Shocking Decline in People Filing Early For Social Security

[@bahijarhafiri]

Investing in individual stocks can be a lucrative strategy, but it requires careful consideration and research. Different stocks offer various growth potentials and risks. Some may provide steady dividends, while others focus on capital appreciation. It's essential to diversify your stock portfolio to mitigate risk. Consulting a financial advisor can help tailor a strategy based on your risk tolerance, investment goals, and market conditions.....

[@robert5494]

Claimed SS at 62. Never regretted it. 68 now and enjoying retirement a lot! Do what is best for you. Enjoy!!

[@bg5215]

What will you think of your decision when you are 94?

[@robert5494]

I'll find out when I get there, until then life is sweet.@@bg5215

[@myronchamberlain7734]

Most of us won't live to 94 and some will die in there seventys

[@jmm1817]

Good for you I think a lot of it has to do with if you have Investments and or pensions cuz if you don't can you take retirement at 62 you will definitely regret it

[@scottrichardson3961]

Good for u! Most people can't retire at 62 (due to medical coverage by their employer) due to Medicare not kicking in till age 65....sounds like u had a plan and stuck to it!

[@lisaferrari9211]

There are a lot of people convinced they need $1mm + to retire irregardless of SS. This is my last year working (2024). As soon as my husband turns 55 in August, we're done!

[@1515cando]

So you're not sitting on a million and assuming you're 62 and hubs is 55. How? Also what do you do for health insurance? 3 and 10 years out of pocket.

[@rubicon3416]

Just add up your yearly expenses and compare them to 2019. Auto & Home insurance, property taxes, food, gas, repairs, medical, cost of a newer vehicle. We're losing ground!

[@CaptainQueue]

I don't know how families survive. Every fall I make a savory Guinness beef stew. 4 years ago all the ingredients cost $25. To make it last month the ingredients were $55.

[@CalmerThanYouAre1]

Could it be that they can’t afford to retire at 62 now and are forced to work longer to have a secure retirement? 🤔 Being able to confidently take SS at 62 and enjoy spending it with your loved ones is one of the life planning victory trophies in my opinion. I wish everyone were able to take it at 62.

[@Cenlalowell]

Exactly if you're ready and prepared take it

[@markp.7165]

I would bet my SS that is exactly why the numbers are down.

[@Flyskier87]

It could be they don’t need it and have a long family lineage so they are rolling the dice

[@grega2362]

More likely the unknowns of the market with the FED playing games keeping people who are pretty close to retirement sticking it out for another year.

[@kevinjudge8602]

Take it at 62. It's your money; why gamble. You don't start losing until you reach 77. That's 15 years using your social security. That's roughly $290,000 low ball estimate. Also consider using your money when you're mobile and able to enjoy it. One man's opinion.

[@richardcarlin1332]

Why less people taking at age 62? Easy. The full retirement age was raised to 67 for people born in 1960. In 1997 people who took at 62 started at 80% of full retirement benefit that was at age 65. Now it is 70% benefit at age 62. So now age 64 is the new age 62 to match the 80% benefit.

[@vernshird711]

DING DING DING! You are correct - we have a winner! Tell him what he's won! "Well...Richard, you've won a limited edition framed photo of Pablo, autographed with his paw print!" On a serious note - you're right. The delay adjusts for the higher FRA.

[@kf1000]

That's only partially true . Most people who have taken it at 62 would have been happy to take it at 60 at an even greater cut.

[@CaptainQueue]

I filed at 70 and retired at 71. Best financial decision of my life due to a devastating layoff years before. But I salute anyone who can retire early.

[@1515cando]

Congratulations! A good friend of mine and fellow employee just couldn't quit at 71. He was already taking his full benefit at 70. The guy was a workaholic and was all about the $. He bragged he'd bring in more money in retirement than he ever did working. He planned on eventually retiring at 75. Well, he died last year at the age of 71 of esophageal cancer. He only ever drew SS for one year. He wasn't married. I told him over and over again that he was cheating father time and mother nature. He wouldn't consider it. He's dead and worked into his 70s chasing $ that was ultimately never coming to him.

[@CaptainQueue]

@@1515cando The entire notion of retirement is very recent in human history, and pretty much nonsense. I find the entire retirement industry boring and perpetuated by finance sharks and snakes who are glad to take your savings. So I don't buy a lot of traditional finance wisdom. For my choice, which was my choice, I invested an extra 5-6 years out of my lifetime at a good job before drawing Social Security to 1) gain that guaranteed 8% SS payout increase PER YEAR by taking it later and, 2) provide that much more for my spouse upon my passing. True, people do die relatively young and I am sorry for your loss of your good friend. However, my lineage history has done pretty well -- 88-92 years and that is what I'm going on. If you die before the SS actuary table age of around 82, then the system has screwed you. If you die after 82, then you have screwed the system. It is totally up to each of us and was an easy decision for me.

[@jmm1817]

​​@@1515candoyeah well maybe he wouldn't have been happy some people like myself are extremely happy working especially if they have their own business okay so what I retire and I get my Social Security and sit around and play golf everyday I don't think so. I still see my family a lot and travel when I want

[@martinfromseacity2010]

Thanks for all you do, Happy New Year. Your lessons helped me pay off my house early, take my SS late and now I have enough money to make ends meet. Getting some other income also, VA and a small pension from carpenters. Thanks again

[@tedjohnson4451]

Poor Health forced my Dad into Retirement at Age 62 in 1999. If I didn't have a State Pension I would continue on past 62, but I'm taking the option to Retire Early and travel. 154 Work Days to go.

[@DWilliam1]

I’m retiring in 345 days at age 59 with a stout pension. I’ll be collecting SS at 62. I’ve seen too many people die or become incapacitated in their 60’s and 70’s. There are zero guarantees in life.

[@tedjohnson4451]

@@DWilliam1 Yep. 72 Work + 21 Vacation Days until I Retire.

[@wwz1011]

Everyone I know filed early (other than myself). So I am shocked and pleasantly surprised by this. Retiring early which I highly recommend is a separate decision from when to start collecting SS.

