(USA topic) The grim psychology of deciding on when to take social security benefits

[SpokaneAl]

Take it at 62. If you do not need it invest it. What you invest take out in the future to off set costs as they rise.Do not know American tax laws. But in Canada can invest in rrsp's and get a tax deduction for what you invest every year in rrsp. If there is something similar in US do that. at 62 take pension. Put money in rrsp and wait to use it,

Or invest and pay taxs on interest everything till you need it and can withdraw with no tax burden when you use it.

If you invested it all from 62 to 70 You would probably beat what waiting would give you plus keep your taxs down.

There is no advantage or logic in retiring early and investing your SS payments. Unless you are debt free and your annual expenses are less that what your SS income is, there is no advantage or tax shelter benefits.

I quess I assumed to much here. I assume people in their 60's are free and clear of debt a long time ago,if not very poor planning.My plan is based on debt free and controlled living costs.At 62 till 70 if it is all invested I am sure it will add greatly to a persons networth and financial stability .All the money invested is after tax dollars only the interest is taxable.I did something very much the same but with Canada pension.I could take at 60 to 65. Took at 60 saved $20,00 a year at end of 5 years or 65 years of age I had an extra $100,000 added to my financial portfolio.What ever interest I get every year from that is taxable but the $100,000 has tax paid on it already. So i receive cash every year from the $100,000 plus i keep my pension coming.The interest and pension will mostly match what I would have got at 65 direct from pension if I waited.I get about the same amount and still have $100,000 I did not have at 60. Of course if I draw on that I reduce my income in the future,but if left would definitely cover funeral costs.

If you are saying that social security income is all after tax dollars, that would not be correct. Here is what the IRS says about income taxes and Social Security income . . .

A quick way to find out if any of your benefits may be taxable is to add one-half of your Social Security benefits to all your other income, including any tax-exempt interest. Next, compare this total to the base amounts below. If your total is more than the base amount for your filing status, then some of your benefits may be taxable.

The three base amounts are:

$25,000 - for single, head of household, qualifying widow or widower with a dependent child or married individuals filing separately who did not live with their spouse at any time during the year

$32,000 - for married couples filing jointly

$0 - for married persons filing separately who lived together at any time during the year

[mania]

Argue all you want. Just take your payments at 62, 66 and at 70. Do the math. I would have had to live to be 79 for the payments I got starting at 62 to match the payments I would get starting at 66. So, it amounts to betting if you will live to be 79. If I wake up one morning at 79, well, I guess I would just be happy to be 79.

Yeah, I don't think the calculation is quite as simple as that, but I hear the gist of what you're saying. Don't expect to live to 80. Obviously the biggest "losers" are people who take it early and really didn't need to and find themselves alive in their 80s and beyond!

Beats me & we each have to decide for ourselves but this is basically how I have always thought of the SS

increased by age payouts....

Lets start at $1000/mo @ 62 as an example as it is easy to calculate

We will say $1000 @ 62 years …$1250 @ 66 …& $1500@ 70

Again these may not be exact figures but just to give a rough idea….

@ 62 your getting $1000 per month or $12,000 per year

4 years of that before your next plateau at age sixty six is $48,000

Now if you waited till your aged 66 you now qualify for $1250/mo or $15,000 per year

Before we get excited about this 3k boost per year I think it only fair to repay the loss of not taking that $48,000 by starting at 62 right?

I mean we could have had it & used it for anything from living to investing etc.

So @ $1250 per month that will take roughly 38.4 months to break even/pay back the 48k we did not take

That is 3 years 2 months…Now your 68+ before you actually start to enjoy your $1250 a month

Now if you waited till 70 you get the $1500 per month bonus payment

But again to be fair pay back 8 years of $12,000 per year or $96k total loss of not taking the 12k per year for those 8 years difference between age 62 & age 70

That takes 64 months/5.3 years of $1500 is a wash to break even/pay back the 96k you did not take. Now your 75 years old & ready to actually collect?

Just seems to me the whole SS payout deal is just another carrot on a stick

The govt are not unlike a casino & have calculated all the odds I'm sure

Edited May 20, 2016 by mania

[Jingthing]

Well, I still have plenty of time before I need to make this decision but I have a better idea now of various things to consider. From where I'm at now knowing my specific situation, either early or one or two years later seems the most strategic. One thing I want to do though is to do a number of those online life expectancy estimate calculators to better understand my chances of living past 80 (a point where I'm pretty sure I would be regretting taking it early).

