|
|
|
|
Social Security Benefits At Age 65: Take Them or Delay Them?
by Robert Muksian, Ph.D.
Professor Of Mathematic
Bryant College of Business Administration
Smithfield, RI
resident Clinton signed into law the “Senior Citizens’ Freedom To Work Act of 2000” on April 7, repealing the earning limits that reduced social security benefits for retirees between 65 and 69. Therefore, all persons, age 65 and older, may earn any amount of FICA taxed wages annually and receive full social security benefits. However, as it was in the old law and remaining in the new law, the individual may forego those benefits until a later age, to age 70, in order to take advantage of a delayed retirement credit. Those individuals who are 65 or older in year 2000 have either already begun collecting their benefits, or they may have elected to delay in order to have a greater base benefit in the future. The purpose of this article is to:
1) explain how the social security benefit is determined,
2) to help those who chose to collect now rather than delay realize the long term effect of that decision, and
3) to help those who will turn 65 in 2000 make a decision as to collecting the benefit between ages 65 and 69 or delaying the benefit in order to take advantage of the delayed credit.
Items 2) and 3) will be addressed by determining the number of years required for the total benefits that will have been received to be the same whether the individual begins benefits immediately or delays until a later date prior to age 70, the age at which benefits are automatic. That number of years, and age, will be referred to as “breakeven.” It will be a mistake, in terms of total social security revenue, to take benefits between 65 and 69 if one survives beyond the breakeven age, and the longer one survives beyond the breakeven age, the greater will be the difference between total revenues.
The Social Security Administration advises the public to complete a Medicare application a few months prior to age 65; the application for social security occurs at the same time. Under the old law, the potential retiree was asked about wages for the year of age 65. No benefits would be paid if those wages were to exceed the earnings limit for the year, or the benefits would be reduced according to the formula that reduced benefits by $1 for every $3 above the earnings limit. Under the new law, the individual will be asked if he or she wishes to receive the benefits at age 65 or to delay receiving the benefits until a later age. If an individual elects to delay, he or she would be entitled to a delayed retirement credit that depends upon the year of his or her birth and the number of months that pass before actual retirement or age 70, whichever occurs first. That delayed credit would be applied as indicated in Table 1.
Table 1. Delayed Retirement Credit
|
Year
of
Birth
|
Age
in
Year
2000
|
Annual
Rate
|
Years
of
Delay
|
Delayed
Credit
|
|
1930
|
70
|
4.5%
|
5
|
22.5%
|
|
1931
|
69
|
5.0%
|
4
|
20.0%
|
|
1932
|
68
|
5.0%
|
3
|
16.5%
|
|
1933
|
67
|
5.5%
|
2
|
11.0%
|
|
1934
|
66
|
5.5%
|
1
|
6.0%
|
|
1935
|
65
|
6.0%
|
0
|
0
|
|
1936
|
64
|
6.0%
|
|
|
|
1937-38
|
63-62
|
6.5%
|
|
|
|
1939-40
|
61-60
|
7.0%
|
|
|
|
1941-42
|
59-58
|
7.5%
|
|
|
|
1943,
and
later
|
57
|
8.0%
|
|
|
The percentage in the Delayed Credit column would be a simple interest rate by which the retiree’s Primary Insurance Amount (PIA), would be increased based on the number of months of delay at 1/12th the annual rate. Thus, a person who is age 65 in year 2000 and delays benefits until age 69 years and 6 months (54 months from the birth month through December of the year prior to the retirement year) will have his or her PIA increased by 27% (54 x 6%/12). As indicated in Table 1, the credit is scheduled to increase to 8% per year for birth years of 1943 and later. Then, the delay could generate as much as a 40% increase in the PIA for future retirees. However, the PIA is the basis for determining the social security benefit; it is not the actual benefit.
Social security benefits are determined using an Average Indexed Monthly Earnings (AIME) as the base for the PIA. Taking the sum of the highest 35 years of indexed earnings and dividing by the number of months in 35 years, 420, establishes the AIME. For social security retirement at age 62 and later, indexed earnings are based on the national average wage of the year in which the retiree was age 60. Beginning with the year of age 22 or 1951, whichever is later, an index factor for each year is determined by dividing the national average wage for each year into the age-60-year national average wage. The indexed wage for each year is the product of the index factor and the worker’s actual wage up to the FICA wage limit for each year. Thus, for retirement in 2000 at age 65, the age-60-year is 1995. The national average wage for 1995 was $24,705.66. The national average wage for 1957, the age-22-year, was $3,641.72. Then, the index factor would be 24,705.66 divided by 3,641.72 or 6.78406 for 1957. The indexed earnings for the worker had who had earned at least the FICA wage limit of $4,200 in 1957 would then be $28,493 (6.78406 x 4200). This process would be repeated for all the years from ages 22 through 64. But, since indexing stops at the age-60 year the index factor is 1 for the years from age 60 through 64, and as stated above the highest 35 indexed wages will be added. The wages for the retirement year are not included in the determination of the AIME; the Social Security Administration will make a recalculation the following year and any necessary adjustment in the monthly benefit. The sum of the highest 35 indexed earnings will be $1,747,769 for any worker who has earned at least the FICA limit as wages from age 22 through 64, and dividing this number by 420 gives an AIME of $4,161. A complete history for a person who had earned at least the FICA wage limit and age-65 retirement in 2000 is shown in Table 11 at the end of the article.
Having established the AIME, the PIA is determined using a concept of bend points for the age-62-year. Use of these bend points gives greater emphasis to the earlier years of lower wages. The year 1997 would be the age-62-year for retirement in 2000 at age 65. The Bend Points for that year are $455 and $2,741. Then, the PIA is determined by taking 90% of the first $455 of the AIME, 32% of next $2,286 (2,741 – 455), and 15% of the remainder, if the AIME is greater than $2,741. The PIA would be calculated as 90 x 455 + 0.32 x 2286 + 0.15 x (4161 – 2741) = 1,354.02. This value is rounded down to the next lower 10 cents thereby making the PIA $1,354. The PIA would then be increased by the announced cost-of-living adjustments for the years of ages 63, 64, and 65. These were 2.1% announced in 1997 for 1998, 1.3% announced in 1998 for 1999, and 2.4% announced in 1999 for 2000. The calculations would be 1354 x 1.021 =1382.40 for 1998, 1382.40 x 1.013 = 1400.30 for 1999, and 1400.30 x 1.024 = 1433.90 for 2000. Each calculation is rounded down to next lower 10 cents. This accumulation would continue to the age at which benefits begin. After the final calculation for the benefit year, the cents are dropped. Thus, the maximum benefit for receiving benefits at age 65 in 2000 is $1,433 per month.
The benefit for delayed retirement is determined as follows. If a person turns 66 in year 2000 or delays benefits to age 66, the AIME increases. The indexed wages of $ 76,200 for year 2000 will be added and the indexed wages of $29,660.12 will be omitted in the sum of the 35 greatest indexed earnings. Rows 1–35 of the Increasing Indexed Wage column of Table 11 will shift down by 1. Therefore, the AIME will increase for each year of delay. Assuming that
the cost-of-living adjustment will be 2.4% (the same as for year 2000),
the FICA wage limit will increase by 2.4%, and
wages will be at least the FICA wage limit,
the estimated social security benefit in any of the next 5 years is shown in Table 2, for turning age 65 in year 2000.
Table 2. Social Security Benefits for Age 65 in Year 2000
|
Age
|
AIME
|
PIA
At
Age-
62 Year
|
PIA
At
Benefit
Age
|
Delayed
Credit
|
SS
Benefit
|
|
65
|
$4,161
|
$1,354.00
|
$1,354.00
|
0
|
$1,433
|
|
66
|
4,272
|
1,370.60
|
1,486.20
|
6%
|
1,575
|
|
67
|
4,384
|
1,387.40
|
1,540.60
|
12%
|
1,725
|
|
68
|
4,500
|
1,404.80
|
1,597.30
|
18%
|
1,884
|
|
69
|
4,621
|
1,423.00
|
1,656.70
|
24%
|
2,054
|
|
70
|
4,746
|
1,441.70
|
1,718.70
|
30%
|
2,234
|
Table 3 shows the
estimated, delayed benefits for those who are between age 65 and 69 in year
2000 and have begun collecting benefits, based on the same assumptions[1].
Since the new law provides for benefits to retroactive to January 1,
2000, the actual delayed benefit will the number of months from the birth
month through December, 1999.
Table 3. Monthly Social Security Benefits: Base Year 2000
|
|
Delayed
Benefit Age
|
|
Age in 2000
|
65
|
66
|
67
|
68
|
69
|
70
|
|
65
|
1,433
|
1,575
|
1,725
|
1,884
|
2,054
|
2,234
|
|
66
|
|
1,502
|
1,600
|
1,701
|
1,805
|
1,912
|
|
67
|
|
|
1,583
|
1,684
|
1,787
|
1,894
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
1,674
|
1,770
|
1,869
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
|
1,716
|
1,813
|
|
70
|
|
|
|
|
|
1,751
|
Since not everyone has earned wages equal to at least the FICA wage limit during their working years, the following procedure may give a crude approximation for the determination of a delayed retirement benefit. Let us use an age-65 nominal benefit of $1,000 for the year 2000 and a 2.4% annual cost-of-living adjustment. The delayed retirement credit is 6%. The results are shown in Table 4 if the workers wage in 2000 was $32,750. This represents approximately 43% of the FICA wage limit. The calculations assume the worker’s wage was in the same proportion historically but never less than the national average wage. If a worker’s normal benefit is $1,150, his or her benefit would the approximately 1.15 (1150/1000) times the value in Delayed Benefit column.
Table 4. Delayed Benefits Based on a $1,000 Normal Benefit
|
Age
|
PIA
At
Age-
62 Year
|
Multiplied By
|
Delayed
PIA
|
Delayed
Benefit
|
|
65
|
944.50
|
0
|
|
$1,000
|
|
66
|
950.60
|
1.06
|
1,007.60
|
$1,092
|
|
67
|
957.30
|
1.12
|
1,072.10
|
$1,190
|
|
68
|
964.70
|
1.18
|
1,138.30
|
$1,294
|
|
69
|
972.70
|
1.24
|
1,206.10
|
$1,404
|
|
70
|
981.30
|
1.30
|
1,275.60
|
$1,520
|
Three cases will be presented. Case 1. Spend the after-income-taxes monthly benefit as it is received; Case 2. Invest the after-income-taxes monthly benefit indefinitely; and Case 3. Accumulate the after-income-taxes monthly benefit from age 65 to age 70 and deplete the accumulated fund thereafter. In each case the future cost-of-living adjustments will b 2.4%, the same as for year 2000.
Case 1. Spending the Monthly Benefit As It Is Received
This case assumes that the monthly benefit would be needed on a current basis. Remembering that either 50% or 85% of the benefit could be subject to income taxes, the assumption is that no part of the monthly benefit will remain available for discretionary use. The breakeven ages are shown in Table 5. The table indicates that, if a person is 67 in year 2000 and delays the social security benefit to age 69, breakeven will occur at age 89.1. The individual will have made a mistake by taking the benefit at age 67 if he or she survives beyond age 89.1.
Table 5. Breakeven Ages For Delayed Retirement Benefits
|
Delayed
Benefit Age
|
|
Age
in 2000
|
66
|
67
|
68
|
69
|
70
|
|
65
|
77.7
|
78.5
|
79.3
|
80.0
|
80.8
|
|
66
|
|
86.1
|
87.1
|
88.1
|
89.0
|
|
67
|
|
|
88.2
|
89.1
|
89.9
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
91.9
|
92.8
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
|
93.3
|
Current social security law provides for only a $255 lump-sum death benefit. Therefore, there is the risk of the loss of significant income by delaying the benefit. Based on Table 80CNSMT used by the Internal Revenue Service, 77,107 individuals of a cohort of 100,000 will reach age 65. Survival probabilities that are based on this table are population probabilities and do not differentiate by gender. Having reached age 65, the probabilities of living to ages between 65 and 70 are shown in Table 6. As shown in Table 6, if a person reaches age 65, the probability of that person surviving to age 70 is 88.5%.
If a person reaches age 67, the probability of surviving to age 69 is 95.1%. These, and subsequent, probabilities that are indicated below, are based the U.S Treasury Mortality Table 80 CNSMT. Then, referring to Table 2, taking the benefit of $1,433 per month at age 65 or $2,234 at age 70, the breakeven age at the intersection of the two revenue flows, shown in Figure 1, will occur at age 80.8, as shown in Table 5. The total, pre-income-tax total revenue will be $324,722. The gender-neutral life expectancy of an individual at age 65 is 20 years and at age 70 it is 16 years, based on Table V of the Internal Revenue Service Regulations Section 1.72-9. The life expectancy of males is approximately 3 years less than indicated in the Table 80 CNSMT and that of females 3 years greater and should be a factor to be considered.
Table 6. Survival Probability--Base Cohort = 100,000 People
|
Delayed
Benefit Age
|
|
65
|
66
|
67
|
68
|
69
|
70
|
|
77,107
|
Number
Living At Delayed Benefit Age
|
|
Age
|
75,520
|
73,846
|
72,082
|
70,218
|
68,248
|
|
65
|
97.9%
|
95.8%
|
93.5%
|
91.1%
|
88.5%
|
|
66
|
|
97.8%
|
95.4%
|
93.0%
|
90.4%
|
|
67
|
|
|
97.6%
|
95.1%
|
92.4%
|
|
68
|
|
|
|
97.4%
|
94.7%
|
|
69
|
|
|
|
|
97.2%
|
Table 6 shows that the probabilities of surviving to ages between 65 and 70 are high. Then, the probabilities of surviving from age 70 to the respective breakeven ages become important in order to make a decision and are shown in Table 7. The life expectancy for males would be approximately to age 83 (70 + 16 – 3), and the indicated probability is 50%. The life expectancy for females would be to age 89 (70 + 16 +3), and the indicated probability is 24%.
Table 7. Survival Probabilities From Age 70
|
|
To Age
|
75
|
76
|
77
|
78
|
79
|
80
|
81
|
82
|
|
|
Probability
|
83%
|
79%
|
76%
|
72%
|
68%
|
63%
|
59%
|
54%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Age
|
83
|
84
|
85
|
86
|
87
|
88
|
89
|
90
|
|
|
Probability
|
50%
|
45%
|
41%
|
37%
|
32%
|
28%
|
24%
|
21%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Age
|
91
|
92
|
93
|
94
|
95
|
100
|
|
|
|
|
Probability
|
17%
|
13%
|
10%
|
8%
|
7%
|
2%
|
|
|
|
Based on these probabilities, it appears to have been correct for those who are between 65 and 69 to have chosen to take the benefit now rather than delay the benefit to age 70. It also appears to be a correct decision to take the benefit at age 65 in year 2000 rather than delay.
Case 2. Invest Monthly Benefit-After-Income-Taxes
The assumption for this case is that benefits will begin at age 65, 33 1/3% of the monthly benefit will be set aside for income taxes, and the remainder invested each month for an indefinite term. Table 8 shows number of years to breakeven from age 70 if one delays benefits until age 70, the breakeven ages, and the approximate survival probabilities to the breakeven ages for the indicated net investments’ rates-of-return. These would be the returns after commissions, taxes, and/or fees.
Table 8. Breakeven For After-Tax Investment Of Monthly Benefit
|
|
Net Rate of
Return
|
5%
|
6%
|
7%
|
8%
|
9%
|
9.29%
|
|
Years to
Breakeven From Age 65
|
22
|
24.5
|
28.2
|
34.6
|
54
|
Infinite
|
|
Breakeven
Age From Age 65
|
87
|
89.5
|
93.2
|
99.6
|
119
|
Never
|
|
Approximate
Survival Probability From Age 70
|
32%
|
30%
|
10%
|
2%
|
0%
|
|
One might conclude from Table 8 that it is unlikely to achieve breakeven by delaying the receipt of social security benefits to age 70. Even risk-free investments in United States Treasuries in the order of magnitude of 5% and 6% require survival beyond actuarial life expectancies in order for it to have been a mistake to take benefits at age 65. Net investment rates-of-return beyond 7% require centenary survival for breakeven. Given historical market returns of 11% that are reduced by commissions on sales and purchases of equities, income taxes on dividends or interest, capital gains taxes, a net rate of return between 6% and 8% seems feasible. Note that at a net return of 9.29% breakeven will never occur.
Case 3. Accumulation for 5 Years, Depletion Thereafter.
The assumption for this case is that benefits will begin at age 65, 33 1/3% of the monthly benefit will be set aside for income taxes, and the remainder invested each month for a term of 5 years. Thereafter, an amount will be withdrawn from the accumulated fund each month that will equalize the monthly benefit to that which would have been received had one delayed benefits to age 70. Table 3 shows that the maximum monthly benefit at age 65 in year 2000 will be $1,433. At a 2.4% cost of living increase each year to age 70, the monthly benefit will increase to $1,613. Table 3 also shows that with continued wages of at least the FICA maximums and a 2.4% annual cost of living adjustment the delayed monthly benefit at age 70 would be $2,234, a $621 (2234 - 1613) per month difference. Then, breakeven will occur when the accumulated fund is depleted by withdrawing a sufficient amount each month ($621 the first year) in order that the monthly benefit will be the same as if one waited to age 70 to begin benefits. Table 9 shows the breakeven information if the withdrawals remain level at $621 per month, and Table 10 shows the breakeven information if the withdrawals are increased by 2.4% each year. The indicated investments’ rates-of-return are the net of commissions, income taxes on dividends or interest, and capital gains taxes on equities.
Table 9. Breakeven For Level Withdrawals From A 5-Year Accumulation
|
Net Rate of
Return
|
5%
|
6%
|
7%
|
8%
|
9%
|
9.29%
|
|
Accumulated
Fund
|
$67,813
|
$69,454
|
$71,131
|
$72,847
|
$74,600
|
$75,110
|
|
Years to
Breakeven
|
12
|
13.5
|
15.4
|
18.3
|
23.3
|
25.8
|
|
Breakeven
Age From Age 65
|
77
|
78.5
|
79.4
|
83.3
|
88.3
|
90.8
|
|
Approximate
Survival Probability From Age 70
|
76%
|
70%
|
66%
|
50%
|
26%
|
17%
|
Based on a gender neutral life expectancy age of 82 that is given in Table 80CNSMT, Table 2 shows that for a 3-year setback for males to age 79 the survival probability from age 70 is 68%. Table 2 also shows a survival probability of 41% for a 3-year projection for females to age 85. Table 9 indicates that an investment rate-of-return of between 7% and 9% would be necessary. Therefore, for level withdrawals from a 5-year accumulation of the post-income-tax benefit, delay to age 70 might be an option to consider.
Table 10. Breakeven For 2.4% Annually Increased Withdrawals From A 5-Year Accumulation
|
Net Rate of
Return
|
5%
|
6%
|
7%
|
8%
|
9%
|
9.29%
|
|
Accumulated
Fund
|
$67,813
|
$69,454
|
$71,131
|
$72,847
|
$74,600
|
$75,110
|
|
Years to
Breakeven
|
10.5
|
11.4
|
12.6
|
14.1
|
16.1
|
16.9
|
|
Breakeven
Age From Age 65
|
75.5
|
76.4
|
77.6
|
79.1
|
81.1
|
81.9
|
|
Approximate
Survival Probability From Age 70
|
81%
|
76%
|
74%
|
68%
|
59%
|
54%
|
The accumulated fund will be depleted faster by increasing the withdrawals rather than maintaining level amounts. Table 10 shows that it will take a net investment rate-of- return in excess of 9.29% in order for the duration of the fund to be beyond the gender-neutral life expectancy of age 82. With a 54% probability of surviving to age 82 from age 70, delay to age 70 might be an option for this manner of depleting the 5-year accumulation.
For those who are between 65 and 69 and who continue to work, are in reasonably good health, and will spend the benefit currently (Case 1), it might not have been a wrong decision to take the benefit, given the probabilities of survival to breakeven ages from age 70. For those who have independent wealth or a good pension plan and will “never” need the social security benefit (Case 2), it might be a mistake to delay the benefit. For those who will ultimately need the monthly benefit (Cases 3), there might be an argument for delaying the benefit given the probabilities of surviving to age 70 and then to the breakeven ages.
The foregoing analyses are strictly objective presentations of a mathematical definition of breakeven. Subjective rationale such as the state of one’s health at age 65, the history of family longevity, or the risk of accidental death is not addressed. There will be a significant loss of income should one choose to delay his or her benefit and does not survive to a delayed benefit date. If death should occur prior to the commencement of benefits, only a spousal benefit, if it is greater than the spouse’s own benefit, may be available after a Social Security “lump sum death benefit” of $255. Therefore one’s health at age 65 is of primary importance for obvious reasons. The economic necessity of the monthly income would require taking benefits at age 65. However, if health or economics are not an immediate consideration, both the probability of surviving to age 70 (given one reaches 65) and then the probability that one will survive to the breakeven age are influencing factors. Naturally, however, each individual must to evaluate his or her particular circumstances in arriving at a decision whether to take or delay the social security benefits.
