 I'd still be working and I'd probably work until at least 65, maybe 67.  I would not have taken SS at 62.


----------



## Lon

I planned ahead of time at age 40 to take SS at age 62 as well as a pension and actually retire at age 58 by living on investment earnings for four years. Retirement is all in the planning and then carrying out your plan.


----------



## BobF

Ameriscot said:


> It I had stayed single instead of moving to the UK in 2000 I'd still be working and I'd probably work until at least 65, maybe 67.  I would not have taken SS at 62.



This is so true and it seems many just don't think about that.    I had retirement and SS plus savings and my property near paid off.    I worked even though officially retired to pay off the home mortgage and for a while longer building savings for future living.   Not sure if people can still to that as it seems there are just no enough jobs for folks to do these days.   One of my retired time employers now only hires part time employees to avoid some of the newer cost pushed on them by the current government.   Things like this need to be ended by removing lots of unnecessary rules and letting businesses run for profits and employee benefits rather than to please an overspending government.   My opinion for sure.


----------



## QuickSilver

I think it depends on your health and on the job you are doing.  My husband just turned 63 and he will get his first SS check next month.  However, he was doing very difficult and physical work. He is a Respiratory Therapist and was doing 12 hour night shifts.  So we decided it made more sense for him at this age to cut back, and do some agency work.  He is still allowed to make $15,480 a year without it affecting his SS benefit.

I on the otherhand, am NOT doing difficult or stressful work.  I also love my job.   I will turn 66 in January, which is my full retirement age.  So I'm going to start my SS benefits in February and continue working.  There is no restriction on earnings for me now.  I hope to work another 2 years... at least until Hubby is eligible for Medicare.  I know I will not want to work until I am 70.. and I see a benefit to collecting SS AND working.  That is a lot of $$ coming in for a few years.. and since no one knows how long they will live, I figure it made sense to double dip for a few years. I also began collecting 3 small pensions when I turned 65.  There are a lot of things I can do with the extra $.   We also have a pretty substancial amount saved and when I finally retire, we will begin tapping that resourse.


----------



## JustBonee

I took my SS at 62, and it wasn't that much.  ... but today, 9 yrs. later, as fate would have it, it makes no difference when I took it.  
It just happened to work out that way...  my husband died a year and a half ago, and I lost my SS,  and started collecting his. 
He didn't start taking his until full retirement age.
So collecting mine at age 62 didn't affect anything.


----------



## Ameriscot

BobF said:


> This is so true and it seems many just don't think about that.    I had retirement and SS plus savings and my property near paid off.    I worked even though officially retired to pay off the home mortgage and for a while longer building savings for future living.   Not sure if people can still to that as it seems there are just no enough jobs for folks to do these days.   One of my retired time employers now only hires part time employees to avoid some of the newer cost pushed on them by the current government.   Things like this need to be ended by removing lots of unnecessary rules and letting businesses run for profits and employee benefits rather than to please an overspending government.   My opinion for sure.



I'm lucky that my husband planned well for retirement.  I didn't even start to think about it until my 40's.


----------



## 911

I am 63 now and undecided. We have a very good pension and I had over 30 years with the force. So, I am OK for now and with my wife's pension and 401(k), we are in decent shape.


----------



## Don M.

There are valid points to Both taking SS early, and Waiting till you can get Maximum benefits.  I suppose if a person knew exactly how long they would live, they could make the best decision.  IMO...take it as soon as you become eligible.  Besides, the way our government works, who knows how much longer this program will remain intact, in its present form.  The actuaries say that SS funding is sufficient for another 25 or 30 years, but after that, who knows.  In another year or two SSDI will hit a brick wall, and the government could use that as an excuse to "modify" all current entitlements, including SS and Medicare.


----------



## Butterfly

If you are still working at 62, check with an accountant or other tax professional to see how much of your social security will be lost to taxes if you still get a paycheck.  If you take SS prior to your full retirement age, there are limits on what you can make without losing part of the social security -- and even if that is OK with you, you will still be stuck with the reduced amount the rest of your life.  I elected to wait until full retirement age to take SS because I was still working.


