Getting the largest possible Social Security check doesn’t appear to be incentive enough for 90% of non-retirees 45 and older to wait until age 70 to claim them, according to a new study from Schroders Investment Management. Indeed, 30% plan to begin taking benefits between age 62 and 65, before full retirement age. Fourteen percent plan on taking benefits between 66 and 69, while nearly half 46% aren’t sure when they will claim.
Even those who are at or near retirement age — ages 60 to 67 — don’t seem interested in waiting until age 70: Only 13% said they plan to wait to age 70 to claim Social Security benefits while 28% are still unsure.
Only 5% say they waited until age 70 to claim the benefits.
If you follow Social Security affairs, you frequently notice statements made by supposed "experts” based upon the premise that people would wait until age 70 to start drawing Social Security retirement benefits if they only knew just how much more they'd receive if they waited. That's nuts. People already know in general terms how things work. They just don't want to wait. Accept the reality. Even those who now promote waiting to age 70 will themselves probably start drawing retirement benefits well before age 70 because their opinions will change as they get closer to retirement.
10 comments:
I don’t want to wait until 62!!!
In my experience, those who wait usually have well paying office type jobs, lawyer, CEO, etc and may work well past 70. The life expectancy for them is close to the break even point for claiming benefits earlier (FRA) vs waiting until 70. But many are married to spouses who may live many years past their deaths, collecting a much higher benefit than had their high wage spouse claimed benefits at FRA.
I doubt if I have seen but a few people with average or lower wages, say $40K per year, wait until 70 unless they owned their own business and were doing much better than $40K but only taking that as a salary.
All in all, people that have money are able to make money wise decisions for themselves and their families.
Raise the cap and lower the age. Those people in Ivy Towers have no idea what the average working person's life is like. Age 55 or even 50 is a lot harsher for someone who has worked on their feet for 30 years than it is for someone who sat on their fat duff for thirty years.
"I'd rather die while I'm living, than live while I'm dead."
-Jimmy Buffet
Seems like drawing at around 65 makes the most sense. You get close to your full retirement PIA amount and you also probably are eligible for Medicare. Feel like dangling the carrot to get more money at 70 is just a way to save money not to help money.
I would be OK with getting full retirement at 65 and less between 62-65. But lowering it to 60. Keep it simple.
My grandfather retired at age 50. Drew SS at 62 and died at 69. He got the maximum he could have gotten. If he had waited until he was 65, he would have received less. Obviously, if he waited until 70, he wouldn't have received anything! The truth is, nobody knows when they are going to die. Waiting until 70 is a gamble that you will live until 85. I man I was worked with worked 60-70 hours a week to maximize his SS when he retired. He was going to retire when he turned 70... He died about 10 days before his birthday at 69. You have to do what's best for YOU... Not some hypothetical person who might hypothetically live to 90.
I guess if I was making a couple hundreds times the amount of my average employee, had unlimited time off with the ability to go and do what I wanted any time, and had people to take care of absolutely every little thing for me I could work longer too.
As it is, it depends on where my wife is with her job and what her insurance looks like. I can go out at 62 and use VA health until Medicare (if they dont change it to 70 or something) but I need coverage on her too. More folks would retire early if they had health coverage. Thats how they keep us enslaved.
@ Tim--it isn't always just about the worker's life expectancy. If someone waits until 70 their widow will receive considerably more (DRC amount).
Plus, if someone retires at 62 and has to scrimp for the rest of their life, be it 5 years, 10 years or more, it may have been better to worked longer, received a higher SSA benefit and been able to retire with a bit more comfort. True they may receive less than the person who filed at 62, but their life may have been more comfortable. Plus, if they do live to 90, they will receive substantially more than the person who retired at 62 and led a much better life for close to 30 years.
It's a bit of a gamble no matter what one decides. File early and bet you and your spouse (if married) won't live very long or file later and bet that one of you (if married) will live longer.
1:04 dont make your entire retirement plan based on SSA. That is a problem we have seen develop with the loss of employer pensions. Younger generations that have never heard of a retirement pension from work start retirement saving much earlier.
I am on SSDI. Don't have to worry about it. I would chose full retirement, if I had to make a choice. Break even is about 85. But, if it wasn't in the GOVERNMENT's interest for people to wait, they wouldn't be pushing it.
Post a Comment