Table 11. Indexed Earnings and Determination Of AIME
Retirement in 2000 at age 65, Indexing Year = 1995
|
|
|
|
FICA
|
Assumed
|
National
|
|
|
Increasing
|
|
|
|
|
Wage
|
Actual
|
Average
|
Index
|
Indexed
|
Indexed
|
|
|
Year
|
Age
|
Limit
|
Wages
|
Wages
|
Factor
|
Wages
|
Wages
|
|
|
1957
|
22
|
4,200
|
4,200
|
3,641.72
|
6.78
|
28,493.07
|
25,454.88
|
|
|
1958
|
23
|
4,200
|
4,200
|
3,673.80
|
6.72
|
28,244.26
|
25,913.22
|
|
|
1959
|
24
|
4,800
|
4,800
|
3,855.80
|
6.41
|
30,755.53
|
26,972.23
|
|
|
1960
|
25
|
4,800
|
4,800
|
4,007.12
|
6.17
|
29,594.11
|
27,633.68
|
|
|
1961
|
26
|
4,800
|
4,800
|
4,086.76
|
6.05
|
29,017.40
|
28,244.26
|
|
|
1962
|
27
|
4,800
|
4,800
|
4,291.40
|
5.76
|
27,633.68
|
28,493.07
|
|
|
1963
|
28
|
4,800
|
4,800
|
4,396.64
|
5.62
|
26,972.23
|
29,017.40
|
|
|
1964
|
29
|
4,800
|
4,800
|
4,576.32
|
5.40
|
25,913.22
|
29,594.11
|
|
|
1965
|
30
|
4,800
|
4,800
|
4,658.72
|
5.30
|
25,454.88
|
29,660.12
|
1
|
|
1966
|
31
|
6,600
|
6,600
|
4,938.36
|
5.00
|
33,018.52
|
30,755.53
|
2
|
|
1967
|
32
|
6,600
|
6,600
|
5,213.44
|
4.74
|
31,276.35
|
31,150.45
|
3
|
|
1968
|
33
|
7,800
|
7,800
|
5,571.76
|
4.43
|
34,585.87
|
31,168.65
|
4
|
|
1969
|
34
|
7,800
|
7,800
|
5,893.76
|
4.19
|
32,696.30
|
31,276.35
|
5
|
|
1970
|
35
|
7,800
|
7,800
|
6,186.24
|
3.99
|
31,150.45
|
32,696.30
|
6
|
|
1971
|
36
|
7,800
|
7,800
|
6,497.08
|
3.80
|
29,660.12
|
33,018.52
|
7
|
|
1972
|
37
|
9,000
|
9,000
|
7,133.80
|
3.46
|
31,168.65
|
34,585.87
|
8
|
|
1973
|
38
|
10,800
|
10,800
|
7,580.16
|
3.26
|
35,199.93
|
35,199.93
|
9
|
|
1974
|
39
|
13,200
|
13,200
|
8,030.76
|
3.08
|
40,608.20
|
40,360.68
|
10
|
|
1975
|
40
|
14,100
|
14,100
|
8,630.92
|
2.86
|
40,360.68
|
40,608.20
|
11
|
|
1976
|
41
|
15,300
|
15,300
|
9,226.48
|
2.68
|
40,968.66
|
40,968.66
|
12
|
|
1977
|
42
|
16,500
|
16,500
|
9,779.44
|
2.53
|
41,683.71
|
41,425.63
|
13
|
|
1978
|
43
|
17,700
|
17,700
|
10,556.03
|
2.34
|
41,425.63
|
41,683.71
|
14
|
|
1979
|
44
|
22,900
|
22,900
|
11,479.46
|
2.15
|
49,284.51
|
49,284.51
|
15
|
|
1980
|
45
|
25,900
|
25,900
|
12,513.46
|
1.97
|
51,135.07
|
51,135.07
|
16
|
|
1981
|
46
|
29,700
|
29,700
|
13,773.10
|
1.79
|
53,274.72
|
53,274.72
|
17
|
|
1982
|
47
|
32,400
|
32,400
|
14,531.34
|
1.70
|
55,085.31
|
55,085.31
|
18
|
|
1983
|
48
|
35,700
|
35,700
|
15,239.24
|
1.62
|
57,876.38
|
57,502.45
|
19
|
|
1984
|
49
|
37,800
|
37,800
|
16,135.07
|
1.53
|
57,878.52
|
57,876.38
|
20
|
|
1985
|
50
|
39,600
|
39,600
|
16,822.51
|
1.47
|
58,156.85
|
57,878.52
|
21
|
|
1986
|
51
|
42,000
|
42,000
|
17,321.82
|
1.43
|
59,903.50
|
58,156.85
|
22
|
|
1987
|
52
|
43,800
|
43,800
|
18,426.51
|
1.34
|
58,725.60
|
58,725.60
|
23
|
|
1988
|
53
|
45,000
|
45,000
|
19,334.04
|
1.28
|
57,502.45
|
58,999.91
|
24
|
|
1989
|
54
|
48,000
|
48,000
|
20,099.55
|
1.23
|
58,999.91
|
59,783.69
|
25
|
|
1990
|
55
|
51,300
|
51,300
|
21,027.98
|
1.17
|
60,272.09
|
59,903.50
|
26
|
|
1991
|
56
|
53,400
|
53,400
|
21,811.60
|
1.13
|
60,485.35
|
60,272.09
|
27
|
|
1992
|
57
|
55,500
|
55,500
|
22,935.42
|
1.08
|
59,783.69
|
60,485.35
|
28
|
|
1993
|
58
|
57,600
|
57,600
|
23,132.67
|
1.07
|
61,516.72
|
61,200.00
|
29
|
|
1994
|
59
|
60,600
|
60,600
|
23,753.53
|
1.04
|
63,029.07
|
61,516.72
|
30
|
|
1995
|
60
|
61,200
|
61,200
|
24,705.66
|
1.00
|
61,200.00
|
62,700.00
|
31
|
|
1996
|
61
|
62,700
|
62,700
|
25,913.90
|
1.00
|
62,700.00
|
63,029.07
|
32
|
|
1997
|
62
|
65,400
|
65,400
|
27,426.00
|
1.00
|
65,400.00
|
65,400.00
|
33
|
|
1998
|
63
|
68,400
|
68,400
|
28,861.44
|
1.00
|
68,400.00
|
68,400.00
|
34
|
|
1999
|
64
|
72,600
|
72,600
|
N/A
|
1.00
|
72,600.00
|
72,600.00
|
35
|
|
2000
|
65
|
76,200
|
76,200
|
N/A
|
1.00
|
76,200.00
|
76,200.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sum of 35
Greatest Indexed Earnings =
|
1,747,768.37
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.I.M.E.
=
|
4,161.35
|
|
Professional Accomplishments:
I am a Professor of Mathematics who specializes if the formulation of mathematical models for personal financial situations and apply those financial concepts as a consultant to a pension consulting/financial planning firm. I was Chair of the Mathematics Department at Bryant College for 13 years and designed Applied Actuarial Mathematics Major and Minor. My publications include two articles in the Journal of Biomechanics, Pergamon Press, a Financial Mathematics Handbook that was published by Prentice-Hall with a 1984 Copyright date, a current two-volume textbook on the Elements of the Mathematics Of Finance, Insurance, Management, and Pensions that is being classroom tested prior to submission for publication, and the publication, Social Security Benefits at Age 65: Delay Them or Take The Money and Run in Journal of the American Association of Individual Investors. I have served on the Board of Trustees of a community hospital, a medical school that was associated with the hospital, and the foundation that created the medical school.
[1] The monthly benefit along the downward diagonal at the intersections of the Age in 2000 and the Delayed Benefit Age are determined using the Anypia software package that is available on the Social Security Administration Web site. They confirm the results that I obtain when using a software package that I wrote several years ago for use in a course I teach in Pension Fundamentals. The delayed benefits are determined by that software and agree with the predictions when Table 11 is extended.
|
Sponsored by James J. Eccleston. This Web site contains material of general interest. It is neither intended to, nor constitutes, either legal advice or investment advice.
Always consult an attorney and/or investment adviser when building and protecting your wealth.
All content Copyright © 2010 Advocate Compliance Partners, Inc. except where noted. All rights reserved.
20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2900, Chicago, Illinois 60606
Telephone: 312-621-4400 | Fax: 312-621-0268
|
|
|
|
|
