7 Social Security Myths That Can Cost You Serious Money

Im 52 and on Social Security Disability, how will collecting now effect me later???

Editor's note: Good question. As far as we can determine the question of when to collect for disabilities and survivor's benefits is not germane to the question of when to start collecting. For those benefits you start taking it when you qualify.

I agree with all of these. Regarding myth 5, two other comments: First, many boomers say they will take the early SS and maintain current spending so as to preserve and build other savings. The facts are that many end up treating this early SS as "free money" and increase their spending. Second, when reasonably secure retirement investments are not earning anywhere near 8% (which is what you earn by waiting), most economic experts agree that it makes more sense to spend low performing money to achieve the certain benefits of delayed claiming. Finally, I think a lot of boomers actually understand that these are myths but choose to ignore them because the lure of immediate gratification overpowers their rational thought.

Regarding point 4; even if you die before 78 (the break even point) you're not necessarily worse off if you wait as long as possible to claim. After all, you've had the higher cash flow each of those years you did survive. Even if you're single, does it really matter if you could have had a higher total if your standard of living was better those last years.

All points are certainly understandable, but they also assume your death age and/or other factors. First off, I strongly disagree with #7. My mother is 97, lives in assisted living and is going broke since she has/had a great deal of savings and income. But they take it all. She would have been better off near broke 6-8 years ago and enjoyed her dollars while she had them.

My father died at age 63 after retiring at 59. Both lived well until they death or in moms case she got too old (around late 80s) to enjoy any of it. Lastly, I don't want to continue my well paying career job past 62, I want to enjoy life then, hopefully into my 80s but if not, I want the time I have. Dollars are not the most important part of life at age 60 or older, time is. I say take the SS benefit as soon as you can, leave your other assets alone or as much as you can leave them and enjoy the standard of living you can/want and don't worry about dollars past say mid 80's. By then you will have slowed down at least some. Having a nice IRA and 401k or savings will make you a better investment in the long run anyway.

The difference between what you get at age 62 and age 65 is essentially an insurance premium. If you get $1,500/month for 36 months that is $43,200. If you get $2,000 at age 65 the breakeven point would be around 72 years of age if I am doing my math accurately. By taking the $1,500 at age 62 you are betting that you will not live for another 10 years which is the same thing as taking out insurance policy. That does not take into account inflation ($2,000/month will not be worth $2,000/month in 3 years) or the return on investment if you invested the $43,200 that you get by taking the $1,500 at age 62. Bottom line is that the calculation is a bit more complicated than saying $2,000/month is more than $1,500/month. If you think that you will live past 72 years of age, you don't have a good place to put that $43,200, and inflation will be low for the next 7 years, wait and take the $2,000 at 65. Just realize that you are gambling.

Interesting facts John We decided to take it at 62. Thats because although we have additional income and so are not dependent upon it, we wanted to be able to use it while we are still healthy and capable of travelling, etc. I had gone to see an actuary to look at various scenarios and was advised to take it sooner than later. The other deciding factor was the Part B costs of Medicare. Higher COMBINED MAGI - our combined annual filing income. The additioinal benefit - in our case, because of additional pension income - would have meant that we would pay an additional amount each month for Part B. So, all in all, we reckoned it was better to take it now rather than later. Each person/couple must look at the big picture - as you said - to make the decision. There is not "one size fits all" solution. thanks for the info., very helpful.

What I find interesting is how the financial pundents always seem to have the Silver Bullet plan for retirees but with the caveat to always seek out a Financial Advisor, educate yourself and believe Congress (who doesn't appear to care a whit about our senior CITIZENS), who can, will and regularly does change the goal posts on us...for our own good they tell us, certanly wouldn't change the SS benefits - out of fear we woud get upset. Yeah, they really care. They who have their own separate retirement plan, and no dog in the fight over SS - they don't even participate in. Nice. Remember, THEY care. They raise taxes, hand out free entitlements to the non-participants change the "pie-in-the-sky" corporate savings vehicle - scold us when we save too much, when we don't spend enough, scolds us in general all while telling us we MAY out live our savings (they wouldn't let us save more - remember?), that inflation may take a bigger chunk out of our dollars (remember they care?) and that we need to not strain the SSAN system so we can die early and the government won't have to pay out as long. Saves them $$$$$ Remember, they CARE. I've lived long enough to not trust any of the forked tongue politicians. THEY ALL LIE all the way to their comfy retirement. That's O.K., they will die too some day. Then it will all even out somehow. They even give us 10 reasons to poo poo convential wisdom. Gotta love these folks.

I always see the number "8%" in growth for each year you wait before taking SS. Base on my statements, it's only 7.3% if compounded annually and that makes a huge difference! I have alternate sources of income guaranteed to grow tax deferred at 6% compounded and I can take what I need, when I need it and leave the rest to grow. When I die, the balance is there for my heirs (ie: my ungrateful heirs, but what the hell, I'm dead) -- not so with SS (I'm single). And whatever's promised today, Congress (can and has) changed tomorrow. FDR said SS would be tax free (until Congress changed it). Contributions to SS was supposed to go into a "lock box" never to be raided (until Congress changed that too.) When Bush wanted to allow people to put 10 to 20% of their SS into the Stock Market, the same bill would do a "means test" for individuals before determining if they would receive their full benefit or just a fraction. (Congress didn't pass the bill but if it had, any seniors currently receiving SS would be exempt from the new law but everyone else would go through a "means test". Seniors currently receiving SS vote!) With all the hand wringing" over the budget and debt, I don't trust our elected leaders but I don't think they will take away any of my SS benefit once I get my first check. So with my personal investmetns growing about as well as SS, I think I'll be taking my SS as soon as possible.

I am taking Social Security as soon as I am eligible (on the advice of my tax advisor). Myth #1: The difference beteen age 62 and 70 is 8 years. Using your example, if you got $1500 a month at age 62, you would make $144,000 by age 70. If you waited to age 70 and received $2640 a month, it would take you 4.5 years to make up the amount of money you lost ($144,000) by not taking SS at age 62. In other words, you would have to live 12.5 years beyond age 62 if you waited to take SS at age 70 until you broke even with the amount of money would have made by taking SS at age 62. With the threat of SS collapsing and potentially unknown futire health factors, I plan on enjoying my money while I can.

I have to totally agree with Michael Lynch. "Quality of Life" is EVERYTHING. In my mind, it is very doubtfull that SS will collapse. Take the money earliest possible and enjoy life while you can. Again, QUALITY OF LIFE is EVERYTHING!!!

From Thursday's WSJ in an article about House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan and the budget: "Mr. Ryan provided few detals about what programs his budget would trim. He said Republicans hd no plans to make major changes to Medicare and Social Security for current beneficiaries, but wouldn't rule out changes for Americans who are nearing retirement." Personally, I think a "means test" is coming within the next 4 years. I think Pres Obama would support it because it plays like a tax on the rich. So I plan on taking Social Security while I can.

I understand that delaying SS gives you an increase in the amount you collect later. Does it in any way also increase any medical benefits from Medicare?

Editor's Comment: Interesting question. No, waiting doesnt affect Medicare. You get all of the benefit you are going to get at 65. But you can take Medicare and delay Social Security if you want.

what does John Ryan care. He is set for life. Let him walk in our shoes or does that SOB hover?

My understanding of the SS Article was that no matter what age you started collecting SS Benefits, 62-66-70, that at age 78 everyone would have been paid exactly the same. So I guess upon your health and how long you plan to live, the longer you wait the more you will get.

For those of us that are married and have been the only wage earner, we are more or less obligated to wait till at least 66 so that our spouse will receive a larger monthly payment.

