Posted on 08/05/2009 10:59:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
There was a thread about these a couple of months ago and most comments advocated taking SS at 62 if you were not planning to work after that time, even though the benefits would be reduced.
Heck, why not take the reduced SS amount at 62 and still work part time instead of working full time until you’re 67? As long as you don’t earn more than 14K, your benefits will not be reduced.
So I can retire at 62 and still earn another $14K. Geez, add the free healthcare Obama’s gonna give me and I can do pretty well. Now, if he would fill up my tank and pay my mortgage.................
I suspect that most people are drawing the rational conclusion that Social Security will collapse sooner rather than later, and taking benefits early rather than waiting eight years for them to bump up the retirement age yet again or slash benefits.
There's no apprehension here....I'll take what I can get for 5 years and consider that I at least got something on what was stolen from me...
This all assumes your life is in no way dependent on ANY medical care after age 65, because the tests to verify that you’re sick won’t be allowed, so there’s no risk of your receiving ANY expensive medical care to treat the illness.
If you take reduced benefits at 62, do they go up when you reach 66? Or are you stuck at the reduced amount forever?
My better half can’t find work and will be forced to take SS early. We are thankful that we have the option - even a reduced amount will pay the bills, we hope.
I believe there’s another strategy.
Start taking the money at age 62 and invest it.
At FRA, pay the money back, keep the extra interest, and get full benefits as if you didn’t take it early.
I am rapidly approaching age 62 and have contemplated taking my social security at that time. My rational for doing so is that if I delay seeking benefits for another 5 years, I run the considerable risk that social security, now going broke, will devise new ways to keep me working longer or deny benefits such as by means testing. I believe it would be harder for the government to take away a social security check I am already getting than devise new ways to keep me from getting benefits in the first place.
Shhhhhhhhh!
I have another 13 years until I get to reduced SS age. I fully expect them to bump the age up just as I get to it or means-test me out because I have been a good worker and saver, and after all, there are needier people than me.
I’d like to see confirmation of that. Don’t take it personally.
It’s a very nice strategy. It seems hard to believe that our blood sucking government would allow that.
I am on social security and took it at 62. If I remember correct it want up after I turned 65
No, they do not go up when you reach the age the government deems to be the “magic” age, except for any cost of living increases that apply to everyone else (the folks who don’t retire until 65, 66, 67, 68, etc. get their increased amounts, as well as the cost of living increases).
The one piece of information you need to make the right choice is to know how long you are going to live. If you’re going to live to 100, you’re better off waiting to 70 to start collecting benefits.
Which government health office do I call to get that piece of information?
People unclear on the concept...
Retirement is not the act of receiving social security payments. Retirement is the act of ceasing to work.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.