H
Harpy Eagle
Guest
Seems to be the new thing.
www.yahoo.com
For better-off Americans, the pandemic economy created some of the strongest incentives to retire in modern history, with generous federal stimulus, incredible market gains, skyrocketing home values and health concerns drawing many Americans into early retirement.
The surprising twist? Many of these retirees also opted to put off claiming Social Security benefits, an exclusive Washington Post analysis shows. By delaying their benefits, these retirees can expect to collect higher monthly checks in the future.
So, this just seems a not a great idea. I am not there yet, but have started serious retirement planning in the last year.
Using the numbers from the article...
Someone who turned 65 this year and last earned $60,000 could see their monthly payment jump from $1,418 to $1,550, a 9% increase, by delaying their retirement by a year, according to Social Security's calculations.
So, people are saying no to $85,080 over those 5 years so they can make an extra $132 a month after they turn 70? Seems you would have to live to at least 79 to really see the benefit of this move. Would it not make more sense to take it and invest if it you do not need it to live on?
If you do not need it to live, why not take it and invest it then when those 5 years are up you could easily have an extra 100 grand.
What do you all think? What am I missing here?
The latest twist in the 'Great Resignation': Retiring but delaying Social Security
For better-off Americans, the pandemic economy created some of the strongest incentives to retire in modern history, with generous federal stimulus, incredible market gains, skyrocketing home values and health concerns drawing many Americans into early retirement. The surprising twist? Many of...
For better-off Americans, the pandemic economy created some of the strongest incentives to retire in modern history, with generous federal stimulus, incredible market gains, skyrocketing home values and health concerns drawing many Americans into early retirement.
The surprising twist? Many of these retirees also opted to put off claiming Social Security benefits, an exclusive Washington Post analysis shows. By delaying their benefits, these retirees can expect to collect higher monthly checks in the future.
So, this just seems a not a great idea. I am not there yet, but have started serious retirement planning in the last year.
Using the numbers from the article...
Someone who turned 65 this year and last earned $60,000 could see their monthly payment jump from $1,418 to $1,550, a 9% increase, by delaying their retirement by a year, according to Social Security's calculations.
So, people are saying no to $85,080 over those 5 years so they can make an extra $132 a month after they turn 70? Seems you would have to live to at least 79 to really see the benefit of this move. Would it not make more sense to take it and invest if it you do not need it to live on?
If you do not need it to live, why not take it and invest it then when those 5 years are up you could easily have an extra 100 grand.
What do you all think? What am I missing here?
Last edited by a moderator: