Governor Murphy has no power to pass the bill on his own. Tell me which legislators will vote for it and how Murphy can make them.
That is why I said the State will not tax social security in this budget.
OT: When to take Social Security
- Thread starter RULoyal
- Start date
That is why I said the State will not tax social security in this budget.
I never claimed he did. Mr Ed though will direct those who will decide what will be taxed. And it will be sooner than
Reviving the dead..........
So I did take my SS a year early and now I have a new question - other than the obvious of the cumulative amounts being less, is there any real disadvantage to my wife taking her SS now? She is 63. The cumulative difference in her waiting is not that great - about $40K after 20 years. I believe she could also claim the spousal benefit which would be about $100 more a month than her own benefit. When I kick she gets 100% (or close to it) of my current benefit anyway if she is at full retirement age at that time - correct?
So I did take my SS a year early and now I have a new question - other than the obvious of the cumulative amounts being less, is there any real disadvantage to my wife taking her SS now? She is 63. The cumulative difference in her waiting is not that great - about $40K after 20 years. I believe she could also claim the spousal benefit which would be about $100 more a month than her own benefit. When I kick she gets 100% (or close to it) of my current benefit anyway if she is at full retirement age at that time - correct?
Last edited:
Listen to your financial advisor, if you don’t trust him get a new one.
If I were your FA and I gave you advice you did not follow, I would fire you.
Especially if I found out you went to a sports site to get advice after I gave you mine.
c'mon, who doesn't come here for SS, legal, divorce, gf cucking you, loud neighbors, etc etc ....advice. I mean 'cmon man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lol
Take the money, use it and enjoy while younger.
And if you hit the lottery for a zillion dollars, take the lump sum and be rich now
I'm with @T2Kplus20 on this one. The more you don't have to take out of your investments the better off you will be in the long run. Use your SS now, in the end the difference will be negligible, or you will make more rather than taking it later.
Not so sure about that. If you're talking about "taking out" of a 401(k), rollover IRA or (particularly) a Roth then I entirely, emphatically agree. But at 63 there is a significant difference from waiting to 66/7 and a huge difference at 70. You also should take health history into account.
Unless it has been changed it was that way back when I retired. In actuality you didn’t lose much based upon your anticipated longevity and it has worked out just fine. Glad I retired when I did. Much depends upon your current financial state and what monies you will have coming in. 15 years prior to my retirement we calculated our current wealth at the time along with anticipated ( normal) inflationary expectations. We are exactly where we wanted to be even with the mess in the inflation rates under current leadership.
Both in today's dollars. Let's take someone who will get $2500 a month in SS at 62. That same person waits till 70 they get $4600 a month. 62 guy with putting the money in stocks on average will have amassed approximately $300k in wealth by time 70 guy gets his 1st check from SS. 62 guy will now be getting a return each year on that $300k. At this point it will take 70 guy until at least 82 to catch up without adding any returns onto 62 guy from this point on. So really, we're talking to around 84 or more
Now you can play with the numbers a little if you like it's just an average. This is also considering 62 guy has investments already and the SS will off set taking any money out of those. For me, money in my hand is better than gambling how long I'll live to after 84.
Last edited:
Bird in hand……. as they say
Just mentioning its in a similar vein, take the most now
I think.most here understand
I once figured I would be 82 before I got back to even, and this was without investing the SS taken from 62_on
If figuring investing, then becomes 85 as the break even, I can't see waiting
Is there a lump sum payout if you take it earlier? How is this similar vein? I guess other than pay structure and dollar amount, it’s still not similar vein.
Yeah, I had to adjust and edit my figures, I messed up on how much you will make by investing. In my re-figuring the catchup point moved.
Last edited:
Why? Do you need money when you are dead? Isn’t the saying don’t out live your money?
I actually ran the numbers 1.0 discussion. I back tested using actual market returns, if you get a meaningful correction at age 67, it’s not going to workout for you.
So in your calculations what is the break even point? I just went with the averages, if you want to be conservative, fine, but the break even point is still going to be somewhere in the 80's.
Last edited:
SS is not taxable in NJ, but is taxed federally. If one has an income stream, maybe waiting until one has less income before taking SS.
In my calculation, if taken at 67 then 78 is the break even point, and if taken at 70 then 80 is the break even point.
Yes, the breakeven without any investing is about 79-80 years old.
I read that if one makes between $25,000 and $34,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50% of your SS benefits, more than $34,000 up to 85% of your benefits may be taxable. That is crazy high tax.
At first I thought the 50% and 85% was the tax bracket. It's not, it's just the percent taxable.
At first I thought the 50% and 85% was the tax bracket. It's not, it's just the percent taxable.
See post #44 above. My understanding is that the Survivor's Benefit for the lower earning spouse is 100% of the higher earning spouse. I did my own planning with the help of several of the books in post #44 above and conferred with my FA (Harvard MBA and CFP trained.)
The cited chapter in Pfau's book is excellent, but finding someone who knows better than you might be the smart play with an important decision. I find the quality of the advice on this thread topics to be quite "mixed" in quality. Some of it appears to be wrong, but what would my advisor know about personal financial topics anyway?
It may be possible and a good decision for your wife to claim Spousal Benefits if her Primary Benefit Amount is less than 50% of yours.
Best of luck.
Last edited:
It is easy for most… take the SS when you reach the balance between age and what you believe is needed to live the equivalent of your current lifestyle. If you plan this correctly and invest early ( if able to) and remain somewhat healthy you will survive quite nicely.
Found it. See my post #268.
Thanks for the math. My recollection is that there have been several retrospective studies, using actual beneficiaries and actual morbidity, that proved you should wait as long as possible. I agree with taking other aspects of the issue into account like:
1. How old were your parents when they predeceased you or their current ages?
2. Any health issues? Smoke, heart issues, cancers, diabetes, high BMI, etc.
3. The ever popular aspect of whether you have enough cash to eat if you don't claim early.
Like I said earlier in this thread. If you don’t need the money , take it and bank it
I still don’t agree with that. If you don’t need it, I’m assuming you are leaving money to someone. The more you have to spend of your own money, the less you can hand down to someone.
I think it’s the opposite. Take the money early, if you NEED the money. Or, if you are not married and have really poor health.
We need to see the numbers .
If you can collect at 62 ….and have 100k banked and/or invested (conservatively) by 67 …that seems ok. What would you think is better ?
Last edited: