Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, June 23, 2008
Carrie Schwab Pomerantz :: Townhall.com Columnist
When to Take Social Security: Think Before You Leap
by Carrie Schwab Pomerantz
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


You probably read it in the paper or heard it on the news - the first American baby boomer applied for Social Security last fall; some have said it is the start of the "silver tsunami." The baby boomer generation, over 75 million strong, is now lining up to collect their Social Security benefits.

My friend's husband was at the head of the line. He decided to bet on a sure thing and take the cash as soon as he turned 62. And he's not alone in his decision. According to an OASDI study released late last year, 76 percent of women and 71 percent of men took early Social Security. But is that the wisest decision?

It's an important question, since what you decide now will affect how much you can collect in benefits for the rest of your life. Before you start counting that added boost to your income, I recommend you carefully look at the facts and calculate the pluses and minuses in light of your own situation.

YOUR BASIC CHOICES

You have three choices for when to take Social Security:

- Take it as early as age 62

- Wait until what the IRS designates as your "normal retirement age" (between 65 and 67, depending on when you were born)

- Or wait as late as age 70

Take Social Security at your normal retirement age and it's simple enough. But collect it early or late, and things become a bit more complicated due to a penalty if you start too early.

If you begin using benefits before your normal retirement age, your monthly check will decrease by as much as 25 percent, and that reduction is permanent. The plus side, of course, is that you'll receive checks for a longer period of time.

Also, if you collect Social Security before your retirement age and you're still working, your benefits will be reduced $1 for every $2 you earn above the annual limit ($13,560 for 2008) - another important consideration. In the year you reach your normal retirement age, it changes to $1 in benefits deducted for each $3 you earn above a higher limit ($36,120 in 2008). Once you hit the appropriate age, your earnings won't impact the size of your benefit.

YOU GET A CREDIT IF YOU DELAY

If you postpone taking Social Security, your benefits go up by 8 percent for every year you delay until age 70. You'll receive bigger checks, but for a shorter period of time. Past age 70, there's no added advantage to waiting.

The actual dollar amount you receive depends on how much you've earned during your working years. Your annual Social Security statement lists your projected benefits at age 62, your normal retirement age, and at age 70. If you need a copy, you can request one at ssa.gov, which is a great resource for all kinds of information.

IS IT WORTH THE WAIT?

This is where it can get complicated; it really depends on how long you live. The longer you live, the smarter it may be to delay taking benefits. You'll receive fewer monthly checks over your lifetime, but the payments will be larger. A longer life span gives more time for those larger checks to make up for the payments you missed by postponing your benefits. But since you can't predict the future, how do you decide?

You may have heard the term "break-even age." This is how long you need to live to make sure choosing a later benefit date will give you greater lifetime benefits. The "break-even age" depends on the amount of your benefits as well as the assumptions you use to factor in taxes, inflation, and what you might gain by investing your early benefits.

Let's say you're a top wage earner who's turning 62 this year, and your monthly benefits at ages 62, 66 and 70 are $1,647, $2,233 and $3,019 respectively. Your break-even ages would be as follows:

- Take Social Security at age 62 versus 66 and your break-even age is 77.

- Collect it at 62 versus 70 and your break-even age is 79 and 6 months.

- Start at 66 versus 70 and your break-even age is 81 and 4 months.

According to the National Center for Health, life expectancy is currently about 78 years. Live past 65 and that expectancy rises into the 80s. If you're in good health and think the odds are in your favor to live beyond the average life expectancy, it might be wise to wait and receive a larger monthly check.

Before you decide, do the math for yourself. At ssa.gov, you'll find a handy calculator that makes it easy to determine your own break-even age.

OTHER FACTORS TO CONSIDER

While you might think, like my friend's husband, that money in the hand today is worth more than a few extra dollars in the future, here are some other factors that you might want to consider before deciding when to take Social Security.

- Do you need the cash?

If you're thinking about retiring early and have planned ahead with enough set aside, you can be flexible about when you take Social Security. But if taking an early, reduced benefit is the only way you can cover the bills, you may actually want to reconsider early retirement, keep earning and saving, and wait until you reach your normal retirement age to start collecting benefits.

- Who's the highest earner in your family?

If you make the most money in your household, you most likely want to think about survivor benefits. The bottom line is the longer you wait, the more your surviving spouse or other dependents may be able to collect.

- Do you plan to keep working?

As I already mentioned, if you take Social Security early, earning a wage (including self-employment income) could reduce your benefit. Even at normal retirement age, if your adjusted gross income increases above a certain threshold, taxes may end up eating away at your benefit.

