by Outcast_Searcher » Thu 12 Nov 2015, 15:56:36
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('careinke', 'I') just applied for my Social Security. The site was encouraging people to delay collecting, pointing out how much more you could collect by delaying your start, so I ran the numbers.
They estimated my payout at 62 will be $1,600 per month. If I wait until I am 70, the payout would be $2,800 per month ($1,200 per month more).
...
That means I will have to live to 80 years and nine months to break even by waiting. After that, I would lose $1,200 per month compared to taking the age 70 option.
...
So, for me getting my SS back at 62, rather than waiting until 70 seems a no brainer. Besides I have very little confidence the present system will even be around in 2034.
Good points. In theory, it should be actuarilly neutral for the population (as a whole), but individuals have very different health and financial situations -- and demographic factors change, of course. Actually, it's nice to have the choice.
What I find bizarre is that in recent decades, how they calculated how much more you got varied quite a bit and seemed pretty random to me. For example, my father, born in 1925 would have only gotten 2.5% more per year if he'd waited, but no the standard bump is (last time I checked) a much more reasonable 8.5%.
(When I do the math for your numbers (2800 final and 1600 initial), I get a rate between 7% and 7.5% (1.07**8) is roughly 1.72 (source, Calc in scientific mode), and your ratio of 2800 to 1600 is 1.75). Looking at the SS website, it looks like they say what the percentages are, which vary by year, but not why.
I generally don't like how complex and variable they make the rules over time, but that's what you get when you have lawmakers meddling in programs frequently, to buy votes.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.