3 Social Security Mistakes EVERYONE Makes (Real World Examples)

[@foundryfinancial]

Did anything surprise you?

[@janicenunn101]

Yes that you believe US Gov will last that long. We will breakup by or divide at end of 2032

[@phuocle]

Not really because you make the same mistake that a lot of advisors make in over generalizing. If Social Security will make up a small portion of your retirement income, say 20% or less, you are way better off claiming early. At least mention that caveat as the way you presented it makes it sound like that's the strategy for everyone.

[@FIRED13]

@@phuocle why claim early in the instance where SS makes up 20% or less?

[@andre-l3j]

@@phuocle Unless you have >$4MM saved up, SS will make up more than 20% of your retirement income. For those >90% with smaller 'nest eggs', it will be an increasingly large percentage of their retirement income. Claiming timing is predicated on one's other assets and one's projected life expectancy. Generally speaking, if you 'can' wait to claim, it's hard to argue against the inflation protection and increasing benefits afforded you with SS at one's FRA or age 70. If one has >$4MM in retirement assets, then there are all sorts of decision making tools to determine when claiming SS is better. Even with this sizeable nest egg, however, early claiming is no slam dunk. Delaying the income means delaying the taxes and delaying the possible conflict between SS income and other income sources before one's FRA. Also, unless one's big ole nest egg is entirely in cash (unlikely) or after tax assets (also unlikely), there's probably going to be an effort to maximize tax efficiency by Roth conversions or other preferential tax treatment during early retirement. Doing so augurs against early claiming of SS-it mostly just 'gets in the way' of early retirement optimization strategies.

[@phuocle]

@@FIRED13 It allows you to offset your withdrawals from your own funds by the same amount, letting it grow even more over time. Having a steady source of inflation adjusted income like Social Security can help minimize SORR. This works better when it's a smaller part of your total income. If I want $175K total income and have a portfolio of some $3.75-$4.0M, it's much better if I took SS at 62, for say, $30K and only have to withdraw $145K from my own funds. That difference can result in a 3.625% SWR vs. a 4.375% SWR on a $4M portfolio, making it a lot safer. For the person in the reverse situation, it's better to delay. Think about if Social Security will make up 70% or more of your retirement income. You presumably only need your own funds to last a few years, say 5 years if you're retiring at 65, to maximize what Social Security will provide over your lifetime. I've ran the numbers using eMoney and the results are pretty clear. Run it yourself and see what it says.

[@jimbrown4640]

I knew a guy who died at 61. You are not guaranteed one day after today. Live your live and enjoy the time you have left. If you don't like to work, retire the day you are able to. If you love your work, take social security when you want.

[@retirementpirate3665]

I knew a guy who died at 98.

[@kevinstrong7520]

@@retirementpirate3665 that isn’t the norm.

[@retirementpirate3665]

@@kevinstrong7520 Neither is dying at 61 either. When someone starts a story with "I knew a guy....."

[@prairiemark4084]

One of my best friends recently died at age 97&1/2. He took Social Security at age 62 because he didn't think he would live to age 65. How much money did he lose by doing that?

[@jimbrown4640]

@@prairiemark4084 Not much at all. SS comes with a COLA increase every year, just about. So, the amount he was getting at 97 was probably double what he started getting at 62. Besides, most people have either pensions or a 401k type of plan. If he did, I am sure he was not eating cat food near the end of his life.

[@thewolfdoctor761]

My father in law told me that nobody in his family history ever lived past age 70. He started collecting social security at age 62. He died 8 years later at age 70.

[@lynnebucher6537]

Those are the folks who should probably file at 62. But even then, if they have a spouse with better genes and can get by without SS, not filing may be better for the surviving spouse.

[@mtnshelby7059]

People, take control of your health as much as possible. It makes a difference. Im zero prescriptions and zero health issues and a distance athlete...at 60. My mother travels the world at almost 90. And I work a full time job. Unfortunate illnesses aside...get off the couch and goodies, don't accept poor health starting at 65!!!

[@bensatterwhite5694]

No matter who who are, you do not have a guarantee of tomorrow. Money will not buy one more day. Most companies really don’t give damn about you. Get control of your debt and retire as early as you can. Enjoy your life while you are physically able.

[@rpfamilybranches]

My father died at 63 and my husband at 64 yrs. Both only received one year of SS. You can plan all you want and hope to live to 80, but it may not happen. What if you wait, then your health degrades quickly after 65. You can’t enjoy what you worked for hard all your life. What good is a large nest egg if you’re not healthy enough to enjoy it?

[@Mr1T2X1]

It’s good for the investment managers and government neither of which have earned it or deserve it..thats the information game (e.g. keep working and paying taxes, keep putting money into your retirement so that the investment firms continue to get fees).

[@sallythibodeaux7992]

You must know all the rules before you retire! I retired at 63 and should have at 62. I’m a retired government employee and I am affected by WEP, Windfall Elimination Provision. My social security is significantly impacted by my state retirement and is the same amount at age 62 as it would be at age 70. Make sure you know if anything affects your social security.

[@墨紫月]

I am also a government employee. How could retiring at 62 and 70 be the same, there is a max WEP amount, Your SS is much higher at age 70.

[@sallythibodeaux7992]

@@墨紫月 Because of my State Retirement the total amount of my combined income can not exceed the maximum amount.

[@veltonmeade1057]

@@sallythibodeaux7992 Are you a federal or state government employee?

[@sallythibodeaux7992]

@@veltonmeade1057 retired state employee

[@n-da-bunka2650]

You get the ADDITIONAL benefits from Government pensions that most others DO NOT. The intent and function of the WEP is to PREVENT you from collecting WAY MORE than you should vs. other retirees. Of course, the Republican's LOVE giving away other peoples money so now there is a bill in congress trying to CANCEL WEP which would OBVIOUSLY cause Social Security funding to RUN OUT QUICKER for ALL participants. Hopefully, it will be blocked in the Senate otherwise it WILL be one of the reasons for the early demise of the Social Security program for everybody prematurely!

[@topofmindwithterri]

Take social security when you want or need to. Having the choice is a luxury. Many do not have the choice to work longer (ageism or health) or have a large retirement account to draw from. You do you, boo.

[@lv4077]

A friend,still employed,recently started taking SS at age 62 because some “advisor” told him he would have to live to age 80 to reap the same “benefits”if he waited to 70 1/2,providing he “invested “ his SS along the way.He said he didn’t know if he had done the right thing.I told him he wouldn’t know till he was dead anyway. SS isn’t a retirement plan it’s a supplement to poverty

[@rallegra]

If we live long enough we get all of our SS. How much we get per year is higher or lower depending on when you start it.

[@lv4077]

@@rallegra We paid in with a much stronger dollar and we are repaid with an inflated currency

[@lynnebucher6537]

Max SS filing age is 70.0, not 70.5. you're probably thinking of the former beginning age for taking RMDs.

[@lv4077]

@ Maybe,doesn’t have anything to do with my post does it?

[@tonysilke]

i retired at 55 and only had 25 yrs of contributing to SS(immigrant) but all maxed out except for the first yr which was short about 3K from max. so i know 25 yr of income will be divided by 35 yrs of income but still will get a significant amount. will still get SS at 67 or later.

[@Nernst96]

Retirement becomes truly fulfilling when you possess two essential elements: ample financial resources and a meaningful purpose in life. Make prudent investment choices to secure good returns and ensure a comfortable retirement.

[@Bondbeer]

SS is longevity insurance. If you defer and live a long time you come out ahead. If you die early you won’t know you made the wrong choice.

[@robp9746]

Bingo! If you lose the game what difference does it make when you are dead. But if you are alive it makes a big difference.

[@FIRED13]

@@Bondbeer there is the Survivor Benefits aspect some like us need to take into consideration as well

[@WilliamFluery]

Beautifully said….but the years I have left I will know I made a poor decision for my wife.

[@machintelligence]

Hogwash! SS is also disability insurance, survivors insurance and even has a modest death benefit. It is not ALL retirement savings and most folks overlook these other features.

[@Bondbeer]

Good point but not the purpose of this video or discussion which is about the SS retirement benefit not the other items.

[@Bob-xt2on]

There is no early , the money is what the money is at the time of taking. Do not look at it as losing money. By waiting you’re losing time , much more severe losing time. The window shortens. At 80 years old what are you gonna do with another 250 a month be honest.

[@johnp7076]

its much more than 250 a month.....go onto a social security calculator and figure it our....its probalby more like $1500 extra or more per month.

[@Longjohnsilver58]

I like this guy and that’s saying something because normally I have a low opinion on CFP’s. This is because they are incentivized to over emphasize portfolio money over other sources because that is where they get their commissions. When this guy said it might be smarter to spend down savings and draw SS later, he’s right and he gained immediate credibility. And I agree with move everything he said, but I think he could have said one thing a bit better. If you go to a college campus and ask an economics professor to enlighten you, he will say the stock market goes up and down but i always goes up in the long haul over time. If you ask him if SS will go bust, he will say no of course not. They might increase contributions, increase age of retirement, decrease benefits, but it won’t go away entirely. Great! Then as you leave campus you decide to get a second opinion and so you stick your head into the archaeology department. That professor will tell you with near absolute certainly that BOTH the stock market and social security will end. Both will be footnotes in history. Both will be buried under sand or water along with the statue of liberty, damn you! So what to do with all of this, well that’s where you ask me. Some troll on youtube, and I will tell you that if SS ever ends, the lack of a monthly check will be the least of your problems. You better have a bunker, cool motorcycle, S&M gear, crossbow, and juice because it’s going to be like Mad Max all over again. To put it bluntly for the slow students, the economy cannot just jettison SS and then go its merry way like nothing happened. It will be like the great depression on steroids.

[@brainiac8060]

Love the Planet of the Apes reference!

[@mauriceracicot6010]

My good friend didn't want to start his ss till he was 70. Big plans to finally buy the truck of his dreams. We'll, at 68 he died of a heart attack. He still had his unreliable beat up truck. I believe not because of this one case, that if someone owns you money get it before it's to late!

[@OroborusFMA]

Every American should be outraged that Social Security income is taxed. It's a tax on what was a tax. This didn't exist until the 1980s. It's time to tax the rich hard and let workers keep what they truly EARNED.

[@andre-l3j]

Calculation of social security benefits is already calculated on a very generous 'progressive' code. Someone with $10,000 of income (taxed for social security) will get proportionally more in benefits than someone with $160,000 income (taxed for social security). Thereafter, social security ignores income consideration on maximum benefits. Nearly all recipients of social security will receive more from the 'system' than they 'put in' to the system during their working career. For example, my wife and I have 'put in' ~$260,000 thus far (from MySSA.gov). We'll put in more before we retire. However, we'll get that back (and more) within the first 4 years of collection. Most people that claim will be in a similar boat.

[@topofmindwithterri]

100%

[@thewolfdoctor761]

But but but how will billionaires survive if we raise their taxes ?

[@rmbrugge]

Trump is saying he wants to do away with taxing social security. He's got my vote😊

[@thewolfdoctor761]

@@rmbrugge trump will say anything to get elected. Remember, 8 years ago, when he said he had a health care plan? Now it's a concept.

[@nunyabidness-y2r]

Ran the numbers. If I take it at 70 vs 62, I miss out on $242k+ in todays $$. Break even is well past my lifespan (I have things that shorten my life due to military service). Doesn't make sense in my case to wait. Bottom line, it is situation dependent upon when one decides to take it.

[@grahamrhodes5320]

Answers a lot of important questions. Thanks!

[@MikeS-7]

Very few CFPs will recommend taking social security at 62. Personally, I would ignore this advice. I also believe it is a bad idea to draw down investments using the 4% rule or similar strategy. In my opinion, just an average guy, is putting those investments in revenue stream generating investments - dividend stocks - and supplementing retirement with those investments. The dirty little secret many CFPs fail to disclose is the impact of fees on your investments. Why??? Cash and prizes for the CFP. Imagine paying a 1-2% management fee per year on your nest egg until you completely withdraw. That's big money. If you saved a million dollars that's $10,000-$20,000 a year for the CFP. That's a pretty big revenue stream if you get your money out of their hands.

[@andre-l3j]

Sounds like you have an issue with the AUM model for CFPs. Fair enough. Then one would want to have a CFP for a fee-only or plan-based basis rather than an AUM model. But none of these have any bearing on collection of SS age or whether your primary income holdings in retirement should be dividend stocks. Dividend stocks are actually pretty inefficient in terms of generating 'income' for retirement, but that's a whole 'nuther topic.

[@MikeS-7]

@@andre-l3j They are all interconnected (SS, Pension, Investments - taxable, Roth, Tax def, Taxes - state and local, etc). I do not like the AUM model, but I would support a percentage of profits instead of a percentage of total assets under management (the same for mutual funds and ETFs). The current model is a bad deal for customers. Fees must be considered in a way that allows you to see their short-and long-term impact on your investments and returns. Ignoring taxes as part of your retirement plan is like ignoring fees. You do have to pick your poison for your investments and withdrawals. Based on a person's retirement strategy, each person has different cash flows to consider. I think you already know the pros and cons of various options. In my opinion, good or bad, directly investing in dividend-paying stocks is a solid strategy for generating consistent income in retirement while preserving principal. Are there more efficient methods, perhaps?

[@jonscrivner9087]

For so long, everyone was told to postpone taking deferred money as long as possible. All wrong.

[@andre-l3j]

@@jonscrivner9087 You cite a blanket 'all wrong' about the advice to defer social security as long as possible. What is all wrong about it? Everybody is in a different position, so I'm interested to hear your 'broad brush' application that is universally applicable.

[@lynnebucher6537]

Yep, I was told to take SS at 62 by the person profiting from my retirement savings. Knee jerk response with no analysis on taxation or longevity risk.

[@Marl-hj8hh]

1:20 Impossible? On the contrary, at 39 years old I collect a monthly pension for the rest of my life that is adjusted annually exactly at the CPI COLA rate. How? Joined the U.S. Military at 19 years old and “military retired” at 39 years old. Plus as a retired veteran, I have comprehensive medical for me and my family that only cost $60 per month to cover us all. Best professional decision I made and plus I’m still young enough to make a 2nd career or have time freedom to travel the world because I still have my health and youth. Not to mention I still get social security as early as 62 years old also. If you serve your country, they will make sure you have security as well.

[@rayreyes8497]

@@Marl-hj8hh you are one of the smart ones. Well done. Thank you for your service.

[@Marl-hj8hh]

@@rayreyes8497thank you for your support but there is nothing special about me. Just doing my duty and wanting to share the facts to let people know their options in case they never knew anyone with experience in the military. It wasn’t easy but it was worth it.

[@thetradersam6157]

if you don't mind me asking, who are you using for Health insurance? $60 sounds very cheap, I'm pricing $500+ for my wife and myself..

[@rayreyes8497]

@@thetradersam6157 it is called Tricare, one of the perks of serving 20 years in the military. I have it too.

[@davidbornstein9197]

Thank you for your service! I am glad the government takes care of you properly.

[@johnp7076]

in this video you are showing both dunphy's waiting till age 70 as optimal strategy, actually SS calculators show its better for the lower earner to take SS early and higher earner to delay to 70. also my understanding is that the lower earner can then refile for 1/2 of the higher earners benefit once they start collecting if its more than their original benefit (I need to double check this)

[@kevinberry7076]

I'm not a financial guru, but what if: -take SSA at 62 (and maybe get a low stress part time job, this most probably has health benefits as well---to stay engaged) -have a $700k IRA, leave it alone, it grows to $1,152,000 in 5 years at 10%--$452,000 gain (I know this is not guaranteed) -in 5 years SSA has paid me $120,000 -depending upon how the IRA was doing you could pull from every so often

[@rblue6295]

Exactly what I’m looking at. If I use my ss I won’t need to dig into my savings which isn’t near 700k. Have a small pension and a 30 hr min wage job in a health club with insurance.

[@FreakyLynx]

I’ve known too many people who died just shy of retirement age, I’ve been diligent in my retirement savings so I’ve decided if I’m at a job I hate in 19 years then I’m retiring at 62. If I somehow like my job at 62 then I may continue to work… but honestly I don’t see myself waiting past 65 even though it’d still be considered collecting early.

[@JustinCase-em6ql]

Another option is to draw SS as early as possible, and leave your investment money to continue growing a lot more than 5%-8%. One thing not mentioned is each year you wait, you left money on the table, and your break even age gets higher each year you wait. Also, you don't know how long you are going to live. Don't rely on the government. Rely on yourself.

[@tomhammer1784]

If your spouse is younger or in better health her benefits on your death will be more by delaying until,you are 70.

[@jonscrivner9087]

All wrong. Early start to SS locks you into tax issues. As you age you need tax free income, not taxable or deferred income.

[@MelanieReed-oz3wz]

RMD

[@JustinCase-em6ql]

@@MelanieReed-oz3wz Yeah, there is that. I reworded my statement to make it appear as an alternate option. All of the tax rules make this process so much more difficult to get right.

[@gtb5216]

Tax rates dont generally go down...just saying.​@@jonscrivner9087

[@dave35311]

Read “How to Die With Zero.” The utility of money is different for a 62 year old than for an 82 year old.

[@IAmTheEggMan111]

Sorta impossible. If I assume I will die when I am 82 and spend all my money, what happens when i live to 95?

[@dave35311]

@@IAmTheEggMan111 Then you live broke, or you take yourself out.

[@swlancaster1964]

I wish they would do one for people who didn't have life go perfect. People who have managed to save $300,000 in 401k, no other income except social security. I am single and low income and hopefully I will have 400k in 401k/personal savings. No debt, no home, paid off car. I plan to get an income-based senior apartment and pay $400 for rent...including power and water. I may have money left over. Even if I get 100k inheritance I don't plan on buying a house or new car. I live beneath my meager income and don't mind it. It may not be the life many would live to get where I am or in retirement. I am just grateful I won't be BROKE like a friend of mine is. He works part time at 68 to survive. No savings, no emergency fund, and a mattress on credit. He is in an income based apartment too. We need retirement plans for people who didn't do it right. I succeeded in SAVING, not EARNING. Most advisors focus on those who succeeded at BOTH.

