Free Ebook.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« Roth Conversions Can Help Build Wealth | Main | You Can Win a Free Copy of Quicken Premier 2008! »

November 09, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Well, at 23, retirement is still a ways away. And usually I don't get all up in arms about who earns more money...but I guess it bothered me that they say that the man earns more...maybe that was the case for the people reaching retirement age...but I'm not sure if it will continue to be true when I reach that age. Well, maybe that wont be an issue with all the "Social Security is going to run out soon!" theories...

I'm in my 20s, and all the people who I know in the 20s don't seem to care much about the retirement, let alone saving up for it.

Anyway, I don't see where in the article that assumes the man is going to make more. I think the article assumes that men die before women.

I guess, as a man, I should be up in arms about that.

I'm 32, I consider any money I would get from Social Security a bonus. I have serious doubts on whether it will be solvent in 30 years.

Social Security will be solvent in 30 years; we will just get at least 25% less than we expect. The real scary mess is Medicare, but this is a post on social security so I won't go there.

The tough part about projecting when to take social security or what option to take for a pension/survivor benefit is you are betting on the future. You can look at family genes or your current health, but it is still a gamble.

If you don't need the money from Social Security then delay taking it. Every year delayed is an 8% return...guaranteed. Those are tough returns to get today, at least for a guaranteed return. But, I usually look at cash flow needs more than scheming how to maximize the benefit. The next factor is the tax situation. If you are working somewhere other than Wal-mart as a greeter, then you are probably making enough to warrant holding off on Social Security. Otherwise, you will end up paying tax on your Social Security. So rather than focusing on the benefit, I look at the other factor first.

I'm confused. Why would one earner want to draw early? Wouldn't both just wait until as long as they can?

This approach does work for married couples but one problem may be a large age difference making it hard to achieve.

Actually, it is not an 8% return because taking it later doesn't extend your lifespan. For someone with average life expectancy it amounts to a real 4%, respectable and better than bonds but less than stocks. Taking it early and investing it can pay off.


If you are 66 and can take Social Security, but don' "need" it and can stay true to yourself, why not collect Social Security and invest 100% of the money?

Seriously. If you benefit is say $1000 a month after taxes and whatnot [lets just keep it simple], why not fill up a Roth IRA and invest wisely $12,000 a year?

From 66-67: $12K
67-68: $12K
68-69: $12K
69-70: $12K

Now $48K [more or less] at age 70 and then you start to incorportae the $12K into your wages.

How does this sound?

You surely can invest the money, but I am not sure if social security income counts as earned income for the purposes of an IRA.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Start a Blog


  • Any information shared on Free Money Finance does not constitute financial advice. The Website is intended to provide general information only and does not attempt to give you advice that relates to your specific circumstances. You are advised to discuss your specific requirements with an independent financial adviser. Per FTC guidelines, this website may be compensated by companies mentioned through advertising, affiliate programs or otherwise. All posts are © 2005-2012, Free Money Finance.