Retirees, Those Soon To Be and the Hobby

When thinking about when to collect Social Security, remember that before your "full retirement age" (66 now,  and 67 for those younger, approximately), any money you earn in wages (but not investments) will decrease your Social Security benefits.  So it's best, if you are going to keep on working, to wait on Social Security until your full retirement age. You also get 8% per year more in benefits for the rest of your life for each year you wait after 62, the earliest age to collect.  The bottom line is that if you don't absolutely need the money, and are in reasonable health, it's best to wait as long as you can (but no longer than age 70 when the increases in annual payout cease).

Maximum collection at age 70 for highest income folks is $44,376 compared with $25,896 for someone at age 62 in 2018. So if you wait, you do need to live till 78 or older to break even for the eight years you haven't collected.  But the vast majority of people at age 70 will live beyond 80, statistically speaking. Most 62 year olds will live beyond 78 as well according to past performance. Indeed, it is my impression that the figures currently being used underestimate the longevity of the older population in the USA. Everyone's mileage obviously differs.

Another thing to remember is that Social Security payments are generally not subject to state income tax, and only 85% of it is subject to federal income tax.  So Social Security income is more valuable than regular wages or other retirement investment income.

The bottom line is that if you don't absolutely need the money, and are in reasonable health, it's best to wait as long as you can (but no longer than age 70 when the increases in annual payout cease).

I am retired, but not yet old enough to collect Social Security. I have been thinking about what Landsteiner wrote a great deal. (he is not alone in his thoughts)  I have not decided when to put in for it.
Here is the issue: my wife has a very good job and by the time she is ready to collect, her benefit will probably be larger than mine. So I don't think I have to consider survivor benefits. It my impression she cannot collect on both hers and mine when I croak. I think she may be able to collect on mine and save hers until she hits 70 but I am not clear on this (assuming I am gone before she hits 70).
If not, any value to my SS goes with me.
On the other hand, all my savings, including deferred comp retains its value when I am gone.
I think I have more homework to do.

I think I've mentioned before, while I was still working I was lucky enough to attend two seminars several years apart on retirement planning. There were representatives from Social Security there. They said to collect as soon as possible.
I did some calculations on the break even point for when to collect.
I got my monthly benefit from the official online SS calculator for ages 62,63, and 70.

62 Versus 70 - it would take 127 months to make up the money lost by not putting in at 62
62 versus 63 - it would take almost 193 months to make up the money lost.

I don't think anybody should go by my numbers. Go to the website and do the comparisons for yourself.

My wife is still working. Subject to finding out whether my SS benefit has any value to my wife when I am gone, I am leaning towards starting my benefit when she retires.

Of course there is always the possibility of my savings taking a hit from a bad economy.

Being how the train market has softened, I am glad I never considered my trains to be part of my nest egg.

Here is the official government web page with various Social Security related calculators:
Official Calculators.
I used the retirement estimator for my numbers.

Found this, which may answer my question on my wife collecting on my benefits until 70:

If a spouse is eligible for a retirement benefit based on his or her own earnings, and if that benefit is higher than the spousal benefit, then we pay the retirement benefit. Otherwise we pay the spousal benefit.
"

Another note: I don't think the rules are not consistent for all. Younger people may not have the same options as older folks.  A well known difference is  full retirement age.

C W Burfle posted:

The bottom line is that if you don't absolutely need the money, and are in reasonable health, it's best to wait as long as you can (but no longer than age 70 when the increases in annual payout cease).

I am retired, but not yet old enough to collect Social Security. I have been thinking about what Landsteiner wrote a great deal. (he is not alone in his thoughts)  I have not decided when to put in for it.
Here is the issue: my wife has a very good job and by the time she is ready to collect, her benefit will probably be larger than mine. So I don't think I have to consider survivor benefits. It my impression she cannot collect on both hers and mine when I croak. I think she may be able to collect on mine and save hers until she hits 70 but I am not clear on this (assuming I am gone before she hits 70).
If not, any value to my SS goes with me.
On the other hand, all my savings, including deferred comp retains its value when I am gone.
I think I have more homework to do.

I think I've mentioned before, while I was still working I was lucky enough to attend two seminars several yards apart on retirement planning. There were representatives from Social Security there. They said to collect as soon as possible.
I did some calculations on the break even point for when to collect.
I got my monthly benefit from the official online SS calculator for ages 62,63, and 70.

62 Versus 70 - it would take 127 months to make up the money lost by not putting in at 62
62 versus 63 - it would take almost 193 months to make up the money lost.

I don't think anybody should go by my numbers. Go to the website and do the comparisons for yourself.

My wife is still working. Subject to finding out whether my SS benefit has any value to my wife when I am gone, I am leaning towards starting my benefit when she retires.

Of course there is always the possibility of my savings taking a hit from a bad economy.

Being how the train market has softened, I am glad I never considered my trains to be part of my nest egg.

For those who are still working and earning money, it is usually best to wait at least until you reach Social Security full retirement age before receiving benefits, which I believe is between 66 or 67 depending on what year you were born. I was born in 1951 and qualified at age 66 for full retirement benefits. I believe it is age 66 for everyone born in 1955 or earlier.

The reason for waiting until you reach full retirement age is that if you start taking Social Security before reaching full retirement age, your benefit will be reduced because of the earnings from your work. 

If you don't need the money from the Social Security benefit upon reaching full retirement age, ie, because you have no debt and/or have plenty of income and assets to meet your needs, then it may be best to wait until attaining age 70 to start receiving benefits. I believe you can get your monthly benefit increased by 8% per year by deferring receipt of benefits between age 66/67 to 70.

"It my impression she cannot collect on both hers and mine when I croak. I think she may be able to collect on mine and save hers until she hits 70 but I am not clear on this (assuming I am gone before she hits 70)."

That is correct. You can only collect at any given time as a spouse or on your own earnings record, not both simultaneously.  But one used to be able collect on one's spouse's earnings when they had retired and you had also reached full retirement age.  This is now more complicated and not always possible.  The rules have changed for some just in the last year.   

You may have to talk to more than one Social Security representative to get the correct story.  Like all organizations, Social Security personnel vary in experience and understanding of what is actually a very complicated and changing set of rules as to who can collect what. My younger son works for them so I have insight into this .

Landsteiner posted:

When thinking about when to collect Social Security, remember that before your "full retirement age" (66 now,  and 67 for those younger, approximately), any money you earn in wages (but not investments) will decrease your Social Security benefits.  So it's best, if you are going to keep on working, to wait on Social Security until your full retirement age. You also get 8% per year more in benefits for the rest of your life for each year you wait after 62, the earliest age to collect.  The bottom line is that if you don't absolutely need the money, and are in reasonable health, it's best to wait as long as you can (but no longer than age 70 when the increases in annual payout cease).

Maximum collection at age 70 for highest income folks is $44,376 compared with $25,896 for someone at age 62 in 2018. So if you wait, you do need to live till 78 or older to break even for the eight years you haven't collected.  But the vast majority of people at age 70 will live beyond 80, statistically speaking. Most 62 year olds will live beyond 78 as well according to past performance. Indeed, it is my impression that the figures currently being used underestimate the longevity of the older population in the USA. Everyone's mileage obviously differs.

Another thing to remember is that Social Security payments are generally not subject to state income tax, and only 85% of it is subject to federal income tax.  So Social Security income is more valuable than regular wages or other retirement investment income.

Landsteiner, you and I were on the same wavelength, and I learned a few more important things from your reply. Thanks.

Arnold

The reason for waiting until you reach full retirement age is that if you start taking Social Security before reaching full retirement age, your benefit will be reduced because of the earnings from your work. 