THINKING ABOUT TOMORROW

There's a lot of speculation about the future of Social Security and how long it will be available. But according to the Social Security Administration, it should be in sound shape until at least 2040. Don't feel pressured to take your benefits early out of fear they're going to disappear.

Rather than worrying about the long-term health of Social Security, focus on your own needs. Weigh all the factors. Get help from your financial planning or tax professional if necessary. And make sure the decision you make, whether you take Social Security early or late, is one you can be happy with for the rest of your life.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Carrie Schwab Pomerantz is a Motley Fool contributor.

Be the first to read Carrie Schwab Pomerantz's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Those numbers do not add
up. For the example given above the individual would "miss out" on roughly $99K in payments in order to get$600 more per month. It would take 14 years of that extra $600/month to "break even" on not taking it early. That places the individual at 80. For a white male the average life expectancy is 75 (2005).

I would say that as of today, the biggest uncertainty is political action. While the fund may last until 2040, the politicians are subject to change it at any time.

Money now? Or trust a politician?
That should be easy...

Not only about money
My age is 60 and if I can hold out til age 66, I can get a combined benefit from Canada and the USA that is equal to the income I can keep after Canada removes 46% of my money to throw out the windows of its limousines in order to buy votes.

On the other hand, I have elderly parents. My Daddy is in the final stages of congestive heart failure. Mama is a stay at home wife (for the past 25 years save for her little job as a Wal-Mart greeter that lasted until she turned 80) who has never written a cheque, paid a bill or filled the car with gas. When Daddy dies, someone is going to have to look after Mama. It is highly likely that someone is going to be me, because I am single, close to retirement, and own no property.

I have a job I can do as long as my health holds out (I am already beginning to suffer heart trouble, and am effectively blind in one eye due to macular degeneration). Unfortunately in order to work, I need either to live downtown or be driven to work every day. Right now Mama can drive. But how long will that last?

As you can see, there are many other considerations to be added up besides the money available at different ages. And as the parents of the Silver Tsunami live longer and longer, these concerns are going to increasingly affect our decisions on retirement.

P.S. I have a 62 year old cousin who quit speaking to her Mama when Mama (now age 98) sold her house and instead of dropping dead and handing Daughter *her inheritance* selfishly spent that money on a nursing home for herslf. There will be more of this as time goes on.

SS is a sham
a Ponzi scheme and should be dismantled. It started out small and has morphed into a monster that threatens to bankrupt the country.

It has been a vote buying scheme for democrats since the 30's. No politician would DARE to run for office on a platform of taking 13% of every dollar we earn with a 1% return [maybe],keeping it all when you die, funding welfare programs with the money and putting IOU's in the "trust account" to be paid by the next generations. Yet the democrats refuse to even consider any other solution and brag like Reid did that they "killed" Bush's proposal to at least try.

The pols and every other fed worker use the Federal Employees Retirement System, SS could be converted to a similar system over a 20 year phase-in and we could keep our own accounts and pass any remainder to our kids instead of some welfare bum getting it.

Obama's answer is to raise the cap on FICA taxes which he claims, disengenuosly as usual, that it will only impact the "rich" neglecting the fact that employers will pass it on to all of us in the form of higher costs.

In private accounts the money would be in the economy and people would retire with at least twice as much as SS....making the dems and their big gov't ideas less important, ergo they won't fix it.

Anyone that thinks a democrat is looking out for them is delusional


I took social security
at 62. I am now 67. I have no regrets for taking it early. In fact, I'm having an absolute ball. You can't predict how long you will live. My advice: Take it early and enjoy it while you can.

my 2 cents
1) I got my first check two months after I turned 62. I am now 64+.
2) When I hit 66 I will add up the total of the SS I have received up until then. I project it to be about $55,000.
3) I will then find out how much I would have made per month had I waited until I hit 66 - IOW - not filed until then.

Then I will ask the following questions.

a) How long would it take me to make up that $55,000?

b) Ms. Pomerantz - what are YOUR economic circumstances?

Seawolf
The idea that SS was some kind of retirement benefit has always been a Big Lie promilgated by commie FDR. It's intent has always been to be a tax increase.

At the time it was inacted there was 10 years difference between the age of elligibility and the age that most people died.

The problem now is medical technology and health have outpaced the government in raising the retirement age. To offset that they had 3 major tax increases. That is what got it to this mythical 2040 number. It was supposed to get it totally past the "boomer" hump but LBJ and the rest spent all the tax increases on the war on poverty.

