SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Non-Tech : Kirk's Market Thoughts
COHR 178.34-10.2%Dec 12 9:30 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: the traveler who wrote (2789)2/12/2015 8:04:43 PM
From: w0z  Read Replies (2) of 26766
 
Both you and Jerome must be very risk averse. I'm not and prefer to play the probabilities, which are in my favor based on my genetics and excellent health. Here's another more comprehensive link you can use to assess (and maybe even improve) your health: RealAge Test. My "real age" is about 12 years younger than my actual age (70), so delaying SS was the right decision for me based on probabilities. Based on my life expectancy of 100, the additional lifetime benefit over taking SS at 62 is about $218k and over taking it at 66 is $112k (BTW since SS is always inflation adjusted, the calculation is very simple). In fact the differences are probably even greater since my wife (3 years younger) will probably outlive me even if I make it to 100. I certainly understand being risk averse but as they say "no risk...no reward".

Several years ago I calculated the "breakeven age" for the following SS options (i.e. if you live longer than "breakeven" you come out ahead by delaying):

1. Take a reduced benefit at 62 versus the full benefit at age 66: 78.25 years.
2. Take a reduced benefit at 62 versus increased benefit at age 70: 80.66 years.
3. Take a full benefit at 66 versus an increased benefit at age 70: 82.5 years.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext