All things STOCKS

[walkenvol]

I can’t decide. And then they make the choice even more difficult by upping that annual increase from 6% to 8% after age 67.

If high investment returns were a guarantee then starting ASAP makes the most sense. Build up a big enough account value before starting to take benefits and the returns could more than offset the extra payments available by waiting.

Dave Ramsey’s advice is everyone should start drawing at 62 regardless. He also says just invest $1 million into good mutual fund and you will get 12% annual returns then you can draw off 10% annually to live on - my experience doesn’t support a 10% spending rate.

Personally, I keep trying to diversify every facet of my retirement portfolio. The majority of it I self invest, yet I have 2 separate accounts where I utilize 2 different financial advisors. The thought is that 3 heads are better than one. Most of my working years I stayed 100% equities but have started moving some of that into CD’s, fixed rate annuities, and structured notes for interest payments. I’m planning to wait till 70 to start my SS to gain a larger guaranteed monthly benefit not tied to the markets. Reducing my equity exposure seems prudent to me at this time, but I’m likely sacrificing some amount of growth for lower risks?

 

[walkenvol]

We had a trust. I have a younger brother by 4 years and a younger sister by 12 years. My sister took hers and paid the taxes. My brother took his and rolled it into an inherited IRA account with his broker to defer the taxes. I purposely didn't take mine for two years, the maximum allowed by MetLife, the holder of the IRA. My 1/3 stayed with metlife in my dad's name for the 2 years.

Pretty unlikely a large outfit like MetLife wouldn’t know the IRS rules on inheritance of their products so I’d guess your good to start your 10 year clock when you received the money into your name.

 

[walkenvol]

There’s a Social Security thread in (I think) the Politics Forum that does a lot of deep diving into who is entitled to collect SS payments. It’s why I refuse to follow the government’s narrative that SS withholdings from paychecks isn’t a tax.

At the beginning none of the retirees contributed. Giving benefits to immigrants (especially illegal immigrants) is pretty much an unfair handout. I think that there are a couple of distinct trust funds though. Retiree and survivor/disabled benefits. It’s a tax. EVERYBODY should pay the 6.2% on ALL of their wages.

I prefer to stay on the investment related discussion here. But I go into the political rabbit hole now and then.

I’m really just interested in my best options on starting SS as a married couple. Deep diving into a system that’s beyond my influence isn’t much help to me.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

Dave Ramsey’s advice is everyone should start drawing at 62 regardless. He also says just invest $1 million into good mutual fund and you will get 12% annual returns then you can draw off 10% annually to live on - my experience doesn’t support a 10% spending rate.

Personally, I keep trying to diversify every facet of my retirement portfolio. The majority of it I self invest, yet I have 2 separate accounts where I utilize 2 different financial advisors. The thought is that 3 heads are better than one. Most of my working years I stayed 100% equities but have started moving some of that into CD’s, fixed rate annuities, and structured notes for interest payments. I’m planning to wait till 70 to start my SS to gain a larger guaranteed monthly benefit not tied to the markets. Reducing my equity exposure seems prudent to me at this time, but I’m likely sacrificing some amount of growth for lower risks?

I disagree with Dave on the rationale behind taking at 62 but in all liklihood Im taking at 62 because the return is so poor with SS

You should never assume 12% returns for any period amd should never be 100% in equities at that age.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

I’m really just interested in my best options on starting SS as a married couple. Deep diving into a system that’s beyond my influence isn’t much help to me.

The Politics Forum is full of triggered nut jobs.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

If you come from history of 90+ family, you don't have enough funds built up on your own, or have modest income, then waiting to 67 or 70 might be best....

If you've been close to cap or you have significant funds saved up, you will be better taking at 62 and investing it....

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

I disagree with Dave on the rationale behind taking at 62 but in all liklihood Im taking at 62 because the return is so poor with SS

You should never assume 12% returns for any period amd should never be 100% in equities at that age.

I try to not worry about SS benefit payments. I’ll be glad if those benefits and Medicare take care of all of my healthcare costs as an old feller. If there’s enough leftover to hit Chipotle’s now and again, then I’m good.

