Rough estimate for RMD is 4% every year.
Retirement questions
- Thread starter AKBill
- Start date
Brad W
En-Route
I made up a little spreadsheet a couple of months ago, trying to make sense of the question...take SS at 62 or wait
based on the numbers at that time, if I were to have retired then.
and looking at it in terms of getting the most back out of it by the time I check out...
and dollars are "today's dollars", not adjusted for future inflation
If I start taking SS at 62yo, my total cumulative take will fall behind if I live past 77
it makes zero sense to take it at 63 or 64
taking it at age 65 ONLY makes sense if I check out at age 78
taking it staring at age 66 makes sense if I check out at age 79 or 80
it makes no sense to take it at ages 67, 68, or 69
and taking it at age 70 is only advantageous if I live to 81 or more
and another intersting trivia point is my break even age
when will I get out of it everything that I put in + what my employers put in on my behalf...
I break even at 75 years old if I start taking SS at age 62 to 66
break even at 76 if I start SS at 67
break even at 77 starting at 68, 69, or 70
taking starting at 62 vs waiting till 70 is a significantly lower total once i start getting up in age....Monthly check will be just over a quarter MM more if I live to 90, and nearly half a million more if I live to 100
But at that point a half a million dollars won't have as much value as it does today so it's really not as significant, I reckon....
and with the idea that tomorrow is never guaranteed, I'm not seeing a lot of good sense in waiting past 62. I'm thinking that I might as well start taking out as soon as I can
but then again, I can probably live quite a while before I really NEED the money...if I ever do.
based on the numbers at that time, if I were to have retired then.
and looking at it in terms of getting the most back out of it by the time I check out...
and dollars are "today's dollars", not adjusted for future inflation
If I start taking SS at 62yo, my total cumulative take will fall behind if I live past 77
it makes zero sense to take it at 63 or 64
taking it at age 65 ONLY makes sense if I check out at age 78
taking it staring at age 66 makes sense if I check out at age 79 or 80
it makes no sense to take it at ages 67, 68, or 69
and taking it at age 70 is only advantageous if I live to 81 or more
and another intersting trivia point is my break even age
when will I get out of it everything that I put in + what my employers put in on my behalf...
I break even at 75 years old if I start taking SS at age 62 to 66
break even at 76 if I start SS at 67
break even at 77 starting at 68, 69, or 70
taking starting at 62 vs waiting till 70 is a significantly lower total once i start getting up in age....Monthly check will be just over a quarter MM more if I live to 90, and nearly half a million more if I live to 100
But at that point a half a million dollars won't have as much value as it does today so it's really not as significant, I reckon....
and with the idea that tomorrow is never guaranteed, I'm not seeing a lot of good sense in waiting past 62. I'm thinking that I might as well start taking out as soon as I can
but then again, I can probably live quite a while before I really NEED the money...if I ever do.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2011
- Messages
- 5,482
- Location
- GDK & SBS
- Display Name
- Geezer
- Home Airfield
- GDK Greene County
I started SS when I reached full retirement age which I think was 65. Sole reason was simple. No calculations about break even, etc. I just didn’t want the amount paid to be reduced if I ever earned any more money from 62 to 65.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 27,383
- Display Name
- Bob Noel
- Home Airfield
- KBED
One was to think about when to take SS:
For every year you wait to take SS, the amount of your SS benefit increases. I can't remember the year over year increase until "full retirement" age, but I think it's about 5%. And from "full retirement" until age 70, the increase is just under 8%. This ignores COLAs and inflation... just think about it in constant dollars.
Assuming you retire at 62. If the funds you have available for income are earning less than SS increases, you will be better off in the long term taking income from those funds and delaying the start of SS benefits. If your retirement funds are earning more than 5% or 8%, then you will be better off taking the SS benefits now and let the retirement money continue to get their good return.
Complicating the decision process is whether or not your income is needed to support anyone else.
For every year you wait to take SS, the amount of your SS benefit increases. I can't remember the year over year increase until "full retirement" age, but I think it's about 5%. And from "full retirement" until age 70, the increase is just under 8%. This ignores COLAs and inflation... just think about it in constant dollars.
Assuming you retire at 62. If the funds you have available for income are earning less than SS increases, you will be better off in the long term taking income from those funds and delaying the start of SS benefits. If your retirement funds are earning more than 5% or 8%, then you will be better off taking the SS benefits now and let the retirement money continue to get their good return.
Complicating the decision process is whether or not your income is needed to support anyone else.
There are a number of RMD calculators out there. What I don't like about those calculations is they are a fixed amount with limited adjustments allowed. I had used the same RMD calculators for some 72(t) distributions early in my retirement and would prefer to have more flexibility in tax requirements when my age 73 RMD come online. As they say, 1st world problems...
