Courtesy of Pam Martens.
Last week the Wall Street Journal ran an in-depth review by two financial experts on when one should begin taking Social Security benefits – at age 62 at a reduced rate; at age 70 when one qualifies for the maximum payment based on salary history; or at some point in between?
The article gets off on fine footing, explaining the basics: “It shouldn’t surprise anyone that how long you live is one of the biggest factors in determining whether your decision is the right one. To calculate a person’s monthly payments, the Social Security Administration looks at lifetime earnings, their age when they start to collect, and their average life expectancy at that age. Say you are a 65-year-old man who starts receiving benefits. Up until the age of 84 (your average life expectancy), you will have earned more in total than if you had started to collect at 70. But if you make it past 84, then waiting until 70 was most likely the better choice.”
But then the Wall Street Journal ran two starkly opposing views, leaving readers completely befuddled.
Jane A. Rose, a vice president at RTD Financial Advisors Inc. in Philadelphia advises readers to “Fight the temptation to start collecting your Social Security benefits as soon as you qualify. You are giving up free money. For most people, the objective should be to delay benefits until age 70.” (The italics on the word “most” is made by Wall Street On Parade.)
Paul J. Tully, a financial adviser with Eagle Wealth Strategies in West Deptford, New Jersey says that for the “majority” of people, “starting to collect your benefits early not only helps you pay your bills, it gives you more financial choices and the likelihood of achieving the best long-term personal outcome.”
The problem here seems to be how Rose and Tully view the financial condition of “most” Americans.
…