To add, personally I've got some pretty complex personal factors going into this decision, including a plan to repatriate to the U.S. and buy some low cost housing there for cash, and also an issue with obtaining health care access before age 65 that are specific to my situation that actually do impact on the S.S. timing decision. I'll likely also consider working again in the U.S. if anyone's buying, which is doubtful, but it's worth looking into. I'm sure everyone, if they think about it anyway, has their own personal factors as well to consider.

So it's think it's pretty fair to conclude that the timing of claiming s.s. is definitely not a one size fits all decision.

Edited May 20, 2016 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Take it at 62. If you do not need it invest it. What you invest take out in the future to off set costs as they rise.Do not know American tax laws. But in Canada can invest in rrsp's and get a tax deduction for what you invest every year in rrsp. If there is something similar in US do that. at 62 take pension. Put money in rrsp and wait to use it,

Or invest and pay taxs on interest everything till you need it and can withdraw with no tax burden when you use it.

If you invested it all from 62 to 70 You would probably beat what waiting would give you plus keep your taxs down.

There is no advantage or logic in retiring early and investing your SS payments. Unless you are debt free and your annual expenses are less that what your SS income is, there is no advantage or tax shelter benefits.

I quess I assumed to much here. I assume people in their 60's are free and clear of debt a long time ago,if not very poor planning.My plan is based on debt free and controlled living costs.At 62 till 70 if it is all invested I am sure it will add greatly to a persons networth and financial stability .All the money invested is after tax dollars only the interest is taxable.I did something very much the same but with Canada pension.I could take at 60 to 65. Took at 60 saved $20,00 a year at end of 5 years or 65 years of age I had an extra $100,000 added to my financial portfolio.What ever interest I get every year from that is taxable but the $100,000 has tax paid on it already. So i receive cash every year from the $100,000 plus i keep my pension coming.The interest and pension will mostly match what I would have got at 65 direct from pension if I waited.I get about the same amount and still have $100,000 I did not have at 60. Of course if I draw on that I reduce my income in the future,but if left would definitely cover funeral costs.

Yeah, it's dangerous to assume too much about older people's finances. As crappy as my situation really is, I am debt free, expect to own housing clear, and have a nest egg that I'm sure is considerably above average but not even close to what financial advisers say you're supposed to have! I know people in their 50's that still have HUGE college debts and those are never forgiven even with bankruptcy.

I'm expecting considerable economic deprivation in older age (shuffleboard, anyone? ), but beyond that, I do wonder about the societal impact of the baby boomer generation mostly NOT being financially prepared for older age. Oh well!

To add some more grim stuff with risk of pouring it on, I read that the typical retiree on social security spends SEVENTY PERCENT of their social security check just on out of pocket MEDICAL EXPENSES. These are people mostly supposedly covered withe Medicare. So when people say you can't really live only on your s.s. check, especially a smaller one, they aren't kidding around!

Edited May 20, 2016 by Jingthing

[tonray]

Argue all you want. Just take your payments at 62, 66 and at 70. Do the math. I would have had to live to be 79 for the payments I got starting at 62 to match the payments I would get starting at 66. So, it amounts to betting if you will live to be 79. If I wake up one morning at 79, well, I guess I would just be happy to be 79.

Yeah, I don't think the calculation is quite as simple as that, but I hear the gist of what you're saying. Don't expect to live to 80. Obviously the biggest "losers" are people who take it early and really didn't need to and find themselves alive in their 80s and beyond!

Beats me & we each have to decide for ourselves but this is basically how I have always thought of the SS

increased by age payouts....

Lets start at $1000/mo @ 62 as an example as it is easy to calculate

We will say $1000 @ 62 years …$1250 @ 66 …& $1500@ 70

Again these may not be exact figures but just to give a rough idea….

@ 62 your getting $1000 per month or $12,000 per year

4 years of that before your next plateau at age sixty six is $48,000

Now if you waited till your aged 66 you now qualify for $1250/mo or $15,000 per year

Before we get excited about this 3k boost per year I think it only fair to repay the loss of not taking that $48,000 by starting at 62 right?

I mean we could have had it & used it for anything from living to investing etc.

So @ $1250 per month that will take roughly 38.4 months to break even/pay back the 48k we did not take

That is 3 years 2 months…Now your 68+ before you actually start to enjoy your $1250 a month

Now if you waited till 70 you get the $1500 per month bonus payment

But again to be fair pay back 8 years of $12,000 per year or $96k total loss of not taking the 12k per year for those 8 years difference between age 62 & age 70

That takes 64 months/5.3 years of $1500 is a wash to break even/pay back the 96k you did not take. Now your 75 years old & ready to actually collect?

Just seems to me the whole SS payout deal is just another carrot on a stick

The govt are not unlike a casino & have calculated all the odds I'm sure

This is a pretty good off the cuff analysis. I did almost the same thing a few days ago after I saw the current crop of students I am teaching....no matter what this will likely be my final year of teaching high school so starting to do the calcs . The kids are not getting any better...no surprise there but now their misbehavior starts on day 1 of the term instead of day 50. So much for respect for teacher.

I think for those that have any sort of nest-egg the key will be not depleting it to a point where you feel naked just to get a higher SS payment at a later date. I plan on spending it down about 16 % which is my comfort level. That will likely bring me to 64 or so and we'll see how that goes...however if the stock market is either going to take a crash or soar in that intervening period, it may change the gravity of my analysis. I take it day by day.

[JimGant]

Another scenario that says, 'take it at age 62, even if you don't need it' is if you're married to a Thai, and she doesn't qualify for the SS spousal benefit (probably the predominant situation for those married to Thais). In this situation, if you wait until you're 70 to start drawing, but croak the same day, no SS benefit for the wife. What a waste, particularly if you could have taken SS at 62 and invested it towards buying an annuity at age 70, giving the wife (or, if you're not married, any heirs that you might favor) a nest egg from your estate.

The opposite scenario, however, where your wife qualifies for the spousal SS benefit, particularly if she's younger and healthier -- dictates serious consideration to hold off until age 70.

Of course, the driving factor here is: You don't need SS at any age to live a more than comfortable life style.

[1FinickyOne]

For me personally and the few others I have seen - - the 78 break even figure is rarely part of the decision process. It is mostly a personal decision based on personal finances... and what I always questioned but don't know the answer to, does that break even figure make any calculations for if you took the money at 62 and invested it yourself... of course, we cannot have a figure as to how that investment might perform... but I do not think that is considered...

For me, I started at 62 - never counted on it and will not go into the reasons here. Considering my situation and being thoughtful, there was no reason to postpone the money coming in.

[1FinickyOne]

Funny, I read the post as personally dissing me for thinking about finances too much.

I admit I am probably extra sensitive of people who use "thinking too much" in a critical way.

People living in Thailand probably get my point.

I do get that you can overthink stuff ... in my view most people have the OPPOSITE problem.

It's possible that you think about finances too much.

In any case, I think it's obviously true that for many Americans approaching age 62, the decision to take S.S. early or not is a very big decision worthy of serious consideration. Taking it early is irreversible and like I mentioned before, I found a source that claimed a survey showed the majority who make that choice end up REGRETTING it. So I take that as a red flag ... not that it means it still isn't the best (or only realistic) choice for many people.

I would say it's much much less of an important decision for people (OK possible tax consequences), sadly not me, of great wealth and/or income, and in such cases whatever S.S. timing decision they made wouldn't have any impact on their life, so they could just flip a coin.

Just a guess, as I do not know you, but you mentioned not ever having to live on a budget... I never have either but suspect that I am unusual in that - and being unusual, I would guess that any poll or survey of people would not likely apply to me... and maybe not you either... From what I am seeing/hearing most people did not do a very good job of anticipating their retirement finances.

[1FinickyOne]

Another consideration would be the utility value of the money. Would you enjoy it more now than in your 80s? Of course, we cannot easily predict or know what 80 might feel like when in our 60s - but we can guess and from what I see it does not look like much fun for most.

Even societally, this is an issue. I have read that the last 6 months of life, on average, costs $500,000 - often through medicare dealing with medical expenses.

Sure, not possible to do, not practical, but how many lives would have been better off if that same figure were doled out to everyone at a younger age - usable for buying a home, getting an education - whatever. With an agreement that when elderly and inform you just morphine-away your final days...

but, if you think your might have been better off - then maybe taking the SS earlier might be better.

Just another factor to consider.

[Jingthing]

I've been thinking the same way for a long time.

Quality of life is so important.

Quality of life can ground down to very crappy at any age but that's more likely to happen at older ages.

On the other hand, I'm certain that people who are 100 and have any quality of life at all still want to go on. That could mean enjoying some t.v. and breathing. Standards can change!

Personally, I used to be a HIPPIE, no, not now an aging hippie, just an ex-hippie that is aging, and remember we used to say never trust anyone over 30? Well, I didn't really expect to even live to 30 and based on the mortality rate of my peers in my 20's, it wasn't an irrational prediction.

So yes, I can understand the lectures from people who say you never know how long you will live, and you may just be shocked at how long that is.

Because I've already been surprised!

Edited May 20, 2016 by Jingthing

[1FinickyOne]

My life has not been by the books either - hippie? I don't know - probably in some ways but I never bought into any group ideas... and never thought the don't trust anyone over 30 was anything more than an aphorism that had little meaning to me... just as I don't buy into the 60 is the new 40 - sh*t - give me a hot day and I feel 60+

Our parents can provide somewhat of a guide. When I graduated college I backpacked around the world for a year. One of the reasons I came home was that my grandparents mostly died in their 50s - early 60s. My parents were 55. I thought that was when people died. They lived until 91 - though I don't think too happily after 80. Judging by where I sit now, I am not sure how much fun there will be in going to 90...

Probably fortunate that most people do not give it much thought. I do. And I think that as most people cannot envision their own death, they cannot envision ageing and senility. how do you plan for decreased brain function and dementia. By age 88 my father knew that my mother had a problem... "you know, something with a Dee,,, dee, dee, " and when I would hand him the word "dementia" - he would say "that's right. I'll have to remember that." As if a new word that he had never heard of -- and he was a brilliant guy. Do I want to be there? I would hate to have my family remember me that way, as I remember my parents.

ok, straying a bit here... your topic - sorry.

[tutsiwarrior]

well, here's my take on it...

I thought that as a permanent US expat after 30 years that there would be no social security...but then I got a letter from the SS sayin' that they wanna give me some money...they got my thai address from a tax return, I guess...

so, yeah...along with a private pension in the UK I'll have about $2k per month that I never expected...

I'll be 66 y.o. this summer and still makin' a big salary in saudi as an engineer...I put de money away so that I can live comfortably for about 10 more years when I hang it up...

I have a couple of projects on the go with thai nieces in college and my boy in England and the bank balance can handle any problem that they have...

so, 66 (666!!! with apologies to Malcolm Lowry) here I come...

(JT, I don't mean to belittle yer concern...and thanks for a thoughtful thread)

Edited May 20, 2016 by tutsiwarrior

[hawker9000]

Argue all you want. Just take your payments at 62, 66 and at 70. Do the math. I would have had to live to be 79 for the payments I got starting at 62 to match the payments I would get starting at 66. So, it amounts to betting if you will live to be 79. If I wake up one morning at 79, well, I guess I would just be happy to be 79.

Yeah, I don't think the calculation is quite as simple as that, but I hear the gist of what you're saying. Don't expect to live to 80. Obviously the biggest "losers" are people who take it early and really didn't need to and find themselves alive in their 80s and beyond!

Beats me & we each have to decide for ourselves but this is basically how I have always thought of the SS

increased by age payouts....

Lets start at $1000/mo @ 62 as an example as it is easy to calculate

We will say $1000 @ 62 years …$1250 @ 66 …& $1500@ 70

Again these may not be exact figures but just to give a rough idea….

@ 62 your getting $1000 per month or $12,000 per year

4 years of that before your next plateau at age sixty six is $48,000

Now if you waited till your aged 66 you now qualify for $1250/mo or $15,000 per year

Before we get excited about this 3k boost per year I think it only fair to repay the loss of not taking that $48,000 by starting at 62 right?

I mean we could have had it & used it for anything from living to investing etc.

So @ $1250 per month that will take roughly 38.4 months to break even/pay back the 48k we did not take

That is 3 years 2 months…Now your 68+ before you actually start to enjoy your $1250 a month

Now if you waited till 70 you get the $1500 per month bonus payment

But again to be fair pay back 8 years of $12,000 per year or $96k total loss of not taking the 12k per year for those 8 years difference between age 62 & age 70

That takes 64 months/5.3 years of $1500 is a wash to break even/pay back the 96k you did not take. Now your 75 years old & ready to actually collect?

Just seems to me the whole SS payout deal is just another carrot on a stick

The govt are not unlike a casino & have calculated all the odds I'm sure

You didn't figure in the fact that many (not all) people will have to pay tax on their SS benefits depending on their other income, if any, and their other income, if they have it, may not be a steady, fixed-amount stream. They may also have IRAs or 401-Ks or employee stock options to be cashed in, or property to sell and capital gains to realize, and those taxable events will probably increase the taxability of their SS benefits (the thresholds are pretty low). For some, it might make sense to pay taxes on their other distributions first and get them converted to already-taxed assets and hold off on the SS and just let the credits accumulate, so as to pay less on both.

SS should've been left the "retirement insurance" it was originally intended and advertised to the American people to be, instead of recharacterizing it as a taxable pension in the name of progressivism and clawing back what they thought were mandated insurance premiums, which was a rank betrayal & broken promise, particularly to the forward-thinking and self-reliant. Any taxes paid on social security benefits (federal AND state, if any) must be subtracted from the payouts received in figuring your breakeven points.

And I haven't even started to figure how AMT figures into this (if it does, I'm not actually sure; 'on the to-do list).

Edited May 20, 2016 by hawker9000

[mania]

Another scenario that says, 'take it at age 62, even if you don't need it' is if you're married to a Thai, and she doesn't qualify for the SS spousal benefit (probably the predominant situation for those married to Thais). In this situation, if you wait until you're 70 to start drawing, but croak the same day, no SS benefit for the wife. What a waste, particularly if you could have taken SS at 62 and invested it towards buying an annuity at age 70, giving the wife (or, if you're not married, any heirs that you might favor) a nest egg from your estate.

The opposite scenario, however, where your wife qualifies for the spousal SS benefit, particularly if she's younger and healthier -- dictates serious consideration to hold off until age 70.

Of course, the driving factor here is: You don't need SS at any age to live a more than comfortable life style.

These are both interesting considerations that are quite applicable to many here

[Jingthing]

CaptHaddock brought up the option of subsidized low income housing for seniors in the U.S. Based on my understanding, there are upper income limits for this kind of housing, I think current about 22,000, and the rent taken is one third of income. That wouldn't be my first option but it's an interesting fall back option. Thinking about the implications of that, a higher income (resulting from NOT taking s.s. early) would mean a higher rent in such housing. Of course, also less left from the check. But seems to me perhaps a case where claiming early would not be so bad IF there are significant savings left.

[Gary A]

Planning for your retirement is a very good idea, BUT, unfortunately you don't really know how much it is going to cost to live a reasonable life style until you are actually there. I found that my spread sheet helped a lot. Separating essentials and discretionary spending will tell you exactly what you can give up if necessary. Rather than being frugal, I lived exactly as I wanted to live knowing that I could live on considerably less if I had to. I had planned to start my Social Security sometime after age 62. I had guessed at around age 64. Age 64 came and went and waiting for full retirement came sooner than expected. I'm glad I waited. I should add that I have a small pension from Chrysler that I started at age 60. That $366 a month certainly helped stretch my savings. Life is good. Good luck to those still facing this conundrum. Think positive!

[IMA_FARANG]

i didn't have any choice....a accident and a infection in my leg caused by that accident forced me to reitire in 2010 at age 64.

if i could have waited unril age 65 i would have had 100% of my benefits.

At 64 all I could get was 75% of my benefits.

It is still enough to retire in Thailand....but not enough to livr in the U.S.A.

Still i am better off than some.

[Jingthing]

i didn't have any choice....a accident and a infection in my leg caused by that accident forced me to reitire in 2010 at age 64.

if i could have waited unril age 65 i would have had 100% of my benefits.

At 64 all I could get was 75% of my benefits.

It is still enough to retire in Thailand....but not enough to livr in the U.S.A.

Still i am better off than some.

That's interesting but something doesn't sound right.

If you took it at 64 and your full retirement age was 65, the penalty for taking early would really be much less than 25 percent. 25 percent is a typical penalty for taking it really early at 62.

[tonray]

CaptHaddock brought up the option of subsidized low income housing for seniors in the U.S. Based on my understanding, there are upper income limits for this kind of housing, I think current about 22,000, and the rent taken is one third of income. That wouldn't be my first option but it's an interesting fall back option. Thinking about the implications of that, a higher income (resulting from NOT taking s.s. early) would mean a higher rent in such housing. Of course, also less left from the check. But seems to me perhaps a case where claiming early would not be so bad IF there are significant savings left.

Subsidized housing is a mixed bag. Court decisions decades ago forced municipalities to allocate a certain number of units (both for sale and rent) for low income residents. The problem is there of course were loopholes and many wealthy towns dumped their responsibility because they did not want 'low income' residents which also meant 'low class' to them (in many cases true).

So much of the affordable housing is indeed affordable but you may have drug dealers, hoodlums and noisy immigrants as your neighbors. Most are not neighborhoods you would likely be comfortable or safe in. One of the great things about Thailand is neighborhoods have millionaires living right next to shacks and there is likely an affordable apartment for you anyone who wants it. In America, the wealthy wall themselves and their neighborhoods off from the rest so you get rich parts of town, middle class parts of town, and poor parts of town with the crime levels rising as you move down the wealth scale. Also the reason schools in poor neighborhoods are a mess...lack of revenue (even though the Feds try to mitigate it with what the conservatives call 'distribution of wealth') the fact is poor neighborhoods have poor schools, more crime and not much to recommend them.

In my home state of NJ, this was called the Mount Laurel Doctrine. Much info on the web for this interested. Many court cases challenging the requirement to provide affordable housing subsequent. Bottom line...if you are poor in the US..you won't starve, but you won't like your neighborhood much either.

[SpokaneAl]

i didn't have any choice....a accident and a infection in my leg caused by that accident forced me to reitire in 2010 at age 64.

if i could have waited unril age 65 i would have had 100% of my benefits.

At 64 all I could get was 75% of my benefits.

It is still enough to retire in Thailand....but not enough to livr in the U.S.A.

Still i am better off than some.

That's interesting but something doesn't sound right.

If you took it at 64 and your full retirement age was 65, the penalty for taking early would really be much less than 25 percent. 25 percent is a typical penalty for taking it really early at 62.

I assume that the OP is talking about a pension other than social security.

[Jingthing]

Or perhaps he's comparing to a late draw like 70 where it would be more than 25 percent actually if started one year before full.

Have to assume on a US thread people are taking about s.s. unless they say differently.

[Jingthing]

CaptHaddock brought up the option of subsidized low income housing for seniors in the U.S. Based on my understanding, there are upper income limits for this kind of housing, I think current about 22,000, and the rent taken is one third of income. That wouldn't be my first option but it's an interesting fall back option. Thinking about the implications of that, a higher income (resulting from NOT taking s.s. early) would mean a higher rent in such housing. Of course, also less left from the check. But seems to me perhaps a case where claiming early would not be so bad IF there are significant savings left.

Subsidized housing is a mixed bag. Court decisions decades ago forced municipalities to allocate a certain number of units (both for sale and rent) for low income residents. The problem is there of course were loopholes and many wealthy towns dumped their responsibility because they did not want 'low income' residents which also meant 'low class' to them (in many cases true).

So much of the affordable housing is indeed affordable but you may have drug dealers, hoodlums and noisy immigrants as your neighbors. Most are not neighborhoods you would likely be comfortable or safe in. One of the great things about Thailand is neighborhoods have millionaires living right next to shacks and there is likely an affordable apartment for you anyone who wants it. In America, the wealthy wall themselves and their neighborhoods off from the rest so you get rich parts of town, middle class parts of town, and poor parts of town with the crime levels rising as you move down the wealth scale. Also the reason schools in poor neighborhoods are a mess...lack of revenue (even though the Feds try to mitigate it with what the conservatives call 'distribution of wealth') the fact is poor neighborhoods have poor schools, more crime and not much to recommend them.

In my home state of NJ, this was called the Mount Laurel Doctrine. Much info on the web for this interested. Many court cases challenging the requirement to provide affordable housing subsequent. Bottom line...if you are poor in the US..you won't starve, but you won't like your neighborhood much either.

It really depends. I have seen HUD senior housing in ritzy neighborhoods such as Buckhead in Atlanta and very charming walkable downtown Decatur GA. But the units are small. You might be conflating section 8 and public housing from HUD senior housing. Often religious groups are involved usually meaning there are extra services on offer. Not my first choice as in my experience such places are gossip city but it's likely similar at over 55 condo communities which to me sound preferable.

I have also seen obviously slummy senior projects in Phoenix.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Jingthing

[lovelomsak]

Seems to be a lot of fear plays into when to take the SS. Afraid of the unknown future.

Why is there is fear. I put it down to urban myths.Myths about old men eating dog food. I donot know of any one that poor.Myths About tragedy or accident hospital costs bankrupting some. Again personally do not know a soul who has suffered that. So I think those things should be dismissed when planning retirement and pensions. I should add a life in Thailand gives a man a far better chance of not eating dog food to survive. If medical expenses will end the person then Thailand again is far better hospital costs are far less then else where.I was in a Thai hospital last year for 13 days the costs worked out between 1300 to 1400 baht a day for everything. Doctor, medicine ,room ,nurse's everything. Same as daily cost of life outside the hospital.Same cost so should be affordable right.

How long will quality of life last should be first and foremost in planning.When you reach the age were you are bed ridden fed by spoon and have your diapers changed 2 times a day does it matter if you planned for $1000 a month or 1 million a month you are still old and decrepit.

Take money when it comes and invest if not needed or spend for fuller life.

Being conventional only works to a point. Look where conventional wisdom has taken us.

[Jingthing]

In the U.S. bankruptcy due to medical expenses is very common. That is no myth. As far as financial meltdowns in Thailand ask NancyL or Sheryl to confirm that is no myth either. Dog food ... true that likely isn't common. There are food banks and church charities and also I'm pretty sure elders with no assets can get food stamps. There are indeed homeless or vehicle living homeless elders in the U S. It's annoying to hear BS that poverty doesn't exist in the U S. It's very common and if your only income is an age 62 s s. check and little asserts that represents definite real poverty.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Jingthing

[lovelomsak]

In the U.S. bankruptcy due to medical expenses is very common. That is no myth. As far as financial meltdowns in Thailand ask NancyL or Sheryl to confirm that is no myth either. Dog food ... true that likely isn't common. There are food banks and church charities and also I'm pretty sure elders with no assets can get food stamps. There are indeed homeless or vehicle living homeless elders in the U S. It's annoying to hear BS that poverty doesn't exist in the U S. It's very common and if your only income is an age 62 s s. check and little asserts that represents definite real poverty.

Cannot arque with that you are American and know. I am sure a person trying to live in America in SS alone would be poverty level. But the same person in Thailand would be fine.

I knew an American who lived here on his SS it was $1500 a month. Mind you he lived in his mother in laws home. But he up graded it had all the conviences. Had a pick up and motorcycle for as long as he could drive the last couple of years he had a helper drive him around. Yes he could afford a helper on $1500 a month. He ate good,had all the conviences, medical costs,socal life .And had extra money every month to upgrade some thing or buy something new. Never did with out.Walked with a cane but got around. He told me in America he could not even hope to live as well as he did here.

He died in his 80's and lived above real poverty to the end. Not sure at what age he took the SS.

Edited May 24, 2016 by lovelomsak

[Jingthing]

Yes I meant in the U.S. Obviously living costs are cheaper in Thailand but medical stuff can still get you here. 1500? Doubt he started at 62.

[Boon Mee]

Yes I meant in the U.S. Obviously living costs are cheaper in Thailand but medical stuff can still get you here. 1500? Doubt he started at 62.

Depends on his earning history. If he maxed out his SS & Medicare contributions for many of his earning years, $1,500.00 per month at age 62 is quite reasonable. Maybe even a little on the low side.

[JimGant]

...if you retire at age 62 in 2016, your maximum benefit would be $2,102. If you retire at age 70 in 2016, your maximum benefit would be $3,576.

https://faq.ssa.gov/link/portal/34011/34019/article/3735/what-is-the-maximum-social-security-retirement-benefit-payable

[Jingthing]

You didn't follow the story. You're talking about current levels. The story was about a man that died at 82 so his 62 would have been long ago.

[Langsuan Man]

CaptHaddock brought up the option of subsidized low income housing for seniors in the U.S. Based on my understanding, there are upper income limits for this kind of housing, I think current about 22,000, and the rent taken is one third of income. That wouldn't be my first option but it's an interesting fall back option. Thinking about the implications of that, a higher income (resulting from NOT taking s.s. early) would mean a higher rent in such housing. Of course, also less left from the check. But seems to me perhaps a case where claiming early would not be so bad IF there are significant savings left.

Not only are there upper income limits for subsidized housing there are also limits on your net worth

Let's not forget your previous thread, where to move to in the US, and the search for Expanded Medicaid that was abandoned when you added your "nest egg" into the mix

Edited May 27, 2016 by Langsuan Man