And just to throw out there, the reason I didn't start my SS bennies at 62 was due to my ACA income management since those also are a fixed amount. But I will start when I sign up for medicare.
Brad W
En-Route
Now that's an interesting twist taht I had not yet considered.
So based on my July numbers, my SS increase was this
a 6.94% increase, delaying to 63
a 7.12% increase, delaying from 63 to 64
etc...
Interesting that it's not linear in that fashion. I find that curious. Probably some heavy statistics about life expectency and other things burried in there. Seems clear that they are expecting me to not make 70, and if I do that I won't make it past 80 where I'll start profiting from the delay.
and why such a tiny jump from 67 to 68?
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 27,383
- Display Name
- Bob Noel
- Home Airfield
- KBED
huh
I'm old enough that the SSA statements didn't start the year by year amount for the age 62 to 65 period until after I turned 62. The numbers in my SSA statement was if starting at 62, full retirement (66 and 7 months), and age 70. I don't have one that shows year by year until I was already over 63. In any case, each year delaying meant a payment around 7.5% higher than the previous year. (constant dollars)
Note that the calculation might have assumed (correctly) that I wasn't going to work... don't know if that effects their estimate.
DaleB
Final Approach
It's true that your monthly benefit increases the longer you wait to start receiving SS. SO if you wait from 62 to 65, your monthly benefit goes up... but it takes a while to recoup the three years of payments you didn't get. I figured that break-even point to be somewhere between 12 and 15 or 16 years, if I remember correctly, so you'd be betting you'll live for the number of years you delay, plus at least that many more... and they're betting you won't. Don't ignore opportunity cost. If you're not getting your $X in SS payments, then you're withdrawing $X elsewhere, from places where it may well be earning more than the potential increases in SS payouts.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 8, 2015
- Messages
- 17,446
- Location
- Santa Barbara, CA
- Display Name
- Luvflyin
- Home Airfield
- KVUO
Kinda. But I was retired and working at the same time. Retired from one job drawing the pension and working a new job. That added up to a little more than the income from the old job.
MooneyDriver78
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4,928
- Display Name
- Tom
- Home Airfield
- KSUA
I think if you’re dying early you won’t be thinking about how you should have taken SS at 62. On the other hand for those of us with no pension, a substantial SS that is inflation adjusted might be comforting if we make it to our upper 80s.
- Joined
- May 29, 2014
- Messages
- 4,754
- Display Name
- Kayoh@190
Nothing specific - just a general feeling. My Dad's side of the family isn't known for longevity and my Mom's side has a couple of members with dementia (my Mom included). And then there's my job. If I go the distance I'll have 40 years of 500+ hours/yr in the flight levels. That's a lot of time sitting on my ass being bombarded by cosmic radiation. And half of that will (likely) have been spent flying long haul, which isn't exactly circadian rhythm friendly. I try to eat halfway decently, I'm active, hit the gym while on the road, etc, but the sum of everything tends to make me think that anything past 75 is gravy.
The good news is that the timing of me taking a dirt nap doesn't affect the financial side of my planning - we're unlikely to outlive our money. If I retire at 55 and live to 100, misjudging the timeline just means I had another couple of decades to enjoy not having to go into work.
wilkersk
En-Route
"Healthy life expectancy" - now there's a topic that deserves equal billing with RMDs and Roth conversions.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2010
- Messages
- 1,679
- Location
- Central Florida
- Display Name
- jbarrass
- Home Airfield
- 06FD
For simplistic SS decisions the cross-over age is 82 (by design). If you die before age 82, you're better off taking it as early as possible. If you live beyond, later is better.
Of course it's not really that simple. Before full retirement (66 years 9 months - for most of us) there are tax implications if you have other income. Also, and this is the bigger issue, is if someone else is depending on your payments. If so, generally later is better, unless they are going to die before you.
It's actually pretty easy if you just figure out when you are going to die and build a spreadsheet. I've heard that's easier said than done.
Of course it's not really that simple. Before full retirement (66 years 9 months - for most of us) there are tax implications if you have other income. Also, and this is the bigger issue, is if someone else is depending on your payments. If so, generally later is better, unless they are going to die before you.
It's actually pretty easy if you just figure out when you are going to die and build a spreadsheet. I've heard that's easier said than done.
I can respect that with only 800hrs in 14-16hr sorties launching at 10p local every 3rd night and another 1600+ for daylight ops on the E-3. We also had a 3MW microwave set to high the entire time, too.
