You have a longer life expectancy than your husband - so that would maximize the calculated overall value if you claimed early vs your husband. You are predicted to get the lower benefit for longer than your husband is predicted to get it. That said Piper's website provides a graph of the results of alternative strategies - I'll bet you waiting until 70 and your husband claiming early gives an only slightly lower result. My wife and I have a situation similar to yours, and Piper's calculator made the same suggestion, (wife claims at 62, I claim at 70). However, turning it around (I claim at 62, wife claims at 70) only reduces the value by 0.5%.
What you don’t get is that some people think differently and value things differently than you which leads to different decisions. There are many arguments for 62 vs 70 and many different motivations and goals. Couple that with the uncertainty of the timing of ones demise, it should not be a surprise that there is some variety it what people choose.
True - the Thiokol engineers tried to persuade NASA and Thiokol leadership to delay the launch in a conference call the night before the launch, because they did not have data to support that the seals would work at the unusually low launch temperatures. Leadership decided to go ahead with the launch.
"That’s the way I see it as well. This would effectively get her to the same place as just taking a taxable distribution out of her 401(k) up to the amount of the standard deduction, and then taking the rest of her income needs from her Roth." This is true. I'm open to the rest of your position, but I'd like to see an analysis that shows it is a better option.
I'm using extra with regard to the number of more years she could fund living expenses tax free (or very low tax) from her Roth IRA. You're correct that the original 200K from her Roth IRA (4 years of living expenses) will be used up. However, as you noted after 4 years she will have 125K still in her Roth IRA (2.5 years of living expenses) because of the Roth conversions. If she did not do Roth conversions but used her Roth to fund her living expenses she would only have 4 years of funding from the Roth - and then at 69 she would have to decide to whether take SS at 69, or fund that year entirely from her 401K. Ideally, you would run the numbers for both scenario's. That said, what I outlined seems like an efficient way to get the higher SS payout with a lower risk.
Exactly. Just rough numbers: The standard deduction for 65+ single filer in 2025 is $23,750 (15750 std, 2000 for 65+, 6000 for new Senior Bonus deduction) Assuming she gets ~4%($4000) interest on her $100,000 after tax cash she can Roth convert $19750 and pay no taxes. She can do this for 4 years giving $77,100 in Roth conversions tax free. If she filled up her 10% bracket that's an additional $11,925 a year at a tax cost of $1,193 which she could pay for out of her interest from her cash account. That would get her close to $124,800 in Roth conversions for about $4772 in federal taxes (3.8% effective tax rate). (This is approximate as deductions and tax bracket will increase over time) So, at 69 she has an extra 2.5 years of living expenses in a Roth IRA that she can use to get delay SS to 70. Also, since she was born in 1960 her RMD age is 75. So, once she turns 70 and starts collecting SS, I'd suggest evaluating if Roth conversion between 70 and 75 make sense. Longterm results will really depend on how these assets are invested, (my suggestion in this case is keep the Roth assets in short duration bond or money market funds since the goal would be to use these now) but moving tax deferred assets to tax free assets at 0% tax rate seems like a no brainer.
I think this is generally the right direction. I'd suggest a couple alternatives/additions. For the time before she starts SS I'd suggest a more conservative asset allocation (say 50/50) and then maybe a little more aggressive (60/40) after she starts SS - this would mitigate sequence of returns risk.
The 200K Roth IRA is enough for 4 years of living expenses and is tax free, I'd use that for 4 years to delay SS to at least 69 and depending on how the portfolio looks either take SS or wait to 70. I'd also look into doing Roth conversions if she can swing the tax bill from her cash cushion. Since before taking SS her only taxable income would be the income from her cash position, she may be able to do some conversions at 0% tax rate.
It's hard to give and answer without knowing what the timeframe and goal of the taxable account is. The first question I always ask is "What is the goal and the timeframe." From that you can give pretty good advice.
This cuts both ways - some people want more tax cuts (and given who pays most taxes almost any tax cut will disproportionately help those who make more), and some people want the government to pay for more things. Unfortunately, both seem to be getting what they want and that is how we have a growing deficit and national debt. 3 graphs for your perusal. Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (FYFRGDA188S) | FRED | St. Louis Fed From ~1950's to ~2008 what the government collected in revenue bounced around 17.5% of GDP. Starting in the 2001 recession the trend has been about 1-1.5%points lower (~16%) Federal Net Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (FYONGDA188S) | FRED | St. Louis Fed From ~1950's to 2008 the government spent between what looks to be about an average of ~19% of GDP, and closer to ~20% from 1980 to 2008. Starting in 2008 - that average is significantly higher due to the huge increases in spending during the 2008 recession and covid. In 2024 the US government spending was over 23% of GDP. and finally, Federal Surplus or Deficit [-] as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (FYFSGDA188S) | FRED | St. Louis FedFrom ~1950's to 2008 the government ran deficits of what looks to be an average of ~2.5% while only exceeding 5% once. Starting with the 2008 recession the deficit looks to be averaging closer to ~7% of GDP with very large excursion for the 2008 recession and covid. In 2024 the deficit was 6.3% of GDPBottom line: it's both taxing and spending. We've lowered taxes and increased spending and if both are not addressed this will just get worse.
Comments
The assumption on SWR is that you spend it. You are not required to spend your RMD - you can pay the taxes and invest it in a taxable account.
Post: Is 4.7% the New 4% Safe Withdrawal Rate
Link to comment from August 26, 2025
You have a longer life expectancy than your husband - so that would maximize the calculated overall value if you claimed early vs your husband. You are predicted to get the lower benefit for longer than your husband is predicted to get it. That said Piper's website provides a graph of the results of alternative strategies - I'll bet you waiting until 70 and your husband claiming early gives an only slightly lower result. My wife and I have a situation similar to yours, and Piper's calculator made the same suggestion, (wife claims at 62, I claim at 70). However, turning it around (I claim at 62, wife claims at 70) only reduces the value by 0.5%.
Post: Rehashing the age 70 thing. Tell Dear Dickie what is it that he doesn’t get about SS at age 70?
Link to comment from August 22, 2025
What you don’t get is that some people think differently and value things differently than you which leads to different decisions. There are many arguments for 62 vs 70 and many different motivations and goals. Couple that with the uncertainty of the timing of ones demise, it should not be a surprise that there is some variety it what people choose.
Post: Rehashing the age 70 thing. Tell Dear Dickie what is it that he doesn’t get about SS at age 70?
Link to comment from August 22, 2025
True - the Thiokol engineers tried to persuade NASA and Thiokol leadership to delay the launch in a conference call the night before the launch, because they did not have data to support that the seals would work at the unusually low launch temperatures. Leadership decided to go ahead with the launch.
Post: Data’s Double Edge: Why Spreadsheets are Both a Lifeline and a Possible Lie
Link to comment from August 13, 2025
"That’s the way I see it as well. This would effectively get her to the same place as just taking a taxable distribution out of her 401(k) up to the amount of the standard deduction, and then taking the rest of her income needs from her Roth." This is true. I'm open to the rest of your position, but I'd like to see an analysis that shows it is a better option.
Post: 100% Base Pay Replacement: What Does It Mean?
Link to comment from July 23, 2025
I'm using extra with regard to the number of more years she could fund living expenses tax free (or very low tax) from her Roth IRA. You're correct that the original 200K from her Roth IRA (4 years of living expenses) will be used up. However, as you noted after 4 years she will have 125K still in her Roth IRA (2.5 years of living expenses) because of the Roth conversions. If she did not do Roth conversions but used her Roth to fund her living expenses she would only have 4 years of funding from the Roth - and then at 69 she would have to decide to whether take SS at 69, or fund that year entirely from her 401K. Ideally, you would run the numbers for both scenario's. That said, what I outlined seems like an efficient way to get the higher SS payout with a lower risk.
Post: 100% Base Pay Replacement: What Does It Mean?
Link to comment from July 23, 2025
Exactly. Just rough numbers: The standard deduction for 65+ single filer in 2025 is $23,750 (15750 std, 2000 for 65+, 6000 for new Senior Bonus deduction) Assuming she gets ~4%($4000) interest on her $100,000 after tax cash she can Roth convert $19750 and pay no taxes. She can do this for 4 years giving $77,100 in Roth conversions tax free. If she filled up her 10% bracket that's an additional $11,925 a year at a tax cost of $1,193 which she could pay for out of her interest from her cash account. That would get her close to $124,800 in Roth conversions for about $4772 in federal taxes (3.8% effective tax rate). (This is approximate as deductions and tax bracket will increase over time) So, at 69 she has an extra 2.5 years of living expenses in a Roth IRA that she can use to get delay SS to 70. Also, since she was born in 1960 her RMD age is 75. So, once she turns 70 and starts collecting SS, I'd suggest evaluating if Roth conversion between 70 and 75 make sense. Longterm results will really depend on how these assets are invested, (my suggestion in this case is keep the Roth assets in short duration bond or money market funds since the goal would be to use these now) but moving tax deferred assets to tax free assets at 0% tax rate seems like a no brainer.
Post: 100% Base Pay Replacement: What Does It Mean?
Link to comment from July 23, 2025
I think this is generally the right direction. I'd suggest a couple alternatives/additions. For the time before she starts SS I'd suggest a more conservative asset allocation (say 50/50) and then maybe a little more aggressive (60/40) after she starts SS - this would mitigate sequence of returns risk. The 200K Roth IRA is enough for 4 years of living expenses and is tax free, I'd use that for 4 years to delay SS to at least 69 and depending on how the portfolio looks either take SS or wait to 70. I'd also look into doing Roth conversions if she can swing the tax bill from her cash cushion. Since before taking SS her only taxable income would be the income from her cash position, she may be able to do some conversions at 0% tax rate.
Post: 100% Base Pay Replacement: What Does It Mean?
Link to comment from July 23, 2025
It's hard to give and answer without knowing what the timeframe and goal of the taxable account is. The first question I always ask is "What is the goal and the timeframe." From that you can give pretty good advice.
Post: VG Portfolio Suggestions for Taxable Account
Link to comment from July 22, 2025
This cuts both ways - some people want more tax cuts (and given who pays most taxes almost any tax cut will disproportionately help those who make more), and some people want the government to pay for more things. Unfortunately, both seem to be getting what they want and that is how we have a growing deficit and national debt. 3 graphs for your perusal. Federal Receipts as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (FYFRGDA188S) | FRED | St. Louis Fed From ~1950's to ~2008 what the government collected in revenue bounced around 17.5% of GDP. Starting in the 2001 recession the trend has been about 1-1.5%points lower (~16%) Federal Net Outlays as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (FYONGDA188S) | FRED | St. Louis Fed From ~1950's to 2008 the government spent between what looks to be about an average of ~19% of GDP, and closer to ~20% from 1980 to 2008. Starting in 2008 - that average is significantly higher due to the huge increases in spending during the 2008 recession and covid. In 2024 the US government spending was over 23% of GDP. and finally, Federal Surplus or Deficit [-] as Percent of Gross Domestic Product (FYFSGDA188S) | FRED | St. Louis Fed From ~1950's to 2008 the government ran deficits of what looks to be an average of ~2.5% while only exceeding 5% once. Starting with the 2008 recession the deficit looks to be averaging closer to ~7% of GDP with very large excursion for the 2008 recession and covid. In 2024 the deficit was 6.3% of GDP Bottom line: it's both taxing and spending. We've lowered taxes and increased spending and if both are not addressed this will just get worse.
Post: Some people are never satisfied
Link to comment from July 12, 2025