[@DaveM-FFB]

I would conclude that a smaller percentage of retirees are taking Social Security at 62 because they are convinced that they will live longer and will need a larger benefit. Another reason is that 25 years ago, the FRA was age 65. If you took SS early at 62, your benefit wouldn't be reduced by 30%. It was a smaller reduction. Now, with a 30% reduction, plus the earned income restriction and penalty (from age 62 to 65), fewer people can get the cash flow they need for living expenses from age 62 to 65. So they're working until 65 at least.

[@jimmywalters3071]

I myself will get it early...maybe not at 62 but at 63.. my parents collected it at 62. I will get $2000 at 62 and will collect a pension... I will work part time and earn appx $20,000 per year to keep busy. I will have the flexiblity to move anywhere in the US and not to be tied to my job. I know so many healthy people die suddenly in their 60's and not got to collect a dime of their Social Security... life is short and you just don't know what tomorrow will bring. I don't have debt !! which is the key. I listen to Sarosota Tim on you tube and he makes sense for people who don't have debt ...in Retirement, one doesn't need a 3000 sq feet home with all the property taxes and maintaince.

[@ProfChris]

I think that people are just more informed now due to the internet, youtube, and people like you and Devin Carrol. We don't just take advice from our neighbor or any Joe Smo:-)!!

[@ws775]

My mom took it at 62 (1997) because someone gave her a form to fill out. She realized years later she could have waited until 65 to get more. But she and Dad still had enough in old age. Dad worked until 70 and they had several sources of income in retirement.

[@HeritageWealthPlanning]

Well you ARE a professor, so you'd know!

[@cutehumor]

Sarasota Tim is trying to destroy that information and get everyone to file SS at age 62

[@leisure057blank3]

…or Sarasota Tim, lol

[@richb1576]

Devin and Josh are my dream team

[@July.4.1776]

🤔 Could it be that most people no longer have pension & retiree health care to retire on? Almost everyone I know that had a pension and retiree health care provided retired and took SS at 62.

[@jmm1817]

Exactly just depends on personal Financial circumstances of each of each individual some can retire early and some should wait there's no cut and dry answer

[@cutehumor]

to me, it's age 62. take it at 70 if you are completely healthy with no medications and not obese and have family history of dying past age 90

[@christoomey9890]

……or have a spouse with a lower income history that is going to outlive you.

[@bobt.1341]

Retired last yr...64 now, will delay taking SS and Max 24% bracket w/Roth Conversions for a few yrs....as another said, each person & situation is different, be informed but "You do You".

[@martysmom3328]

62 and took mine. Starts January 2024!!!

[@TheFirstRealChewy]

I'm thinking to delay taking it, especially if I'm still making good income in my 60s. When 70+ it will be nice to have a higher baseline of guaranteed income. Plus it will be mostly tax free since I'd likely use or convert most of any pre-tax money.

[@coastalhillbilly3419]

I don't need it at 62, that's why I'm taking it at 62

[@_Coffee4Closers]

If your health is good, that is NOT a good long term idea.

[@coastalhillbilly3419]

@@_Coffee4ClosersQuality of life brother, been out since 50 can still hike and backpack deep into the mountains, can still dive, hunt, mountain bike, ride motorcycles, who knows what 70s will bring. Wife and I are very frugal and have many decades of bills already banked. Kids and I have seen stuff many will only see on their screensavers

[@cgmoog]

Fine but I don't want to hear in 20 years how your SS is so low it does not cover living expenses.

[@Mitzi73]

You can invest it if you don’t need it.

[@prairiemark4084]

@@Mitzi73 Good point, but part of the equation is how good you are a saving, how good you are at investing and how good the investment opportunities will be for the next 10 years. 8% a year until age 70 with a COLA starting at 62 and lasting until the death of your spouse (who may be younger) made me get interested in waiting. I retired at 64 and didn't draw until age 70....(in 2 weeks).

[@kchall5]

What so stunning about it? People are having to work until full retirement age because the SSA hammers early takers if they earn over the piddling amount they allow, which at the present time is around $21k. My wife took it at 62 and the local SSA office lectured her about how they are monitoring her earnings MONTHLY, and if she goes over by 1 penny they will penalize the crap out of her.

[@richb1576]

All thru my working years all I heard was take SS as early as you can. That was the popular opinion. Everybody did it. Then along comes the internet. People are educated now. This is the result

[@tedreid1035]

Everybody’s situation is different but your advice is how we are doing it. I’ll start at 70

[@callmeishmaelk767]

Inflation, people need to put off retiring and get that bigger check later.

[@jayp4114]

One's health must also be taken into account. There's no guarantee you'll draw that higher check for long. Individual choice.

[@callmeishmaelk767]

@@jayp4114 I'm guessing some of those people don't have an option

[@prairiemark4084]

@@jayp4114 No guarantees about the future. All we can go by is the averages modified by our individual health and lifestyle.

[@MOstix13]

Doing the math for my situation the break even point would be between 11-12 years. It’s a personal choice.

[@callmeishmaelk767]

@@MOstix13 yeah, it's a personal choice, I'm just saying I think with the current economy people are deferring because they have to. I used to be a major doomer, who knows maybe everything will go tits up overnight hyperinflate etc...but I doubt it, I think it's just going to be a bunch of these kinda ups and even harder downs and I think people (most people are short term thinkers) realize, they're actually going to have to work a little longer than they thought they were going to have to a few years back.

[@stephenpalfy8226]

You can’t apply your situation to everyone. Just make an informed decision based on your situation.

[@DaveM-FFB]

I didn't work 40 years to permanently surrender 30% of my Social Security benefit. I was supposed to have the full benefit at 65, but they changed the game (in my 2nd inning) and upped my FRA to 66.5. In order to take Social Security at 65 in 2022, I had to accept a permanent reduction of 9%. Fortunately, the Cost of Living Adjustment for 2023 was 8.7%, which essentially nullified my reduction. Karma. Happily enjoying my first full year of retirement.

[@HeritageWealthPlanning]

obviously you have MILLIONS of dollars or else there is no way you could be happily retired!

