Jump to content

Cleanup in Aisle Lunatic (h/t romad1)


chasfh

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, Dan Gilmore said:

Five more days for me. Almost 67 and hoping SS plus some investments cover me. Both my parents lived well into their nineties.

Find something you love to do to keep busy.  Watching the news and shaking your fist does not count! :--)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2023 at 7:51 AM, pfife said:

I've been reading a lot about this and listening to a bunch of podcasts & whatnot and if you can hold off on taking Social Security benes until 70 it's way better financially.  

Flip side: if you take your fully-due 100% benefits at age 67, it takes until age 86 or so before you get as many dollars if you wait until 70, and even then that's three extra years early on to take the money you get from SS and invest it for the kind of long-term return that could wipe out even that difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2023 at 7:12 AM, oblong said:

 I love that the GOP is going all in on anti woke and cutting Medicare and SS. Just a giant circle jerk. 

This is the exact point. By putting 100% of their politicking efforts into culture war issues, Banana Republicans effectively excite and energize their red hat base so much on this one thing that they don't even think about the economics part at all, except when it's time to blame Democrats after Republicans make their retirement years go to shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

Flip side: if you take your fully-due 100% benefits at age 67, it takes until age 86 or so before you get as many dollars if you wait until 70, and even then that's three extra years early on to take the money you get from SS and invest it for the kind of long-term return that could wipe out even that difference.

That should be 79.

$36K (rough #'s here...) per year at 67-68-69, at 70 it's $48K/ year so it would take 9 years at $12K/ year advantage to catch up the the $108K already received 3 years earlier retiring at 67...

At 62 years retirement = $24K/ year * 8 years = $192K head start but at 70 it's also $24K/ year catch up so 8 years = 78.

But receiving/ investing early (if one has the ability to do so) would change those numbers of course...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, 1984Echoes said:

That should be 79.

$36K (rough #'s here...) per year at 67-68-69, at 70 it's $48K/ year so it would take 9 years at $12K/ year advantage to catch up the the $108K already received 3 years earlier retiring at 67...

At 62 years retirement = $24K/ year * 8 years = $192K head start but at 70 it's also $24K/ year catch up so 8 years = 78.

But receiving/ investing early (if one has the ability to do so) would change those numbers of course...

 

Of course if you retire earlier it's usually assumed you are foregoing regular employment income, which over 3-5yrs in many cases will be more $$ than the difference in SS payments over any difference in time frame. Of course you have to put in time to get those dollars. So, unless you are RIFFed or are not working through some other choice not of your own, the question of what your time is worth to you each year at each age may rightfoully be more important to your decision than the difference in what SS is going to pay you either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Tigerbomb13 said:

I know the term Nazism gets thrown around a lot, and this should be no surprise to hear it CPAC, but this is pure Nazism. It shouldn’t be shocking, yet it is. 

I don't normally care for Bill Kristol, but he's right there. That kind of language is a step away from saying we need a final solution. Despicable language to use!

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, 1984Echoes said:

That should be 79.

$36K (rough #'s here...) per year at 67-68-69, at 70 it's $48K/ year so it would take 9 years at $12K/ year advantage to catch up the the $108K already received 3 years earlier retiring at 67...

At 62 years retirement = $24K/ year * 8 years = $192K head start but at 70 it's also $24K/ year catch up so 8 years = 78.

But receiving/ investing early (if one has the ability to do so) would change those numbers of course...

 

I just logged onto my SSA account and what I am due to receive at 67 is not 75% of age 70 (i.e., 36/48), but actually 80.6%. So if I wait until age 70, it would take me until I am 82 years and five months before I match the total amount of money I would get if I elect to start at age 67. So it looks like we were both off roughly the same amount in opposite directions.

If I take what I am due at age 62, it would take me until age 80 and six months to match the figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, digitalpigsmuggler said:

It will take some time, but you guys are eventually going to lose all the culture wars.  For better or for worse, you always do.  You should concentrate on economic stuff.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      281
    • Most Online
      625

    Newest Member
    NorthWoods
    Joined
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...