Federal (and perhaps state) income tax also has to be considered. The Feds collect tax on a portion of your social security payment. The size of the portion is indexed by your adjusted gross income. It can be as high as 85%. (They don't take 85%, they levy tax on 85%).

As an aside: when I was in college I had a summer job that often involved working with an elderly gentleman who was well beyond the age to collect. Not only did he not receive any SS benefits, he still had to pay SS. taxes. That certainly annoyed him.

Maximum collection at age 70 for highest income folks is $44,376 compared with $25,896 for someone at age 62 in 2018. So if you wait, you do need to live till 78 or older to break even for the eight years you haven't collected. 

I was just thinking about why your break even numbers differ from mine, and why my wife's break even numbers also differ.
I wonder whether it's due to different full retirement ages (I think mine is 66 and my wife's is 66.5). Or maybe there is an error in my calculations.

LANDSTEINER, CW and Arnold, 

   Thanks for mentioning (and instructing!) the issue of when to start taking Social Security benefits.

  Tom 

I retired in 2005 and took SS at 62.  My opinion is take the SS as soon as possible.

The difference between early SS and late, percentage wise, sounds great but when you calculate how long it takes to 'break even' when taking SS later, it takes about 16 years (at least for my numbers) to 'break even'.  

Another thing not mentioned is that, if you have a 401K you have to start drawing that out by 70.5 years of age, every year, and that money reduces how much you can claim on your end of year tax filing, which makes 'breaking even' farther down the line.

Plus, I don't trust the government, wait later to take SS and they may say, we just changed the rules so you don't get as much, now!

Plus, I've read where doctors say around 75 years of age, one's ability to be active starts to diminish.  I've got a lot of friends in railroading and RC airplanes and  I find this to be true.  My view, retire early, take SS early and enjoy what time you have.  

I keep in pretty good shape and the 'longevity' table for me is 101 years, 89 for the average dude for my 'age bracket'.  I'm planning on living until 101 (but I could die tomorrow), but I still would take the SS early.   

Also, with inflation, the value of those $$'s goes down so another reason to take SS early.

If you have mortgages to pay and other expenses that require you to work, then no choice.  If SS and retirement pay, 401K, etc can get you to live comfortably then take it early.  My view is, if your house is paid for then you really don't need a lot of money each month to 'live on'.  

Also, you don't need a monster amount of money stashed away.  When we were young, it's good to save for the future.  Now that I'm old, excess money means little to me.   I can't play with money, it just sits there.  My hobbies, I can have fun with it and have a good time.   Dying with tons of money, for me, is a waste of resources.  Nothing says you're required to make your kids rich when you die! 

 Thanks for mentioning (and instructing!) the issue of when to start taking Social Security benefits.

Please do some independent research.
While I think the information is good, I for one, am not an expert.

Everyone's needs differ.  I never intended to wait for 66.  Sure you get more money but you cannot bank years of life.  I will accept 90 percent of sii now.  That plus my investments put me at what I earn now working.  An easy decision go me.

necrails posted:

Was going to wait until I turned 65 but work has been death by 1000 paper cuts.  I stop this June 30th.  We invested well, have no debt, both sons are through college, employed, with no debt.  Starting to look for a spot to move but lots of places less expensive than N.J. have less of what we like.  Trains may not make the move, a decision that has become clearer now the Lionel has shut down ERR.  The next few years will be spent exploring locations, maybe working part time, maybe.  Excess trains are in the too be sold room awaiting pictures and listings.  At least my cycling miles will increase.

I hope you will come back to this thread and chime in about how you are doing with finding a place to relocate to? I think some of us who are nearing retirement age would be very interested in how you come up with an initial list (are you roaming the country?) and then how you narrow down your choices. 

Tom

Plus, I've read where doctors say around 75 years of age, one's ability to be active starts to diminish.  I've got a lot of friends in railroading and RC airplanes and  I find this to be true.  My view, retire early, take SS early and enjoy what time you have.  

