Retiring but delaying social security.

Harpy Eagle

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Feb 22, 2017
104,246
35,045
2,290
Seems to be the new thing.


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:
Seems to be the new thing.


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 is 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?
if you dont need it to live on you shouldnt get it,,
 
That is not the way it works. You paid into it, you get it back at the end. No matter how much money you have when that time comes
I think a good means testing is in order,, wouldnt want to screw the people in need would you??

and dont forget the I in SSI stands for insurance not a guaranteed payout,,
 
Last edited:
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.

But with a 5.9 percent COLA coming this year, you are better off taking retirement now and getting an extra $18,000 and still get $1519 a month next year
 
Last edited:
I think a good means testing is in order,, wouldnt want to screw the people in need would you??

and dont forget the I in SSI stands for insurance not a guaranteed payout,,

SSI stands for Supplemental Security Income
 
I have been paying social security since I was 14. Between that and my 401K, im looking at bringing in more a month than i do now.
That being said, I will be drawing SSI as soon as i can. I dont trust the fucking govt to hold up their end of the bargain.
I wish there was a way to cop out of it, honestly. Being forced is bullshit.
I would have much rather done with MY money how I see fit.
 
Basically, your Social Security payout will remain the same based on life expectancy
You just decide how many years you want it spread out
 
Seems to be the new thing.


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?
Investing hasn't always wrung out to be a good dice roll...remember what happened with Wall St. .... the IRA scandals? Hell, if gov't (Dem and Repub) would stop using SocSec as a piggy bank for other federal programs, it would be solvent.
 
I crunched the numbers, and decided to take SS at 62.

The difference for me taking it at 62 as opposed to 65, it would have taken me til 79 make up what I would have waited for.

I figured mine and it came out to 78 if I waited. Screw that. What do you have to spend it on in your 80's. I'm also taking mine at 62 when you still feel like using it on something.
 
Golfing Gator
Yup and wait until you are 66 to put in for it. If you wait till 66 you will get your full benefits without having to subtract any if you are still working.

If you file at 66 you can still work and make up to 46 thousand a year with no penalty. That's what I did. The SS is paying for my truck which I bought new in 2019. First new truck I've bought since 1992. I almost had heart attack at the price. Imagiine 35 thousand dollars for a truck. When I bought new in 92 to price was around 7 thousand and I flipped out at that. Good Lord.
 
This is sort of my thinking as well
Golfing Gator
Yup and wait until you are 66 to put in for it. If you wait till 66 you will get your full benefits without having to subtract any if you are still working.

If you file at 66 you can still work and make up to 46 thousand a year with no penalty. That's what I did. The SS is paying for my truck which I bought new in 2019. First new truck I've bought since 1992. I almost had heart attack at the price. Imagiine 35 thousand dollars for a truck. When I bought new in 92 to price was around 7 thousand and I flipped out at that. Good Lord.

I will probably work full time till my wife is ready to retire, which puts me between 65 and 70. I have a non-physical job I get to do from home and make too good a living to quit for no good reason.
 

Forum List

Back
Top