Unusually high number of dudes in my peer group got non-Hodgkins lymphoma; I counted myself lucky with a rare, but benign thyroid tumor that resulted in just a pill a day everyday for the rest of my life.
As my peer group ages, we’re starting the see the effects of long term cosmic and other radiation exposure due to the amount of time we spent in our careers in the meat of GWOT.
Mahneuvers
Pattern Altitude
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2020
- Messages
- 1,665
- Display Name
- Mahneuvers
Contrary to what I earlier posted, yesterday I listened to a Mind Pump podcast discussing a study of twins suggesting genes plays a much smaller role in longevity.
DaleB
Final Approach
Partly depends on how far you’re willing to go to prove a point.
Not me. I was involuntarily retired at 58 and while I regretted the deplorable way it happened, I never was unhappy once I came to accept it.
What I found when discussing early retirement with a number of people prior to and after my retirement was that most narrowed down the perceived risks into 2 categories: financial and health. Almost all, except for a few with documented health issues, placed a much higher risk aversion on the financial side than the health side. One person went so far as to include the "bus effect" which he defined as even healthy people get run over by a bus on occasion. So as others had done, I retired earlier with less money as I had more direct control over my finances than my health or the bus schedule. It was definitely a lot more risk to assume than I wanted to especially with keeping my mortgage, but there were always options to mitigate it if something went south.
And the topic of when to take SS was almost as equally discussed. The majority consensus was unless SS was an integral part of funding your retirement, take it at 62 and don't look back. Regardless, the best advices I got on retirement were from others who were closer at the time than me, just retired, or been retired less than 10 years. So if anyone is really looking for some real-life intel start discussing it with those you have relations with. I was fortunate as I had several dozen co-workers who preceded me in retirement and were very generous in sharing their experiences and in some cases their personal trails with retiring. It sure was an eye opening experience for me.
And the topic of when to take SS was almost as equally discussed. The majority consensus was unless SS was an integral part of funding your retirement, take it at 62 and don't look back. Regardless, the best advices I got on retirement were from others who were closer at the time than me, just retired, or been retired less than 10 years. So if anyone is really looking for some real-life intel start discussing it with those you have relations with. I was fortunate as I had several dozen co-workers who preceded me in retirement and were very generous in sharing their experiences and in some cases their personal trails with retiring. It sure was an eye opening experience for me.
Velocity173
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 16,369
- Display Name
- Velocity173
It seems mostly the fighter guys or those in airframes putting out high radiation (radars). Kinda glad I never got assigned an EH unit. The mission seemed cool but that thing bristled with antennas.
Cancer in Military Pilots and Aircrews Will Be Studied Under Newly Signed Law
President Donald Trump signed a law last week ordering the review of the prevalence of cancer and deaths by cancer in fixed-wing aircraft crews.
MooneyDriver78
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4,928
- Display Name
- Tom
- Home Airfield
- KSUA
He can thank his mother for that.
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 27,383
- Display Name
- Bob Noel
- Home Airfield
- KBED
ah, not so fast. It was male relatives on both his father's side and his mother's side.
wilkersk
En-Route
Or maybe he avoided heart disease and diabetes because of a healthy lifestyle and plenty of exercise.
wilkersk
En-Route
I suspect that people who don't plan for a retirement "life-style" or people who strongly associate their career with their self image may be prone to retirement buyer's remorse.
Thanks to Bill Clinton, and later to Osama bin Laden, I got to learn early that it is unhealthy to define yourself by what you do to earn a paycheck. I pulled the plug at 60 and fully self-funded my retirement for the first 5 years, till I could begin drawing a pension and full social security check. My wife fusses a little because she say's I'm busier now that when I was working. But I've never regretted a day of retirement.
FastEddieB
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2013
- Messages
- 11,865
- Location
- Lenoir City, TN/Mineral Bluff, GA
- Display Name
- Fast Eddie B
- Home Airfield
- Big T Airport (80TN)
At the police academy, we had a psychologist come in. I recall they stated the average retired officer has a lifespan of about 5 years after retirement. I’m not sure that’s accurate, but the point was exactly that - not to define yourself by your job. The antidote? As you say, to just see your profession as a job, not who you are, and to cultivate hobbies and pastimes and relationships outside of your day job.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
It's a disgrace the level of stonewalling the DoD and VA incur when it comes to acknowledging, let alone addressing, the health impacts of high powered non-ionizing radiation. It's anything but benign. It doesn't take the plausible deniability of of "double blind" potato to see it, given the outsized level of cases in the very controlled, medically pre-screened out the wazoo demographic in question. Similar dynamics exist in the maintenance world, in the emitter sub-sector.
hindsight2020
Final Approach
The proposition of doing something agnostically for money, aka the maximalist upper limit of the "work to live" mantra , can be equally miserable, uninspiring affair. My wife works with those types all day (nursing). BasicTM, consumption/pop-culture/escapist-distraction-coming-to-town obsessed, easy-come easy-go paycheck chaser types doing the *mediocre (*statistical meaning) effort/outcome. Daydreaming about "better" material lives while complaining all day about the job they pursued for a quick above-the-median-line cheque. It's not exactly Shangri-La to work with those people. There are those types too in aviation, though they are less of a percentage, since nursing is even lower barrier to entry than aviation, and that's already saying something (ATP is already a joke).
People also need to learn the distinction between i)workaholics, ii) people emotionally invested in their work, and iii) people economically unable to afford to retire. Those are intersectional circles, not concentric. "work to live" workers are included in that Venn diagram too. In short: we're all innocent in Shawshank.
People also need to learn the distinction between i)workaholics, ii) people emotionally invested in their work, and iii) people economically unable to afford to retire. Those are intersectional circles, not concentric. "work to live" workers are included in that Venn diagram too. In short: we're all innocent in Shawshank.
Last edited:
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
Maybe he’s adopted?
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 7, 2016
- Messages
- 21,190
- Location
- Central Florida
- Display Name
- Half Fast
- Home Airfield
- KGIF
Or maybe the men in his family who died young were all shot by jealous husbands?
MooneyDriver78
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2013
- Messages
- 4,928
- Display Name
- Tom
- Home Airfield
- KSUA
I know several cops, that’s not true for them. They have great pensions and seem to be enjoying life.
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 7, 2016
- Messages
- 21,190
- Location
- Central Florida
- Display Name
- Half Fast
- Home Airfield
- KGIF
How many years do psychologists get to live post-retirement?
Half Fast
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 7, 2016
- Messages
- 21,190
- Location
- Central Florida
- Display Name
- Half Fast
- Home Airfield
- KGIF
So does anyone’s retirement plan involve the Louvre?
Just asking.....
Just asking.....
wilkersk
En-Route
I'm strictly a look but don't touch enthusiast of the arts. Besides, neither art history nor alternative commodities valuation were particularly outstanding academic skills I listed on my resume.
wilkersk
En-Route
Don't know. But I'm sure its longer than psychiatrists.
Gilbert Buettner
Cleared for Takeoff
Many years ago, I met an 85-year-old woman who was still working full time selling life insurance. I asked her what was the secret. She said, holding up her cocktail, "First of all, one of these every day isn't going to hurt you. And second, don't believe the bastards when they tell you to slow down."
I just turned 80 last month, still in good health and still working as a CFI. Insurance companies are starting to be a factor, but until they tell me I have to quit, or I can't pass a medical exam... well, no plans to slow down. Do what you enjoy, as long as you can.
I just turned 80 last month, still in good health and still working as a CFI. Insurance companies are starting to be a factor, but until they tell me I have to quit, or I can't pass a medical exam... well, no plans to slow down. Do what you enjoy, as long as you can.
wilkersk
En-Route
When I first started as a new (40 year old retread) medical imaging tech, I worked in the OR under an orthopedic surgeon. He was 82 years old, the holder of several patents related to ankle replacement surgical devices and implants, an active teaching physician for a prominent medical school, and an attending physician at a level I trauma center.
He was the most pleasant, and least stuffy surgeon I've ever met and an easy guy to work for in the OR. He quit the OR when he no longer felt he was on his game. But I'm pretty sure he was active in the medical field right up until the end.
Dana
Final Approach
Our local AME was still doing medicals (and flying his Bonanza!) into his 90s. He was retired from his family practice but had an office in the back of his T-hangar behind the Bo. He finally quit flying after a couple of minor taxiing accidents, and quit doing medicals when covid hit, but still drove to the airport every Saturday until moving into a nursing home shortly before he died. Always smiling, and fond of telling some pretty rough jokes.
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2010
- Messages
- 1,679
- Location
- Central Florida
- Display Name
- jbarrass
- Home Airfield
- 06FD
^^^ so much this.
There's a twist on that, though. Genes have little to do with it unless you live to 70 (or 75--I forget which). Then they play a big role. (Of course, it isn't a sharp change--basically the longer you live, the more important the underlying genetics are.) Having reached 75 and still being healthy, I can expect to match my familial average of 92.
I'm still doing geology. I hope to continue, but I'm thinking my knee will have something to say about that.
luvflyin
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- May 8, 2015
- Messages
- 17,446
- Location
- Santa Barbara, CA
- Display Name
- Luvflyin
- Home Airfield
- KVUO
Is that the other knee? Didn’t you get one of them replaced?