Personal observation: Yes, I know people who are in great shape and very active in their 70's. I also know people whose ability to be active has fallen off at a much younger age.

"I was just thinking about why your break even numbers differ from mine, and why my wife's break even numbers also differ."

There are some variables that may differ. The simplest calculation is that the $25,000 per year x 8 = 200,000 takes about 10.5 years to recoup at the $19,000 per year higher Social Security payments taken at 70 ($44,000) versus 62 ($25,000).  That's the differential currently between the two choices.  However, this differential may not stay a fixed ratio as whatever percent increase occurs in the future favors the higher payment.  2% of $44,000 is a substantially more than 2% of 25,000, and currently the percent increase is regardless of total payment.  But the maximum payout could change, be capped, or taxed in the future.

The Social Security calculator may well use adjustments such as projected return on investment of the difference in payments over that 8 year period from 62 to 70.  If they use such an adjustment, it would take longer to recoup the difference.  This may be irrelevant in reality as most people do not invest their Social Security payments in part or whole.  Then again, there is inflation.  This is another adjustment they probably make based upon projections.

Just some educated guesses about why my calculations and yours and the SSA's may differ.  Also, the differential between 62 and 70 at various levels of SSA payments may be more or less than I've shown for the maximum payouts. I've been fortunate and been able to work at jobs that exceed the maximal FICA contributions for most of my career. 

I think it's fairly unlikely that it would take 16 years for most folks to recoup the difference between 62 and 70 but I don't know how those calculations were performed.  The only thing that is certain is the 2018 payouts for you as an individual depending on your contributions, and the fact that annual payments are 8% higher for each deferred year after age 62. 

You can do some rough math.  If you would collect $25,000 per year at age 62 and 44,000 at 70, you need to recoup $200,000 for the 8 year difference.  Assuming similar ratios over the years, you will need approximately 10-11 years (age 80-81) to recoup this amount at the differential of $19,000 more per year after starting at age 70 versus 62.  This is obviously not entirely correct as no adjustments for inflation, investment, etc. have been made.   And if you live only to 79, you never recoup entirely.  Then again, if you live to 90-95, as a great many people will do, you've made out very well indeed. 

Personal observation:  in the 1970s there was almost no one in the NY Times obituaries who was age 90 or greater.  Now, it is not unusual for there to be 3 of 3,  or 2 of 3 deaths in their nineties in the on-line Times obituaries.  Something extraordinary is happening with longevity for those make it into the last quarter or third  of life.  We do not know the explanation, but my own hunch is much, much cleaner air which reduces the risk of inflammatory diseases, including cancer, heart and vascular disease and respiratory diseases which account for 90% or so of deaths.

samparfitt posted: 

I keep in pretty good shape and the 'longevity' table for me is 101 years, 89 for the average dude for my 'age bracket'.  

What longevity table are you referring to that pegs your life expectancy at 101?  I want to use that one, too!

What, me worry?

My math was all based on the official federal Social Security benefits calculator. I used it to calculate what my benefits would be at various ages including 66.33, which is my full retirement age.
If one waits until 63 to collect, then one misses 12 payments.
According to the SS calculator, my payment would go up 6.22 percent if I waited until 63
Lets say that my benefit was $100, Holding off one year would mean I was out $1200
The increase would be $6.22 per month.
To determine break even point divide $1200 (money lost) by $6.22 (payment increase).
I get 192.926 months.

Maybe I made a mistake using the SS calculator. If I made an error here, I'd appreciate having it pointed out.

The only thing that is certain is the 2018 payouts for you as an individual depending on your contributions, and the fact that annual payments are 8% higher for each deferred year after age 62. 

I just ran my numbers through the SS benefits calculator again. Assuming it works correctly, the increases are not a linear percentage for me.

62-63    6.22%
63-64    7.78%
64-65    7.91%
65-66.33  9.75%
66.33-67 0.66%
67-68    7.95%
68-69    7.36%
69-70    10.86%

Folks who are interested in this topic should go to the web site and run their own numbers.

