OT:Social Security and when to draw it

[Smiley]

For my forumite buddies whom are retired I need to ask the question, when did you draw from your SS account. Did you retire early and leave your money till you were fully vested or did you jump in and draw once you were eligible. My take is why draw from your savings while you let those accounts grow interest free. What stradegy did you employ. Many Thanks Smiley whom is 60 and needs your collective wisdoms. Thanks

[MattTuck]

I'm a bit more than half your age, but I'm going to say this with all seriousness. Given the economic realities that the US is facing, take all the money you can up front, as your (and everyone else's) benefits are likely (read: almost certain) to be cut in the future.

As a future fellow participant in the system, I say leave the money for later generations.

[Louis]

Whatever you do, learn how to use the NPV function in Excel and run a few calculations with various assumptions on the variables. At least that way you'll have done your due diligence.

Or: cash it all out ASAP and buy MegaMillions / PowerBall tickets.

[Ralph]

For my forumite buddies whom are retired I need to ask the question, when did you draw from your SS account. Did you retire early and leave your money till you were fully vested or did you jump in and draw once you were eligible. My take is why draw from your savings while you let those accounts grow interest free. What stradegy did you employ. Many Thanks Smiley whom is 60 and needs your collective wisdoms. Thanks

I started taking my SS at age 62....8 years ago. Normal distribution age at that time was about 66. By my calculation.....if I had wanted to wait and take it (a larger check) at 66, I would have been ahead after age 76. But then.....you had to make it to 76 to come out ahead waiting until 66. Lots of people die before age 76.

I also calculated.....if I saved and invested at least 1/2 of my check......I would always be ahead taking it at 62.

None of this is taking into account other investments that can be allowed o grow, because you had some SS income at 62. Every situation is different.

[54ny77]

exactly what i advised one of my parents to do. after 50+ years of paying in, taking something back--as it was intended--was the right thing to do.

besides, i believe diminution of benefits will begin happen at some point when economic realities, i.e., massive underfunded liabilities, set in.

either that, or they'll just print more money and not tell anyone. :bike:

I'm a bit more than half your age, but I'm going to say this with all seriousness. Given the economic realities that the US is facing, take all the money you can up front, as your (and everyone else's) benefits are likely (read: almost certain) to be cut in the future.

[Louis]

either that, or they'll just print more money and not tell anyone. :bike:

Ray's already been doing that for years...

[esldude]

I am not old enough to get mine yet. But have done the same simulations in Excel talked about above. Depending on the particulars of inflation, returns on investments etc. you in most cases end up coming out ahead around age 80. Yeah, could be 76 or could 82 or 83. As that is around the avg life expectancy for someone my current age, I guess one could call it 50/50 as to whether or not you would live long enough come out ahead. It is so close you can see the difference in the pay for the years is calculated by the government to create just this situation. The funding will be about the same for folks choosing either way based on their chances of living long enough to benefit from waiting if half benefit, and half die soon enough the gov't benefits.

By coming out ahead I am talking collecting more money one way vs. the other. Even doing simulations of effective purchasing power using expected inflation rates the results didn't change all that much. So really you fall behind in cash collected taking it late. You then begin catching up, and won't break even until sometime near 80. That means to come out ahead any meaningful amount will take several years beyond just reaching 80 or whatever your break even point is versus early withdrawal.

So my opinion would be take it early. One of the main reasons I decided that is looking at what life in like as you age. What activities, goals, etc. could I have at age 80 vs those available with the extra cash sooner. Just seems your options decrease with age quite naturally. So even a slightly lesser amount of money in earlier years might be worth more as my health would allow more options for enjoying life.

I am not a financial professional of course. And many pros make the opposite suggestion touting how important the extra money will be near the end of life.

Some of it will be personal preference. You might even look at how long your closest relatives tend to live. Everybody in your direct family tree makes 90 years old, hey, you might wait to later.

There might be something to the fact such things will be cut the way things are going. Then again, I have heard this from everyone older for my entire life. I even think at some point it has to happen the way things are going. But it hasn't happened yet, and I am not sure one is smart to base their decision only on this idea. If you do some careful modeling and projections for yourself, you will find the worry of things getting cut or disappearing will not much effect what is the best decision to you. In a way that is a bit reassuring should such happen.

[dave thompson]

After doing all the calcs, I started withdrawing my social security at 62. The chances of me living beyond the point where waiting until I was 66 to start would have been more financially sound are great, but the comfort of the money now and the ability to ease off work a bit if I want to just feels good to me.

[Ken Robb]

well it is ss INSURANCE so there can be an argument made to not take a lesser amount that you don't NEED to give you additional protection later when you may need it. I think for many folks who take it early and are still working the ss benefit is subject to income taxes whereas the ss money later is tax free for most. I also think the monthly $$ increases 2% for every year a person delays taking ss.

Do the on-line calculators take taxation of benefits into account?

Annual cost-of-living increases are calculated on a person's present benefit so there is a compounding effect of the increases over the years you will be drawing benefits.

Depending on how complex a person's financial situation is he may really want to consult a real financial pro to fully analyze the question.

[rounder]

I agree with Louis about using the NPV function to evaluate different scenarios. But the biggest unknown variable is how long do you expect to live. I have no idea within 10+ years. I am old enough and started collecting SS last year. But, I am still working and plan to use the extra money to fix up the house, get all financings in order and save for the future. Good luck.

[Ken Robb]

taken early the benefits for most folks are taxed whereas later they may not be taxed. Future cost-of-living increases are based on your monthly benefit. Each time thee is a COLA the amount added is compounded on top of previous increases. Since COLAs are unknown when you make the call on when to start collecting it isn't possible to know for sure the pros/cons of early vs. late benefits.

I think the monthly stipend increases 2% for every year deferred. It's "insurance" so maybe it makes sense to wait to take it until you need it and it pays more. Heck, maybe you're so well off you will never "need". If you are making big bucks late in your career you might want to wait to take ss so your last few years of high earnings boost your monthly benefit.

It's complicated.:)

[rwsaunders]

The average life expectancy in the US for males is 76.2 and for females it is 81.1. Work your math around those facts and figures and see what happens.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_04.pdf

[Ken Robb]

The average life expectancy in the US for males is 76.2 and for females it is 81.1. Work your math around those facts and figures and see what happens.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_04.pdf

That may be but we are all athletes suffering for fitness.:)

[esldude]

http://www.livingto100.com/calculator/age

You can get a somewhat personalized estimate of your life expectancy here.

[victoryfactory]

I'll be signing up later this year, I think.
One important consideration :
Are you still working?
You can only earn 14,000 per year when on SS or
you loose .50 of every 1.00 of SS for every 1.00 over
14K you earn.
I think this only applies to wages and not pensions etc.

Also, SS is based on your highest 35 years of earnings so
if you are lucky enough to be getting paid very well at age
62-65 you will get more per month if you wait and let those
three high earning years cancel three of your younger less
productive years.

VF

[SamIAm]

I would take it early before they start means testing it.

[1centaur]

Whether means testing or reduced benefits, SS is so politically sensitive that I expect changes to be telegraphed well in advance. There is no doubt the eligibility age should be MUCH higher so we don't turn out like Greece, but I expect the vast majority of changes to be targeted at people at least 15 years from the assumed retirement age so that voters who are near eligibility don't all vote their wallets rather than their collective responsibility. The only exception may be whatever politicians define as "rich," so let's say $250k of income and above, might get token means testing to start the ball rolling, but those folks don't get much benefit from SS anyway.

[LouDeeter]

The caution about taking social security early while still working is a good one. If you are retired, living on your pension/savings, then beginning at 62 is a good option in my opinion. But, there is one more factor. If your spouse did not work enough to qualify for social security on their own, then he/she will be allowed to draw social security based on a percentage of your social security. The percentage is based on when the spouse begins taking it. For example, if I begin drawing social security at 62 and it is $1000 per month and my wife begins drawing social security when she turns 62. Assuming no COLA, she will draw 32.5 percent of my amount or $325. There is a formula for computing the spousal benefit with 50% being the max and 32.5% being the lowest. So, if I wait to begin my social security, then it isn't just my amount that is going to be larger, but it is also my spouse's amount.

[witcombusa]

Take all you can as soon as you can!!!

Also known as "get it while it lasts"

I plan to retire @ EXACTLY 55 and then jump on the SS wagon at the earliest possible age....


WORK is over rated :banana:

[LouDeeter]

Just remember that when you retire at 55, you are limiting the "top 35 years" used by SS to calculate your SS amount. I retired at 58 and in retrospect, could have done myself a world of good by working another 3 years--both in terms of salary and ss increase. But, having said that, I retired at 58 for a reason and I'm glad I did. I'll start SS this year when I turn 62.

[sc53]

That online calculator said I will live to be 92. That's long enough for me. I expect I will still be working at 62 so I will wait on my SS at least until I quit working, maybe at 65.

[goonster]

I expect changes to be telegraphed well in advance. There is no doubt the eligibility age should be MUCH higher so we don't turn out like Greece, but I expect the vast majority of changes to be targeted at people at least 15 years from the assumed retirement age
+1

Any proposals that have been discussed in even the most hypothetical way have phase-ins starting at least 10 years from now. All of you grandfathers will be grandfathered in very nicely. :rolleyes:

They say the key to happiness is low expectations, so I'm not really expecting to fully retire, ever.

[MattTuck]

+1

Any proposals that have been discussed in even the most hypothetical way have phase-ins starting at least 10 years from now. All of you grandfathers will be grandfathered in very nicely. :rolleyes:

They say the key to happiness is low expectations, so I'm not really expecting to fully retire, ever.

I wouldn't be too confident about that. Even today, with municipal bankruptcies, we are seeing current retirees losing pension benefits.

The longer it is put off, the more harsh the the benefit reductions will have to be, for both retirees and folks still working. The idea that people can retire and start drawing benefits at 62 is crazy, in my opinion, but that is the way the system is now. Sooner or later you'll only be eligible to draw benefits when you're 65, then 70, then 72, etc. It is a ponzi scheme and the elected reps in congress continue to kick the can down the road avoiding taking the painful medicine now. That only works until it doesn't. At which point, there won't be any cute phase ins, it will be across the board cuts like Greece.

[zap]

Doubt :) will quite working for any length of time but here is an interesting article.

http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/resource_center/expert_insight/retirement_strategies/planning/when_should_you_take_social_security.html

I have little to add as SS is something I just don't pay attention too-other than pay the required (current) 10.4%.

[goonster]

with municipal bankruptcies, we are seeing current retirees losing pension benefits.
Apples and oranges.

It is a ponzi scheme
A social contract is not a Ponzi scheme. It's just not.

it will be across the board cuts like Greece.
If that is your worst-case scenario, it is still not like a collapsed Ponzi scheme.

[Ken Robb]

Doubt :) will quite working for any length of time but here is an interesting article.

http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/resource_center/expert_insight/retirement_strategies/planning/when_should_you_take_social_security.html

I have little to add as SS is something I just don't pay attention too-other than pay the required (current) 10.4%.


This is the best summary I have seen on SS.

[MattTuck]

Apples and oranges.


A social contract is not a Ponzi scheme. It's just not.


If that is your worst-case scenario, it is still not like a collapsed Ponzi scheme.

Apples and oranges are both fruit, I recognize that there are many differences between a municipality and the US Government which can issue currency. However, it is an analogous situation in that just because people thought they were going to get money in retirement, if the money isn't there, a magic pension fairy can't create it out of thin air. The money has to come from somewhere.

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation." change investors to retirees and subsequent investors to current workers. Even a well intentioned and noble social contract cannot function if it is predicated on an unsustainable system.

My allusion to Greece was related to across the board cuts to retirees, with little or no grandfathering, and over a period of time that is much shorter than that envisioned by legislators in the US when they talk about making changes to SS.

[biker72]

I started drawing SS at age 62. I'm now 73 and still working part time. SS can become taxable after you reach a certain income.

Filing a joint income tax return starts taxation of Social Security benefits at $32,000. Married persons filing jointly are subject to taxation of up to 85 percent of Social Security benefits after $44,000 in combined income.

Retiring early has worked great for me...it may not be the best for you.

[1centaur]

I have to say that a social contract with arithmetically intractable funding prospects is far more like a Ponzi scheme than an investment program, and it would be better for Ponzi-deniers to accept that than to not make the changes that the Ponzi-claimers are hoping to stir by using the word.