[@rickyaz8640]

The change in FRA occurred 40 years ago. Sometimes you need to pay a little attention

[@prairiemark4084]

@@rickyaz8640 What do you think he meant about this occurring in his "2nd inning." Were you paying attention?

[@DaveM-FFB]

@@rickyaz8640 Yes. The change in FRA happened 40 years ago. I was 4 years into my career at the age of ~25. For me the game was already underway. I was familiar with the rules. And a few years later they changed the rules. Now, it sounds like some politicians want to change the rules again for another group of people who are currently in the workforce. Trust me, I'm "paying closer attention" than many of the folks who keep electing these idiots.

[@DaveM-FFB]

@@HeritageWealthPlanning LOL! Financial Independence almost guarantees a worry-free retirement. It may (or may not) require "MILLIONS of dollars". But FI definitely requires CASH FLOW in excess of expenses. There are many ways to get there. I was fortunate to have several.

[@gulfside-qn1on]

Average life expectancyin the US has gone down to 76.4 in 2023, from 78.7 in 2019. How does this change the funding of Social Security and Medicare going forward? I would think it would have a huge impact?

[@cutehumor]

more money for the ponzi scheme to keep going

[@pyrochickhop8339]

these statistics have been skewed by increasing numbers of opioid deaths and suicides.

[@meibing4912]

May well be, but COVID was a significant factor. If a couple is 60 it is overwhelmingly likely one of them will pass 90. Go figure.@@pyrochickhop8339

[@MOstix13]

Could be lots of reasons including rhony rona

[@Michael-Joseph123]

That's from birth, you need to look at the average amount more years a 62 year old will live, I think the average is another 20 years for males.

[@miketheyunggod2534]

Retired at 50. Next year, I will be 62. Getting my money.

[@TheFirstRealChewy]

Well, you've had 12 years to figure out if you care about having more money now or later.

[@dforrest4503]

I won’t get much SS because I was a teacher in a state where they don’t pay in. My SS comes from jobs before teaching and part-time work, so it’ll be reduced a lot due to WEP. I think I’ll take it at 65 when I take Medicare so I can just have Medicare taken out of that.

[@pyrochickhop8339]

when you lose your identity related to your job, as well as meaningful relationships, work is the easiest path to regain these things. On top of that, most people double their time in front of the tv and don't follow through on their bucket list. better the devil you do know than the devil you don't.

[@kellychuba]

Let's not assume people will just take the money and watch fox news all day....oh

[@kellychuba]

Life is short, do not leave money on the table.

[@Michael-Joseph123]

Or, life can be long, it's would suck being old living in poverty.

[@accudave]

I originally planned to take SS at 67 but I ran the numbers and 62 ended up more likely to succeed with my goals. It wasn't a huge difference, but age 62 is better for me. I don't have to make a decision for a couple of years, so if things change between now and then I can always change my mind.

[@Michael-Joseph123]

The number most miss is the 30% larger cost of living raise ever year, most think that they might only get $500 more a month for waiting, but after they first year of collecting and there was a big cola raise of 5% you would be getting a extra $25 raise, so after the first year you would be getting $525 more a month, you really can't run the numbers not knowing what the cost of living will be in the future, you can run them with no cost of living increases, but that will be way off, every year the difference in pay will grow, and it will get the snowball effect, by time you hit the age you thought you would break even, you won't be getting $500 more a month, you will be getting $800 or $900 more a month, most people dont realize that what the statement says you will collect at full retirement age does not include cola raises, which you start getting at 62 even if your not collecting. If your statement you get before you turn 62 says you will get $500 more for waiting until full retirement age, this will not include cost of living raises between 62 and full retirement age, because they don't know what they are going to be, so when you do hit full retirement age, it might be $575 more a month.

[@bradATC]

Took it at 62.5. Wont get back what me and my employer paid in until age 73. If you can. Take it early. I believe average age of male dying is 73 this year. Granted that can be a confusing statistic. All i know is that i know too many people dying or already dead and never received a penny from ss.

[@clwest3538]

I just had a healthy lady friend unexpectedly pass at 71 while on a 'vacation' - she was a retired nurse and in pretty darn good health and very active. Time is not guaranteed.

[@HeritageWealthPlanning]

if you're 62 your life expectancy is well beyond 73

[@bradATC]

Yes i know. Hence the confusing qualifier. For me it was the best decision. Just couldn’t handle the stress of ATC anymore.

[@jmb-cm7mr]

I turned 62 in October and will be getting my first check in Feb 2024. My husband signed up for his he turned 62 Dec 25th this year but he has not received his notification of acceptance yet. We are both retired now.

[@vernshird711]

Just curious - did you delay your SS filing age to 62 and 3 months or did you file to receive SS at 62 and it's taken this long to get your first check? If so, are you getting back pay for the first few months that were missed?

[@Michael-Joseph123]

​@vernshird711 SS does not give you back pay, but you will get a increase in benifits for delaying 3 months, it's around 5/9 of 1 percent for every month you wait after you turn 62.

[@vernshird711]

@@Michael-Joseph123 Thanks - that makes sense. Just thought it was unclear whether the poster filed at 62 & 3 months or filed at 62 and didn't get her first check until 4 months later. I heard that SS checks come out a month in arrears so I'm guessing their benefit date is Jan 2024 then. When I get older and file, I'll file in the month of Dec because I want to get 12 checks (Jan-Dec) my first year of collecting to make things come out even.

[@Michael-Joseph123]

@vernshird711 they recommend to file 3 months in advance from when you want your first check. If you turn 62 in April, you can not collect for April unless your birthday is on the 1st or 2nd, you must have been 62 the entire month, and social security has a funny rule of when your birthday is, they consider your birthday, the day before your birthday (Medicare does the same thing) you get Medicare starting on the first day of the month you turn 65, I just got my Medicare card in the mail, and I called them to see if the card I got was a scam because it was active the first day of the month prior to me turning 65, the lady on the phone said that since my birthday was on the 1st, they considered my birthday on the 31 of the month before, so my coverage started on the first of the prior month, I also collected ss for the month I turned 62, and got a 5/9 of 1 percent increase for delaying ss for a month, so the best day to be born on is on the first day of the month, if you are born on the second day of the month, you can collect for the month since they consider your birthday to be on the 1st, but you don't get a 5/9 of 1 percent increase for delaying ss, if your birthday is on the 3rd day of the month or later, you can not collect for the month, but you start collecting for the following month, and you will get 5/9 of 1 percent for delaying ss, those that born on the 2nd don't get the increase, but they get one more check than the people who were born on the 3rd or later, the people born on the 1st get both, a check for the month they turned 62, and 5/9 of 1 percent increase. Sorry for the long post, and the way I explained it might be hard to follow.

[@michaelherner6623]

Could the fact that Full Retirement Age was 65 in 1999 which would mean that their benefit was not whacked by 30% in 1999 which would entice you to take it. 1999 sixty two is probably today's 64.5-65? Am I thinking about this wrong?

[@edwardpate6128]

My first thought

[@danholland4815]

Your analysis is flawed. Full benefits in 1999 were at 65 and in 2022 at 67. Comparing 62 YO filers in 99 to 64/65 YO filers in 2022 is probably more accurate.

[@josephmayer2565]

I find it very hard to believe that the population tripled in 23 years.

[@scottrichardson3961]

Best kept secret....educate yourself and manage your own finances! I decided to after a failed marriage and managed to still retire at 59....but I learned my lesson and stayed single and continued working, saving and investing. Being military vet has helped my situation as I receive monthly benies to include medical coverage. If I can do it, anyone can.

[@waterbug1135]

The trend has been going on for years now. High COLA years may be causing DUH moments that a guaranteed 8% plus cost of living and how all that is then compounded by all COLA adjustments is a great investment.

[@screddot7074]

I'm 71, wish I could un-retire and go back to work. Not because I want to work but inflation is hurting my lifestyle.

[@josephzimmer6776]

Welcome to "Bidenomics".

[@Michael-Joseph123]

​@@josephzimmer6776oh yeah, the old story of Biden causing world wide inflation, I'm more thankful that the US is coming out of faster than other industrialized countries, and is doing it with record low unemployment.

[@curtdalgleish2903]

Our plan is to wait until 70 to claim even though we’ll retire before 70. This will be our longevity insurance instead of purchasing an annuity.

[@tedreid1035]

Good idea!

[@bdtn342]

Full retirement benefits were 65 back in 1999. Today's Full retirnent is 67. This probably plays into the decision.

[@HateDietPepsi]

Government wants you to work until you die with no social security collection. I'm the first in my family to start collecting social security. Government loves my family, mother, father, uncles worked until upper 50s to lower 60s, and died suddenly of heart problems.

[@bhinbayoucity5691]

Cost of living went up, the earnings limit, and more people 62 n up realizing they need to go back to at least part time work.

[@TheFirstRealChewy]

The one thing I don't plan to do is voluntarily retire and have to go back to work. If I'm cutting it close then I'll work longer, even if its part time work. Once I stop working that's it.

[@paulkelly4731]

I will hit 70 this year, I plan on filing a few months short of my 70th birthday... I delayed for 2 reasons.... to reduce the dreaded IRMAA penalty, and avoid the income tax on benifits.

[@brianhume1555]

I wonder if we are seeing the transition from people with a pension to most not having that additional source of income?

[@JohnSmith-oj9gw]

It's simple they can't afford to retire so they keep working.

[@HeritageWealthPlanning]

yet, there is no evidence of that.

[@JohnSmith-oj9gw]

@@HeritageWealthPlanning The median retirement savings at 62 is around 400k. Not nearly enough to retire.

[@johnscott2746]

@@JohnSmith-oj9gwI know a lot of people who don’t have anywhere near 400k and they are retired. They aren’t vacationing on the French Riviera but they aren’t eating cat food either.

[@JohnSmith-oj9gw]

@@johnscott2746 Ok let's assume they don't have another pension and they don't take Social Security (SS) then the only logical thing would be to withdraw from retirement funds for a few years while the SS amount goes up.

[@clwest3538]

Not all (or probably most). What it cost to 'afford' to retire is very personal. With no debt, paid for house and cars, my monthly budget is about $700 (single, 1 grown child) my SS would more than cover my living expenses. I kept working because I loved, loved, loved my job - until my hands gave out. I am stopping working the end of the month (2 more work days!) - but will be living on my itty-bitty savings for a while prior to filing for SS. That being said, I also did all my over-seas travel in my early years - and with the world in the state it is in these days, glad I did! I look forward to spending more time with my hobbies, family and friends.

[@johnbalzano6588]

If you take ss @ 62 instead of 67 that's 5 years of collecting. If you waited till 67 how long would it take with the increased amount to make up the difference? Will you live that long?

[@sammencia7945]

Nearly everyone will live that long. If you are 62 your lifespan is to 81 not to 76. Unspoken lifestyle choices here. The "take money and run" group are likely in poor health, substance abuse, diabetes, obese. Everyone they know is dead at 67 from poor choices.

[@jamesr1021]

I agree. Not sure when I will claim yet (I'm 61) but I'm not thinking I will wait until 67...maybe 64. There's an age where the "lines" meet and it WAS worth it to wait but from what I can tell, it's around 76-78 years old. Those are less healthy years (assuming even alive) and that early money, if you can invest part, stretches that age out a bit too.

[@grega2362]

Also if you are spending your nest egg, then you have to figure the growth of the money you didnt use by taking SS early. The SS numbers cross around 80-82. So if you draw from the nest egg for 5 years, how will that affect the amount of compound interest in 20 years?

[@johnbalzano6588]

@grega2362 what if you have a pension and significant investments? How would that factor in? I don't think pension affects social security, not sure about IRAs . Thankfully, i live in a state that has no income tax

[@grega2362]

@@johnbalzano6588 Besides the fact that if you have other income, you get taxed, neither affect the SS payout. What taking the SS late means is that if you retire early, you need to tap your principle of your IRA harder so you can live. You wont make up what you lose in what you spend because you have less principle to earn over a short time period. I am in the same boat. A frozen pension that I am taking as lump sum (co will go under with current practices), significant investments, and I am taking SS early(24k) to build a nice floor over time with the wife taking hers 3 years after I do(18+K). By not burning a lot of my investments early to live I will be able to let them grow at a reasonable rate and peel off earnings as needed.