Well that's weird, but it's hard to argue with the calculator.  The published increment is 8% a year.  Obviously the increment in the calculator is up to 40% off this.  No idea why.  It appears one is penalized for starting earlier and rewarded relatively richly for that last year of not collecting.

That said, to me the value is in permanently collecting a much higher amount for however long I last past 70. The extra dollars between 62 and 70 are relatively unimportant to me personally as I plan to work past 70, which is nearer and nearer .  Obviously if you need the money now and/or have a shorter life expectancy, one probably should collect as early as one stops working, or at least wait to one's "full retirement" age so that one isn't losing benefits if one continues working.  Working any amount while collecting SS before full retirement age means you lose benefits at a substantial rate.

My break even point is age 82.  If I collected early I would have been betting on dying early.  If I wait till later I am betting on dying later.

I would never bet on dying early!

Besides, my job permits me to sell product to committed buying groups when ever I want.  Like picking low hanging fruit.

I would never bet on dying early!

That's one way to look at it.
In college I took a course in Game Theory.
A portion of the class discussed how it applied to games of chance and their payouts.
I think the class probably affected my outlook on gambling.
That and having the opportunity to examine how a mechanical slot machine worked.

Social Security pays the same amount over a beneficiary's lifetime, whether they claim early, wait for their full retirement age or delay beyond their full retirement age, unless they die before reaching a comparative breakeven point between any of the three options.  Assuming a beneficiary lives past the breakeven point, the only difference is when they receive the money.    

What, me worry?   

Guys, it's not just about money. I'm assuming most of us have a 401k and in my case a good pension. My wife and I are in good health but you have to realize you just can't do the same things at 70 you could do at 62. In my opinion that's a very important consideration. Retirement should be fun with lots of active things on your bucket list. Don

I've got 26 years til I can cash in on retirement. I've got a pretty good head start on locos and rolling stock the layout will come later. Wow 26 years a lot will change in the hobby.

"Assuming a beneficiary lives past the breakeven point, the only difference is when they receive the money.   "

I believe this is incorrect. Once you are beyond the "breakeven point" the individual who lives to be ninety years old is still collecting $25,000 per year plus inflation adjustments in my illustration of taking SS at age 62.  The individual who waited until 70 is still collecting at least $19,000 more per year than the age 62 individual after the breakeven point. 

If that breakeven point is 82 and they both live to be 90, the individual who waited until 70 will collect 8 years of $19,000 + per year more than the individual who took SS at age 62, a net difference of about + $160,000 in favor of the later start of payments.  The payments to the individual who starts at 62 never increase to be closer to the payments to the individual who starts at 70. The differential is permanent.

Landsteiner posted:

 

Personal observation:  in the 1970s there was almost no one in the NY Times obituaries who was age 90 or greater.  Now, it is not unusual for there to be 3 of 3,  or 2 of 3 deaths in their nineties in the on-line Times obituaries.  Something extraordinary is happening with longevity for those make it into the last quarter or third  of life.  We do not know the explanation, but my own hunch is much, much cleaner air which reduces the risk of inflammatory diseases, including cancer, heart and vascular disease and respiratory diseases which account for 90% or so of deaths.

The single most consequential "something" was the Surgeon General's 1964 report on the link between smoking and health that altered the prevalence of tobacco use.

What, me worry?

"The single most consequential "something" was the Surgeon General's 1964 report on the link between smoking and health that altered the prevalence of tobacco use."

Certainly, not smoking is good for your health, and perhaps the major factor,  but not having cars and trucks spewing mass quantities of particulates from combustion is a factor too.

