250 a month for years Lisa on youtube with Bob

[CityWoman]

I recommend that people read the book "Get What's Yours" by Kotlikoff, Moeller and Solman.  Make sure you get the latest ("revised" in the subtitle) version.

Hey, thanks for your post! Quite illuminating. They have the 2016 revised version of the book you recommended at my city's library and I just ordered a copy to pick up at my local branch. Thank you.

 

[WanderingRose]

Taking social security early (at 62) greatly reduces your benefit.  

This is true, but there is no guarantee one will live until 65 or 70, and when one dies their social security payments are absorbed by that system to fund others payouts.

You don’t get to leave your SS to a beneficiary, tho if you have a larger payout than your surviving spouse they can get the difference between theirs and yours.

But, that’s it.

If you are able to retire early, take your SS and live a little.

 

[SLB_SA]

This is true, but there is no guarantee one will live until 65 or 70, and when one dies their social security payments are absorbed by that system to fund others payouts.
You don’t get to leave your SS to a beneficiary, tho if you have a larger payout than your surviving spouse they can get the difference between theirs and yours.
But, that’s it.  
If you are able to retire early, take your SS and live a little.

I agree.  If you do not expect to live long past 62 (or 66 or 70), then taking SS early can be a wise decision.  The book I mentioned says that the most common retirement fear is living too long (i.e. outliving your money) and that taking SS later with a higher monthly benefit can be like home owners insurance (i.e. you never want to need to use it but you want to be covered just in case).

 

[LoveCareThinkDo]

Taking social security early (at 62) greatly reduces your benefit.

I have read that statisticians say you are more likely to get more money all total if you take early retirement. That most people don't live long enough after taking late retirement to have made it worth it to wait. When you think about it, why would the government incentivize us to wait if that would cost "them" more money?

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk

 

[SLB_SA]

I have read that statisticians say you are more likely to get more money all total if you take early retirement. That most people don't live long enough after taking late retirement to have made it worth it to wait. When you think about it, why would the government incentivize us to wait if that would cost "them" more money?

Sent from my SM-T510 using Tapatalk

This is actually incorrect.  I don't have time to look up the exact quote or dates right now but a person's anticipated total revenue from SS was supposed to be the same whether one took SS at 62 or 65 or 68 or 70; this might have been done in 1983 but I am not certain.  Since that time, people's life expectancies have increased and one should anticipate receiving more money by waiting.

However this "break even" analysis is strongly opposed by Kotlikoff, Moeller and Solman because they consider SS to be insurance in case you live too long.  (In some cases, they do encourage taking SS early.)  You should read "Get What's Yours" to understand their argument.

One point made in the "Get What's Yours" is that there are many potential SS benefits and when you claim SS can affect all of them: disability, dependents, spousal, divorced spousal, parents, survivor, divorced survivor, etc.  You might make the best choice for yourself (e.g. claiming early if your family members tend to die young) but your spouse might expect to live to 100 and, by taking SS at 62, you might have reduced her/his spousal benefit for life.   

All I can say is go to the library and read the book.

 

[Dingfelder]

If you get SNAP you can get $600 without a work requirement. Thats $50 a month. 

I don't understand what you are saying here.  
I got SNAP for a while in Oregon and it was $187/mo.  Every six months, proof of looking for employment, with references.  I guess you are saying you can get $600/year toward food?  But I don't think SNAP is as low as $50/mo. anywhere, because that would be extremely hard to live on ... I know because i've done it.

 

[Dingfelder]

"RV basic coverage is extremely cheap. Like $100-150 a YEAR"

not if you tell them you are full time.  that cheap RV insurance are for those that use there RV a couple of weeks a year.

highdesertranger

Yup.  Full-time living won't even be covered by Allstate.  I pay I think $220/yr just to have basic insurance for my trailer.  Heaven forbid they find out I live in it. Because they have some very severe language about fraud and loving to make examples out of people.

 

[Elbear1]

Go to progressive. They have an option of primary residence. It goes from about $11 to $19 a month on a >$5k unit.

 

[Dingfelder]

I mentioned I'd cut showers & internet, and should clarify that those are both emergency austerity measures that save me about $40/month.

