CGC Comic Collecting After 55

[ADAMANTIUM]

ya but the most is at age 67

 

idk that would suck...depending...

[Sqeggs]

don't you get get significantly more monthly from SS if you delay taking your draw as soon as you qualify? I know my dad did this and it was a drastic difference. Might be smart to give that some thought or consult a money manager.

 

You do. If your health is good and you can manage it financially, the best idea is to delay taking Social Security until you are 70. After that age, the payment stops increasing. But the increase you get by delaying from 62 to 70 is about the highest-return guaranteed investment you will ever find.

[Sqeggs]

ya but the most is at age 67

 

idk that would suck...depending...

 

67 is full retirement age for most people, but if you delay filing, the monthly payment continues to increase up to age 70.

[David P Hartman]

I believe it would go up 25 percent if I held off till 65... And that would have been fine, if the plumber I was helping, part time, hadn't hurt himself. Shutting down that ave. of income, which was sporadic... But I could make a couple Franklins for 8 hrs..... So really only needed 4 days to cover rent, which ncludes utilities. Anyway, it was getting tough when insurance (car) comes due, cat to the vet, etc. etc. Anyway, taking it now is a huge weight off my shoulders!

[Dr. Love]

But the increase you get by delaying from 62 to 70 is about the highest-return guaranteed investment you will ever find.

I think that's a tad optimistic. I can easily imagine a future in which someone who is 62 waits and sometime in the next 8 years the govt moves to means test the benefits. You've done well, so your cut goes to cover the others. In which case you would have chosen...unwisely.

 

If you own your home outright, if you have a retirement account, the odds look better all the time that you will not get the payout you have come to expect.

[grebal]

But the increase you get by delaying from 62 to 70 is about the highest-return guaranteed investment you will ever find.

I think that's a tad optimistic. I can easily imagine a future in which someone who is 62 waits and sometime in the next 8 years the govt moves to means test the benefits. You've done well, so your cut goes to cover the others. In which case you would have chosen...unwisely.

 

If you own your home outright, if you have a retirement account, the odds look better all the time that you will not get the payout you have come to expect.

 

Geez, can't we keep this ponzi going just a couple of decades longer ? Kids? Please?

 

Heh. I'm still just early 50s, but would love to garner some of those returns Sqeggs mentioned. Or at least get back some (all?) of that mandatory retirement fund into which I've been paying.

[lou_fine]

But the increase you get by delaying from 62 to 70 is about the highest-return guaranteed investment you will ever find.

I think that's a tad optimistic. I can easily imagine a future in which someone who is 62 waits and sometime in the next 8 years the govt moves to means test the benefits. You've done well, so your cut goes to cover the others. In which case you would have chosen...unwisely.

 

If you own your home outright, if you have a retirement account, the odds look better all the time that you will not get the payout you have come to expect.

 

+1

 

Take it now while you can still enjoy it, because you never know what might happen in the future.

 

And if you need some extra money down the line, then you can slowly start to sell off some of your 150 long boxes.

[David P Hartman]

But all your info is good, or at least accurate, there Sqeggs! (The 'u' is silent?). And it does max out at seventy. But one thing I've learned as I've gotten older is to not put things off.

 

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

don't you get get significantly more monthly from SS if you delay taking your draw as soon as you qualify? I know my dad did this and it was a drastic difference. Might be smart to give that some thought or consult a money manager.

 

You do. If your health is good and you can manage it financially, the best idea is to delay taking Social Security until you are 70. After that age, the payment stops increasing. But the increase you get by delaying from 62 to 70 is about the highest-return guaranteed investment you will ever find.

 

Factor in health insurance costs. Factor in no tax filings required if only income is SS, thus no deductions. Factor in if married or not (split benefits). Factor in SS payments to spouse continue if you die. Waiting until 70 can work against you. The power of money over time.

Factor in when Medicare eligibility kicks in, and check is reduced accordingly ($107).

 

There are a couple of scenario predictors around, but they are not perfect for all. The "spread" between 62 and 70 can be eaten up very very fast by health insurance cost and taxable income.

 

The wait until you are 70 mantra is not ideal at all for the majority of persons on SS.

 

Just an opinion. Probably wrong.

[Sqeggs]

I believe it would go up 25 percent if I held off till 65... And that would have been fine, if the plumber I was helping, part time, hadn't hurt himself. Shutting down that ave. of income, which was sporadic... But I could make a couple Franklins for 8 hrs..... So really only needed 4 days to cover rent, which ncludes utilities. Anyway, it was getting tough when insurance (car) comes due, cat to the vet, etc. etc. Anyway, taking it now is a huge weight off my shoulders!

 

Sounds like you made the right move for your situation.

[Sqeggs]

But the increase you get by delaying from 62 to 70 is about the highest-return guaranteed investment you will ever find.

I think that's a tad optimistic. I can easily imagine a future in which someone who is 62 waits and sometime in the next 8 years the govt moves to means test the benefits. You've done well, so your cut goes to cover the others. In which case you would have chosen...unwisely.

 

If you own your home outright, if you have a retirement account, the odds look better all the time that you will not get the payout you have come to expect.

 

I would say that for people currently 50 or older, the chance that benefits will be reduced from current levels is pretty remote. There just isn't a constituency for it. Although there have been proposals for means testing, they haven't gotten any political traction.

 

For people currently in their 30s and 40s, the story could be different, but even then it's more likely that Medicare, rather than Social Security, will see serious changes. The underfunding problem with Medicare is much greater than with Social Security.

 

On the revenue side, it certainly seems possible that they may get more aggressive in raising the cap on earnings subject to the FICA tax. I wouldn't be shocked if eventually the cap gets eliminated.

 

But whatever happens with the tax won't affect the calculation on when to take benefits. Anyone who retires before 70 should consider first drawing down other retirement savings, including 401K balances, in order to postpone drawing Social Security. It really is about the best investment you can make.

 

Of course, if you have large credit card balances or are somehow locked into a high-rate interest mortgage that you can't refinance, it may make sense to take Social Security early and pay down your debts.

 

And whatever you do, don't take financial advice from a random guy like me on a comic chat board. Go see a financial planner.

[grebal]

. . .

And whatever you do, don't take financial advice from a random guy like me on a comic chat board. Go see a financial planner.

The information contained in this post does not constitute investment, financial, tax or legal advice.

 

Heh, my first job out of school was Staff Attorney at SEC in division of investment mgt. and I couldn't resist.

 

Totally just messing with you about disclaimer though - nothing you said constitutes investment advice.

 

I can't predict in what direction the entitlement will go, although I appreciated all the different speculation, and contrasting views. At the moment I like to think I'll be in a position to wait 'till 70, but I can't even predict events one week into future, and this is around a decade from being on my radar.

 

I agree with Knowitall's point about factoring in some practical aspects - certainly some kind of estimate of life expectancy (based on personal habits) can help shape the decision, and maybe some half-assed actuarial estimation.

 

 

And I've come to view the comics as a kind of backup withholding, maybe throw off a little pocket money here and there in future. [just cashed out of $7000 worth on ebay, pity I've spent well over 12,000 on the buy side since June]

[David P Hartman]

My older brother is actually a CPA and teaches accounting in Hawaii, having retired from the Air Force. But we never got along, growing up, having polar opposite political views, etc. (I was born 15 months after him, and growing up we were always about the same size so shared clothes etc. up till our teenage years. We were about even in wrestling style 'fighting', but I recall giving him at least 2 black eyes in our youth, and could out arm wrestle him. The sibling rivalry was extrapolated even as teenagers, and I was quite glad when he joined (the Air Force). (He was 2 years ahead of me in school.) That allowed me to take over the '2nd' floor turning my bedroom into a library, building my own bookcases and such. Didn't mean to delve into my backstory so much. We actually do get along, these days, but growing up it was all I could do to tolerate him.

Both my mom and dad worked (till retirement age) and my dad even inherited some farm land (selling it to his brother, for about half of market value "to keep it in the family" in the early seventies. They proceeded to have their 'dream' house built but, when deciding to move (in the eighties, to Colorado) took a hit, selling a 120K home for around 80k (approx 100 south of Chicago). They (my parents) also then moved to Hawaii, about 4 years ago. Anyway, what once seemed like there might be some inheritance, now seems to have disapated. But that's all well and good.

Still play chess currently ranked at 9,738 out of 1,860,366 players. Yawn.

The advice, not to accept financial advise, from the boards (bored) is tempting, to not follow (need to check and negate double negatives, before I'm positive)...

 

 

[AKA Rick]

Personally, I think if you're older (relative contextually), collecting CGC books might be the smartest way to go.

 

I say that in terms of our own mortality.

 

If you're 55, you're got 10, 20, 30, maybe 40 years left to live, and maybe 5-15 years for most people to stay in the work force earning income before starting to dip into retirement savings.

 

So, CGC allows you (and your heirs when you pass) a quick way to liquidate a collection to turn it into cash without much hassle nor hustle as raw books pose.

 

Although grading is somewhat subjective, but is an accepted industry standard, staying with CGC makes a collection most liquid.

 

As for enjoyment, read the trade paper back / collected edition reprints. Enjoy the nostalgia and feed the ego with pride of owning the original comics if that's a motivator, but having the books graded makes life easier I think in the long run.

[jmg3637]

Ok. I am an actuary and have owned a retirment planning practice for many years. I have studied social security extensively, and often discuss the situation on many occasions.

 

The thouht that by delaying retirement yiur are EARNING 8% on your money is simply wrong.

 

The situation is that depending on what age you begin collecting your benefit you recieve the benefit times a factor. For simplicity I will base the comments to the youngsters here with a retirement age of 67( those born in 1960 or later), but the analysis hold for those born earlier.

 

If you retire Early the factor starts at 70% for age 62 then goes to 75, 80 86.666 and 92.333 for ages 63 through 66.

 

Conversly the factor is 108, 116 and 124 for retirement at 68, 69 and 70 respectively.

 

These fqctors are roughly ACTAURIALY EQUIVALENT , meaning that for a large group of people there should not be an advantage to either early or late retirement

 

I try to make the analysis simple and ignore the slight increase possible by averaging in a sl7ghtly higher wage since it is minimal. I also ignore interest discounts and COLAs as they really do not change the situation

 

The real analysis is based upon how long you expecg to live, with a complicating factor of use of funds later in life

 

I am basing the math on a normal benefit of 2000 per month, but the amount does not really matter

 

Lets start with early retirement vs normal. The monthly benefit is reduced to 1400, Nd you start recieving it 60 months earlier. So by collecting earlier you start off 84000 ahead by age 67. At that point you start losing 600 per month. It will take 140 months after age age 67 that you will begin to be behind, and you will continue behind from then on. Analysis if you are able to collect early , I.e. have little or no wages , you are better off collecting early unless you expect to live beyond age 79, and worse off if you expect to live beyond 80

 

Late retirement , you begin collecting 2000 per month for 36 months starting off 72000 ahead of the game. At age 70 your benefit would have been 2480 so you will be losing 480 a month beyond 70 by collecting at 67. It will take 150 months to have given back the 72000 extra you started with or 12.5 years. Analysis is the same, if you expect to live beyond 80 it is better to wait, but if you do not, it is better to begin at the earleist age you can.

 

The situation is more in favor of starting early if you are married and you spouse will be collecting based in 1/2 of your benefit instead of their own, especially if the two of you are close to the same age. There was a recdnt change to the law that eliminated the "collect and suspend" option so the only way that a spouse can collect based on your earnings is for you to actually collect your benefit. I refer to this as collect and collect. Since the spousal benefit does not get the increase for delayed rertirement you could be giving up 2000 plus 1000 per month by waiting until 70. This 108000 starting accumulation would still only be reduced by 480 per month so it would take 225 months for the community to recover for delaying collecting. This is nearly 19 years from age 70, and actuarially speaking very few can expect to live that long.

 

This was written from my hotel room while on vacation, without the benefit of my actuarial tables, but the analysis is esentially the same with more complicated math

 

 

[lizards2]

I am planning to retire at age 56. My genetics are that we are long lived - 85-95 - have to be killed and don't just die of natural causes.

 

My current thoughts were to attempt to delay SS until sometime past age 62, and bridge that gap with 401k savings, etc.

 

I have health insurance that I keep until death, so may not need medicare B, but will probably sign up for it anyway.

 

I can't follow all of your analysis, but it sounds like I may want to consider delaying collecting SS when the time comes. :shrug:

[Bomber-Bob]

My current thoughts were to attempt to delay SS until sometime past age 62, and bridge that gap with 401k savings, etc.

 

If you have 401K savings this is a smart strategy, tap the 401K first while delaying SS. What I seldom hear mentioned when discussing retirement strategies is RMD, that's Required Minimum Distribution. If you have any IRA money you will be forced to start withdrawing at 70ish and paying the tax. Tapping the IRA before 70, while your income is low, will allow you a lower tax bracket.

[aerischan]

My current thoughts were to attempt to delay SS until sometime past age 62, and bridge that gap with 401k savings, etc.

 

If you have 401K savings this is a smart strategy, tap the 401K first while delaying SS. What I seldom hear mentioned when discussing retirement strategies is RMD, that's Required Minimum Distribution. If you have any IRA money you will be forced to start withdrawing at 70ish and paying the tax. Tapping the IRA before 70, while your income is low, will allow you a lower tax bracket.

In fairness, unless you have millions in tax deferred accounts and are particularly long lived, RMDs are unlikely to be a huge problem. Granted, they do add to your income which may cause taxation of social security benefits and may bump up tax rates on long term capital gains and qualified dividends. Thus far, there are no RMDs for Roth IRA (but they're required for Roth 401k, etc) so conversions and rollovers to Roth IRA prior to age 70.5 is another option to reduce RMDs. Alas, best to get advice from a qualified retirement/financial planner to figure the best route since the appropriate steps to take would vary greatly on an individual's financial and health situation.

 

Of course, if you ever go into a nursing home and don't have LTC insurance, then you'll likely be paying almost no taxes on your RMD.

 

This one's an interesting calculator for minimizing taxes during retirement.

https://www.i-orp.com

[Bomber-Bob]

Alas, best to get advice from a qualified retirement/financial planner to figure the best route since the appropriate steps to take would vary greatly on an individual's financial and health situation.

 

 

Absolutely true. Everyone has a different situation. However, most don't consider or even know about RMD. I know individuals that have a pension and collect SS benefits that fit into a nice tax bracket. When they finally discover the RMD looming ahead they now realize they will be pushed into a higher bracket. Just another factor in the equation.

[aerischan]

Absolutely true. Everyone has a different situation. However, most don't consider or even know about RMD. I know individuals that have a pension and collect SS benefits that fit into a nice tax bracket. When they finally discover the RMD looming ahead they now realize they will be pushed into a higher bracket. Just another factor in the equation.

If they don't need the money and also donate a lot to charity, one method to avoid taxes on RMDs is by doing a Qualified Charitable Distribution (QCD). The difference between QCD and regular charitable giving is you don't take a deduction for the QCD. The funds go directly to charity and is never included in your income.