[@JT_Adventures]

You are not alone. All of these advisors expect millionaires in their advice and planning guides. We are depending on ss as the majority of our retirement & need advice on maximizing it and our meager 401k. My sister is 73 and still working part time to struggle by with her social security.

[@blainebates1067]

Advisors focus on the people with money because that is where the advisors make THEIR money.

[@prairiemark4084]

@@blainebates1067 Another reason might be that a lot of retirement advice is about avoiding taxes. And those with mostly just Social Security do not have a tax problem in retirement.

[@JT_Adventures]

Most people also don’t have that level of assets to “choose” to delay taking social security. We can’t retire without it on day one unless we plan to completely drain our 401k’s in the first few years.

[@thachnnguyen]

You look at it in a simplistic way, as if money is the only thing that matters. If you start withdrawing at 70, 78 is the age at which you break even with withdrawing at 62. At 78, what do you do with that extra money? Traveling is a bit a pain then, don't you think? And you cannot bequeath your SS money. Use it first.

[@ericchang9568]

I verified if we claim 70% benefit at 62 and invest in index fund that returns 10% a year, it'd outperform 100% benefit at age 67: FV(10%, 15, 70) > FV(10%, 10, 100). In fact, S&P has to perform < 4% for both to match. This is assuming tax rate is 0 (for most retirees I suspect that's the case, especially if they have a mortgage).

[@rdspam]

Payments are set so any age breaks even if you live to your expected age and a discount rate of US Treasuries. If you “assume” a higher rate, then yes, you’re ahead. It’s also a higher risk profile - you certainly can end up worse. Risk-adjusted returns are the same. If you choose to accept more risk, your “expected” value might be higher, but there’s an infinitely higher risk if using money. No different than making a choice based on “assuming” you’ll live longer or shorter. The math will work. No guarantee it will actually happen.

[@EricRexHamilton]

10% is a nice figure. Getting that for a a sustained period of many consecutive years is unlikely, and of course a 2009 or a 2023 goes the other way.

[@ScottAnderson-oi9wj]

By 'Delay', you really mean 'Work.' My SS statement says, "These personalized estimates are based on your earnings to date and assume you continue to earn $xx,xxx per year until you start your benefits."

[@johnscott2746]

Nope. When you stop working, they stop using your current income in their calculations. You can also go onto your own account and tweak the numbers yourself. I retired at 61. No debts, home paid off, truck free and clear. I’m spending down my traditional IRA while I wait until 70 for Social Security. Meanwhile, my wife and I are going on cruises and road trips and visiting loved ones. Life is good!

[@RamTrucks590]

The break-even point is 79 years old if taking it at 62. Even if you live to 85, was that 6 years worth it? You ain't doing nothing or going anywhere to spend it except to the doctors office.

[@billhayes4682]

Well said

[@mtnshelby7059]

Or running marathons but to each his own life journey.

[@Mr1T2X1]

😂😂 that’s the truth

[@PB-he6em1]

Unless you’re my 84 year old Mom who goes to the gym every day!

[@khallman1927]

Kevin, at 5:17 you say “and I will link to that episode right here” and you point to the upper right. I don’t see a link, can you provide it please? Thank you

[@vincegvozdenovich7044]

Social Security break even point is the biggest financial lie that I’ve ever heard. The calculation is 5% - 8% when deferring but they don’t count COLA and investment gain when taking early. Assume you take Social Security at 62 and don’t need to use it (same as deferring), average 2% - 3% COLA and 5% - 8% safe investment gain…you’ll come out even or ahead. Deferring will never catch up.

[@prairiemark4084]

I delayed Social Security benefits until age 70 even though my health made me retire at 64&1/2. Since I started drawing at age 70, I get a check for 4051.00 each month rather than 2,000 and change at 62 or 64. Three other things I considered was that my COALAs in the future would be based on 4050 rather than 2,500. That was a big deal in 2022 when the Coala was 8.7%. And the effect of those increased COALAs will be compounded the rest of my life. Another issue I considered was that my wife would get a nicer Survivors Benefit if I waited. It is kind of like free life insurance. And on the other hand if things are not going so well with your wife, Social Security is divorce proof. If the old girl splits and takes half of your "stuff" as often happens, you might lose half your stocks and half your IRA, but you won't lose half your Social Security. Tax benefits can favor waiting to. The greater percentage of your retirement income that is Social Security, the lower your tax rate is for the rest of your life. Social Security income is taxed at a lower tax rate than regular income. That is nice if you have other "stuff."

[@laryhub]

You have a very good head on your shoulders. Well thought out!

[@dseibopt]

Retiring this year at 65 and taking SS because we are lucky enough to have 3 pensions and 2 SS checks between my wife and I along with a 7 figure portfolio. Waiting to 70 for SS for me only increases our income by 3% and the time and health are more important than the money. We are guaranteed not to run out of money.

[@user-dixk2rx5gz8f]

Correction: It is not pegged to the actual (not referensing the official 'real') rate of inflation. True inflation is in fact higher. CPI-W tend to under-represent medical care and housing costs. Thus, Social Security benefits are not keeping up with inflation. Additionally, it may be wise to avoid using the word "EVERYONE', as human lives are nuanced. That being said; your presentation was appreciated.

[@leodoro8877]

One caution in this decision is that the govt people that calculate future SSN payments also calculate the rate of reported inflation, CPI does not include taxes, food, energy, basically all recurring items that people actually need to live. The same govt people recently published that the cost of U.S healthcare has gone down in cost, does anyone actually believe that statement ?