What I’m really hoping for is excellent autonomous vehicle technology. Takes the “take grandpa’s keys away from him” a lesser concern. And every week it seems like some elderly person wanders off in their car only to be found dead off the road somewhere. I’m expecting the AVs to keep track of my whereabouts (and an Apple Watch) as well as getting me to the grocery store and medical appointments.

 

[walkenvol]

If you come from history of 90+ family, you don't have enough funds built up on your own, or have modest income, then waiting to 67 or 70 might be best....

If you've been close to cap or you have significant funds saved up, you will be better taking at 62 and investing it....

So you have zero interest in having any portion of your savings invested in a guaranteed 6% return for 5 years that jumps to an 8% return for 3 years? If the answer is NO, then you should take it at 62 IF you have quit working.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

If you come from history of 90+ family, you don't have enough funds built up on your own, or have modest income, then waiting to 67 or 70 might be best....

If you've been close to cap or you have significant funds saved up, you will be better taking at 62 and investing it....

Taxes are another big variable.

SS benefits shouldn’t be taxable. At least after the full benefits age.

Speaking of taxes and investments - how did the death tax ever get raised to the current levels. In hind sight tgat was quite an accomplishment. Who did that? Reagan? Clinton? Bush 2?

 

[walkenvol]

Taxes are another big variable.

SS benefits shouldn’t be taxable. At least after the full benefits age.

Speaking of taxes and investments - how did the death tax ever get raised to the current levels. In hind sight tgat was quite an accomplishment. Who did that? Reagan? Clinton? Bush 2?

My impression is we arrived at the current levels due to farms and small businesses being sold off because the heirs couldn’t afford to pay the tax bill to keep them. This started receiving a lot of attention 40 years back. Now, I think its been hijacked by the wealthy to pass along wealth unburdened by taxation.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

Taxes are another big variable.

SS benefits shouldn’t be taxable. At least after the full benefits age.

Speaking of taxes and investments - how did the death tax ever get raised to the current levels. In hind sight tgat was quite an accomplishment. Who did that? Reagan? Clinton? Bush 2?

Bush 2 lowered the rate where it phased out for 2010 but reverted back to 2000 numbers in 2011. Obama lowered rate and bumped up exclusion from 2000.

Trump bumped up exclusion from Obama.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Bush 2 lowered the rate where it phased out for 2010 but reverted back to 2000 numbers in 2011. Obama lowered rate and bumped up exclusion from 2000.

Trump bumped up exclusion from Obama.

Didn’t I hear Biden suggesting lowering the exclusion to a million or 2? Maybe I’m mixing that up with repealing the stepped up cost basis rules.

I don’t like any death tax. The amount collected isn’t really that significant and capital is being taken away from those that are innovators or provide capital and then having it wasted by the government. Must. Resist. Discussing. Politics.

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

It's tough not to discuss politics at times in here. You have TSM, where the biggest risk in the company is political. You have Intel, who is so far behind the competition but they are getting a lifeline with CHIPS but delays/redtape in CHIPS changes investment thesis with Intel. You have NEE, which is having a nice run up based on how poorly IRA was written and what a boondoggle that is going to be for them.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

It's tough not to discuss politics at times in here. You have TSM, where the biggest risk in the company is political. You have Intel, who is so far behind the competition but they are getting a lifeline with CHIPS but delays/redtape in CHIPS changes investment thesis with Intel. You have NEE, which is having a nice run up based on how poorly IRA was written and what a boondoggle that is going to be for them.

Exactly. Politics and economics/investing has an endless overlap. When is it leaning into socialism as opposed to stimulus (I know - socialism = government owned means of production)? Police versus private security. Government regulations. Government housing. Transit systems. Energy production (Obama’s solar industry hand outs). Education (Trump’s “university”).

 

[Go aeiou]

I’ve been watching YouTubes on when to start taking SS. But they’re all over the place. Single versus married and continuing to work after electing to start taking benefits make the options even more complicated.

A couple of takeaways I’ve learned:

I used to think what is the point of the full benefits age (67 for everybody born in 1960 or later)? But there are at least 2 uses of the FBA in the calculations. If working while taking SS benefits BEFORE 67 then there is a substantial hit to the worker on their taxes. Also, taking the SS benefits before 67 reduces the payments by 6% per year but AFTER age 67 then the INCREASE in benefits is 8% per year. So if starting at age 62 the payments are reduced by 30% (5 years). Waiting until 70 increases the benefits by 24% (3years).