Just a personal note on planning.  My wife is 2 years older than I am.  She took her SS at 62 and then when I took mine at 62 she got the increase based on mine.  So her 1st 2 years was free money.  I was fortunate enough to retire as a USAF Chief Master Sergeant and then retire completely in 2005 at age 58.  So we had our medical pretty well covered, a lake house with all the toys and an RV.  Summers at the lake, winters RVing in the south and retirement was great.  Then in 2011, she started falling for no reason.  After much medical testing, etc, she was diagnosed with Progressive Surpranuclear Palsy - a rare and terrible disease.  She has regressed to being completely bed ridden and I am a 24/7 caregiver.  The only point is somethings you just can't plan for.  I am so happy that I retired at the earliest possible time.  We got to enjoy 8 wonderful years of retirement before this terrible disease began taking it's toll.  As someone said, at this point in my life money and 401k balances are just numbers on paper.  Retire as soon as you can and enjoy the fruits of your labors.  FWIW

Landsteiner posted:

"Assuming a beneficiary lives past the breakeven point, the only difference is when they receive the money.   "

I believe this is incorrect. Once you are beyond the "breakeven point" the individual who lives to be ninety years old is still collecting $25,000 per year plus inflation adjustments in my illustration of taking SS at age 62.  The individual who waited until 70 is still collecting at least $19,000 more per year than the age 62 individual after the breakeven point. 

If that breakeven point is 82 and they both live to be 90, the individual who waited until 70 will collect 8 years of $19,000 + per year more than the individual who took SS at age 62, a net difference of about + $160,000 in favor of the later start of payments.  The payments to the individual who starts at 62 never increase to be closer to the payments to the individual who starts at 70. The differential is permanent.   

What you write is conceptually accurate. A beneficiary delaying benefits and exceeding the average life expectancy at claiming age indeed may collect a larger sum than had he claimed early. The actuarial breakeven point according to the Social Security Life Expectancy Calculator would be 85.9 years for a male turning 62 on June 1, 2018 and delaying benefits until June 1, 2026.

What, me worry?

I am retired (almost 4 years now) after 33 years in law enforcement.  Before that I worked another 10 years full time.  I was never married to my job.  It was a great career...but it was time to take a new road.  I was blessed with a good pension.  I never believed in working until you drop dead at your job.  There comes a time when one must enjoy the happiness of life without the grind.  My wife still has 5 years till she can retire from the San Francisco Fire Department.  Until then, I am the housewife and happily so.  Our 3 children are grown, married and seeking their own fortunes.  Even though my wife is still working...we have already begun planning and doing things towards her retirement...and having fun with life!  Matt

One unknown;  will the powers that be mess with SS payments???

Amazing stories everyone. Thanks for sharing so much. 

Messing with SS? I would hope most of us that are within 4-5 years of 62 would be grandfathered in as far as being safe under the old rules. Also, with the current dysfunction of Congress it doesn't seem likely to happen anytime soon. 

Tom 

Matt, you forgot one thing...having good friends like Vicky and I....

Don

Alfred E Neuman posted:

Landsteiner posted:

 

Personal observation:  in the 1970s there was almost no one in the NY Times obituaries who was age 90 or greater.  Now, it is not unusual for there to be 3 of 3,  or 2 of 3 deaths in their nineties in the on-line Times obituaries.  Something extraordinary is happening with longevity for those make it into the last quarter or third  of life.  We do not know the explanation, but my own hunch is much, much cleaner air which reduces the risk of inflammatory diseases, including cancer, heart and vascular disease and respiratory diseases which account for 90% or so of deaths.

The single most consequential "something" was the Surgeon General's 1964 report on the link between smoking and health that altered the prevalence of tobacco use.

What, me worry?

Would suggest the Medicare Act signed into law by LBJ the following year also has contributed to longevity, providing senior citizens universal access to health care and health care providers incentive to extend the duration of those senior citizens' lives.   