[@401KDexters]

I think a key point here is to have nest egg funds that you can draw from to put off drawing SS earlier.

[@alphamale2363]

A stash of cash ain't trash!

[@TheFirstRealChewy]

To be in a position where you can even delay taking social security is a good thing. I intend to delay taking it if possible. I figure that if I die early I won't be spending my last hours wishing I took social security earlier than needed.😅

[@grega2362]

Did the math on this. If you take from the stash you lose more in growth using reasonable rates of return than you gain by taking SS later.

[@alphamale2363]

@@grega2362 Perhaps. If you considered all the possible variables then I don't think it would be an easy calculation.

[@401KDexters]

@grega2362, since SS grows at ~8% annually by waiting to take it, your "reasonable rates" must be higher than that. Unless you listen to that SSTim fella.....lol

[@bluegillmich]

I would believe inflation has a lot to do with filing later, my father-in-law retired exactly that time( 1999 at 62). His expenses were none ( utilites, taxes and some food)

[@scottrichardson3961]

Last time I checked, roughly 40% of people are still filing early for ss benies...mainly because they NEED THE MONEY! Deciding when to file is an INDIVIDUAL DECISION, not a GROUP THINK decision swayed by so-called financial gurus....I just filed for early benefits and will receive first check in may 2024 (turn 62 in april) ...this additional benefit will increase my monthly income to 3800/ month....single, no debt, VA medical allowed me to quit coj 2.5 yrs ago....love life....God has blessed me!

[@timralston8890]

exactly

[@PauMaz]

To hell with that. File early. Take the money and run. If you don’t need it then either invest the money yourself or gift it to your children or grandchildren and see that they invest it.

[@_Coffee4Closers]

Extremely BAD advice.

[@bradATC]

You’re not guaranteed tomorrow. Take it if you can. Provide for your family another way.

[@_Coffee4Closers]

@@bradATC That makes no sense, if you are dead it does not matter. Think of SS more like an insurance policy, and defer it if you can, assuming you are in decent health.

[@Cenlalowell]

Im taking it at 62 no matter what

[@sammencia7945]

Teenagers think like that. Wait to 67, 70 if you can.

[@alphamale2363]

I'm at least waiting until I go from ACA to medicare.

[@musecosmos1956]

Have you also compared the numbers on disability? Maybe some of the decline is for SS participants on other areas of SS? Thanks

[@sergiosantana4658]

Many of today,s senior citizens are carrying more debt than seniors past . In 1990 25% of seniors over 65 were carrying a mortgage.Today over 60% of the seniors are carrying a mortgage. Many of the seniors carrying the mortgage today were qualified while they were still drawing w2 income and cant afford to live on the reduced age 62 benefit and the earned income limits ,so they have no choice but to continue working.

[@bigdog1150]

Not many people listening to Sarasota Tim

[@swright5690]

Thankfully. I always take financial advice from a guy living in a camper.

[@genxx2724]

@@swright5690 The other day he was talking about how great he’s doing despite having never owned a piece of real estate in his life. This brand-new trailer is the only “home” he’s ever owned. Then he caught himself and said the 16-foot trailer he had until a couple of months ago, and claimed was wonderful and all he needed, was great.

[@AmerikiDork]

I hope to retire in my 50s, but there are unknowns. Social Security is projected to run out of money by the time I get there, does that mean I can expect 70% of what it 'should' be?

[@ellenb8560]

Just asking has disability applications increased over the regular early applications?

[@robnelson6545]

Think they’d be more discouraged to take it at 62 now since the cut they take is over 5 years instead of 3 years. Plus people are living longer than back then.

[@william-fla-321]

People aren’t living longer today, there’s just double the population, so the numbers are increasing. I know many people who died before cashing one SS check.

[@robnelson6545]

​@@william-fla-321 there's been a sharp decline in covid related deaths this year. Fentanyl deaths are still going up and affect younger people more. All things being equal a death of a younger person affects the life expectancy more than an older person. Older people were affected by the shutdown of the healthcare system but that's mostly back now.

[@Legendary_UA]

It's YOUR money. Take it

[@jamesh1641]

We are a high income, high net worth couple approaching 60 but have minor children. We both work and are thinking to just time it at 65 with Medicare and retire. It’s a complicated decision. There are also new time limits on IRA inheritance for our children we have to consider as well. Josh’s content is also thought provoking. It’s chicken or the egg sometimes. Retire on your own nest egg and delay SS. Or take SS and defer your own withdrawals from nest egg.

[@_Coffee4Closers]

Factor in that deferring "your own nest egg" likely means being hit with RMD's down the road.

[@jamesh1641]

@@_Coffee4Closersgood point.

[@TheFirstRealChewy]

If you have the time and money to do conversions of tax deferred money, you can spend some years converting whatever you can before you collect social security. However, only do the conversions if RMDs will actually be a problem. You can spend a lot of time and effort trying to reduce your tax obligation, but figure out if the effort is worth it. Also, I'm assuming you'll be leaving money for the kids. Just don't overlook the financial education. All that accumulated wealth will disappear in an instant if your children don't know how to use it responsibly and continue to grow it.

[@jamesh1641]

@@TheFirstRealChewythank you for your thoughts and wisdom.

[@mistersniffer6838]

At that much a month, I will work until I dye!!

[@cherylo-js1rt]

Josh, makes sense when the gov shifted FRA to 67

[@mvj1960]

Just made my last house payment today. I will be 64 next month in January. My spouse is already taking their SS. I'm going to try and delay as long as possible before filing for mine because my benefit is 4x times my spouse. If I die first they will need the higher spousal benefit. Trusting the good LORD will allow me to make it to 85 or longer.

[@Michael-Joseph123]

If your benifit is 4 times of which your spouse benifit is, don't forget to have your spouse switch their benifit over to a spousal benifit, she can get 50% of what you get.

[@thomasrudy6132]

so this will probably trigger the government to reduce the ssi benefits fom 63 to 70 years of age, right?

[@LeeH-Ranger83]

I’m WAITING until 70 years old. Worst case is my FRA - 67.

[@51dbail]

I wonder how many people are on survives benifits that are under their FRA? People on this are wise to wait

[@lonwoock9881]

I think it's best to put your SS decisions in the hands of the wise man, Sarasota Tim. His one size fits all approach fits you perfectly. After all, it has to because there is only one size. In Tim We Trust!

[@christoomey9890]

Doesn’t Tim live in a camper, and is working handing out samples in a grocery store?

[@prairiemark4084]

I think he quit giving out sample when he got a rich gf to help him with expenses. @@christoomey9890

[@lonwoock9881]

@@christoomey9890 Yes, but he is killing it!

[@genxx2724]

@@lonwoock9881 Crushing it! Now he lives in a larger, brand-new trailer and has a Toyota Tundra to pull it. He hasn’t been handing out samples anymore. He’s making money from KZbin, and any viewer who makes a comment he doesn’t like gets kicked out. He claims people called him “stupid” and an “idiot” and said this videos were boring. I never saw any such comments. He just doesn’t like anyone disagreeing with him.

[@lonwoock9881]

@@genxx2724His only contribution to financial planning is horrible advice. 'Do what I did regardless of YOUR situation.'

[@penelope5500]

I'd say that's good if more people are waiting a little longer to take SS. Maybe more people have gotten a little smarter & gotten past the "take it at 62" advice.

[@cwheremonster8870]

Agreed. AND the biggest missing piece of info: we are now seeing retirees (young boomers) who were born AFTER 1960. Im sorry folks, but their payout from SS is noticeably lower than folks born in the 1950’s-60’s. The numbers we are seeing (folks filing later) is a no brainer now. My father was born in ‘45. He waited till FRA (65).. but his reduced payment at 62 would have STILL been much higher than mine at 62. I’m talking percentages here… This could go no other way (on average). I’m just waiting on Congress to eventually tell us Gen Xers that the “new cut off” will be those born after 1970. Laugh if you will, but it’s comin.

[@william-fla-321]

@@cwheremonster8870They want you too work until you die.

[@colleenconger5265]

@@william-fla-321 not at all I stopped working at 61 years old and I’m not taking Social Security. I did not plan on retiring because I got laid off after having surgery but I’m losing money if I take Social Security now because I do believe I’m gonna live past 79 years old and I want to get the most out of it I can God knows investing money there’s no Sure thing these days. I saved money, and I look for opportunity to lower some bills and I found it you just have to look! I also don’t have debt but unfortunately I don’t and I have rent and that’s a bummer but it’s all good!

[@_Coffee4Closers]

@@william-fla-321 Who does?

[@grega2362]

Its only smarter if your family has a history of long life. You are 100% healthy. Or, you didnt save enough to use SS as a nice bonus. I hammered my 401K, had cancer, mom died early, dad died at 87. In what way would it make any sense to not take it at 62?

[@flexjay87]

Well no kidding. With inflation the way it is, i cannot blame anyone for not retiring. Its too late for me, cuz i retired in 2021, which history may show its one of the worst times in history to do so ! The next shoe to drop will be the Stock Market crash, which everyone talks about, but its impossible to time, but it is gonna happen, and the worst part is, is that its planned ! :(

[@rickyaz8640]

Had the crash last year. If you stayed in, you made it all back this year.

[@sergiosantana4658]

I disagree with your comment about 2021going down in history as the worst time to retire. Check this out From 2010 to 2021 your portfolio was up 400%. From 2010 to 2021 we had historically low interest rates that allowed you to pay off your debt or to lock in a low mortgage rate. Hopefully you listened to Josh and you set up your buckets of income that mitigated the sequence risk from the -22% crash of 2022. And by the way your safe bucket of income should be earning you over 5%. When you consider all of the above it will seem that you timed your 2021 retirement just right .

[@flexjay87]

@@sergiosantana4658 Bad time for me, and many others, not everone though.

[@hoosier_daddy65]

an election year coming up :)

[@UnlikelyToRemember]

Pretty sure your numbers are off. 15M is 4.5% of the US population -- there just can't be that many 62 yr olds (more like 2M I'd guess)

[@michaelratchford9508]

There are 21 million people from 60-64. a good estimate is there are about 5.5million 62 year olds

[@meibing4912]

Later retirement is a general trend in OECD countries which is unlikely to be related to SS but rather demographic mega-trends. Better jobs, tight job market, realizing that you have more years left than your parents - such factors are probably all at play. Not sure what the US data says about actual retirement age, but in Europe its rising pretty much across the continent.

[@goldstandardaviation1667]

Because they are realizing that early retirement (pre-FRA) leads to poverty for most of us. The WSJ posted an article this morning saying more "retirees" are returning to work now than any time since the 1950s. They are either unable to pay the bills on SS alone or are bored out of their minds and back at a crappy old job. The silver lining is "retirees" 65-and over are earning an average of $20/hr in these jobs. A cautionary tale indeed.

[@clwest3538]

Thing is, they may not be "..back at a crappy old job" ... when you retire, you can pick and choose what job to accept. I knew an older guy who became a 'greeter' because his wife passed and she was the social butterfly - he just wanted to get out and say hi to people - and the store paid him to do that - most of the $$ went to his grand kids.

[@davidmeyer9648]

If this is the case why is SS going broke?

[@lindaripp5902]

Maybe more people failed before 62 than previously had or qualified for disability or something I don't know weird numbers

[@charlesbarwick2629]

That 15MM @62 in 2021 is wrong.

[@glorgau]

Hmmm, one wonders how that affects future budget projections for the Federal government. Better on the front end, but more expensive if people live longer.

[@meibing4912]

Government coffers win because of the taxes paid by people working longer. You also win (on average), because the calculation is meant to make you want to work longer, so they give you a premium. Thus, in an interesting twist everyone wins. And it gets even better; the more people in work - the more work to go around. Sounds like a paradox but its how economies works. This is why Europe in general was hit hard when many countries tried lowering the pension age in the crisis years of the 1970'er and 80's - and instead of creating more jobs for the young unemployed it just made everything much worse! So having more elderly working longer both makes for a better retirement economy, a healthier federal budget and more job opportunities for the young. This is why essentially every single OECD country is trying to get people to work longer.

[@speedwagon7562]

In 99, age 62, was much closer to full retirement age… meaning, the shortfall of filling early was less extreme… With today’s FRA, much higher, you lose a lot more pay-out, if you sign earlier… possibly, why the democrats consistently want the base pay of low income retirees raised… This is a really GOOD statistic, to help folks understand better, the importance of holding off, as long as practical… This example, also means, any new bill to sure-up SS, ( making it more sustainable), needs to include, MORE incentives to hold back as long as practical, to claim…

[@andrewroth9175]

You’re right on Josh! People are waking up! Delay SS. Except Sarasota Tim.

[@rubicon3416]

All Sarasota Tim's groupies should sue him for his disastrous advice. If they can find him in 5 years.

[@genxx2724]

He did yet another video opening Christmas gifts subscribers sent him, and made sure to mention again his birthday is December 29. His motor home is now cluttered with junk people sent him. Here’s one example: two metal racks for k-cups that are supposed to be stuck to the sides of a Keurig, but there’s only space for one, plus a drawer-caddy thing to store k-cups, and there’s no space it for on the counter. He was doing just fine with his k-cups in a drawer. Now he needs to have a rummage sale to get rid of all this junk.

[@genxx2724]

OMG! I just watched the first few moments of a video he posted this morning. He’s showing two little fans over his bed. He actually said, “I bought them with my own money.” Embarrassing! What a grifter.

[@rubicon3416]

@@genxx2724 - That girlfriend of his lives in her daughter's mansion in Delray Beach. I wouldn't be surprised if Grifter Tim lives there too and the camper is just a KZbin prop for the con game, lol.

[@genxx2724]

@@rubicon3416 🧐 I figured the GF lived at her daughter’s. Interesting idea you have.

[@stevel1733]

My friend is going to retire at 62. Hes going to keep working 40 hours or more and just pay the fees. He says he can still get full benefits at 67 if he is still working full time. Is this true???

[@penelope5500]

Yes, at age 67 (his FRA I assume) he can work as much as he wants to & incur no penalty from SS.

[@stevel1733]

@penelope5500 ma'am he is going to take his ss at 62, then try to get his full amount at 67. I thought once you file that's it until your dead. I don't want him getting bad advice and I don't know anything. Thanks.

[@penelope5500]

@@stevel1733 Well, you are correct. If he files at 62 then he's going to get whatever that amount was (plus COLAs) period. He is not going to be able to change his amt. at 67. If that were possible then everyone would do that.

[@stevel1733]

@penelope5500 thankyou very much! I will show him this thread and hope he at least checks more into it. Thankyou again

[@colleenconger5265]

I know what he’s thinking about he’s saying that once he gets to 67 then I’ll the deductions that Social Security took from 62 to 67 while he was working he’s gonna get that money back but his base monthly payout will still be the same. It will not be the higher rate as if he started collecting at 67 does that make sense because as long as he’s working full-time and collecting then he’s going to get a lower amount of his base pay based on collecting at 62. Then, when he reaches full retirement, he’ll get what they deducted he’ll get that money back.

[@HB-yq8gy]

My wife and I are taking it at 62. She has earlier stage breast cancer that was treated. So life expectancy for her is less don’t gamble. Plus I have a non-covered pension if my wife passes before me my Social Security, survivor benefit offsets to zero $ !!!😮because of my pension. So we’re both taking it early. No need to hire any guru that tells you about Social Security. I called the Social Security administration. They told me over the phone. I recorded it simple stupid anybody can do it don’t pay anybody to get this information it’s FREE😊.

[@suburbanpioneer5629]

I wonder what effect the larger "hit" you take for taking early now that FRA is 67 instead of 65 has had on taking SS early.

[@TheFirstRealChewy]

If you take it at 62 you get 70% of your FRA benefits. If you delay until 70, you get 124% of your FRA benefits. If I can delay until 70, then great, I have a higher baseline of guaranteed, tax free income for as long as I live. The social security benefits are like insurance to me. My goal isn't to have as much money as possible in retirement, it's to have enough money. If I end up with more than enough then I'll count my blessings. My kids shouldn't depend on me leaving something for them in order for them to survive.

[@suburbanpioneer5629]

Yes, but Josh is looking at the reduction in people taking SS at 62, compared to the past. If you were born in 1937 or earlier your reduction was only 20% for taking at 62, compared to the 30% reduction for those with a FRA of 67. I'm wondering if that is driving some of the reduction in early SS takers. @@TheFirstRealChewy

[@northerncaptain855]

I could be wrong but it seems very very unlikely that the number of age 62+ people tripled between 1999 and 2022. My spidey numbers sense is tingling. Having said that, your point is interesting (good news) about more people deferring Social Security past age 62. This would be the baby boomers, who have educated themselves better (internet) than previous generations.

[@cgmoog]

A 62 old in 1999 was born in the middle of the great depression (1937). A 62 year old in 2022 was born in 1960 at the tail end of the baby boom. Ignoring immigration, early death, etc which I think would proportionally increase the number of people born in 1960 (comparted to 1937) we can look at birth records. Census records show 2,144,796 babies born in 1937 and 4,257,850 in 1960. So the ratio should be somewhere a little higher than 2 times. Still a significant decrease in people taking benefits early.

[@stevecernuto740]

I had looked up the same data on births. There are a lot of factors including the fact that CDs were paying 6% in 1999. 6% guaranteed looked pretty good to most people. 2022 was a time of high inflation and low interest rates. That is not a good combination to retire into.

