62, but people in my job live to an average age of 59, and I'm retiring in my 50s, so take that into account.

Bocephus said:

---

62, but people in my job live to an average age of 59, and I'm retiring in my 50s, so take that into account.

---

Air traffic controller?

What profession lives to avg age of 59, are you a coal miner?

lotta valid points combined in this video




AI summary:

Quote:

---

• Generic SS advice doesn't apply to $2M+ early retirees. Standard rules (delay to 70 for the 8% boost, obsess over break-even age ~80-82, or minimize income to reduce SS taxation) target people with smaller portfolios (~$400k) who rely heavily on that check. With a large self-funding portfolio, SS shifts from an income security tool to a tax planning and legacy lever.
• The critical "gap years" window (e.g., retiring at 56 until SS at 62 or 70): These are your lowest-income years (no wages, no RMDs yet, possibly living off taxable brokerage). This creates "empty space" in lower tax brackets for aggressive Roth conversions. Example: In a gap year with only dividends/capital gains as income, you might convert $150k$200k from a traditional IRA at low marginal rates (e.g., staying in the 12% bracket). This moves money to grow tax-free and pass tax-free to heirs. Delaying SS preserves this headroom; claiming early fills it with taxable benefits.
• Delaying SS enables bigger, better Roth conversions during the gap years, while claiming early crowds them out, potentially bumps you into higher brackets, triggers Medicare IRMAA surcharges (income-based, lagged 2 years), reduces ACA subsidies (pre-65), limits tax-free capital gains harvesting, and may activate the 3.8% Net Investment Income Tax. Concrete impact: Claiming early can cost thousands annually in higher Medicare premiums or lost subsidiesoften more than the gain from the smaller SS checkespecially for those under 65 on the ACA marketplace.
• Common pitfalls for high-net-worth early retirees:
  
  • Break-even analysis: Irrelevant when your portfolio already covers longevity risk.
  • 8% delay "guaranteed return": You're trading controllable, inheritable portfolio growth (that compounds for heirs) for a larger taxable annuity that ends at death.
  • Income management for SS taxation: At your level, 85% of benefits will be taxable anyway.
• Survivor benefit considerations: For average retirees, delay the higher earner's benefit to maximize the survivor check. With $2M+, the surviving spouse is far less dependent on SS, so tax/estate impacts often outweigh this.
• Overall strategy: Coordinate SS claiming with your withdrawal, Roth conversion ladder, and tax plan instead of treating it in isolation. Failing to use gap years aggressively can lead to a "wall" of RMDs + full SS later, taxed at peak rates. Broader example context (from related content): Strategies like filling the 12% bracket with conversions in gap years have been shown in case studies to save hundreds of thousands in lifetime taxes and add millions in portfolio value through better compounding.

The video emphasizes personalized planning for $2M+ early retirees: the game changes from "will I run out?" to optimizing taxes, timing, and legacyespecially leveraging those precious low-income gap years.

---

Yea Bo is 20+ LEO Dallas. But it been a very long while. I might be wrong

some GOP Senator just this week started talking about how the Social Security Trust Fund runs out in 2032 and they have to do something to save it.

I have a bad feeling this "something" is going to be to raise minimum cash out age to 69.

LMCane said:

---

some GOP Senator just this week started talking about how the Social Security Trust Fund runs out in 2032 and they have to do something to save it.

I have a bad feeling this "something" is going to be to raise minimum cash out age to 69.

---

Nah they'll just lift the cap and at worst cut benefits by 17% (to cover the shortfall). SS is going to be fine.

The fund cannot run out of money unless they stop the mandatory withdrawals from paychecks.

Ya that's what I've been saying.

Isn't that like saying "my family can't run out of money as long as I keep getting a paycheck"

I think the people saying it will run out are saying the outgoing funds will surpass the incoming funds long enough to deplete the fund. What am I missing here?

coolerguy12 said:

---

Isn't that like saying "my family can't run out of money as long as I keep getting a paycheck"

I think the people saying it will run out are saying the outgoing funds will surpass the incoming funds long enough to deplete the fund. What am I missing here?

---

Up until about 2032, the total incoming funds (including surpluses from prior decades) exceed total outgoing funds. Thus, all recipients are receiving their full beneft.

Once the surplus of incoming funds is depleted, then outgoing funds will be reduced to match the amount of incoming funds at the time. Some estimate that could be around a 25% reduction in benefits to align outgoing with incoming.

They won't keep sending outgoing funds that are more than incoming. They're doing it now temporarily until the surplus is depleted.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

coolerguy12 said:

---

Isn't that like saying "my family can't run out of money as long as I keep getting a paycheck"

I think the people saying it will run out are saying the outgoing funds will surpass the incoming funds long enough to deplete the fund. What am I missing here?

---

Up until about 2032, the total incoming funds (including surpluses from prior decades) exceed total outgoing funds. Thus, all recipients are receiving their full beneft.

Once the surplus of incoming funds is depleted, then outgoing funds will be reduced to match the amount of incoming funds at the time. Some estimate that could be around a 25% reduction in benefits to align outgoing with incoming.

They won't keep sending outgoing funds that are more than incoming. They're doing it now temporarily until the surplus is depleted.

---

Awesome! So am I incorrect to think that they won't be sending funds for either defense or welfare in excess of the incoming funds from all revenue streams so as to avoid deficit spending? This actually has me pumped that our government is finally going to run their finances like a household. I may just take the day off.

HarleySpoon said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

coolerguy12 said:

---

Isn't that like saying "my family can't run out of money as long as I keep getting a paycheck"

I think the people saying it will run out are saying the outgoing funds will surpass the incoming funds long enough to deplete the fund. What am I missing here?

---

Up until about 2032, the total incoming funds (including surpluses from prior decades) exceed total outgoing funds. Thus, all recipients are receiving their full beneft.

Once the surplus of incoming funds is depleted, then outgoing funds will be reduced to match the amount of incoming funds at the time. Some estimate that could be around a 25% reduction in benefits to align outgoing with incoming.

They won't keep sending outgoing funds that are more than incoming. They're doing it now temporarily until the surplus is depleted.

---

Awesome! So am I incorrect to think that they won't be sending funds for either defense or welfare in excess of the incoming funds from all revenue streams so as to avoid deficit spending? This actually has me pumped that our government is finally going to run their finances like a household. I may just take the day off.

---

You and I both know the basic answer to that question. While we don't know the exact details because it will require a change in law, which hasn't happened yet, they will invariably kick the can down the road and borrow a lot more money so that they can avoid benefit cuts to voters. They might pass a few tax increases also, but in no world will they actually "balance" SS with incoming/outgoing funds. Deeper in debt we'll go. Count on it.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

You and I both know the basic answer to that question. While we don't know the exact details because it will require a change in law, which hasn't happened yet, they will invariably kick the can down the road and borrow a lot more money so that they can avoid benefit cuts to voters. They might pass a few tax increases also, but in no world will they actually "balance" SS with incoming/outgoing funds. Deeper in debt we'll go. Count on it.

---

Darn it! Back to work then.

It's my opinion they will do a combination of what they have done in the past (except for raising the full retirement age):

- increase the base amount upon which the taxes are owed...maybe to $1,000,000
- increase the rate by a percentage point or less for both the employee and employer
- they will declare the fund financially sound for at least the next 40 years

- then, several years later....they will add benefits and coverages that don't currently exist but where the depletion of the fund won't actually happen for ten more years thereafter. Politicians just can't resist seeing a bunch of funds not being utilized that might help them get re-elected.