From: joetaxpayer 
Newsgroups: misc.invest.financial-plan
Subject: Re: Social Security Redux
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:28:59 -0500
	iQBVAwUARvk3S/l/I4+O31e5AQGsCwH+LOgiY4Bbk2CguF5O0ldxso0txaPRlgUa
	OjMiKLi59UMrxNTyyeJfzeCFgKcsDBwehkCr39dUdWnhkJitGhZwSg==
	=p/W0
Bytes: 4143

Elizabeth Richardson wrote:
> "HW "Skip" Weldon"  wrote in message
> news:l1qhf3d4dq0mg7uflqjh19904nt8drgdfu@4ax.com...
> 
>>On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 19:05:06 -0500, "Elizabeth Richardson"
>> wrote:
>>
>>my general approach is that if one needs the income before
>>full retirement date (in your case 66), take it.  Otherwise, wait for
>>the full benefit.
>>
> 
> 
> Well, Skip, that's sort of what I thought. The "Optimal" time is delay,
> delay, delay. Some days this feels counter-intuitive, so I needed to be
> reassured/encouraged.
> 
> Elizabeth Richardson

If the other articles haven't done the math enough to prove the point 
either way, I'm thinking there's a project for me and excel.
Since date of death (sorry to be blunt) is likely the unknown, with most 
other variables pretty well known, it seems the resulting analysis 
should produce a curve that starts with one dying 1 year hence, and of 
course that person should have taken the SS money, all the way to, say, 
living to 100, and showing the increase that delaying benefits would 
offer. And the resulting advice would be 'if you plan to live past X 
age, delaying Y years will benefit you Z$$.
(of course, the SS tax bubble needs to be studied along with this, but 
'other income' becomes an extra variable too many. One can use the 
pre-SS benefit years to convert IRA to Roth, and lump-sum the savings 
observed.)

JOE
www.blog.joetaxpayer.com