When to start receiving social security benefits?

Image

when to start receiving social security benefits from ssa.gov

My 65 yr old client who owns a beauty salon and lost $500k in the stock market is deciding whether to start receiving her social security benefits now or wait for two years. She then decided to wait for two years given her health condition and wanted to earn more and receive a much higher benefit by waiting.

She sacrificed working many hours to recoup what she lost in the stock market. Many bay area residents lost money in their homes and their 401k and so could not retire early. A lesson that all our young generation should take heed. Invest in market risk free retirement-savings plan.

My own suggestion is to start receiving social security at age 64 instead of age 67. You get more if you total the three years of social security benefits starting age 64 that you will receive before age 67. Enjoy life. Money will come to those who put action into their desires.

Call Connie 408-854-1883 motherhealth@gmail.com for long term, risk free, tax-free savings plan that grows up to 13% with health benefits. CA Life Lic 0G60621

 

 

8 Comments

  1. Here are comments from others:
    The article also fails to discuss various options for married couples where the higher SS eligible person files for SS but suspends receiving their check. This then allows the spouse to receive spousal SS checks while continuing to accrue their own SS benefits.
    Nothing more than Political BS so that you don’t get your money out while the getting is good. That is like waiting until 70 and the breakeven is into the 80s. Check you family longevity and your health. At the end of your life why do you need more money any way. Let the Govt. pay for your healthcare. In addition SS will be out of business. Take your money and run.
    No, the money goes to the Social Security Trust Fund. THEN, the Federal government borrows it, throws another IOU into the vault, and life goes on.
    Many old people have tough physical and/or mental jobs requiring much energy & effort. Alot of their peers are younger so they get compared to them.
    Also, in my case, my 2 bosses are barely 50, they made the comment that I make too much of my age. Since I am retiring at 63 1/2, I just said ” can’t respect your opinion on age since you are nowhere near my age.” When I was 50, I could do everything they “expect” from me now & I just physically can’t do it. I thought of putting in an age discrimination suit after that comment, but I don’t need the hassle of that. I will just let HR know what was said in my exit interview (they are big on what mangers say to their employees.)
    I started to keep track of our household expenses a few years before I reached 62. Opportunity presented itself – a few months prior to I reached that point, our group was involved with a company-wide resource-action and after giving it some thought, I decided to take early retirement – that way, as soon as my employment ended, early pension plus 6-month worth of severance pay would help me bridge to my early SS benefit. My wife later received her spousal SS benefit when she reached 62. It turns out either my pension or my SS benefit alone would be sufficient to cover our monthly expenses – which leaves the other source of income plus my wife’s SS benefit as extra. All in all, it leaves our nest-eggs intact which we intend to pass it along to our offspring so that when they reach their retirement, they would be less stressful. BTW, on my death, my wife would be able to receive half of my pension and my SS benefit. I understand as this article suggested, every household’s situation all different. So good luck to everyone.

  2. Another comment:
    BIG warming to anyone thinking of taking early retirement — this is the biggest scam Washington has ever put over on us 62 year olds…I was out our work and felt I had to take early retirement at age 62 to pay my bills…but I also knew I’d have to continue to work…I earned too much money and now owe SS tens of thousands of Dollars…I have bills and did NOT want to file for bankruptcy…I was trying to do the right thing…Washington has passed bills that penalize us for taking early retirement…WHY? It’s my money…by taking early retirement, you get less monthly for the rest of your life…so I have ALREADY paid my penalty…why penalize me more? We should be able to collect early retirement without any penalties…I put this money back into the economy to help create jobs and KEEP jobs…I have written to my representatives and to the White House…NO ONE CARES…this is a massive scam Washington has put upon us…these penalties need to be repealed…but no one cares…no one cares…

  3. The SCOTUS has ruled SSI is a privilege, not a right, when the money runs out, the people are entitled to nothing. All the people that died before they reached retirement age paid too, but they and their estate got nothing. All you are entitled to is what the government decides to give you, which will never keep up with inflation, because government is the cause of inflation.

    My Parents did and do pay into it, The boomers are going to suck it dry, nothing is going to stop that. You think the economics of SSI work, when people pull out 3 times what they pay in, and when 40% of young adults today, the people supposed to fund the thing for the boomers, are living in their parents basement.

    Once you pay a tax, the money stops being yours, it belongs to the government to distribute how they see fit.

    source: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/collect-social-security-age-62/story?id=24023582

  4. Last comments:

    Please share the ruling, all I could find was a 1960 decision that said that benefits could be denied to an ex-patriot. Congress has the right to modify benefits and has done so many times. This is why “entitlement reducers” like Paul Ryan are so dangerous to those of us in our 50’s approaching retirement age.

    Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no
    legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits,
    and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.
    That’s a stretch, that’s the same 1960 decision I found. Wikipedia’s (I know, not 100% reliable) interpretation said:
    “The Court ruled that no such contract exists, and that there is no contractual right to receive Social Security payments. Payments due under Social Security are not “property” rights and are not protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The interest of a beneficiary of Social Security is protected only by the Due Process Clause.
    Under Due Process Clause analysis, government action is valid unless it is patently arbitrary and utterly lacking in rational justification. This provision of §202(n) is not irrational; it could have been justified by the desire to increase the purchasing power of those living in America, because those living abroad would not spend their payments here.”
    The “patently arbitrary and lacking in rational justification” could be used as argument against the likes of Paul Ryan and his ilk, who bent on taking away something we’ve paid into our whole lives.

    Unfortunately, your last paragraph is entirely true. Had the government not been allowed to raid the piggy bank we would all be better off. Wish I had been able to invest all the $$$ I put in Social Security on my own. I’d have a MUCH better return on my money!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.