[@richardallen383]

You don’t talk about the increased growth in your IRA or non IRA portfolio by taking SS early. The amount of SS being received at 62 allows the same amount to be left in your IRA and grow. If your return on your IRA is high enough, then taking SS early makes tons of sense. Applying historical returns to estimate portfolio growth has shown in most cases it’s better to take SS early. You can easily show the break even point in personal wealth using NPV. Your analysis is faulty until you make that calculation. The correct analysis as when to take SS is as follows. The smaller percentage SS is of your monthly retirement income, the earlier you take it. For example, if SS will only be 10%-25% of your income in retirement, then you should take SS at 62. If it will be 50% or greater then you wait till 70 to take it. Between 25% and 50% you take it at normal retirement age. This best takes care of the 50% of individuals who are on the short end of the mortality tables given their expected life span once they’ve turned 65. This also takes into account risk absorption capability of your retirement income. If SS will only be 20%-25% of your retirement income, you have a much higher risk absorption tolerance and the odds your portfolio will grow at a high enough rate to make your NPV higher by taking SS early. When SS is 50% or more of your retirement income, you have almost no risk absorption tolerance so you wait as long as possible before taking it. I don’t think you give proper advice until you take into account people on the short end of the mortality table and risk absorption tolerance. Until you do your analysis is faulty.

[@tomjohnson5700]

I took my SS at FRA. I understand the longer you wait the more you make but you have to make it to a later date. Little brother died at age 65 and never collected a dime. I'm also collecting a state pension and one from the military.

[@montyrickey7281]

I lost a good friend from a car accident. He was married for 38 years to a great woman. I spent time with her and helping with repairs around the house long story short we got together. We married 4 years later she was 55 at the time. But we found out later she does not qualify for any of his social security after we got married. She was a stay at home mom and does not have any ss credits. I don't think this is fair at all for being married for 38 years. Is there anything that can be done?

[@PeterIllini85]

Things I learned in my SS benefits research: My wife took SS early since she will get (what I thought) 50% of what I get from SS when I take it. I was wrong. She gets 43% of what I get because she took SS early. When I take SS, then my wife gets 43% of that number. If I wait until 67 or even 70, then she gets 43% of that number. From the different scenarios of when I take SS, the "breakeven" point comes to about when I am 79-80 years old.

[@rogerskillin8385]

I know someone who took their SS to at 62 harping on "live for today" and lived to 91 and ran out of retirement money at about age 78. Woopsie.

[@veltonmeade1057]

This "live for today" mentality is koolaid for many and they will regret it. Short-term thinkers always suffer.

[@mikemckee6583]

That story doesn’t make any sense. If they “ran out of money” even while taking SS benefits at 62, then they would have run out of money even earlier if they had deferred those benefits (and REALLY run out of money, since they wouldn’t have even had the SS income stream). And that’s aside from the fact that since they still have a lifetime SS stream of income, they can’t have really “run out of money.” I think what you mean is that their total income fell below their needs, presumably because they exhausted their savings/investments.

[@jeanah685]

Social security absolutely does not keep up with inflation. That's one of the main factors that causes seniors to be below the poverty level.

[@andre-l3j]

Looking at historical trends for seniors living below the poverty level shows a dramatic improvement in their condition after implementation of social security. It used to be a major scourge on the elderly population (still is in many countries), but has largely been mitigated through widespread access to social security. Whether or not you choose CPI-W or CPE or 'chained' CPI to mimic 'keeping up with inflation' is missing the point. The program does keep up with inflation-it just may not be your personal interpretation of which measure of 'inflation' is the right one to assess.

[@ronmorrell9809]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding, but it seems to me the presentation puts a thumb on the scale. Wouldn't the appropriate comparison be to compare delaying Social Security vs claiming early with direct investment of the early money? The compounded real interest significantly delays the break even point.

[@Samathachavez-k1w]

@@ronmorrell9809 Hi dear Good afternoon. I hope my comment didn't sound as a form of privacy invasion your comment tells of a wonderful man with a beautiful heart which led me to comment I don't normally write in the comment section but I think you deserve this complement. If you don’t mind can we be friends? Thanks God bless you….🌺🌺🌺

[@fialee8ca132]

The actuary math from SS says the amount collected is the same regardless when you start collecting. The problem is this is based on large numbers... vs we have only have one life.

[@TyroneSettles]

Sound advice. Thank you for the presentation. I plan to delay taking SS until I reach FRA while I draw down my IRA. It is good to have choices.

[@matthewowcarz8259]

Hey Kevin, wasnt sure if you saw, boldin (formerly new retirement) rolled out a few new festures. Including being able to adjust which accounts to withdrawal from 1st. Interesting new wrinkle, thought you'd like to know.

[@foundryfinancial]

I just saw. The withdrawal piece is a great edition!

[@matthewowcarz8259]

​@@foundryfinancialagree! A piece they were missing for sure! This was another great video as usual!

[@foundryfinancial]

Thank you!

[@Travlinmo]

Funny timing for the update as my subscription is up right now… I must be the only subscriber.

[@tumbleweedscout6844]

All fair pts, but in the end, there is no too early or too late, as everyone’s perspective of anticipated lifespan and comfort level in retirement, is a wholly personal and subjective decision. Everyone, including actuaries, have their own interpretation of what the crystal ball shows, when no one really knows what the future holds

[@shilver101]

This video Brought to you by the Social Security Admin......No thanks I will take it when i want and enjoy my retirement.

[@jamesreed1969]

If SS gets adjusted to the inflation, start it earler means on the next year you will get adjusted amount, right? Or it is less than if you start getting it on the next year?

[@drdotter]

By my calculations, it will take over 19 years to "break even" taking it at 62 vice ANY other age, and would NEVER break even taking it at 64, 67, 68, 69, or 70. Also, taking it later may only work if you know when you will die and how much you'll need to pay in expenses, in your later years. If you know any of that, then you're a better man than anyone else alive. I'm going to take it ASAP regardless of whether I need it or not, and if I'm wrong, then I'll still have plenty of $ from my other income streams to make up for my miscalculation.

[@5222k]

You aren’t factoring in the COLAs applied to the 62 vs 67 SS amount. The difference grows each hour. Your calcs are faulty.

[@drdotter]

@@5222k Yeah, no. I'm taking everything into account. It's all I do, literally every day.

[@EricRexHamilton]

Rework your spreadsheet. The breakeven will be in the late 70s or 80s for every year of retirement, using any inflation rate you use - but make sure that is in the calculation.

[@drdotter]

@@EricRexHamilton Are you including a reasonable rate of return on your SS payments? I'm using 3.7 inflation rate with a RoR of 6.7. 229 payments before 63 becomes a better option, but only for 4 months, then 65 for 11 months, and finally 66 until I reach 85. Since I don't know when I'll die, I'll take my chances by taking SS at 62.

[@erichamilton4503]

@@drdotter We don't know when we will die - we also don't know our RoR, and 6.7 is a large number. Inflation is irrelevant in the sense that it should even out with COLA, based on inflation. Other things like variable tax rates and the fact that the country is in a latent debt crisis that will only resolve through inflation or worse complicate the calculations, as does the fact that most people taking early SS are not saving all of it. If truly investing all of it, then 62 makes a lot of sense (and to me, the most sense, in agreement with you) so long as you are not earning a paycheck that penalizes your SS until FRA.

[@deesjourney213]

What if I claimed early and want to change my mind? Can you stop and then start again at FRA?

[@buyerbware25]

Yes. Call SS for details. Also, you can continue receiving payments, then suspend benefits at FRA to get deferment credits.

[@Bondbeer]

Good video but the break even between 67 and 70 is much higher than 76. At a conservative 4.5% interest rate, recently available on a risk free 20 year T bond, the breakeven will be mid to late 80’s depending on the annual COLA. Example using round numbers and ignoring COLA for ease. $30k per year at FYA vs $38k delayed. FRA will give you a head start of $96k before collecting $1 by deferring. At age 71 you will have $131k vs $39k so you closed the gap to $92k and so on until age 90 or a bit earlier when factoring in COLAs.

[@rallegra]

Everyone in the US wants to retire early these days. That’s an issue. No one wants to work.

[@CourtesyCapital2024]

Are we on this earth to work or to serve others?

[@Markrtsoon]

Another consideration is if you have a spouse who will claim the spousal benefit. If one takes at 62, the spousal benefit will be 1/2 of a lower amount. So the total is much less.

[@johnscott2746]

I don’t think that is correct. Spousal benefits are based on your Full Retirement Age benefit. It would be reduced if they collect the spousal benefit early. For instance , if you have a FRA benefit of $2,000 and draw at 62, you would be penalized 30% and draw $1400. But your wife would get $1,000 (half of the $2,000) and it would be similarly penalized if she claims early.

[@Markrtsoon]

@@johnscott2746 we will have to agree to disagree.

[@elibennett6168]

@@johnscott2746 I have been wondering about this. I have the larger SS, but spouse is four years older. If he works till 70, it sounds like he could claim half of mine at its largest value.

[@tomy5868]

guaranteed solvency?

[@jpdriver1967]

My wife and I lucked out. Social Security will be bonus money that can be used for travel and leisure. It was dumb luck that it turned out this way. I still plan to hold off until age 67. Wife will take at 62, which in reality is about 1.5 years apart only because we never counted on her having any retirement income. If she lives longer, she will bump up to my survivor benefit. Unfortunately so many people must take at 62 or before full retirement age because of life events or poor planning. More people need to understand what retirement planning is all about at a much earlier age so that Social Security withdrawl planning becomes part of a strategic conversation versus a late in the game decision.

[@barbiec4312]

This was great. Thank you.

[@deerrudy]

Optimal strategy is likely 70 years old.so question I ask myself, money or more years in retirement?

[@kf434]

Kevin- how about if you take the money out at 62, and you invest in dividend funds that pay 12 to 15%? Would you recommend 62 then?

[@johnscott2746]

The problem with this is you have to have some source of income. And that’s going to cause your Social Security to be taxable . Any money your invested Social Security makes will be taxable as well. It would really cut down your gain and if there is some sort of crash, you could be in a world of hurt. Just something to consider.

[@andre-l3j]

Dividend funds that consistently pay 12-15%? Guaranteed? With no equity beta risk? A laughable pretext. However, if you make these unrealistic assumptions, then the math does check out. But you are unlikely to realize these absurdly high assumptions in real life. Long term return for 'dividend funds' dividends and principle are probably 8-9%. With portfolio risk. Compared to guaranteed 8% return for increased benefits due to later claiming, then it's not a great choice.

[@DrSchor]

sure, but no one can count on those two ifs. if you invest. if it goes up 15 percent.

[@owggarage723]

I'm going to retire at 62 and fold my cash in half! Won't that mean I've instantly doubled my money?

[@hd4100]

I wish I was Phil and had $1 million equity in my home, wow

[@paulprovenzanotelejug7877]

Taking my money now! If both of us are dead, and there’s more than $1 in assets, then I lost the game.

[@nothingman27511]

Since this was posted 2 months ago, I assume your assertion that the chances of one's benefits being cut in the future as being very low does not factor in the flawed idea of "no tax on Social Security" or having a crazy South African vow to somehow trim $2 trillion from the federal budget. Do you use eMoney software for your practice or something else?

[@floydchusset3143]

I need a way to draw up a plan to set up for retirement while still earning passive income to meet my day to day need and also get charged lesser taxes even while in a higher tax bracket. i want to invest around $250K savings.

[@Po1itica11yNcorrect]

According to the CDC, in 2022, the average life expectancy for males is 74.8 years, and for females it's 80.2 years. Combined, the average life expectancy in the US is 77.5 years. So for males, well over half will never reach the break-even point of 76 years of age if they wait until age 67 to collect. For females, well over half will benefit by waiting.

[@joshm3342]

It's not ALL or NOTHING. Social Security benefit amount changes for each MONTH you delay claiming.

[@Longvillle]

Most people slow down in their 70's and spend less money traveling.

[@DrSchor]

you are not most people. you are you.

[@marxamillion5576]

Thee phases of retirement: go go, slow go, and no go

[@RobertTruppa]

Medicare is nowadays taken out of SS benefits like it or not and it is not indexed like it was before. Meaning that SS benefits increments become less and less regarding the cost of living and Medicare increases when you make more....?????????????

