Post #484 by sutton on the Retirement Investing board

Personal Finance Topics / Retirement Investing

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (51)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 3

The lower-earner should take benefits at 62, increasing money available to do stuff (like travel) without rocketing up (usually) into a higher tax bracket. It also buffers against market fluctuations if you're living off of your investments. Then the higher earner would take them at 70. When one spouse expires, the surviving spouse can opt to retain the higher benefit payout of the two.

Seemed like a reasonable, conservative strategy to us.

Concur, planning on doing the same.

Replying only because there's one nuance I haven't seen addressed on this thread: the assumption that everyone will meet their actuarial survival.

If you're in the lower/higher earning couples situation above, then survivor waiting until age 70 or when their median survival is less than 9-10 years makes the most sense. No sense in leaving all that on the table.

-- sutton
(retired oncologist, so)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (51)

Prev | Next

Announcements

Retirement Investing FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.