----------



## QuickSilver

Butterfly said:


> If you are still working at 62, check with an accountant or other tax professional to see how much of your social security will be lost to taxes if you still get a paycheck.  If you take SS prior to your full retirement age, there are limits on what you can make without losing part of the social security -- and even if that is OK with you, you will still be stuck with the reduced amount the rest of your life.  I elected to wait until full retirement age to take SS because I was still working.



My hubby just started SS.  He is 63.   We didn't realize that only half of your SS amount is taxed federally.. and we live in a state that does not tax SS benefits.  Also, he is allowed to make $15,450 a year without is affecting his SS.. over that amount.. for every $2 you make over that amount.. you must give $1 of your SS back.   I also will start my SS in January... I'll be 66 so no limits for me


----------



## Jackie22

I have a history of longevity in my family, I retired at 62.


----------



## QuickSilver

My problem is I really like my job, and I have no idea what I will do when I DO retire.  Aimless drifting and unplanned activities have never been my strong suit.  I need structure.. I need to use my brain for productive measures, but I have to be on a deadline to move.. I have to have a goal. So I have put it off..


----------



## Don M.

There are several considerations one must explore when planning for retirement....and they vary considerably from person to person.  The way I see it...take the money when you have the opportunity, because it may not Always be there.  I bailed out from work at age 59 with a nice buyout from the company.  That sufficed until age 59.5 when I started taking a small payout from the IRA.  Then, at age 62, SS kicked in, and between the company pension, IRA, and SS, we make as much, or more, than when I was working.  Looking at how much I paid into SS over my working career, we have already gotten more out of that program than I paid in.  If we live to be as old as our parents, we will get 3 or 4 times as much as I paid in over 35+ working years.  Therein lies the problem for SS....as longevity increases, more and more people will be withdrawing far more than they ever paid in...and that will eventually spell disaster for that program.


----------



## QuickSilver

SS does not pay out from how much you paid in.  In other words... the money you paid is is long gone, having paid the benefits for those collecting SS while you were working.  There are no savings accounts with our individual names on them.  Our benefits are paid out of the FICA tax those working are paying now.  There is a way to fix SS and make it solvent forever.  That would be to raise the cap on the amount of income FICA is paid on.   Right now, we pay FICA on the first $115,000 of income.  If you make less than that, you are in essence paying FICA on 100% of your income.. while the millionaire is only paying FICA on a very small percentage of his income.  Raise the FICA cap to $250,000 and SS will be funded with no problems.


----------



## Don M.

Very true....the funding for SS has NOT kept pace with inflation, longevity, and this growing Disparity of Wealth.  Raising the caps would be the Most Obvious solution...but convincing our "bought and paid for" politicians to tax the wealthy is going to be a long hard process.  Instead, they hint at things like "means testing" in the future.  Most young people are convinced that SS will not be a viable program for them when they get ready to retire in another 20 or 30 years, and they are increasingly skeptical about getting anything back from that program.  

The litmus test will come sometime in 2016 when the funding for SSDI is slated to dry up.  At that point, our politicians are going to have to do something with our social programs to insure their future...or they will cave in to their wealthy masters, and destroy the retirement prospects for millions of our people.


----------



## tnthomas

Even though I paid into the SS system for 40+ quarters-  because I have a [small] pension from a county(public employer) I won't see a dime.


----------



## Ameriscot

tnthomas said:


> Even though I paid into the SS system for 40+ quarters-  because I have a [small] pension from a county(public employer) I won't see a dime.



I thought you had to be a federal employee in order not to be eligible for SS?  My last 10 years working in the US (out of 17) were for the state.


----------



## BobF

A big problem with SS is the way folks think about it today.   SS was never intended to pay for your way of life at all.    It is sufficient to help you after you retire,nothing else at all.   We are expected to think ahead and have some sort of savings plan while working, which means our savings, any retirement plan from the employers, then add in the SS returns based on income levels and amounts taken.

Otherwise, we need to just surrender to the welfare rules and that is all we get.    Which for some seems to be far too much as they are often drunks, drug addicts, never working when possible, just dependents on the welfare systems.


----------



## LogicsHere

Actually there is still a "salary" restriction.  In the year that you reach full retirement age, they will take $1 from every $3 of SS over $41,480 (old figure, increased for 2015) if you continue to work.


----------



## QuickSilver

LogicsHere said:


> Actually there is still a "salary" restriction.  In the year that you reach full retirement age, they will take $1 from every $3 of SS over $41,480 (old figure, increased for 2015) if you continue to work.



That's not what the Social Security office told me...   I turn 66 in January (my full retirement age)  and will collect my first SS check in February of next year.  I was told there was NO limit on earnings.  Could you please direct me to that provision in SS.gov?   I have looked everywhere in it and cannot find it.  It just tells me there is no earning restriction after full retirement age.

This is what I found on SS.gov.   Since I turn 66 on January 8th... this will not apply to me.. my 8 days of earning $ at 65 will not affect my benefits or exceed $41,400

*You are already age 65 at the beginning of the year but reached **full retirement age** in August 2014*. Your benefits are $800 per month. ($9,600 for the year) You earn $68,000 during the year, with $43,410 of it in the 7 months from January through July.
Your Social Security benefits would be reduced through July  by $670 ($1 for every $3 of the $2,010 you earned above the $41,400 limit). After we deduct $670, you would still receive $4,930 out of your $5,600 in benefits for the first 7 months (January through July). You would get all $4,000 in benefits for the 5 months after you reached full retirement age (August through December). 
Even though you earned $68,000, you would still get $8,930 of your Social Security benefits in 2014.


----------



## Don M.

I am amazed whenever I read an article stating how little people are saving for their retirements, and their average net worth.  Do some of these people think they will never grow old???  SS is just a "supplement" and was never intended to be the sole means of support.  Those who are trying to make do on SS Only certainly missed the boat during their working years.


----------



## QuickSilver

Don M. said:


> I am amazed whenever I read an article stating how little people are saving for their retirements, and their average net worth.  Do some of these people think they will never grow old???  SS is just a "supplement" and was never intended to be the sole means of support.  Those who are trying to make do on SS Only certainly missed the boat during their working years.



While I agree that some people just didn't plan Don, there are many more people that couldn't plan.  People with incomes so low, or illness that wiped out savings or some other event or series of events that prevented them from being able to squirrel away money.  Someone living at or below the poverty level most of their working lives can hardly be expected to have a diverse portfolio.    Conversely, I don't think folks that were able to save and plan should be punished for doing so.  This is why means testing is so unfair.  Once you add means testing to the mix, SS becomes a welfare program.  It shouldn't be.


----------



## Don M.

QuickSilver said:


> While I agree that some people just didn't plan Don, there are many more people that couldn't plan.  People with incomes so low, or illness that wiped out savings or some other event or series of events that prevented them from being able to squirrel away money.  Someone living at or below the poverty level most of their working lives can hardly be expected to have a diverse portfolio.    Conversely, I don't think folks that were able to save and plan should be punished for doing so.  This is why means testing is so unfair.  Once you add means testing to the mix, SS becomes a welfare program.  It shouldn't be.



There are certainly people who never made enough money in their working lifetimes to squirrel away much in savings.   But, there are an awful lot of these Boomers who lived their lives as if there were no tomorrow, and are just now waking up to the reality that retirement is just around the corner.  There were a lot of them who fell into the trap of thinking that House values would rise forever, and they lost their Butts in this recent downturn in the economy....and now, instead of having a bunch of equity in a house, they are deeply underwater.  There are also a huge number of people in, or near retirement, that are carrying large amounts of Debt....mortgages, credit cards, vehicles, etc.  Rule Number One for having a decent retirement is to Have NO Debt.  