[@mikemckee6583]

Of course, this is mathematically sound advice. However, there are other factors in play as well. The “usefulness” of a dollar during the early years of retirement, when you are far more likely to be capable of being active, is much higher than a dollar that you have when you’re 90. Maximizing total income over your entire post-retirement lifespan sounds good, but it will sacrifice a certain amount of income during the “go-go” years in return for more income during the “no-go” years. Many people may feel, if they understand that trade-off, that it’s not an acceptable exchange. Unless your focus is on passing on a large estate, there’s not much point in being the richest person in the nursing home. That said, there is no one-size-fits-all choice that is optimal for everyone. The decision of when to take Social Security benefits is highly dependent upon personal situation and priorities. I would say that in general, health and time are commodities that far outrank extra disposable income in retirement, and any decision on when to take SS benefits is a calculated risk based upon trying to predict those factors.

[@fialee8ca132]

Your analysis tool is very crude. If one is delaying SS, they need to spend money from somewhere during those years till collecting. The points on longevity and taxes may be valid. However, if it means retirement or not, its a no brainer to collect earlier.

[@alexgrabovetsky4849]

Thank you for the video , have to agree that if you have enough in your retirement assets to last you till 70 and no critical health issues , ss at 70 would be your insurance agains long market downturn.

[@MyBelch]

In its current form. That's a massive assumption.

[@voyagerman22]

GPO is a possible reason to claim early. If you wait until 70 to file for SS, you run the risk of losing 8 years of SS benefits if you die at 70 or shortly thereafter. Plus spouse will not receive any survivor benefit because of GPO.

[@fvvfvbbbb]

GPO?

[@voyagerman22]

Sorry, GPO stands for government pension offset. Basically it reduces the Social Security benefit by 2/3 of the persons pension. In my case, this means my wife would not be eligible to receive my Social Security after I pass.

[@dancurran8977]

My Boldin planning software recommends for me to start Social Security benefits at 70 and my wife at her full retirement age, 66 years and 10 months. My wife has freaked out about waiting so long so we agreed to reassess when I hit full retirement age.

[@foundryfinancial]

Psychologically it’s hard to wait.

[@bigfootnmore6619]

That early money has value. If you were going to wait until 70, and take it at 62 and invest it, 8 years of all that money at 12% can be worth taking it early.

[@ronica2623]

@@bigfootnmore6619dude, I totally agree. I’m not counting on ss to live on anyway, and I sure as heck don’t trust that the program won’t be cut or that I will live until my max. No guarantees but at least I can pass on what I have to my heirs.

[@ok2tmtsg]

​@@bigfootnmore6619have you considered taxes on SSI? It's likely that up to 85% of the "early money" will be taxable, if there is any SSI left to "invest".

[@andre-l3j]

@@bigfootnmore6619 Aye, but your 12% ROA assumption is not typical or reasonable for this money. When one drops that to a more reasonable 7-8%, it's a wash. And if there are any 'down years' for equities in that time frame, then a probable loss. It's really hard to compete with the guaranteed income afforded you by waiting longer to claim. The real comparative should be 8% guaranteed or 9% with the Beta portfolio risk associated with the equity market investments. Not a great trade for people that are thinking of being retired.

[@joes295]

So one size fits all? Never take SS early? Aside from breakeven at 81, how about family health history? Retired at 61, using cash and SS to manage PTC until MC kicks in. Paying minimal taxes for first 5-7 years of retirement. I would agree that one should not take early if SS is a significant portion of income, but there are too many factors to just say never.

[@foundryfinancial]

Did you watch the video?

[@MyBelch]

My mother died at age 60. Non-smoker, non drinker. Should I ignore that and go with the Internet Experts?

[@michaelme1548]

⁠@@MyBelchI’d say neither one. The internet experts online don’t know your situation and your mother is not you. Why don’t you hire an advisor that can look into your situation?

[@MyBelch]

@@michaelme1548 Because I'm perfectly able to do my homework and figure out the best course for myself.

[@mrton9482]

what if I have a minor at retirement age of 62? Should I still wait or collect her ss benefit as well when I retire at 62?

[@foundryfinancial]

That could change the calculation. You’d have to run the numbers.

[@wieb72]

People that retire as early as possible tend to whine about being broke later in life. Outliving your money is a big problem for retirees. I personally feel that planning to die is not a good retirement plan. To each their own.

[@arisgod2749]

So let me get this straight. If you are 65 or older you have about 17-20 years on average but at that age people like you still project 30 years of life? Financial advisors are not consistent nor is that 4% rule they throw around, when this is the worse case scenario.

[@rayreyes8497]

Be careful with averages. Three people live to be 90 each and a third one dies at 55. Their average life is 78 (90 + 90) ÷ 3 = 78. That one that died at 55, even if hit by a truck, distorts the number.

[@TPayne-fm8ie]

My husband waited until 70 to maximize the surviver benefit for me because I'm 7 years younger. But if you read the fine print-survivors only get the amount due at full retirement age of 67, not the extra amount they got at age 70.

[@Bondbeer]

Are you sure about that? I always understood they got the larger of the 2 checks.

[@foundryfinancial]

I think you’re conflating Survivor and Spousal benefits. It’s confusing. As a surviving spouse you get the delayed benefits. Reference section 404.313 of the Social Security code of regulation.

[@FIRED13]

​@@foundryfinancialyes, survivor benefit equals what spouse was receiving at death (included denatured credits). If higher earner passes before collecting and before FRA, SS gives the benefit of the doubt and gives survivor the FRA amount. Spousal benefit, however, is capped at 1/2 the higher income learner's FRA amount

[@TPayne-fm8ie]

@@foundryfinancial Thanks! This is good news. I have been told by SSA that it's the amount at 67 yo. (But they are not always right)

[@foundryfinancial]

I mean double check, but that was my interpretation of the regulation.

[@mnotlyon]

Your analysis ignores the extra return one would receive by getting SS early and keeping your investments working. This exceeds the benefit of waiting.

[@foundryfinancial]

It actually does get calculated and I’ve done a whole video on it.

[@MyBelch]

Your advice is absent the possibility that social security will change. It's definitely not healthy and to assume it will maintain it's current form for another 20 years is somewhat naïve. Putting off might be a very big mistake. Maybe not.