Very few people are willing to engage in SS arithmetic but most people have a sense of what a Ponzi scheme entails, so in a sound bite world I view it as a valid caution and an appropriate contrast to the mythical lock box. Voters think in images these days, they just do.

BTW, contrast SS in the Ponzi context with the muni pensions that are being slashed. Both are arithmetically intractable, but the muni programs at least have real investment portfolios while SS has money coming in the front door and immediately going out the back and side doors with just an accounting of the flows so they can be repaid someday. SS looks Ponzi-adjacent in that context.

For those few who want to get in the weeds of SS as Ponzi, read the comments to the letter to the editor below, especially towards the end of them. The difference between an IOU and a Treasury bond is subtle, but the bond can be sold and the IOU can only be used to demand the government raise money for a payoff, which as in a Ponzi scheme at any given moment cannot be done at current size. Rhetoric gets inflamed on this issue, but at the end of the day the fact remains that the SS social contract cannot be funded perpetually as it is given demographic realities.

http://chronicle.augusta.com/opinion/letters/2011-10-02/there-no-social-security-trust-fund

[goonster]

arithmetically intractable funding prospects
Stipulated.


it would be better for Ponzi-deniers to accept that than to not make the changes that the Ponzi-claimers are hoping to stir by using the word.
The social contract is not a suicide pact. Changes must be made, but I refuse to subscribe to the notion that the ends justify the means in a debate. "Ponzi Scheme" is justification for abolition, not reform.

[oldpotatoe]

After doing all the calcs, I started withdrawing my social security at 62. The chances of me living beyond the point where waiting until I was 66 to start would have been more financially sound are great, but the comfort of the money now and the ability to ease off work a bit if I want to just feels good to me.

What he said...Jan 2013, here I come!!

[1centaur]

The social contract is not a suicide pact. Changes must be made, but I refuse to subscribe to the notion that the ends justify the means in a debate. "Ponzi Scheme" is justification for abolition, not reform.

I honestly do not believe the people citing Ponzi are thinking at all about abolition. I think they just want to tell people to stop pretending it will be all right and if they start talking arithmetic the eyes will glaze in under 10 seconds. I think there are many better ways to achieve the original mission, even if it is just literally investing in 5-year Treasury bonds (in a trust), for example, and raising the age limit to something closer to expected life span, as was intended.

[Viper]

I honestly do not believe the people citing Ponzi are thinking at all about abolition. I think they just want to tell people to stop pretending it will be all right and if they start talking arithmetic the eyes will glaze in under 10 seconds. I think there are many better ways to achieve the original mission, even if it is just literally investing in 5-year Treasury bonds (in a trust), for example, and raising the age limit to something closer to expected life span, as was intended.

When 1centaur speaks about financial issues, I listen.

:beer:

[soulspinner]

I just want to retire, ride, drink craft beers and try to remember when I was fast and attractive:rolleyes:

[oldpotatoe]

I just want to retire, ride, drink craft beers and try to remember when I was fast and attractive:rolleyes:

Knew a guy who always said, "you can get richer or thinner but ya can't get younger"..

[Chance]

Scott Burns wrote a column about this very subject. It's too complicated to calculate all options by hand so letting a computer run through different scenarios makes sense to me.

For me the only "human" factor beyond the mentioned math problem to maximize benefits is to consider which option may leave more for your children should you die younger than expected. If that wasn't an issue, it's probably most beneficial to live on savings and pensions (particularly if not adjusted for inflation) as long as possible and collect a higher social security later (up to age 70). However, if you die earlier than expected for a "relatively fit" cyclist (say age 72) then your children will get less than if you had collected SS early and left them more of your savings.

How to balance timing on SS vs. pension vs. savings is a problem that will likely affect many of us. One of my older family members needed help a few years ago and asked me to run some SS-related numbers for her. By delaying SS until 70 she's already gotten more; and due to her good health will benefit much more still. Burns has written a few columns on this subject and to the best of my memory it seems that waiting as long as practical "typically" pays off (although not always).

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/columnists/scott-burns/20111008-scott-burns-calculator-takes-the-guess-out-of-when-to-take-social-security-benefits.ece

[deanster]

For my forumite buddies whom are retired I need to ask the question, when did you draw from your SS account. Did you retire early and leave your money till you were fully vested or did you jump in and draw once you were eligible. My take is why draw from your savings while you let those accounts grow interest free. What stradegy did you employ. Many Thanks Smiley whom is 60 and needs your collective wisdoms. Thanks

I waited until I was 65. I am still working and will til I don't like my job. I pay taxes but don't lose anything on SS. The politicians look at this as welfare even though they get retirement as a perk of office. I paid into SS every year I worked from the time I was 13 and it amounted to over 350K. It really should be looked as an anuity not a welfare payment. I am 68 and bank most of the SS checks. There will come a time I will quit and will need the money.
But, I heartily agree with the person who says take it starting at 62.

[Smiley]

I waited until I was 65. I am still working and will til I don't like my job. I pay taxes but don't lose anything on SS. The politicians look at this as welfare even though they get retirement as a perk of office. I paid into SS every year I worked from the time I was 13 and it amounted to over 350K. It really should be looked as an anuity not a welfare payment. I am 68 and bank most of the SS checks. There will come a time I will quit and will need the money.
But, I heartily agree with the person who says take it starting at 62.

Why leave it on the table, why pull money from IRA and savings when you can take it from SS and hedge that your savings will grow at a faster rate. I agree with you and others who say take it at 62 and can't see where you lose on that deal.

[Ahneida Ride]

Every Ponzi scheme eventually fails ....

I suspect a massive market crash around January....

In the mean time ..... Eat ... Drink ... and be Merry ! :eek:

[Chance]

Why leave it on the table, why pull money from IRA and savings when you can take it from SS and hedge that your savings will grow at a faster rate. I agree with you and others who say take it at 62 and can't see where you lose on that deal.

If you want to see how you can lose by starting early run the numbers living to 100 and see which way comes out ahead. In that case it would be a no brainer. A lot of it comes down to guessing how long you expect to live.

[roydyates]

Rhetoric gets inflamed on this issue, but at the end of the day the fact remains that the SS social contract cannot be funded perpetually as it is given demographic realities.

I'm with goonster on this; SS is not a Ponzi scheme. The solvency of Social Security depends on estimates of life expectancy and population growth such that small variations can result in seemingly large differences in the funding requirements. Althopugh the baby boom has passed, we are not, say, China, where two people are going to be supported by an only child.

The SS funding formulas may need small tweaks, but these are relatively small. In particular, SS is in good shape compared to the future costs of healthcare.

[oldpotatoe]

Every Ponzi scheme eventually fails ....

I suspect a massive market crash around January....

In the mean time ..... Eat ... Drink ... and be Merry ! :eek:

January 20th? Depends on who wins.

[1centaur]

I'm with goonster on this; SS is not a Ponzi scheme. The solvency of Social Security depends on estimates of life expectancy and population growth such that small variations can result in seemingly large differences in the funding requirements. Althopugh the baby boom has passed, we are not, say, China, where two people are going to be supported by an only child.

The SS funding formulas may need small tweaks, but these are relatively small. In particular, SS is in good shape compared to the future costs of healthcare.

For those who want to compare, here's wiki on Ponzi schemes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

Literalists are right, it's not a Ponzi scheme in that it does not promise high returns (the opposite in fact, perhaps ironically) nor elaborate investment techniques. However, the essence of the vacuum is clearly evident in SS: the trust fund is not invested and requires future cash inflows to pay out older claims. One could say the solvency of a Ponzi scheme depends on estimates of future participation rates as well. And while I agree it's fixable, the nature of the fix is evening out the money going in and coming out, which Madoff also had to do over time.

[eddief]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/social-security--the-cheapest-annuity-in-town.html

http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/IB_12-10-508.pdf

[djg]

taken early the benefits for most folks are taxed whereas later they may not be taxed. Future cost-of-living increases are based on your monthly benefit. Each time thee is a COLA the amount added is compounded on top of previous increases. Since COLAs are unknown when you make the call on when to start collecting it isn't possible to know for sure the pros/cons of early vs. late benefits.

I think the monthly stipend increases 2% for every year deferred. It's "insurance" so maybe it makes sense to wait to take it until you need it and it pays more. Heck, maybe you're so well off you will never "need". If you are making big bucks late in your career you might want to wait to take ss so your last few years of high earnings boost your monthly benefit.

