10 New Year’s Resolutions for Retirement

Reader Comments
Back to article

If I am no longer working with the Federal government and the State, how can I keep my 401K safe, until I
reach the age of 62+?

Karen Perkins of OH 6:24PM February 13, 2009

Dear sir or Madam:
I have often wondered why the government does not have a CD vesting account to gain in the Social Security pay outs and the budget? Why isn't that disclosed part of action to eliminate the deficit?
On CD's the interest gain is higher than on savings accounts and I believe that building your resources in a viable way is extremely important.
This could also build gains in Education on Grants, Scholarships, to give you alittle more for your expenses that a person is bound to incur.

Aida Garcia of CA 1:44PM January 19, 2009

I'd thought about taking it at 62 for some of the reasons above, but then I remembered that once you start taking SS, you're limited on the amount of additional income you can make without penalty. I'm foggy on the details, but at 62, the ceiling was VERY low, a bit better at 65 and I think the ceiling may be lifted if you wait til 70. Somebody else know for sure?

John Eckberg of MN 5:16PM January 13, 2009

My friend says she collects on her husbands ss because hers is so low....and he is still alive. How does that work?

Linda Watson of PA 2:40PM January 13, 2009

When my husband turned 62 I asked that question to the SS person at our local office, and he agreed it would probably be worth it to start earlier. Since my husband died at 69, that was the correct plan for us. I took mine at the regular time (which was 65 at the time) and only time will tell whether it was a good move. I'm just glad I have other sources of retirement income as SS hardly covers anything. I doubt there is an area where it would cover all one's needs.

Jill B. of CA 5:45PM January 07, 2009

If I decide to take my SS at age 62, wouldn't my early collecting make up for the lesser amount? I guess I mean in a reasonable amount of years.
Thank you

Jerry Schmidt of MN 3:07PM December 29, 2008

I am sure either if the government will honor its social security comitments. Delaying social security is already part of my plan.
It would seem the next cut back in social Security would be to eliminate social security payment would be eliminate the age 62 payout benefit.
Social Security is basicly non acturial. Benefits are compermised by non wage earners. Benefits should exclusively be based on the wage earner.
I plan on retiring in 2010. I have a defined benefit government pension which will yield about 80% of my earnings. I am more concerned about inflation than social security.

ralph ferrara of NY 1:39PM December 29, 2008

What is the 'source authority for Bob Sheffield's statement that:
"So I plan to start taking payments at age 62 ... (and) when I turn seventy, I can pay back the money received to date and then collect at the higher payment rate." ?
Intriguing, but I've never heard of this as a valid viable 'option'.
Thanks,
Michael Schaefer

Michael Schaefer of CO 1:33PM December 28, 2008

Putting off social security payments until you are seventy makes sense only if you beileve the government will honor its committment to pay you for the rest of your life. As someone who will turn 68 in the year the outflow from social security exceeds its income, I am very concerned that the government will decide to fix the cash flow problem by reducing or eliminating benefits for a segment of the retiree population.
So I plan to start taking payments at age 62 so I will recevie something before my benefits are possibily taken away. If benefits exists for me when I turn seventy, I can pay back the money received to date and then collect at the higher payment rate.

Bob Sheffield of TX 4:22PM December 24, 2008