How to max out Social Security
Find out which Social Security claiming strategy will pay the most over a lifetime.
This post comes from Glenn Ruffenach at partner site SmartMoney.
Much of my mail these days seems to start with the same warm greeting: "What planet are you from?" That's invariably the case when I suggest that readers consider ways to maximize Social Security benefits instead of grabbing a check at age 62, as about half of all retirees do.
I know: Waiting to claim Social Security until your mid-60s or later isn't easy. Many people need the cash, are fearful that the program might change (or collapse), or are trying to avoid tapping their savings for as long as possible. But two trends make this a good time to look at "claiming strategies" for Social Security and help illustrate just how much money is involved.
First, a recent report from the Census Bureau highlights a startling fact: The 90-plus population is projected to quadruple between now and 2050 -- meaning that living into your 10th decade is something to factor into Social Security planning.
Second, a growing number of Web-based tools now allow you to run dozens of possible claiming strategies -- and can recommend how to maximize benefits.
For the examples below, I asked the folks at SocialSecuritySolutions.com in Leawood, Kan., for help; I like that the company's lead researcher, Baylor University finance professor William Reichenstein, has written extensively about how best to tap nest eggs. (Using the site's tool runs between $20 and $125, depending on how much personal attention you want interpreting your report.) Given the stakes, I suggest comparing results from a few different sites. You'll find free tools at the Social Security Administration's site, AARP.com and AnalyzeNow.com; another site, MaximizeMySocialSecurity.com, charges $40. (Post continues below.)
Now some numbers. First, we need a way of measuring why one claiming strategy might be better than another. I'm going to use cumulative lifetime benefits as a yardstick. In other words, I want to see, given a specific starting age and life expectancy, which claiming strategy will pay me and a spouse the most money over a lifetime (or, considering there are two of us, lifetimes). You also could look at monthly income, but it can be misleading. More on that in a moment.
We'll start with a simple example. Joe and John can begin collecting $1,500 monthly from Social Security at age 62, or $2,640 a month at age 70. Let's say both live to 92. If Joe claims benefits at 62, his lifetime total will be $540,000. If John waits until 70, he'll net $696,960 -- almost $157,000 more.
If you look solely at monthly income, claiming benefits at 62 looks smart; Joe is getting $1,500 a month for eight years, and John is getting zilch. But again, "longevity risk should be part of your planning," says William Meyer, the founder and managing principal of Social Security Solutions. What are the odds that you will live to 85 or 90 -- or longer? The answer for many: increasingly good.
Now let's look at a husband and wife: Bob and Carol, ages 62 and 58. Bob is scheduled to receive $2,000 at his full retirement age of 66, while Carol is scheduled to receive $1,600 at her full retirement age, also 66. Each, of course, can claim Social Security at age 62. If they do so -- and Bob lives until 83 and Carol lives until 90 -- their cumulative benefits will be $840,600.
But Social Security Solutions offers a more lucrative -- and slightly more complex -- strategy. At his full retirement age, Bob claims a spousal benefit of $800. (Yes, Social Security allows this.) Carol, meanwhile, claims a benefit (based on her earnings) of $1,200 at age 62. Finally, Bob, at age 70, switches to a monthly benefit of $2,640, based on his earnings history, a move that falls under "delayed retirement credits." In this case, the couple's lifetime benefits will total $1,043,520, a gain of almost $203,000 over the let's-jump-in-the-pool-as-quickly-as-possible approach.
The other interesting piece of these two strategies: survivor benefits. If both spouses claim benefits at age 62, Carol -- when Bob dies -- will be eligible for a survivor's benefit (under Social Security's rules) of $1,650 a month. But under the second claiming strategy, she would get a survivor's benefit of $2,640, an extra $1,000 each month.
Now, consider the options for a woman, age 60, who loses her husband. Her benefit at full retirement age is $1,400; his would have been $2,000. She could begin collecting a widow's benefit of $1,430 at age 60. But it might be better for her to pursue a different strategy -- claiming a reduced benefit, based on her earnings history, of $1,050 at age 62 and switching to a widow's benefit of $2,000 at age 66. The difference in total benefits if she lives until age 89: an extra $112,000.
Yes, the numbers can get a little head-spinning. But I hope these examples give you an idea about how much money might be forfeited if you claim benefits early -- and how many claiming options are available. I recently heard this from Mark Ellingson, a retiree in Lake George, Colo.: "Take benefits (at age 62) while you still have good health and can enjoy life." That's tough to argue with. But please, do consider the alternatives.
More on SmartMoney and MSN Money:
62-years old is not different today than it was 30-years ago. The median age of death has risen very slightly, and the need for long-term funds for 90% of U.S. Citizens just isn't there.
Your government wants you to either:
A. Die shortly after attaining 62- years
B. Die just before turning 62-years, thus to max out your $ input, never received back
C. Continue working until you die, never taking Social Security.
Don't swallow the bait. Enjoy the years that you have left. Do what you must. Retire.
The bottom line is how long do you think you may live.If your life expendancy is 75 or less take SS at 62.However if you believe you will live longer than 75 wait until 66.
The truth is take it at 62 and work a job at the same time.Everything else is a crap shoot
I intend to collect my social security at 62. My husband began collecting his at 65. He is 70 and has just been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. He will never collect near what he paid in.
It is YOUR MONEY. Start collecting it as quickly as possible. Life is short.
To those who believe SS won't be around for them, if you fight for SS, SS will be around. To give up on Social Security now is to doom yourself to poverty in your old age.
Really, this article is simplistic. A net present value (NPV) model should be used to factor in the value of the money received at points in time. Every business major knows this. Second, in the end, it is all about how long you think you are going to live. The lower your expectation of being able to live a quality lifestyle, the sooner you should take the benefits.
Too bad we can't all predict the future, but money now is usually better than the promise of money later. Using a NPV analysis is the only way to quantify the decision.
How many will make it to 92 years old? Besides wouldn't you like to still be able to walk and do things rather than stare at the walls of your room collecting a few thousand more waiting to die?
Take the money and run...
The only reason to not take the check is if you're still gainfully employed after 62 and the government would disqualify your benefits. If you need the money to live on or to enjoy life while you're still able, then you're much better off taking it rather than gambling on whether you'll be around to enjoy it. If you don't need it, then invest it and know that either you'll have it later, or your heirs will. Sorry Glenn, but neither you nor any other writer on this subject ever consider that if you wait and then die, the government pockets all those payments that could have been in the bank for your heirs. Talk about a racket.
QUOTE : " Let's say both live to 92"
Oh PLEEEEEEZ!!!!!! Put that on toast!
Copyright © 2014 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
ABOUT SMART SPENDING
LATEST BLOG POSTS
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
BLOGS WE LIKE
MUST-SEE ON MSN
A charcuterie master shares his process for cold-smoking meat at home.
- Jetpacks about to go mainstream
- Weird things covered by home insurance
- Bing: 70 percent of adults report 'digital eye strain'