Uncle Max,
Another way to look at it is this: On your 66th birthday you will have enjoyed the additional $55,000, even if you croak the next day. Whereas if you had waited until your 66th birthday to take SS, and croak the next day, you would have gained nothing by waiting.

As for myself I took early
retirement at age 54.My company had gone to a “cash balance” retirement program and had long been in a 401K program which I had contributed the maximum to. In addition, I invested heavily over the long term in other stocks.

When not in the hospital with heart trouble I am doing fine and if I can stay out of the hospital I expect to continue doing fine. The gas hike would be killing me but I now drive less than 2000 miles a year so it can pretty much do what it wants.

What will really kill me is if the communists running for office this year manage to pass that so-called global warming fraud bill which will raise my electricity rates and the price of everything.

I suspect if that happens I will be greeting people at the front door of Wal-Mart.

Michigander
Your last post reminds me of something that happened at work many years ago.

One of the guys I worked with had put in for retirement at the normal retirement age. When that day finally came around on the very day that he was slated to come in and check out for retirement he had a heart attack and died.

He could have retired 10 years earlier.

Vic
exactly right. FDR must have read Kaiser Willies remarks about "letting people think they are invested in their gov't, it keeps them docile".

The youngsters ought to be furious about this scam, they are really getting hosed, yet many will vote for that commie obambi who will make it infinately worse. Shows me just how these libs have used the public schools to inculcate the kids with their commie liberal lies.

Obama is the candidate they have been setting the stage for over the last 40 years, we will rue the day if this clown gets elected.

Santa Claus, The Tooth Fairy,
and Social Security checks. What do these three things all have in common? They are all myths with no basis in reality. For anyone born after about 1964 Social Security is nothing but a tax. Like any other tax we will never see that money again, so there is no point in making plans as if we might get a check. I'm going to go look for UFOs now, I think I'll have better luck finding little green men from Mars than of ever finding a Social Security check in my mailbox.

Seawolf
Yep, and odds are that we will get him.

Thank You
A very useful and non political column

Nonsense
The "Break Even Point" is a play on numbers. I did the SSA/MetLife computations; my break even point was 77 years old. Both the government and private "information" said that if I lived to be 66 I would PROBABLY live into my 80's. Nonsense! This is just more "I'll give you more tomorrow for just not taking it today-" a variation on the Wimpy's hamburger theme. The average lifespan of an actual combat veteran is still 7-10% less than the national average for men; me getting to 66 only demonstrates I'd be one of the lucky ones, not that I'll outlive the national average of 75. They're weighing the stats so people will wait. And then die before they can collect.

WAIT?
Wait for what? for those legal immigrants who come to this country, immediately tap into the pool and drain it?

Yesterday, while at the SS office, 10 immigrants came in (I understood their language & in the course of small talk asked how long they'd been in America).

My brother works in a SS office...the stories he tells me would raise your hackles...plenty of able bodied people coming in & signing up for freebies.

Don't wait...there may be nothing left after amensty...

now that's a guarantee!!

The 2040 date for SS solvency

is also suspect. SS will start depending on general revenues in 2017. That is when expenditures begin to exceed revenues and the system will have to draw on the lockbox funds that were collected by having a payroll tax that exceeded expenditures. In 2017, the lockbox funds will be needed. Of course, they have already been spent and exist only as government bonds. The government will have to pay an increasing amount of social security expenditures each year from general revenues. The young really do not know how much the government is hosing them. By 2040, all of the excess revenues stored(?) in the lockbox will be gone. That will not change things too much since the shortfalls had been made up since 2017 by general revenues. General revenues will continue to make up the shortfalls. In addition, there will be far fewer workers paying in to SS compared to people receiving SS. Some have estimated it could fall as low as 2 - 1. Every two workers will have to pony up a retirees total annual social security payments. Obama has pledged to make the situation worse.

Important omission to consider
Carrie left out a SSA program that very few are aware of.I'm not at where my records are located so I can not name the "Option XXX" specifically.

Essentially here's an overview:

If you take early benefits there is still a way to capture FULL BENEFITS at your normal retirement age.Say it's 66,if you've been collecting since 62 you cancel SS & excercise "Option XXX".SSA will tell you how much you have received to the penny.Then you must pay it all back BUT THERE IS NO INTEREST DUE applied to the total.This is done just before you turn 66 or what ever your full benefit retirement age is.Then the next day,when your 66 you re-apply for your full regular benefits.VOILA !
This is perfectly legal & is an SSA current program.
I took early benefits for health reasons & if I make it to 66 I will take advantage of this program.Go to SSA & search their website for the details.

How about a one year deferral?
If one waits only one year, the benefit goes up 8%. The pay-back is just under 10 years even without considering compounded benefits. Expecting to live to age 72, the deferral pays for itself with interest to my surviving spouse. One neeedn't wait until 66 or 70 to game the system in their favor.
Doug in Brighton

Social Security
Whenever I read about Social Security, I never see mention of the fact that as the enormous baby-boom generation is collecting, those paying in to the system will be the more recent generations that have been decimated by legalized abortion--50 million so far and counting. Why not?

Collection age
As I approached my 65th birthday, I took the available information and determined when the break-even point would be. From this result, I decided that I would begin drawing the social security payments then, even though I did not plan to retire until I was at least 70. I did retire about two and a half months before my 71st birthday. As a result, we had a little nest egg (we did not spend the money as it came in), which we have not yet had to touch.

My situation is, of course, not that which is usually found. I was in good health, many of my ancestors (except for my paternal grandmother and others, such as my great-great grandfather who died of lead poisoning in December of 1814 when he was shooting at British soldiers, who had unusual circumstances) had long lives, and I enjoyed my work.

Otto von Bismarck
The mention of "Kaiser Willie" (Seawolf 9:09 am) reminded me that the German Empire, under Kantzler Otto von Bismarck, was one of the first nations to institute such payments. Bismarck's reason? to keep the people in thrall to the government.

2017? Hah!
The smelly stuff will hit the fan well before 2017. 2017 is when the SS surplus will go negative and the "lock-box" will start being drained. But around 2010 there will be an inflection point where the surplus starts decreasing. The surplus has been used by our good friends in Congress to offset and partly mask the fed deficit. In ~2010 the deficit will be increasingly exposed and THAT'S when the boys and girls in DC will start getting hungry for more of your money. 401Ks will NOT be safe.

Seawolf is right on
Let's think of it postively as a big "thank you" to the WWII generation.

Beyond that, people in the private sector would go to jail for this scheme.

Two crying shames:

1. That we did not fix this system when we had the chance (a990's and even now)

2. That (from what I have read) over 65% of boomers are relying on SS as their main income in retirement years.

Finally, one thing not factored in is - like Ed McMahon, many boomers will have to keep on working to keep their lifesyle going. They will continue to pay in. That's why the bankrupt date is now being pushed back.

And another thing,,.
What ever happened to doing things for "the children"???

It is beyond appalling that we're funneling mega-bucks into a rat hole.

If I had a fraction of what I put in - even if I started right now as a legacy, it would be a significant amount of estate $$ for my kinds. I argued the math with a liberal in the local paper and she said "we'll just have to agree to disagree". There is no way to argue it logically, thus the scandal.

Also, as others have pointed out in other places, this system rips off blacks who are hard working as statistically they don't live as long as whites.

Interest
In order to compute your real "breakeven age" you need to compare the amount you would accumulate if you invested all the SS payments at an estimated interest rate. If you just calculate the total without interest, you are biasing the result toward a later retirement. Does the calculator at ssa.gov take account of the time value of money?

It all depends


Yes you must be careful when you start to collect SS.

I don’t remember which year in the mid-1940s I started to pay SS, but it seems like it cost me about $30 a year.

Many years later I worked for a non-profit company at the time they could not pay SS, so I missed a few years on that end. Then I got off the payroll at age 50, and paid no more SS.

I started to collect at age 62, and found that my Sweetie (she worked only 3 or 4 years when she paid SS) and I had paid in the grand total of about $10,000. She started to collect a year before I did, and before I collected my whole first year, we had gotten all of our payments back.

My Sweetie got “Promoted” about 2 and a half years ago, but counting 2008, I (we) will have collected well over $200,000.

So tell me again about what a bad investment SS is.

I haven't bothered to do the arithmetic on the options. My brother started collecting at age 70, and gets twice what I get each month. I haven't computed his options either.



Easy choice
1. Inflation is at least three times more than the government reports, so social security will pay for less each year.

2. My income is only 20% of what it used to be. No reasonable life available without increase in debt. Nor can I live with Social security alone.

So I begin collecting at 62.5, and retirement never possible.

Look at the bottom line - after taxes
I think it is a mistake for people to analyze their social security options based on what they guess will be their life expectancy. If they die sooner than that, so what? The more important considerations are 1) what will be your net after tax benefits and 2) do you need the extra money now? Unless necessitated by health and/or financial problems, taking early Social Security benefits can be a very short sighted decision.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.