3/30/2011 12:55 PM ET|
Want your Social Security early?
More people are refusing to wait until 65, opting for reduced benefits right away. Are they ahead of the curve or just hurting themselves?
Leave it to boomers to flout one of the long-held rules of retirement planning. Afraid that lawmakers will soon raise the retirement age of Social Security or shrink benefits, many are ignoring the traditional advice of financial planners and retirement experts everywhere and taking their benefits as soon as possible. Are they right to rebel?
The number of Americans opting to take Social Security at 62 -- currently the youngest age allowed -- is on the rise. In 2009, 42% of 62-year-olds claimed benefits, up from 38% in 2007, according to economists at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.
And while more recent data are not yet available, financial planners and industry experts say the ranks of early claimers are still growing. This is happening despite the fact that by delaying benefits, individuals can boost their payments by 7% to 8% each year until age 70. "The mentality is that getting something now is better than nothing later," says Richard Rosso, an adviser with Charles Schwab in Houston. He says he has been "begging" many of his clients to delay claiming Social Security -- often to no avail.
While some baby boomers have been driven to tap Social Security early out of necessity after losing jobs or savings during the downturn, many are reacting to the growing chorus of politicians calling for Social Security reform, says Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution.
- Calculator: Are you saving enough for retirement?
In February, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, urged lawmakers to increase the retirement age of Social Security. GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky have proposed reducing payments to wealthier Americans. More than half of Americans support both initiatives, as long as they take effect in the distant future, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll. As a result of all the political rhetoric, fears about Social Security, once at a hum, "have risen to a crescendo in the last six weeks," Rosso says.
Are all those fears realistic? Most advisers and retirement planning pros say no. "It's so off the mark," says Alicia H. Munnell, the director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. "There is no question the benefits will be paid. The worst that could happen is that the system would be able to provide only 80% of the benefits under current law." The Social Security Administration has estimated that beginning in 2037 benefits could be reduced by 22% and could continue to decline, barring any changes to the system.
But even these possible shortfalls are a number of years down the road, and they do little to explain why boomers are scrambling now to claim benefits. Likewise, the proposals being floated in Washington seem to target younger generations of Americans, say advisers. "When we look at the proposals, very few would impact those (currently) in or near retirement," says Chad Terry, the director of retirement solutions at the Principal Financial Group. He says longevity and inflation could constitute more of a risk to portfolios, but "there are some who will take it (the Social Security benefit) no matter what," he says. "They feel, 'I've contributed, I'm eligible, I'm going to take it.'"
There's another explanation: Advisers say the average pre-retiree typically underestimates the impact of taking benefits early. For example, a top earner retiring at 62 would get $1,803 a month. By waiting until 66, he'd increase that amount to $2,442, and delaying until 70 would bump the monthly payment to $3,256, according to Rande Spiegelman, the vice president of financial planning at the Schwab Center for Financial Research. Another way to look at it: People who take Social Security at 66 rather than at 62 will collect more money over time, provided they live to at least age 77.
- Calculator: How much will your 401k provide?
That could have an enormous impact on retirement income, says Christine Fahlund, a senior financial planner at T. Rowe Price. For example, she says, a couple that earns $100,000 a year and has $500,000 saved could expect to receive about $50,000 a year in Social Security payments and other income if they claim benefits at 62. That same couple would get almost twice as much a year in Social Security benefits ($96,000) if they wait until 70, says Fahlund.
In specific situations, the decision to claim does make sense, say advisers, such as if you're in poor health or unemployed. Otherwise, they recommend delaying retirement (and Social Security payments) in order to boost your retirement savings, which probably took a serious hit in 2008.
A February report by the nonprofit Employee Benefit Research Institute found that nearly half of early boomers -- people 56 to 62 -- are at risk of not having enough retirement income for "basic" costs in retirement, such as food, transportation and housing. And taking Social Security early won't help as much as it seems.
This article was reported by Jilian Mincer for SmartMoney.
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
I hate this article and all others like it. I hate it when anyone tells me I am only doing what I do cause I don't understand something...What arrogance this is. I would tell all those would be financial planners that THEY are the ones that don't understand. All the time they say wait, wait, you will get more money. Did it ever occur to them that we don't care about that?? The first question should always be.." Do you WANT to work?" I and a LOT of my friends have worked VERY hard for almost 40 years. I hate it when some lazy senator says " Oh, Americans are healthy, they can work till 70!" I' could probably do HIS job when I am 70 but I'd like to see him climb an extension ladder and do MY job then. My knees are shot, my shoulders hurt and I'm retiring just as soon as I can, which is on my 62nd birthday on May 1st....haha
Taking your SS at 62 is a no-brainer from a cash flow standpoint. Here's another way of thinking about it. (taken directly from my SS statement this year). Assuming money has no timed value and inflation is 0%. (unrealistic, I know, but helps to prove my point) If I take retirement at age 66, instead of age 62, it would take me until age 77 1/2 to collect the same amount of total money as I would have at the 62 retirement. If I take retirement at age 70, instead of 62, it would take me until age 80 1/2 to collect the same amount of money as I would have if I had taken the 62 retirement. Figure in a very modest return on investment and inflation and these ages go up considerably. That, coupled with the fact that if I die waiting to collect I get diddly squat; ergo, no-brainer.
Let's see...I think the number crunchers forgot me and about a gzillion others like me. I am 59. I work at *-mart. I make less than $20,000 a year. I run from the front of the store to the back, I team-lift by myself, I outwork almost everyone under the age of 25 that is employed there. I live from paycheck to paycheck - savings? I'm still trying to figure out how I'm going to pay to fix my brakes. Financial analysts make me laugh. "THEY" say boomers are working longer because we didn't plan ahead and "THEY" say we will live longer, We didn't all have the opportunity to become professionals - life threw some curves - like unexpected illnesses of children and/or spouses, like making poor decisions etc etc. I went from owning my own company which was put out of business by the government requiring all public records to be available online to where I am today. Nobody bailed me out when I needed it. I went under. Period. Don't even talk to me about bailouts. I always knew where the governments heart lie.
All I know is - I go home everynight and cry. I am exhausted and my body is killing me. Am I going to apply for benefits when I am 62? DARN RIGHT. Between that, and $14,000 a year income for as long as I can make it - I MAY be able to save a little while I survive. My greatest fear is going to work one day - and NOT being able to make it that one more day - and not having anything or anyone to lean on. This is not yesterday's world. Social Security was not MEANT to be a retirement plan for everyone. It was implemented by Roosevelt after/during the Great Depression as a means for those less fortunate to have a retirement.
Knee replacement, artritis in hands and spine, and can't hear. Everyone I work with is almost in the exact same shape. Don't know a soul that retired at 62 that was healthy enough to work any longer.
Have friends right now who are both in their late 50's and not a soul wants to hire them after being laid off. Unemployment is all but done and already living off their saving to survive. Working labor jobs for 35 years of your life doesn't exactly give you experience to find a job sitting in a office to finish out your life.
Who has the mind or body to work until 66-70? Getting up and getting moving is the challenge of the day.
I know they say the golf courses are full of retiree's but sure wasn't employeed in labor intense line of work!
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Morningstar Inc. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Morningstar Inc. Quotes delayed by up to 15 minutes, except where indicated otherwise. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by Morningstar Inc.