for anybody who thinks you will live longer than the average 65 year person, delaying the start of SS will result in more money, when you need it the most -- later in life.We were living entirely on withdrawls from our portfolio when we turned 62 and began taking SS. We did not ratchet up our spending, so the SS allowed us to take less from our portfolio each year. In the four years from when we turned 62 to when we will turn 66, we will have collected a total of $120,000 in SS. That's $120k we won't have had to take out of the portfolio. So by taking SS early, we will end up saving our accounts $120k by the time we're both 66. And the standard 4% annual withdrawl from $120k is almost $5k per year. So you could look at it as us having an extra $5k per year from the portfolio that we wouldn't have if we waited to 66 to start SS. So the higher amount of SS we would have gotten if we'd waited would have to make up for not only not collecting anything for those four years but also for a $120k depletion of our savings/investments. Even though our ancestors are fairly long-lived, I think it would still be difficult to catch up.--fleg
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra