bo peep wrote:
- quote -

Acually may be even less ! Work is 1.5 miles from home (3 x .40 = 1.20 x
20 = $24), take my own lunch (which I would eat anyway of course),
uniform provided by employer

- quote -

issue of health insurance may be the real reason to stay employed
until 65, then a question of working to "keep busy" for awhile. Also,
since my wife passed away unexpectedly 18 months ago, any plans we had
for retirement are gone, and I'm not sure when I'll get a new grip on
the future.

As "Skip" said, the right choice varies.

Thanks to all for the comments,
Reed

<<$50/mo exp>
That's a little hard to believe. If you figure 20 work days in a month,
that is $2.50 per day. It costs around $.40/mile to commute, which
comes out to a round trip of about 6 miles per day. And do you have to
buy extra clothing for work? Do you buy your lunch when working? etc.

<< = $600/mo ahead to keep working>
After taxes, that works out to about $2/hour

<<Even at age 66, $2000 - $1800 = $200 ahead>
No, if you are still working at 66, you still have to pay your
work-related expenses. Even if they are only $120, you would be working
for $0.00/hr ($200 - $80 withholding)

Even if you could achieve your unrealistic quote of $50/mo for
expenses, you would only be ahead $150, which would be around $90 after
withholding, or $.56/hr. Do you really want to be working for $.56/hr
at age 66?

John Cowart

On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 04:02:26 -0600, Reed <reedh[at]rmi.net> wrote:

- quote -

I realize you are being humorous, but there's enough truth here to
provoke a serious response.

When clients express something like this to me, I tell them that
personal finance is very simple. And I say that because it's based on
common sense. (This explains why some folks without formal education
or experience do quite well from the start.)

Things only become complicated when we are trying to justify the wrong
decision. The right choice for each of us - and it varies - is as
clear as spring water.




-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

bo peep wrote:
- quote -

OK, $2000/mo net inc - $1350/mo SS[at]62 - $50/mo exp = $600/mo ahead to
keep working

Even at age 66, $2000 - $1800 = $200 ahead (now being Medicare eligible
would add some to take-home pay as could cancel $140/mo pre-tax health
ins deduc)

And then there is the issue of SS payments being taxed once wages are
above certain amount.


- quote -

Yes, except current employer's plan is self-funded, allowing them to set
COBRA payment almost anywhere they want. Last employee who asked was
told $1200 per month for single coverage (Ouch, and plan has $750
deductible and 20% co-insurance already). I would probably need to
change jobs & find employer with "real" insurance co. coverage just long
enough (1 day) to qualify for COBRA on their plan. Six years ago I was
on regular insurance co COBRA for me and wife, was only $400 per month
with good plan !!

All of which means my brain starts to hurt when trying to comprehend and
analyze the tradeoffs !

--reed

"bo peep" <cowartmisc1[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1140706042.389681.11040[at]i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

Good idea but, depending on where you work and how much they currently
contribute, that could be REAL expensive.
--
Chris Cowles
Gainesville, FL

<<I'm thinking later, especially if still employed at about $33K/yr>
Do a calculation of (current monthly net income - your projected age 62
SS benefit - work-related expenses) and you might find that you are
only a few hundred $ a month ahead to continue working. Repeat based on
estimated age 63 benefit, etc.

<<age 62, needing group health insurance pre-Medicare.>
Remember that if you work to 63.5, you can COBRA your health insurance
for 1.5 years, which gets you to age 65 & Medicare.

John Cowart

David Moore wrote:
- quote -

what about single (widowed) man ????
I'm thinking later, especially if still employed at about $33K/yr, age
62, needing group health insurance pre-Medicare.

--reed

For some careful economic analysis of the timing of Social
Security benefits, go to the Boston College Center for Retirement
Research and read the paper by Alice Munnell (a leading expert)
and Mauricio Soto at
http://www.bc.edu/centers/crr/ib_35.shtml

The overall conclusion is that married women should take SS benefits
early, whereas married men and single women should take SS benefits
late.

David

<<If he were to pass away in 5 years, what would I be entitled to?
(his full amount??? )>
In 5 years you will be almost 67, so you would already be at your full
retirement age. From http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pubs/10084.html

"How much will I receive? The benefit amount is based on the earnings
of the person who died. The more the worker paid into Social Security,
the greater your benefits will be."