[@blippacg]

I’m taking at 62

[@dfh7961]

CUZ they got closer to thier max back then

[@Skott62]

Great video Josh! People are working longer for whatever reason. I talk to a lot of the working senior citizens I see and come by and I ask them why they are still working. Most tell me its not about the money so much as having something to do. Stay busy. Yes the extra money is nice but that's not why they are working. Boredom. I think people like to feel productive and they feel productive when they work. I'm 61 and I don't want to retire at 62 even though I know I can comfortably. I have a great job that I enjoy. I work around some great people. I want to work a few more years. I'm thinking of waiting until I'm 65 to retire. That's just me though.

[@Mahan1914]

Who needs to listen to the video when there is all this expert financial advice in the comments section!?! 😂

[@dave.of.the.forrest]

This means their evil plan is working. Keep people working until they drop and you don't have to pay them ss benefits.

[@_Coffee4Closers]

LOL, tell me you don't understand the best way to maximize your benefit, taxes, and reduce RMD's without telling me you don't understand the best way to maximize your benefit, taxes, and reduce RMD's.

[@dave.of.the.forrest]

@_Coffee4Closers when you decide to take ss has no bearing on your rmd. And many will say, as Josh has, that delaying taking ss is not a good thing for most people if you want to enjoy the limited time you have left and are tired of the crappy old job.

[@_Coffee4Closers]

@@dave.of.the.forrest WHAT? You seem confused. Your RMD's will be based on the money you have left in your retirement accounts when you reach the age that you must take withdrawals. If you use those accounts for funds while deferring SS you will have moved those funds into other investment instruments outside of retirement accounts or spent them. On the other hand if you use SS money starting early and defer the retirement accounts there will be much more money in those accounts to have to take RMD's on. If you think Josh preaches taking SS early you must not have watched much Josh.

[@dave.of.the.forrest]

@@_Coffee4Closers I split the difference. I was looking at it from my standpoint. I retired 1.5 yrs ago at 65 and immediately took SS. Two more years working just wasn't worth it. Since then I've spent only slightly more than my SS and small pension income per month and still traveled and enjoyed my retirement. I've taken that shortfall out of my cash or taxable cd returns. No IRA withdrawals needed. And Josh has indeed advocated taking SS before full retirement age. If you think Josh preaches taking SS at full retirement age you must not have watched much Josh. Relax and retire bro. Peace out.

[@_Coffee4Closers]

@@dave.of.the.forrest You are right Josh preaches not taking it at FRA... he preaches taking it at 70... and I have been watching for years. It obviously depends on health and your situation, but most people here have been saving and investing and taking it early is not a good move.

[@johnrichards2812]

Great information but the presentation was not that great. The white board and handwriting was not legible, $717 looked like $70, reflection on board not helpful. Zooming back and forth between PDF's and presenter and white board was dizzying. Again, great info, would have absorbed it better if it was presented a little better.

[@RDQ30A]

People can’t afford to retire at 62. Take it at 62, invest it. Worst case, it’s a wash…

[@raymonddee1059]

how about those dead dont take there ss

[@captainkrunch6372]

15% vice 3% currently

[@40yeartrucker25]

How many died unexpectedly.

[@davidsmith7587]

Take money at 62..it's free. Don't wait until 67. You don't start gaining an edge until you are 78. Life expectancy for men is 73 now

[@rubicon3416]

Yes, that's always a dice roll.

[@HeritageWealthPlanning]

you're confusing life expectancies.

[@william-fla-321]

If you invest the money, it’s probably 85 to break even.

[@cutehumor]

I'm taking SS at age 62. Josh will be 68 at that time and paying that SS tax money for me. I will thank him when I'm 62 for his youtube SS tax revenue. 😆🤣😁😃

[@cgmoog]

@@william-fla-321 Only if inflation is low and returns are high. The COLAs are on a higher base when you delay until 70. So if inflation is high the break even age goes down. Are you feeling lucky?

[@robertleach3905]

Im waiting till im 66 or fra so i dont need to worry about going back to work later plus my cfp figure your retirement savings to last till 92 these days 😂

[@edwardpate6128]

Blame Suze Orman! LOL

[@andrewilliamson4926]

Josh, one of your numbers is wrong and you probably should delete this video as the premise is incorrect. ~15 million 62-year olds in 2021 doesn't pass the smell test. The US population is 330m+, so 15 million would be 1 in about 22 people, but people don't have 22 year life expectancies, it's more like 75. That 15 million number looks about 3-4 times too high. (Variation by age is just noise here, it doesn't alter what I'm saying.) I eyeballed a population pyramid to check on this and it looks as though there were about 4.3 million 62-year olds in 2022. So the number of 62-year olds has dropped, not quadrupled, and thus the fact that those at that age claiming social security has dropped also simply shows consistency over time, not a change.

[@andrewilliamson4926]

Going further, I looked up the number: 4.23 million people were 62 in 2022 www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/datasets/2020-2022/national/asrh/nc-est2022-agesex-res.csv Therefore, the percentage of 62-year-olds filing for Social Security was 14.3% in 1999 (682/4764) and 13.4% in 2023 (566/4231).

[@Michael-Joseph123]

Life expectancy of a 62 year old is another 22 years, 75 year life expectancy is from birth.

[@buyerbware25]

The earnings limit keeps Grandma and Grandpa from filing early, defeating the limit's original purpose.

[@cgmoog]

The original purpose of SS was two fold - keep old people from being destitute and make old people retire so the young can work. The earnings limit encourages people to stop working in old age and make room for the young.

[@meibing4912]

Very much doubt reason 2) is relevant today. We know today that it’s better to have people work longer and more in work creates more work spaces for everyone. The opposite is a misconception back from the 1970’s and 80’s. @@cgmoog

[@stevemelton4388]

Inflation!!!

[@Moyodsreds]

I took it at 64 - it’s lame tho

[@DaveM-FFB]

Wait. Are you using a PVC pipe as a pointer? LOL

[@HeritageWealthPlanning]

this is your first time here, Dave? I'm known for the PVC pointer! It's my claim to fame :)

[@penelope5500]

@@HeritageWealthPlanning And the bane of our existenece for the rest of us...😂

[@dforrest4503]

@@HeritageWealthPlanningthat Ira dowel rod!