That may be a lot of unnecessary suffering.

If you're willing to pay on an ongoing basis, Planet Fitness charges $10 month and you get showers.
If not, and you're where it gets at all warm at least for limited seasons, you can be very comfortable doing what I do.  Get a black 5-gallon bucket with black lid and put it out in the sun in the morning.  By the afternoon, maybe late depending on your weather, you will have very warm water.  If it's not, a tea kettle of super hot water will fix that.
Use a battery-operated pump and showerhead (about $30-ish on Amazon if I recall correctly) and a shower tent if you need privacy, and you will have a wonderful warm shower.  Just supply water.  
Alternatively, get a good quality gallon or two-gallon garden pump sprayer, and empty the black bucket into that.  About the same price range as the battery-operated pump, except now you are the pump.
These make for very nice showers and you can take them anywhere.  At least for the warmer seasons.  Winter?  Nope!  But hey it's something to have daily warm showers if you can work it out that way ... worth some trouble!

 

[Dingfelder]

This is actually incorrect.  I don't have time to look up the exact quote or dates right now but a person's anticipated total revenue from SS was supposed to be the same whether one took SS at 62 or 65 or 68 or 70; this might have been done in 1983 but I am not certain.  Since that time, people's life expectancies have increased and one should anticipate receiving more money by waiting.

However this "break even" analysis is strongly opposed by Kotlikoff, Moeller and Solman because they consider SS to be insurance in case you live too long.  (In some cases, they do encourage taking SS early.)  You should read "Get What's Yours" to understand their argument.

One point made in the "Get What's Yours" is that there are many potential SS benefits and when you claim SS can affect all of them: disability, dependents, spousal, divorced spousal, parents, survivor, divorced survivor, etc.  You might make the best choice for yourself (e.g. claiming early if your family members tend to die young) but your spouse might expect to live to 100 and, by taking SS at 62, you might have reduced her/his spousal benefit for life.   

All I can say is go to the library and read the book.

It's good that you point this out, but also good that you point this out so specifically.  For so many people, none of these considerations will apply.

I think this is part of the "one solution fits all" paradigm that society train us so relentlessly to embrace when the fact is that we ourselves are not society, but just ourselves.  Our own individual solution is highly like to vary at least a little; enough so that not falling for easy solutions widely touted in the press or, even, in places like forums would be wise.

 

[SLB_SA]

It's good that you point this out, but also good that you point this out so specifically.  For so many people, none of these considerations will apply.

I think this is part of the "one solution fits all" paradigm that society train us so relentlessly to embrace when the fact is that we ourselves are not society, but just ourselves.  Our own individual solution is highly like to vary at least a little; enough so that not falling for easy solutions widely touted in the press or, even, in places like forums would be wise.

This article https://finance.yahoo.com/news/statistically-worst-age-social-security-100600642.html might interest you.  Some portions of it follow.

"In a recently released report, "The Retirement Solution Hiding in Plain Sight," United Income analyzed data from approximately 2,000 households via the University of Michigan Health and Retirement Study (HRS). The authors at United Income examined the real-world Social Security claiming decisions of these households over a long period of time, and then compared them to what the optimal claiming decision would have been (i.e., at what age would these individuals or couples netted the most lifetime income from Social Security)."

"Interestingly, the actual claiming curve and the optimal claiming curve were almost perfect inversions of one another. Whereas close to 80% of the seniors in the HRS began taking their payout before age 65, the authors found that the optimal claiming age for these individuals was usually after their full retirement age. The data showed that 57% of individuals had an optimal claiming age of 70, which compares to the 4% of seniors today who are actually waiting until age 70 to take their benefits."

 

[winterwanderer]

IMO, the only way to live on $250/month in a healthy and happy manner would be a communal/tribal setup. Shared meals, carpooling for trips to town, moving camp infrequently.

As I have stated elsewhere, I live on a little less than $350/month by myself in an SUV. This includes a daily ten mile round trip commute to work and a rich and balanced vegetarian diet. I could easily do $250/month, but having a community of similarly frugal nomads to live with would be essential. Avoiding wasteful spending is a moral imperative for me, not a financial necessity.