There is no reason at all waiting until after age 70 to begin taking SS payments. Everybody needs to start taking benefits no later than when they turn 70. Otherwise you are donating your money to the government.

You do not have to wait until an annual birthday anniversary. The calculations are adjusted EVERY month. So taking benefits early is a 0.5% reduction each month. Delaying taking benefits after age 67 increases benefits by 0.67% per month.

The break even for waiting until age 70 is somewhere in your mid 70s. If you’re going to live into your 80s, 90s, and beyond then the formula suggests to wait. If you won’t live long, start taking SS ASAP.
=====================
Boomers born before 1960 need to consider the scenarios with a full retirement age to be less than 67.

Brokers and other advisors have calculators available to asses each individuals situation.

If only we knew.

 

[Firebirdparts]

Taxes are another big variable.

SS benefits shouldn’t be taxable. At least after the full benefits age.

Speaking of taxes and investments - how did the death tax ever get raised to the current levels. In hind sight tgat was quite an accomplishment. Who did that? Reagan? Clinton? Bush 2?

I paid a ton of attention to this. It was all congress. I was pretty shocked that they even tried to pull it off. I figured they'd all get thrown out by non-rich voters, but of course, nobody ever does.

the presidents, at least to my eye, just didn't need or want to be associated with it.

 

[Carl Pickens]

I disagree with Dave on the rationale behind taking at 62 but in all liklihood Im taking at 62 because the return is so poor with SS

You should never assume 12% returns for any period amd should never be 100% in equities at that age.

Yeah my first thought was Dave is FOS

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

Yeah my first thought was Dave is FOS

I think there's a lot of good ideas Dave teaches. This isn't one of them...

 

[Carl Pickens]

I think there's a lot of good ideas Dave teaches. This isn't one of them...

No kidding… if we could all pick a MF earning 12% on a regular basis retirement would come much sooner

 

[BigOrangeMojo]

No kidding… if we could all pick a MF earning 12% on a regular basis retirement would come much sooner

12% isn't impossible but to assume that's what you will get for next 50 years is a fool's game....

 

[Go aeiou]

I try to not worry about SS benefit payments. I’ll be glad if those benefits and Medicare take care of all of my healthcare costs as an old feller. If there’s enough leftover to hit Chipotle’s now and again, then I’m good.

What I’m really hoping for is excellent autonomous vehicle technology. Takes the “take grandpa’s keys away from him” a lesser concern. And every week it seems like some elderly person wanders off in their car only to be found dead off the road somewhere. I’m expecting the AVs to keep track of my whereabouts (and an Apple Watch) as well as getting me to the grocery store and medical a ppointments.

Might want to consider a Medicare supplement plan and a Plan D (drugs). Lots of us spend $10k+ annually for drugs. That's even with a drug plan.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Might want to consider a Medicare supplement plan and a Plan D (drugs). Lots of us spend $10k+ annually for drugs. That's even with a drug plan.

I haven’t checked into any of that yet. It’s still a couple of years away.

Long term care in nursing homes tends to take every last cent from most people. I guess the work around is an irrevocable trust - but those come with their own set of disadvantages.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

NVDA is off another 3%. That’s something like a 12% fall in just a couple of days. They sure drop fast. There will probably be a lot of selling on the way back up. Without some sort of event it could take months. It might be time to be shopping in the other 493 S&P stocks that are Mag 7s.

Industrial names could start moving with the trillions of government stimulus ramping up. SWK anybody? They sure have a lot of brands. They manufacture the small John Deere lawn tractors (which I’m in the market for).

 

[Velo Vol]

NVDA is off another 3%. That’s something like a 12% fall in just a couple of days.

The meme stock party is over.

 

[Majors]

NVDA is off another 3%. That’s something like a 12% fall in just a couple of days. They sure drop fast. There will probably be a lot of selling on the way back up. Without some sort of event it could take months. It might be time to be shopping in the other 493 S&P stocks that are Mag 7s.

Industrial names could start moving with the trillions of government stimulus ramping up. SWK anybody? They sure have a lot of brands. They manufacture the small John Deere lawn tractors (which I’m in the market for).

I’ve been holding off after the split…believe I’ll hold off a few more days.