[@bigegames2019]

Average life expectancy of men is 70 and dropping, take it at 62 and enjoy the few years we got left.

[@michaelme1548]

A quick search shows it is 74.8 in the US. (2022) and he makes a good point about child mortality bringing the number down.

[@jkopvo]

Thanks for the video! Do the displayed calculations take into account the time value of money? IOW, if folks take SS early and invest it in the stock market?

[@DrSchor]

it is really a matter of discipline. will you spend or invest? and can you afford a stock market decline at the end of your life when there is no time to recover?

[@ralphstan8279]

I would add if you continue to work instead of retirement you offset the calculated SS benefit "loss". Yes, I know, you are still working, but you might earn 2-3 times that "loss" and in the end will have a lot more money for retirement. You could still contribute to your 401K which will grow, etc.. I could retire now but continuing to work means my 401K will grow, my SS amount will grow, my spouses benefit will grow, etc... Continue to work if you can... Just sayin...

[@Pure3nrg]

If you have a very aggressive investment strategy and are confident in achieving high returns, you might choose to take Social Security early and invest the money, hoping to outperform the guaranteed increase from delaying. There is not right answer. It is what is best for your situation. If I can take SS early and invest it and make it work, compound interest tells me that is the smarter thing to do. However, you need income to live off so do you keep working or have alternate funds?

[@ronrae4029]

Who has 2mil $. Avg person 100,000 to 200,000

[@matthewowcarz8259]

2 million is their net worth Avg and median all depend on age

[@marianneyokiel3565]

My husband won’t get SS spousal benefits until I start benefits and I am 7 Years younger than him. I am afraid he will not make it until I am 70. We have no savings btw.

[@mdevorah6833]

🎉can not get 8%on a bank account or CD. Plus longer I work, higher my wages should go. I was a stay home mom for 4 yrs and have some low years. So I really need to do 70! And use my 401K as my extras

[@MikeS-7]

The AFC doesn't help in any significant way unless you have that salary for years. I did some projections on mine snd the difference was negligible - $10-20 per month.

[@DrSchor]

you dont have to keep working t o delay

[@bettyb1581]

Question hoping someone can clear up for me. If i stop working at 62 i will only get $920 if i continue i will get more but i don't want to. If i stop working but i don't claim my social security until 67 i have some savings i can live off. Will i still get $920 because i stopped working at 62 or will i get more?​@@DrSchor

[@KenGruver]

There’s no grantee we’ll make it through today let alone tomorrow. Wait until 70, hell no!

[@Samathachavez-k1w]

@@KenGruver Hi dear Good afternoon. I hope my comment didn't sound as a form of privacy invasion your comment tells of a wonderful man with a beautiful heart which led me to comment I don't normally write in the comment section but I think you deserve this complement. If you don’t mind can we be friends? Thanks God bless you….🌺🌺🌺

[@michaelellis6847]

Thank you FDR ...you rarely get the credit you deserve....even from your own party.....we collect ss now, we waited to fra and also past fra.....we are doing fine.

[@MyBelch]

It's the world's biggest ponzi scheme.

[@realsteel8113]

There’s absolutely no such thing as claiming too early. Everyone is different but I guarantee there’s no way anyone can claim too early 🤨

[@dk99745]

Your claim that ss cola is equal to inflation (paraphrasing)?…inflation is way higher than the ss cola increase for 2025

[@jackking2588]

I was going to retire at 62. Ran the numbers and was shocked at the implications later in life…I was going to run out of money. So I continued working until 67, increasing my pension AND my Social Security Benefit. Best decision I could have made. Now I’m 77 and look back at what have been a Big Mistake…but everybody’s different. If you’re healthy, don’t hate your job and can hold-off on taking SS, by all means do it.

[@Mr1T2X1]

Health / Money / Time is the triangle of life that shifts as you age. When young, you have Time and Health and when older, you have Money and hopefully Health. Eventually you run out of all three parts. Statically, you have out lived 40% of your friends. I personally have had many friends that didn’t even make it to retirement. Congrats on your timely decision. Enjoy each day.

[@keithwise5894]

It’s a gamble and I really wish you “experts” would stop scaring people into waiting to collect. No matter that you say to figure it out for yourself you still put all emphasis on waiting which is not the answer for many people.

[@carolineyunker369]

Life expectancy is declining. I think the average longevity for men is 76 years now.

[@rkuo7678]

Isn’t social security going to go bankrupt in 2030’s. If you are at 62 now won’t it just be better to withdraw now before there isn’t anything left? Unfortunately for me Indint get to retire till the mid 2030’s.

[@monkeexx1x]

He should be cautious when using the word guarantee because can you honestly guarantee Social Security for the rest of a person‘s life? Maybe they’re only 40 and they’re watching this and by the time they take it another 20 years has passed will Social Security still exist and yes, there’s some individuals who outlive Their expected life expectancy but so what what if you didn’t and again another individual noted if you don’t care for your job get out I did at 61 but if you love it, stay there till you die like other fools who’ve gotten no life outside of work. That’s a sad scenario isn’t it so do what you want this is just my opinion

[@johnpatti3560]

If you don’t need it, take it at 62 and invest it. You’ll make more money investing it than waiting. Plus when you die your spouse will get all the money invested instead of a measly monthly payment. Plus that money can be given to your children when you are both dead. Children get nothing if you Don’t invest it.

[@kevinseversonandhisvizslas8287]

The way the universe works is if you don’t save enough for retirement you live to be 90. Save too much and you’re dead after two years of retirement

[@dannykirby7425]

Yes but man 1 lost an annual income for 5 years which on avg means about 250,000$.

[@johnnyretires]

Consider that lost income as funding a larger inflation adjusted annuity with survivor benefits!

[@simonspop706]

Another excellent video Kevin! Explained well, thank you!

[@foundryfinancial]

Thank you!

[@rblue6295]

This guy work for the fed? He’s got us all heading for the smuckers jar. And we all don’t have a million dollars in investments to draw on. Why leave money on the table even if you don’t need it?