It's complicated.:)

I don't know what our pal Smiley ought to do, but SS is what it is, and I don't think it's helpful to label it as "insurance." Smiley has paid whatever ss taxes he has paid. He now has a set of statutorily defined options. They may change, at least around the edges (mucking with the core entitlement would be crazy expensive, politically, and that issue will get worse, not better, but entry terms, tax implications, etc., certainly could change, as they have in the past, and, at least in principle, there's a whole lot that's up for grabs). But it seems that the key is to understand the options, tax implications, etc., first, and then fold in other considerations, including the personal or idiosyncratic.

[GuyGadois]

The average life expectancy in the US for males is 76.2 and for females it is 81.1. Work your math around those facts and figures and see what happens.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_04.pdf

Keep in mind that those life expectancy numbers are for people born in 2010. It is much different for a, say, 60 year old.

Regarding a market crash on blah blah date, the markets rarely do what people guess or expect. It does whatever it can to prove the majority wrong. Predictions are futile and tiresome.

GG

[Chance]

Keep in mind that those life expectancy numbers are for people born in 2010. It is much different for a, say, 60 year old.


GG

Yes. A healthy person of retirement age could easily need income for 30 years. That's the good news. Planning for that long not so much.

[GuyGadois]

Yes. A healthy person of retirement age could easily need income for 30 years. That's the good news. Planning for that long not so much.

Correct, which make decisions for when taking SS much easier. Don't think of life expectancy from birth, think of it from your age taking into consideration family history and your health.

GG

[Ralph]

When I was 62 and already retired, I didn't think I needed the SS at that time to get by OK. But took it anyway, and saved and invested most of it until my late 60's.....it grew to about $85,000 even after I spent some of it. I was entitled to the max payment. Then started drawing some money from that pot in my late 60's. I think I'm always ahead to have taken it early.

And....there is always the risk you won't make it to 66 to collect any of it.

[rpm]

I'm hitting my full retirement age of 66 in August, but I'm still working full-time. I was planning not to start taking Social Security until I stop working in another year or so. I just got a newsletter that suggests that I can start drawing my full Social Security payments without discount right after I reach 66, regardless of my current salary. Is that true?

If it is, it's kind of a boondoggle, but I'd be a dope not to do it.

[zap]

I'm hitting my full retirement age of 66 in August, but I'm still working full-time. I was planning not to start taking Social Security until I stop working in another year or so. I just got a newsletter that suggests that I can start drawing my full Social Security payments without discount right after I reach 66, regardless of my current salary. Is that true?

If it is, it's kind of a boondoggle, but I'd be a dope not to do it.

Appears so

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10069.html#a0=0

Deductions are made if one still works and begins withdrawing before full retirement age.

In terms of roi, it makes little sense to withdraw before full retirement age if one still works. Unless you are extremely lucky in the market, you just can't beat the gain ss gives you.

[Ken Robb]

I'm hitting my full retirement age of 66 in August, but I'm still working full-time. I was planning not to start taking Social Security until I stop working in another year or so. I just got a newsletter that suggests that I can start drawing my full Social Security payments without discount right after I reach 66, regardless of my current salary. Is that true?

If it is, it's kind of a boondoggle, but I'd be a dope not to do it.

You can draw your "full" amount at 66 but if you wait until 70 the monthly amount increases each year by a fixed percentage (I forget how much) and those increases are compounded each year so you will then get a "fuller" amount.:banana:

[rpm]

Thanks, Zap and Ken. I'm applying now so I can collect in September soon after my 66th birthday.

[54ny77]

compounding doesn't mean diddly if you're dead or seriously ill & en route to being dead.

and if you think about the ss asset base, it's a joke. it's the mother of all asset-liability mismatches. gov't ss actuaries likely hoping/praying that death rates bring that gap tighter than planned/projected.

i've advised my parents to take it now. they've paid into it for many decades, might as well start to get something back before de facto means testing gets even more widespread and the gub'mint under the current (or future) admin starts blabbering on about the greater good and sacrifice...


You can draw your "full" amount at 66 but if you wait until 70 the monthly amount increases each year by a fixed percentage (I forget how much) and those increases are compounded each year so you will then get a "fuller" amount.:banana:

[cnighbor1]

You also have the option to pay it all back at 70 and start over at a much higher monthy payment
Works if you come into a lot of money than