Means Testing would be a real slap in the face to those who worked hard and saved for retirement.  Were that ever to become the norm, SS would...as you say...become just another Welfare Program for those who ignored the future.


----------



## Monty

In my situation, if I take Social Security at age 63, and therefore drawing less from my retirement savings, my break even point is at age 86,assuming the markets cooperate.


Taking less from your investments mitigates  the sequence of portfolio bad returns that  might occur early in retirement. 


Sequence-of-returns risk involves the actual order in which investment returns occur. Typically, negative returns earlier in retirement have a more severe impact on your portfolio than negative returns later in retirement. That’s because your portfolio’s value is reduced by both negative market performance and any withdrawals you take to fund your day-to-day expenses. This means that a smaller amount is left behind to experience any potential future growth.


----------



## Don M.

It would be fine to delay taking SS...IF a person knew how long they would live.  However, IMO, a person can do just as well, perhaps better, by taking SS as soon as they become eligible.  I have a statement showing how much I paid in over the years, and I passed the break even point after about 8 years, and now we am getting "other peoples" money.  If we live as long as our parents did, we will get at least 3, maybe 4 times more than we paid in....heckuva good deal, and one of the reasons why SS may be in trouble in the future, as more and more people live longer.  

Insofar as private investments are concerned...a person MUST educate themselves on how the Stock Market works, and monitor their investments or IRA closely, and be able to shift the funds around as the market conditions change.  If they do so, they can stretch an IRA out to give a decent return for many years.  If a person is lucky enough to find an Honest financial adviser, they can rest a bit easy, but most "advisers" are in it more for their commissions than the clients well being.  Personally, I trust my own decisions, and follow the markets closely, and so far, so good.


----------



## LogicsHere

Or, they worked in menial jobs because they lacked the education to do more than assembly line work, like my mother. Spent most of her educational years in and out of hospitals.

You seem awfully against us Boomers, Don. Perhaps you should have been born when we were or when our parents were. Maybe you'd have a better perspective.


----------



## LogicsHere

Quick, I don't think that Don can understand why some were unable to save. My Dad had to quit school in the 6th grade to help support a family of six when his father was killed in a train accident. My mother worked assembly lines because she was in and out of hospitals in her early "education years", graduated at the age of 17 only with an 8th grade diploma.  

What he also doesn't understand is that most of us started working with salaries of $45 a week and less.  We did NOT live beyond our means as we couldn't afford a house. We shared my grandmother's house and my parents bedroom until I turned 13 and then they moved to the parlor. We did not eat steak and/or lobster, we had chuck steak, pancakes and spaghetti. We did NOT have cell phones, computers, etc.  My sister and I grew up with 3 new outfits for school through grammar and high school.  My mother earned .05 for each chicken she plucked.  I could go on and on and on as so could many others.  Don is way off base.  I think he really needs to talk to more of us and perhaps he'll understand.


----------



## LogicsHere

Many companies did not offer pension plans and IRA's especially during my parents' time.  As for myself, I've done OK.  But then again I couldn't quit working at 55 as I had originally planned.  And I've spent years helping family members just getting by.  And instead of preaching gloom and doom, offer ways to avoid the "disaster" as you call it for SS.  Write you Senators, etc.  But do try to be less critical of others as you have no clue as to how they lived their lives, but have been brainwashed by what you've read and heard on TV.  And in fact, us Baby Boomers are actually better off in our planning for retirement than the Millenials because we didn't blow our money on new cars, and 6 generations of IPhones, etc.


----------



## Don M.

LogicsHere said:


> You seem awfully against us Boomers, Don. Perhaps you should have been born when we were or when our parents were. Maybe you'd have a better perspective.



There are certainly a few people who have had a rough time, due to health, etc., and were unable to forge a decent life for themselves.  However, those people are a slim minority compared to the majority of those nearing retirement.  The Boomers have a long history of "gotta have it all now", and statistics show that a large number of them are ill prepared for retirement.  

No one in my family was ever handed a "silver spoon".  My Dad was a dirt farmer, then a truck driver, and had an 8th grade education....but worked his tail off to give us a decent life.  I got a decent electronics education via the military, and forged a good career in that field until I retired.   Our family learned the value of hard work and saving from our ancestors, and it has served us well.  No one in our family has ever taken a Dime in government assistance...other than SS and Medicare.  I have sympathy for those who failed due to circumstances beyond their control....but for the rest...Not Much.


----------



## LogicsHere

The one thing that bothers me about these articles and people categorizing the entire group as "Boomers have a long history of gotta have it all now" is what angers me.  Unless one has proof that each and every one of us is like that, the entire group shouldn't be chastised. Many of us Boomers spent our lives working to give our kids the things that we didn't have while growing up and then you get comments from these kids who turn out unappreciative for all that their parents did do for them.  It's a group of Millenials, Gen Xs and Gen Y's that I see who are the ones that "gotta have it all now".  I fall into the "Boomer" classification by birth and so does my sister but neither one of us have fallen into that "gotta have it now" category.  

Not everyone despite the fact that we live in the good old USA have the same opportunities. As a single woman I couldn't get a mortgage on a condo, but I was told by the banker that I could buy it in cash because I had the money sitting in my bank account from my husband's passing. Not everyone is motivated the same and shouldn't have to be.  Everyone has a different aptitude when it comes to learning.  No one in my family ever took public assistance either and have worked their tails off, but none of us were able to afford to buy a home, nor do we have the 6th generation of IPhone, an IPad or anything else that the majority of the world has.  Yes, I drive a newer car than my sister, but hers and her husband's are more than 10 years old. None of us wear designer clothes nor do we have HD TV's. I haven't bought furniture since I married back in 1969.  Yes, I've had to replace a refrigerator or 2, a stove and an AC, but the first TV I had for my apartment was a brand new 25" RCA that I got for free for opening a CD back in the late 60s. I, myself, was able to buy a co-op apartment back in the 70s (I can't sell it, because no one is buying and hasn't been since 2008), I drive a newer car as I don't have anyone to help me care for it, but it will be my last (the majority of my other cars were driven 10+ years), did a fair share of traveling, and have decent retirement savings. My maintenance fee is about less than half of what a typical rent for a 1-bedroom apartment is in this area. I previously mentioned my furniture's age, my TV is 15 years old and works well, my cellphone is a TracFone for which I spend $100 a year for, and the majority of my clothes were purchased over ten years ago. I have helped my sister's family out to a tune of a great deal of money and I'd do it all again if I had to. I continue to work a full-time job and am the caregiver to our 94-year old handicapped, slightly demented mother.  And, the funny thing about it all is that "I'm happy". 

My sister and her husband on the other hand have not been so lucky.  They have nothing and I do mean nothing and struggle every minute of every day to pay their bills despite the fact they both work jobs and collect SS. They only have "cable tv" because their apartment complex offers it as part of their rent.  And my niece who lives with them and is trained as a medical and/or dental assistant is working P/T in a supermarket because she's been trying for the last 4 years to get a job in her field (and she's good at it), and no one and I do mean NO ONE will give her the time of day because she has no work experience at it yet all the minority groups seem to have gotten these positions.

I guess the point that I'm really trying to make is that unless you can prove something and statistics don't prove anything (they can be twisted to say anything that the users want them to say - and this I know from taking statistics in college is also a well-known fact) then try to be a little more open minded. Also, I doubt seriously that any of the group you mentioned who are ill prepared for retirement care whether they have others' sympathy or not.  Be happy and proud of yourself that you've done so well, but don't condemn others because you think they failed because you truly don't know anyone's circumstances but your own.


----------



## rkunsaw

There is only one person saying baby boomers were the ones that want it now. He is so wrong. That is what our generation says about our kids and grandkids. 


Our generation knew how to save for things we wanted rather than buying on credit. So many young folks today are so deep in debt I don't see how they will ever make it.


----------

