Question For U.s.a. Expats Who Retired Before 62

[PeaceBlondie]

Yes, OASDI at 6.2% is an old age, survivors' and disability insurance program. Retirement plans can be private or public. SS is actuarially flawed. Investing the trust funds in govt. securities is an investment strategy that did not plummet by over 50% last year.

Congressional pensions are separate, and they're high wage earners who earn pensions.

Too many issues here.

[CaptHaddock]

SS is not insurance.

You haven't read very widely on the subject of SS, have you?

[Jingthing]

OK. I was wrong. It is insurance. Its a weird kind of insurance though because it is a mandatory government program (at least to contribute). I don't really care what you call it, I still think of it as a PREDICTABLE income flow that kicks in at a certain age, if you don't kick off ...

Anyway, there is no one answer for everyone for whether it is wise to take ss benefits at 62 or later, whether you call it insurance or not! It is a personal decision and indeed for many of us, taking it at 62 is the correct decision.

Also, I bet a lot of you didn't know there was a way to have your cake AND eat it too? There is a way you can take it at 62 and then if you can repay those years benefits, you can STILL get the later age benefit. Aha!

http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/SS_delay_70.html

Here is more info on the OP's topic at hand:

http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/soc_security.html

Edited September 26, 2009 by Jingthing

[maxman71]

Hi,

According to the letter I receive yearly from the Social Security Administration I have enough credits to qualify for retirement payments at age 62.

I will use ficticious numbers but here is the gist of my last 2 letters

2008: $888 per month starting at age 62

2009: $1000 per month starting at age 62

Again those are not the real amounts. Each year I am worth more at age 62, 66, 70 etc.

But the wording is ambiguous and implies I must keep working until age 62.

I want to retire at age 59, move to Thailand and start collecting at age 62. So I would not work for those 2 1/2 to 3 years.

Do any of you have any experience in this area? I need to call SSA but their line is always busy for long periods and coincides with my work hours.

The answer to this question could affect the timing of my retirement.

Thanks in advance!

I predicted many years ago (back in the 90's) that SS in the USA would become more of a means-tested system; in essence a welfare program for the elderly. If one has substantial assets per the gov't's definition, you may not get any SS payments in the future as the US struggles with a national debt that is growing parabolically. I foresee the day when one goes to sign up for benefits, the SS clerk will type in your SSN, and all your assets, bank accounts, etc will pop up on their screen and using some gov't mandated formula, the program will spit out how much, if any, payments you are eligible to receive. In my own retirement math, I am not counting on any SS payments. The USA is rapidly becoming a Free Lunch society and Congress is only too eager to accomodate those type of people. It is these sort of people who can be easily controlled and manipulated into becoming a highly dependent, on-going constituency for elected officials to continue getting elected. You would be wise to manage your assets accordingly.

[maxman71]

Hi,

According to the letter I receive yearly from the Social Security Administration I have enough credits to qualify for retirement payments at age 62.

I will use ficticious numbers but here is the gist of my last 2 letters

2008: $888 per month starting at age 62

2009: $1000 per month starting at age 62

Again those are not the real amounts. Each year I am worth more at age 62, 66, 70 etc.

But the wording is ambiguous and implies I must keep working until age 62.

I want to retire at age 59, move to Thailand and start collecting at age 62. So I would not work for those 2 1/2 to 3 years.

Do any of you have any experience in this area? I need to call SSA but their line is always busy for long periods and coincides with my work hours.

The answer to this question could affect the timing of my retirement.

Thanks in advance!

I foresee the day when SS will become more of a means tested system; in essence a welfare program for the elderly. With the national debt in the USA growing parabolically, the US gov't is looking for ways to cut back payments. What I envision is this: when one applies for retirement payments/benefits, your assets, bank accounts, etc will be run through a computer program to see if you are "wealthy" by some US gov't definition. The US is rapidly becoming a Free Lunch society and Congress is all to eager to accomodate such people, as they are very easily controlled and manipulated into becoming a highly dependent constituency. This highly dependent constituency in turn will continue to elect those officials who throw "free money" at them. In my retirement math, I am not counting on any SS payments. You may be wise to do the same.

[nputman]

SS is not insurance.

SSRI = Social Security retirment INCOME

SSI = Social Security INCOME (welfare)

SSDI = Social Security Disability INSURANCE

SSDI is the only program that IS a form of insurance.