"Social Security uses the deceased worker's basic benefit amount and
calculates what percentage survivors are entitled to. The percentage
depends on the survivors' ages and relationship to the worker. Here
are the most typical situations:"

"A widow or widower, at full retirement age or older, receives 100
percent of the worker's basic benefit amount
A widow or widower, age 60 or older, but under full retirement age,
receives about 71-99 percent of the worker's basic benefit amount; or

A widow or widower, any age, with a child under age 16, receives 75
percent of the worker's benefit amount.
Children receive 75 percent of the worker's benefit amount."

John Cowart

Thanks! I guess what's compounding my confusion is that if I get SS
now, I'll get a half my hubby's SS reduced by taking it early. If he
were to pass away in 5 years, what would I be entitled to? (his full
amount??? ) Whatever the amount is...wouldn't it be reduced because I
took SS early?

I'm not saying this too well because I find it confusing. Is taking
less than half his amount now worth the reduction in receiving full
benefits later? I have no idea what I'm talking about LOL!!!

Sandy

The following has free online calculators that might help:
http://www.ssa.gov/planners/calculators.htm

For the more precise of the three calculators, one needs
detailed Social Security contribution info. It's not all
that overwhelming once one remembers that every year the
federal government mails a statement of how much was
contributed, year by year, and how much SS one can expect in
retirement. Figures are given in today's dollars but of
course adjust with inflation. I think the last mailing was
just a few weeks ago.

For info on spousal benefits, see
http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/yourspouse.htm
and
http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10035.html
and
http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/...p/enduser/std_
alp.php?p_sid=tl9cNJ*h , click on "Benefits" in the first
dropdown menu, then in the next dropdown window, click on
"Spouses benefits."

I vaguely recall surfing I think this site or looking at
others a few months ago, and surprisingly, there was a
strong financial argument for taking benefits starting at
62, rather than later (if I recall correctly). But do
double-check that.

"sandy" <fossilnut[at]isp.com> wrote in message
news:1140482876.456341.201090[at]g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

Generaly speaking, you must live MORE than 12 years after starting to
receive
SS benfits, to suffer any "theoretical" loss on future income. Having said
that,
there are three other consideration to be examined.

1)IF you NEED the income, then take it now.

2) If YOUR Life expectancy is less than 15 years, take it now

3) IF you have the wherewithal to INVEST rather than spend JUST that
current income, the EXTRA earnings will take that theoretical out
to about 20 to 25 years

Scott Burns, the financial columnist for the Dallas Morning News, has
written several excellent articles recently on this very topic. Read
them all for a balanced perspective.

Dave

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...2.967628d.html

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont....1f94af86.html

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...2.e32d545.html

If your husband is 77 years old and in not too good of health, it seems to
me that you should start receiving SS as soon as possible. Since you would
be getting his SS if/when he dies. Your can't get two checks after he dies
can you?
"sandy" <fossilnut[at]isp.com> wrote in message
news:1140482876.456341.201090[at]g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

In article <1140482876.456341.201090[at]g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> ,
"sandy" <fossilnut[at]isp.com> wrote:

- quote -

The problem with running the numbers is that the one piece of
information that you need to know is unknown--how long will you
live. Studies have shown that you need to live pretty long in
order to make up the money you lose by waiting until 65 or 66
to draw. Well into your late 70's. Some google searches or
a trip to your library should be able to turn up something
that confirms this and gives the exact break-even age.

In the long run, that is a mathematical side of what may
be a larger personal lifestyle issue. What makes you happy?
If you are happy waiting and getting a bigger check, then
so be it. If you want to get started now, then do it. That
is a lot better than worrying about the decision. You have
earned the right to do what makes you fell the most comfortable.

-john-

--
================================================== ====================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708 john[at]johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ====================

I'd appreciate your opinion as to when I should start drawing Social
Security. I'm almost 62 (in good health) and have not worked enough to
get it on my work record. My husband is 15 years older than me and I
will be getting it as his spouse. He is in fair health (had a minor
stroke but still cannot walk far and gets no exercise...and he has a
few other medical problems). If I start getting SS at age 62, I think
I'll get around $300/month. I'm not sure what happens when my husband
dies...but I believe that I would then get widow's SS but I think it
would be reduced if I started drawing SS early. I'm guessing you guys
know much more about this than I do.

So....should I start drawing it at age 62 or wait until full retirement
age of I think 66??? Hubby wants me to go ahead and get it now but I'm
trying to do the numbers (so far unsuccessfully) to figure out which
would be more advantageous. We have enough savings that we won't be
hurting if we wait. Appreciate some opinions.

Thanks!

Sandy