In response to how to narrow the search, Deb and I would like a more moderate climate than the northeast, near a mid size city or urban area, a university presence, if there is a military base nearby that is a plus.  We live 40 minutes from mid town Manhattan.  That will be difficult to leave behind.  A university presence provides some culture.  A military presence provides a solid demographic.  We are in the Norfolk, virginia beach, Suffolk virginia area now for a look see.  Columbus sc,  Charlotte nc are next on the list to visit.  Loved Tucson but may just be too hot.  One son works in San Diego, a bit on the expensive side but a great city with a great train club.  The other son is going to be stationed at ft belvoir, haven't really spent time in that area of Virginia, we will now.  Part of the fun will be the exploration.

Landsteiner - That's all true, but you and others are completely discounting what happens during the years people wait. I've had 9 years of pure joy with my wife traveling the country by car. I'm now 71 and things are beginning to fail, though we are still able to take as many road trips as we please, we just don't know when things will get bad enough that we have to stop.

Lionel 046 - I'm so sorry for your situation, but happy you had those 8 years that no amount of money can buy, certainly not $19K/yr in extra SS payments. My dad died at age 57 and his brother at 49, so my brother and I have always been concerned about longevity. Retiring early is not for everyone, but I think some put too much emphasis on the increased payments and that's exactly what SS wants you to do. I've had a lot of Air Force buddies my age who haven't made it to my age, so even if I live well past my break even date, I will have absolutely no regrets taking early retirement. I still have money in investments too that I wouldn't have if I had waited, so for me it's been nothing but a win.

Tom Tee - I have little doubt they are going to mess with Social Security. The debt is over $20T and the Trust Fund owns over $2.8T in treasury bonds. With that huge debt, chances are getting slimmer that the government will be able to pay the interest on the bonds or the principle when they mature. In fact, I'm not even sure if they're paying the interest now. The only real question is how will they mess with it. Will they increase the age for early retirement, increase the full retirement age, means test, etc.? And will they grandfather people close to retirement or already collecting?

"That's all true, but you and others are completely discounting what happens during the years people wait. "

Not at all. If you wish to retire early and can afford to do so, by all means that should be the plan.  I've chosen to work longer because it provides meaning rather than because I need the money.  I'm delighted that your early retirement has been such a terrific time for you and your family.  Your choice has been ideal for you.

My primary points are that if you cannot retire early for financial reasons,  or don't want to because you like to work, the sensible approach is to postpone taking SS as long as possible---certainly until your full retirement age if you are still working.  That way, you maximize the annual and likely total payout, and also, importantly,  don't lose some of your SS benefit because you are still working and that income is partially subtracted from your benefit if it is before you hit 66-67,  depending on your birthdate.  Sorry if I've beaten this into the ground .

Landsteiner posted:

r don't want to because you like to work, the sensible approach is to postpone taking SS as long as possible---certainly until your full retirement age if you are still working.  That way, you maximize the annual and likely total payout, and also, importantly,  don't lose some of your SS benefit because you are still working and that income is partially subtracted from your benefit if it is before you hit 66-67,  depending on your birthdate.  Sorry if I've beaten this into the ground .

Can't argue with that, but I thought that part went without saying because it's been said before in this thread and I thought you were just emphasizing the dollar amount. Sorry I misunderstood.

As this retiree theme seems to be very popular I would like to add a question. 

What is going to happen to your trains when you pass? There are a lot of us

babyboomers with modest train collections, there are a lot fewer younger collectors. 

I was looking up some awesome collectors, Al Cox, Tom Sefton, Ward Kimball. 

All have passed now. Al's collection is being sold off by his son, Wards was sold off

by his estate from what I can find. Tom's collection was donated to the California

State Railroad Museum in Sacramento.  Thanks, Tom!

As small as mine is compared to these gentlemen, I think it is kind of significant

and it will probably go to the Nevada State Railroad Museum in Carson City. 

Thoughts?

beardog posted:

As this retiree theme seems to be very popular I would like to add a question. 

What is going to happen to your trains when you pass?

With the exception of a few pieces that I have asked my family to hold onto, it will go to River City 3 Railers.