On the subject of a "means test" for social security and whether Millionaires should pay into it. I think they should pay in and there should be a means test. All working Americans should pay into the system because they will benefit from it. However, there should be a cutoff income amount before anyone receives it. Why does a millionaire need social security? Why should a Teacher be penalized because they receive a pension from receiving SS? Makes no sense if they pay into it - then they should get the benefit. In Canada, there are two pensions - you pay in throughout your working life, no matter how long you work or how much you make you pay for into the Canada Pension Plan. You can take it as early at 60 - with a reduction penalty if taking it before age 65. Then there is an Old Age Pension - available to those with a pension income of less than $65 per year - each year this ceiling increases by about $2K. If you have more than that income you do not get it. Seems to work quite well and ensures that those that paid into it and now need it can get it and those who don't need it don't get it. Can not fathom why high income earners in the U.S. don't pay SS....makes no sense to me.

Sheila,

I totally agree with you. Millionaires should NOT be taking social security benefits. I cannot tell you how upset it makes me to see wealthy people use their social security as chump change for golf fees and Country Club dinners,etc. while people who have worked hard all their lives for a middle class or less lifestyle have only social security and minimal 401k money to live on to buy food and drugs. Many have only social security despite their best efforts.

I remember during the Clinton Presidency the commerial on TV of old people pushing brooms and working until they dropped. We need to bring that commerical back as it now refers to retirement and social security. It appears that will be the new reality for many seniors in the future.

I will admit that means testing concerns me a little. I have been fortunate to make a decent living and my wife and I have been able to put aside around a million in our savings/401K. We are both in our early sixty's. I never thought that I would think one million dollars was not a large amount of money, but when it comes to lasting the rest of our lives, it does not seem like so much. Anyway, one of the things that keep me up at night is that the government in their infinite wisdom will decide that I do not need SS because I have so much in my savings/401K. To be honest, I have not been able to figure out a retirement budget which probably contributes to my diminished view of our savings. I am very concerned that means testing will remove a leg of our retirement income.

How are you defining millionaires? Net assets? or those earning a million a year. Big difference. I have seen many people who may or may not make it to millionaire status, but they always buy used cars, save, study investing, live in houses below what they can afford, etc. I am for them and hope they make it to millionaires and do not think they "owe" us.

I see others who have to have the latest, most expensive everything. And of course there are those who just inherit money. I think it is very complex and a number doesn't tell the story. I would love to see a flat tax (I would leave a mortgage deduction just until the housing crisis is over) so that the very rich pay their fair share all along. Yeah, the high marginal tax rates LOOK like those who are rich are paying more, but listen to Warren Buffet. And I bet his secretary earns more than I do!

Means testing is an idea that might be necessary. But I'm shocked at the attitude expressed by Shiela and echoed by Jennifer. Just who is that should determine whether anyone has enough of anything. And how does that square with the idea that anyone who pays in, like teachers, should get something back.

Yes, you may find it distressing that some have more than others, but that is life...and we need to abandon class warfare before it completely fractures our society.

RALPH: Im not proposing class warfare. I'm proposing common sense. Government decides all the time "whether anyone has enough of anything". Look at Medicaid...look at Medicare Part B payments. And thats fine with me. BUT Why shouldn't EVERYONE pay into Social Security? Not one of us knows when we'll need it. The fact that the "wealthy" don't pay in is absolute nonsense. Why do they get a bye? My husband and I are quite comfortable - we have a six figure (combined) annual retirement income. So while we aren't "wealthy", we reckon the cut off currently being used in Congress as a nunber to assess "wealthy"($450K) would work quite well as the cut off point for INCOME. I don't think a 401K makes you wealthy if that's what you are using as your pension income...which most certainly won't give anyone $450K a year. What's the problem with Teachers paying in and getting it in retirement? Do you think Teachers should just pay in and then not get it - only because they also get a pension? This is unjust in my view. (I'm not a retired teacher). There has to be a way to make this a more fair benefit. It isn't fair as its structured now and I think all on both sides of the political spectrum recognize we will have to make some changes to Social Security. My vote is for the one that ensures all pay in to it and then we ensure that all - with the exception of those who don't need it (those making $450K INCOME PER YEAR in retirement) don't receive it. I think its wonderful that people have been financially successful. More power to them. But they do not need Social Security. they have more than enough to live a most comfortable and wonderful life. That's terrific. Pls share with us if you have better/other ideas.

Hi Ralph:

My definition of a millionaire is one who earns a million per year and who has a million plus in assets. Of course a doctor earns more that I would as a nurse, however since he has been able to accummulate more in his savings and pension, he would have less need for social security than I would in a lower paid profession. Wealthy people can always save more. That does not qualify them for government money. Social security is intended to be a safety net for those who really need it to improve their quality of life without becoming impoverished, and not a supplement to the already wealthy. I am not distressed that some have more than others. I am distressed that if cuts need to be made that those who need the money most get the benefit.

sheila, I don't know where you get the idea that the wealthy do not pay into Social Security. They pay the maximum amount required by law. I have no problem raising that limit but until it is, don't blame them.

One Million dollars will safely generate depending how you define risk between $25K to $40K per yr in income. A net worth of $1 M isn't what it once was.....

Wow! Social Security is not just money to help you survive, it seems to be an emotional and political football!
Bottom line: it is your money if you worked an put money into the system. Be rational in how you withdraw what you need.
I am single, divorced from a marriage that lasted at least 10 years. I will be taking 1/2 of my ex-spouse's social security at age 66 while DEFERING my own benefit derived from working the required 40 quarters. That deferral allows for the 8 % per year growth. At 70 I will take my own SS. During that time there will be cost of living adjustments to, at least in part, offset inflation. So a comparison of $1500 today vs $2000 if you wait, should be valid.
Do the research, and make your decision. And, for your own benefit, keep emotion and politics to a minimum.

Shiela, you're right; government frequently decides how much is enough. And just as frequently, they get it VERY wrong. For example. Obama's idea that anyone making $250,000 is wealthy is ludicrous on its face, especially if you're living and working in NYC or a major California city.

And let me add that I currently collect Social Security. I waited until I was 66 to get the maximum benefit. I don't have a fortunes saved or huge assets upon which I can fall back. But I still believe that it is my responsibility to provide as much for myself as possible; I don't believe that society has any obligation to me beyond that.

I have no problem with teacher's getting back what they paid into Social Security. But then I feel the same for anyone who has paid into that ponzi scheme.

Jennifer, no one likes cuts. And everyone wants you to cut someone else's program. The fact is that Medicare, MediAid and Social Security are unsustainable, given current demographics and tax levels. Something has to give somewhere. But when political parties demonize candidates for daring to mention that these programs are in trouble, then I believe that the country is in serious trouble.

I think Lulu has the best outlook. Its up to you, the individual to manage your life and finances. If you want big government to do that for you, be my guest. But you, and your children, will have to live with the consequences.

I'm talking about an existing program and fairness. Currently, the government has determined "wealthy" means those who make $450K a year. Not net worth - an INCOME of $450K. Not everyone does pay into SS. I see this as unfair. My opinion is that any one who can benefit should pay into it. The issues around saving, waiting for SS and managing finances are personal issues. However, in my view, the way to ensure that SS is there for all Americans is to ensure all pay in and because millionaires" clearly don't need this small monthly pension benefit - I believe there needs to be a "means test"/cutoff INCOME (not net worth). As I think we can all agree that SS needs some adjustments to ensure its future, I do find it interesting that some who collect SS benefits also pillory "government". I started this thread because I'm interested in the ideas of others on how to make it better/what changes would ensure its solvent future for those who may need it as part of their retirement. That's all. So it would be great to hear your thoughts on that.

DICK: Not everyone does pay into social security. Here's some info. from a a link with recent info. on SS. http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/01/28/social-security-new-rules-2013 - "Higher payroll tax cap: The payroll tax cap increased by $3,600, from $110,100 in 2012 to $113,700 in 2013. Workers who earn more than this threshold don't need to pay Social Security taxes on that income."

“Higher payroll tax cap: The payroll tax cap increased by $3,600, from $110,100 in 2012 to $113,700 in 2013. Workers who earn more than this threshold don’t need to pay Social Security taxes on that income.”

Yes Sheila, there are caps on how much income you pay social security on, just as there are caps as to how much you can receive. If you eliminate one cap, you need to eliminate the other, or you would then have some people paying for something they are never going to be able to receive.

And Jennifer, of course a doctor is going to earn more than a nurse. Doctors have endured a much harder and longer period of schooling than a nurse, and they deserve to be rewarded for that cost and effort, not penalized by subsidizing those who chose a less rigorous program.

I am not wealthy enough to be penalized by any program restrictions, but I am very concerned how people throw the term "fair" around. Why is it "fair" for the wealthy to pay more in actual dollars, not necessarily % of income, than everyone else? Does it cost more to make the roads they drive on, more expensive for the fire and police departments they use? Do we need a larger military to protect just them?

Our country's problem is not the rich, it's the politicians who don't know how to stop spending. We would be much better off to vote in Patriots rather than career politicians who are more concerned about keeping their job than protecting our nation.

sheila, they pay Social Security taxes on their income up to the cap.

Julie: "Fairness" for me is if you make/earn more you pay more. That's what our tax system is set up to do. Any progressive/first world nation thinks thats how things should go.. Why don't the "rich" think they should pay more than others who aren't "rich"? Should the middle class continue to subsidize the rich? For me this speaks to fairness. In our home, we are better of financially than most of our senior friends and neighbors. We have no problem paying more than they do...because we have more. I think - if I read between the lines of your post - that we may have a different political view. Thats OK. Again tho' Im speaking of fairness.

DICK: I read the link I sent. I know they pay SS taxes up to the cap. My point is that this is too little. They should be paying SS taxes on all of their income. Why not? What's the problem with that? Why do u think its OK to only pay up to the cap? Then take the benefits when most of the middle class has paid for it...not those making over the cap? This is the change I would like to see to sustain SS. Everyone pays taxes on earnings no matter how much they make... + a cutoff amount instituted for those to receive it in retirement. That would ensure that those who need it, get it. What do u think should happen to make sure SS stays in place?

Hi, this is john Brady. I think we have well covered the issue of who should pay what. In my mind some good info and viewpoints shared. but, Rather than continuing for each side in the discussion to make their points, lets leave it here. If anyone wants to discuss points related to the 7 misconceptions, please do. Otherwise we will close discussion.

paying in misconception: Wives who never pay in. Sheila are you talking about wives who never pay in and take from system. I think that should be a simple fix. You do not pay in, you do not take out.

LOL...you folks get rowdy better than anything else. It's very difficult to detect empathetic, compassionate helping motives here sometimes...sigh.

This helpful link came I'm from Linda. Thanks!

John,
I just ran across this article on Marketwatch of an analysis of when to take SS if you are single.
Here is the URL:

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/encore/2013/01/29/how-to-avoid-social-security-rat-holes/

And here is another timely article with some of the counterpoints to waiting to take your Social Security
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/maximize-your-social-security-not-so-fast-2013-02-22

Charles Ponzi must be smiling from where he is at this time. His name is still remembered and his greatest creation is what made possible the system that we all know as Social Security.The article talks about a "trust fund". If there was ever a trust fund, that money is already spent.I'm still amazed that politicians and the media keep trying to fool us into believing that the system is sustainable and that they would not cut benefits. That's a lot of baloney. I'm 55 and I very much doubt that I will collect a single penny. I have no plans to retire at 62, or 66, can't afford it anyway. And though I live in the Midwest, I doubt that I can retire in the US anyway.I'm looking for alternatives, but who knows if any will be found in 10 years. With the current political climate,it's time to look for something better than this Ponzi scheme, but I doubt that I'll see any solution soon.

interesting web site about SSI
http://www.socialsecuritychoices.com/info/taxation.php