5 scenarios where claiming Social Security early is a terrible move

Fox Business ^ | Aug 24 2020 | Fox Business

[ConservativeMind]

You are quite the wife and friend.

Thank you for being you.

[madison10]

Agree. What we decided.

[dragnet2]

If you make more than 17k in addition to social security income, they reduce the social security benefit.

If I'm not mistaken, they only do that until you reach full retirement age, and then you can make as much as you want and not be dinged by SS. But I could be wrong.

[timestax]

$$$$$$$$$$$$ bttt

[LostInBayport]

I don’t think it’d be wise to wait until 70, for me.

I feel the same. I tried to think of men on the sides of both of my parents who made it to 80. Almost none. The women often make 90, though.

Seeing that I have a health problem, I'm taking it at 62 if I won't need additional income to survive. Of course since I'm not even 50 this whole thing is probably moot. In 15 years there may not be Social Security, or there will be a draconian wealth tax or no country at all.

[HartleyMBaldwin]

Take the money and hobble.

[rexthecat]

I took it 7 years ago at 67. Worked for me.

[marktwain]

This article is BS. It all comes out to being exactly the same using actuarial tables.

Exactly correct.

A risk they never mention, is the risk of Socialist inSecurity being lost due to crashed or replaced government.

Thin a BLM government is going to worry about paying Socialist inSecurity to old white guys? Think again.

[SamAdams76]

I'm not sold on the "take it early" argument. The difference is pretty significant. I'm on track to earn $3,007/mo if I can wait until FRA at 67 (just 9 years away). Taking it at 62 is $2,107/mo. Waiting until 70 gets me to almost $4,000/mo.

That's a huge swing. $48K per year vs barely $25K a year (or $36K at FRA). And that's not including my wife's Social Security or my 401k.

If I live to be 90 or more, I'll be happy I waited. If I die earlier, I won't care about missing out on the money because I'll be dead.

Guess it depends on how healthy I am when I turn 62 (depressingly just four years from now).

[outofsalt]

" Trump wants to do away with the payroll tax."

Wrong! He wants a payroll tax holiday, Which I Oppose!
I would rather see a loan or withdrawal option for a limited amount over a limited basis. Helps immediately those who need it and still not bankrupt the whole thing.

[cgbg]

I am the oddball around here—but for me waiting until 70 is a no-brainer.

I am 68 and in excellent health, retired and have enough income coming in now that I don’t need it now.

Both my parents are alive and in excellent health—good genes. (One of my grandmothers made it to 106.)

My wife made a lot less than I did so she benefits from my waiting....

So, yeah, I could keel over tomorrow—but you gotta play the odds...

[damper99]

If I wait till 70 my wife gets a bigger survivors benefit if I predecessor her ( which is likely since women live longer). But I don’t know if I’ll be able to afford waiting till 70.

Yes, sort of. Her survivor benefit is based on your benefit at your full retirement age (67 or thereabouts). By delaying to 70, the full retirement benefit for age 67 will increase over those additional three years, but her survivor benefit is NOT figured on your benefit amount taken at age 70, but at the 67 age level.

[MGunny]

Collect at 62. 79 years of age is the break even point.

[bankwalker]

I couldn’t have said it better Sam.

[marktwain]

I'm not sold on the "take it early" argument. The difference is pretty significant. I'm on track to earn $3,007/mo if I can wait until FRA at 67 (just 9 years away). Taking it at 62 is $2,107/mo. Waiting until 70 gets me to almost $4,000/mo.

Much depends on how much you enjoy your job.

I had a good career, and overall felt productive.

As the bureaucracy aged, and became more burdensome, the job became less enjoyable.

I got out at 62 and started doing what I enjoyed and was passionate about.

I would not trade that time. It has been wonderful.

[Dan in Wichita]

The article left out the one reason I took it early. You have enough money and you expect the politicians to take your SS away.

That's exactly what I was gonna say but you beat me to it. My plan is to draw at age 62, starting next April 1. I want to get as much out of SS as soon as possible before they reduce or cancel my benefits.

[CaptainK]

If you started at 62, by the time you hit 70 you would have already accumulated $201,600 in SS payments.

I’m getting it as soon as I can while I can.

[icclearly]

Everyon’s situation is different. So, there is no right or wrong. I waited until I was 70 (6 years ago) on purpose to get the maximum amount plus if I predecease my wife she gets half of my amount (not her’s which is much less today). My wife and my SSI Is slightly less than the average household income in our state. If I had taken it early (65). It would be one-half of my current amount.

[Vermont Lt]

So, just so I have it correctly...the total amount is just divided over the months (from 62, 65, or 70.). So by the time you hit 79, your sum total will be the same?

Well, then why wouldn’t you take it the day you are eligible?
.

[SamAdams76]

There’s certainly a value in quality of life as well. If I did not like my job, taking Social Security earlier would be more of a choice. Currently I like my career and would like to stay in it so long as I stay healthy. But that could change rapidly. This year, with the pandemic, it remains to be seen how viable my industry will be over the next 10 years.