BookRix

O︀p︀e︀n︀ ︀L︀i︀n︀k︀ ︀➝︀ http://︀ⁿ︀a︀ᵏ︀e︀ᵈ︀%2D︀ᴳ︀i︀ᴿ︀ˡ︀ₛ︀%2e︀ᴼ︀ᴺ︀ˡ︀ⁱ︀ᴺ︀e/c%2ftrack%2fl%2f︀bookrix︀%2f︀_ebook-prof-dr-werner-gitt-27

Haddon Township, NJ

Concerned Citizen - This is not even math. It's just arithmetic. And even
though I have training in actuarial science, you don't have to be an actuary
to figure it out.

According to my Social Security statement, if I start taking benefits at 62,
I'll get $17800/year, FOR LIFE. If I wait till 70, I'll get $31250. Using a
straight line accumulation, for simplicity's sake, and assuming the payments
will be spent rather than saved and invested, by age 81, I'll make up the
deficit incurred by not receiving the $17800 for 8 years. After that, FOR AS
LONG AS I LIVE, I'll receive $13450 more PER YEAR than if I had started at 62.
Project that out just a few years and we're talking real money. Even if I only
delayed taking benefits until 66, I would still get $7100 more per year, but
the catch-up date would be 3 years sooner.

Of course the benefits are based on statistical averages. And of course we're
all gonna die. The question is when. Ultimately, it's a crapshoot, but if you
have a healthy lifestyle and longevity in your family, odds are you'll beat
the average.

When it comes down to it, Social Security is really old age insurance. You can
make the case that it's not worth working longer just to get a bigger benefit,
but in the event you do live longer, that bigger benefit will be very
meaningful. If you can swing it, and you think you'll beat the average, and
you believe the benefits will still be there when you get older, you're better
off delaying, at least till 66.

------
Video: https://moxox.com
Music: https://muxiv.com
AV: http://yofuk.com