[CaptHaddock]

I predicted many years ago (back in the 90's) that SS in the USA would become more of a means-tested system; in essence a welfare program for the elderly. If one has substantial assets per the gov't's definition, you may not get any SS payments in the future as the US struggles with a national debt that is growing parabolically. I foresee the day when one goes to sign up for benefits, the SS clerk will type in your SSN, and all your assets, bank accounts, etc will pop up on their screen and using some gov't mandated formula, the program will spit out how much, if any, payments you are eligible to receive. In my own retirement math, I am not counting on any SS payments. ...

An economically illiterate opinion, if I may say so. The consumer economy in the US depends on the social welfare net, such as it is, that include SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. Let's just consider SS. If there were no SS benefit to provide a minimum level of consumption during old age, then households would have to save a substantial percentage of their household income during their working years in order to fund it themselves. How much would they have to save? There's a ready answer to that question in the case of China, where there is no social security and half the families (in the cities) have only a daughter who cannot be expected to contribute to their support in old age. How much do Chinese households save? The numbers I read vary from 35% of household income to 48%. By comparison households in the US as recently as two years ago saved nothing. Now, because of the strains of the recession (saving went up during the Depression also), households are saving more than 5% and climbing.

The fact is, a high, Chinese-style savings rate is wasteful for the economy. It means that households cannot spend and consume. Since 70% of the US economy is household consumption an increase in the savings rate of 5% alone must shave more than 3% off GDP. It is wasteful because every household is forced to save against the possibility that the couple will live well into their 90's in order to avoid being old and poor, a truly horrific outcome. But since most individuals will not actually live into their 90's, the high savings rate is a wasteful drain on the consumer economy. The solution is exactly Social Security. Everyone saves and the money from the dead goes to pay for the living. That's the essence of insurance. The whole society needn't save as much because statistically it isn't necessary.

A few years ago the Chinese govt announced that it will take steps to increase domestic demand in their own economy with a view toward reducing their dependence on exporting at the same time as raising the standard of living for their population. What steps would the govt take to enable such a consumer economy? Why, the creation of a social welfare safety net including pension and health care systems so that households would not have to save so much.

Edited September 27, 2009 by CaptHaddock

[PeaceBlondie]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Job-losses-e...066651.html?x=0

The depressed US economy is forcing many US older, unemployed workers to take SS retirement earlier than planned.

The much-quoted 'negative savings rate' in the USA was always hog slop. FICA and SE taxes force workers to save. Their homes were investments until recently. Millions had company pension plans, IRA, Keogh, 401(k), teacher plans, etc.; and they gambled in equity markets.

[Jingthing]

SS is not insurance.

SSRI = Social Security retirment INCOME

SSI = Social Security INCOME (welfare)

SSDI = Social Security Disability INSURANCE

SSDI is the only program that IS a form of insurance.

The personal decision to take the retirement benefits starting at 62 or later really has nothing to do with if it is labeled insurance, or not.

[midlifecrisis]

OK. I was wrong. It is insurance. Its a weird kind of insurance though because it is a mandatory government program (at least to contribute). I don't really care what you call it, I still think of it as a PREDICTABLE income flow that kicks in at a certain age, if you don't kick off ...

Anyway, there is no one answer for everyone for whether it is wise to take ss benefits at 62 or later, whether you call it insurance or not! It is a personal decision and indeed for many of us, taking it at 62 is the correct decision.

Also, I bet a lot of you didn't know there was a way to have your cake AND eat it too? There is a way you can take it at 62 and then if you can repay those years benefits, you can STILL get the later age benefit. Aha!

http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/SS_delay_70.html

Here is more info on the OP's topic at hand:

http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/soc_security.html

It is kind of like an annuity that you paid premiums for.

[vagabond48]

Also, I bet a lot of you didn't know there was a way to have your cake AND eat it too? There is a way you can take it at 62 and then if you can repay those years benefits, you can STILL get the later age benefit. Aha!

http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/SS_delay_70.html

Here is more info on the OP's topic at hand:

http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/soc_security.html

But on the same site, one of the well informed members also alerted us that due to an internal goverment report, Congress may simply eliminate this legal nice loophole or make it more expensive to payback your payments to reapply at a later date. You have to be prepared to accept the lower payments if you plan on going this route.

I have thought about taking advantage of this over the past 2 years. Now I am nearly 3 months shy of 62. Decision time.

Edited October 9, 2009 by vagabond48