cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
     
Highlighted
Explorer ○○○

Isn't it about your budget, not SS age?

More ramblings as I read comments and online articles as we near making our SS decision.  As Chris Hogan puts, it, retirement is a financial number. If you are able, you should decide when you want to stop working.  Determine if you are comfortable spending down, getting an annuity, or want to hold onto your savings.  Create a budget you can live with in retirement.  Maybe bucket for large expenses or travel as Ms. Benz and others say.  Then figure out how you get there.  As a friend told me, tell me when you will die, and I will tell you which SS scenario is best.  You can run all the Monte Carlos you want, but nothing will ever be 100% certain, thanks to lightning strikes, meteors, busses, etc.  So if you have enough savings, a withdrawal rate you are comfortable with, and SS at age X will let you cover your budget, why not go for it?  Many articles tout FRA or the 8% yearly increase in SS if you wait past FRA.  But if just filed and did not use your savings and earned at least Vanguard Wellesley like returns (even around 2000-2002 or 2007-2009) you would still have plenty of savings.  Someone will always tell you that you could have had more, i.e. if we worked until 75 and delayed until 70, of course we would have a lot more than retiring and filing at 65.  Whether your numbers work at 62 or 65 or 67...why not figure your budget, determine your sources to cover it, then go enjoy life.  Don't worry about how much you COULD have had if you delayed.  Unless your sole purpose if leaving as much as you can for your heirs...that is a different story!

20 Replies
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Isn't it about your budget, not SS age?

        Lefty - along with different definitions and investment techniques that everyone holds dear we all think differently about when to take SS. What I’am saying is there is no one answer that fits all either. What is proposed could work out for some but not all like buckets and studies. I for one think differently about retirement. 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Isn't it about your budget, not SS age?

Retirement is NOT just a financial number.

It's a life change for which many are ill-prepared.

Think about this sentence: "One-third of all men over 65 become depressed within one year of retirement."

Source (highly recommended reading): Your Complete Guide to a Successful and Secure Retirement  (Larry Swedroe & Kevin Grogan).

Certainly, the financials matter, but the book rightly begins (chapters 1 & 2) with focusing on who you are long before discussing what you have.

Bob

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Explorer ○○○

Re: Isn't it about your budget, not SS age?

Good point Bob...I have read a few articles about that and we are planning what we want to do.  I will get that book too.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Isn't it about your budget, not SS age?

Hi Lefty

I consider your OP pretty much describes what I did for retirement...but it fit my outlook at age 48, so I did.

GLI makes a good point in that one should mentally be prepared.

In that regard, here's something I did:

(List was made more than two decades ago before the term buckets list evolved)  
 
Top 100 Things Desired to do yet in lifetime:

http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13323&highlight=&sid=3e9f1fc6611c23643b83004cebdbe28...
 

--------------------------

Enjoy. 

I have no regrets.  My 100 y/o Mother in Law recently stated its probably going to work out OK for me, now age 75!

Good luck deciding.

R48

 

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Participant ○○○

Re: Isn't it about your budget, not SS age?


@Lefty wrote:

More ramblings as I read comments and online articles as we near making our SS decision.  As Chris Hogan puts, it, retirement is a financial number. If you are able, you should decide when you want to stop working.  Determine if you are comfortable spending down, getting an annuity, or want to hold onto your savings.  Create a budget you can live with in retirement.  Maybe bucket for large expenses or travel as Ms. Benz and others say.  Then figure out how you get there.  As a friend told me, tell me when you will die, and I will tell you which SS scenario is best.  You can run all the Monte Carlos you want, but nothing will ever be 100% certain, thanks to lightning strikes, meteors, busses, etc.  So if you have enough savings, a withdrawal rate you are comfortable with, and SS at age X will let you cover your budget, why not go for it?  Many articles tout FRA or the 8% yearly increase in SS if you wait past FRA.  But if just filed and did not use your savings and earned at least Vanguard Wellesley like returns (even around 2000-2002 or 2007-2009) you would still have plenty of savings.  Someone will always tell you that you could have had more, i.e. if we worked until 75 and delayed until 70, of course we would have a lot more than retiring and filing at 65.  Whether your numbers work at 62 or 65 or 67...why not figure your budget, determine your sources to cover it, then go enjoy life.  Don't worry about how much you COULD have had if you delayed.  Unless your sole purpose if leaving as much as you can for your heirs...that is a different story!


First off, I agree with much of what you wrote.  However, your post does beg the question, if you do have "plenty of savings" and good health ... why not just postpone SS year-by-year and adjust as needed?  Because if you truly have plenty of savings, why not postpone SS and get going on your retirement goals?  Said another way, that would seem to be the easiest way not to "worry about how much you COULD have had if you delayed."       

There was a recent article in AARP that strongly supported delaying SS past FRA.  That in itself is no surprise, however the so-called expert did suggest a pretty interesting way at looking at the benefit.  They had an example where a primary earner postponing SS from 66 to 70 would get a monthly benefit that is $1,040 higher than at 66.  They said to buy an annuity on the private market that had inflation protections and survivor benefit that would provide that same $1,040 would cost $252,000.  They concluded that the family would be better off using $150,000 in retirement savings from 66 to 70 to accomplish that improved SS benefit stream, saving $102,000, a  40% discount on the annuity.  Although the expert's analysis is imperfect in my view as presented, as well as dubious for some retirement situations, that's a pretty compelling example for many with good health, good genes and significant savings.  

And you are correct, this is not out a matter of some impossible maximizing of retirement financing with imperfect information but instead making informed decisions based on reasonable scenarios and math based on your own personal situation and goals.  

ctyankee

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Isn't it about your budget, not SS age?


@ctyankee wrote:

@Lefty wrote:

More ramblings as I read comments and online articles as we near making our SS decision.  As Chris Hogan puts, it, retirement is a financial number. If you are able, you should decide when you want to stop working.  Determine if you are comfortable spending down, getting an annuity, or want to hold onto your savings.  Create a budget you can live with in retirement.  Maybe bucket for large expenses or travel as Ms. Benz and others say.  Then figure out how you get there.  As a friend told me, tell me when you will die, and I will tell you which SS scenario is best.  You can run all the Monte Carlos you want, but nothing will ever be 100% certain, thanks to lightning strikes, meteors, busses, etc.  So if you have enough savings, a withdrawal rate you are comfortable with, and SS at age X will let you cover your budget, why not go for it?  Many articles tout FRA or the 8% yearly increase in SS if you wait past FRA.  But if just filed and did not use your savings and earned at least Vanguard Wellesley like returns (even around 2000-2002 or 2007-2009) you would still have plenty of savings.  Someone will always tell you that you could have had more, i.e. if we worked until 75 and delayed until 70, of course we would have a lot more than retiring and filing at 65.  Whether your numbers work at 62 or 65 or 67...why not figure your budget, determine your sources to cover it, then go enjoy life.  Don't worry about how much you COULD have had if you delayed.  Unless your sole purpose if leaving as much as you can for your heirs...that is a different story!


First off, I agree with much of what you wrote.  However, your post does beg the question, if you do have "plenty of savings" and good health ... why not just postpone SS year-by-year and adjust as needed?  Because if you truly have plenty of savings, why not postpone SS and get going on your retirement goals?  Said another way, that would seem to be the easiest way not to "worry about how much you COULD have had if you delayed."       

There was a recent article in AARP that strongly supported delaying SS past FRA.  That in itself is no surprise, however the so-called expert did suggest a pretty interesting way at looking at the benefit.  They had an example where a primary earner postponing SS from 66 to 70 would get a monthly benefit that is $1,040 higher than at 66.  They said to buy an annuity on the private market that had inflation protections and survivor benefit that would provide that same $1,040 would cost $252,000.  They concluded that the family would be better off using $150,000 in retirement savings from 66 to 70 to accomplish that improved SS benefit stream, saving $102,000, a  40% discount on the annuity.  Although the expert's analysis is imperfect in my view as presented, as well as dubious for some retirement situations, that's a pretty compelling example for many with good health, good genes and significant savings.  

And you are correct, this is not out a matter of some impossible maximizing of retirement financing with imperfect information but instead making informed decisions based on reasonable scenarios and math based on your own personal situation and goals.  

ctyankee


 Not exactly

all the experts ignore the rule that if a Retiree lives to their normal life expectancy they will receive the same total amount of SS benefits regardless of when they retire. If they die prior to their end of their actuarial life expectancy they will receive more benefits than if they delayed commencing SS.

Compared to IRAs SS has two disadvantages: the payments end at death and are taxable at ordinary income tax  rates. IRAs can be passed on to future generations and converted to tax free Roth accounts using tax arbitrage .

I elected to begin SS at 65 to pay for expenses while I converted 1/3 of my retirement benefits to Roth IRAs which prevented me from going into a higher tax bracket when RMDs commenced. Starting at 65 avoided a 38% increase in SS if I waited to 70 which would have been in tax at a higher bracket because I began my RMDs. I can withdraw funds from the Roth’s at any time without leaving a footprint on my tax return. All of the Roths will be passed to my heirs tax free. All of my Roth’s assets are invested in growth stocks.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Participant ○○

Re: Isn't it about your budget, not SS age?

For me, retirement was about a) my career stage, b) accumulations in employer-based retirement plans and generally, and c) financial obligations.

My employer's rules were straightforward.

"Eligibility: Regular full-time and part-time (50 - 89.9%) faculty, academic staff, executive management and University support staff in a benefits eligible position. Benefits eligible positions for faculty, academic staff and executive management are defined as 50% or greater employment for a continuous period of 9 months or longer. Benefits eligible positions for support staff are defined as regular full-time (90 - 100%) and part-time (50% - 89.9%) employment without an end date of less than 9 months.

Effective date of retirement: Retirement is optional for employees effective with the first day of the month in which they meet the minimum University retirement requirements. Retirement or termination is required the first day of the month following the 70th birthday for police officers only.

Minimum Retirement Requirements: The minimum retirement requirements specify that you may be an official university retiree upon attainment of one of the following:

  • Fifteen years of service and at least age 62, OR
  • Twenty-five years of service at any age."

I retired at age 70, after 39 years of employment with my last employer, though I could have received full employer benefits earlier, including coordination of health benefits with Medicare. Deferring til age 70 had an advantage with respect to Social Security income and to growing my accumulation of savings and investments. It allowed me to continue to grow our savings until full SS retirement age. It also allowed me to help out one of our kids financially. Coincidentally we also received some family bequests just before and after I retired; we hadn't figured those into the retirement decision.

I would add that most of the academics with whom I worked didn't reckon their retirement goals primarily in terms of whether they had enough money and investments. They thought in terms of their research projects, access to labs and equipment, and access to external funding to support projects, travel, and research assistance. In my department it was rare for faculty to voluntarily retire before age 66; most of my close associates have retired at age 70.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Participant ○○○

Re: Isn't it about your budget, not SS age?


@Juris2 wrote:

For me, retirement was about a) my career stage, b) accumulations in employer-based retirement plans and generally, and c) financial obligations.

...snip ...

I retired at age 70, after 39 years of employment with my last employer, though I could have received full employer benefits earlier, including coordination of health benefits with Medicare. Deferring til age 70 had an advantage with respect to Social Security income and to growing my accumulation of savings and investments. It allowed me to continue to grow our savings until full SS retirement age. It also allowed me to help out one of our kids financially. Coincidentally we also received some family bequests just before and after I retired; we hadn't figured those into the retirement decision.

I would add that most of the academics with whom I worked didn't reckon their retirement goals primarily in terms of whether they had enough money and investments. They thought in terms of their research projects, access to labs and equipment, and access to external funding to support projects, travel, and research assistance. In my department it was rare for faculty to voluntarily retire before age 66; most of my close associates have retired at age 70.


Juris,

I'm glad you enjoyed your work, research, and colleagues and wish you the best.

All things being even, perhaps it is a prudent move not to consider possible bequests or inheritances in your retirement planning.  In that way, you're not counting on chickens being hatched.  I golf with a probate judge who told me that many heirs are surprised (in a bad way) about what really comes their way for one reason or another.   Anecdotal to be sure, but close to his death, my Uncle asked me to help him with creating a will.  He had no children of his own and his first inclination was to bypass his nieces and nephews and leave everything to their children.  I told him that would be great for me (as I have two kids) but would be quite unfair to his four nephews with no children.  Fortunately, he saw it my way, but if he had simply used a lawyer I doubt the lawyer would have even known or cared about the issue. 

ctyankee               

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Isn't it about your budget, not SS age?

Always easy for pencil-pushers and desk jockeys to talk about/recommend delaying SS.  And when I see these articles, there is rarely even a mention of blue collar folks like me who are pretty banged up, physically and mentally, from our careers, and have to leave the workforce sooner rather than later  It's like these advice-givers don't even consider or realize that the workforce has people like me who have little option but to pull the pin at 62 or thereabouts.  They can't see us from the windows of the ivory towers and worldview of their (and most folks') soft jobs.

Vent over.  I went out at the very month I was 62 in 2017, and now do a little part-time work (still manual labor) just to be active and make a little extra cash.

Highlighted
Participant ○○○

Re: Isn't it about your budget, not SS age?


@bigsteve wrote:

Always easy for pencil-pushers and desk jockeys to talk about/recommend delaying SS.  And when I see these articles, there is rarely even a mention of blue collar folks like me who are pretty banged up, physically and mentally, from our careers, and have to leave the workforce sooner rather than later  It's like these advice-givers don't even consider or realize that the workforce has people like me who have little option but to pull the pin at 62 or thereabouts.  They can't see us from the windows of the ivory towers and worldview of their (and most folks') soft jobs.

Vent over.  I went out at the very month I was 62 in 2017, and now do a little part-time work (still manual labor) just to be active and make a little extra cash.


Thanks for your candor.  I doubt that there have been more than a handful of people in the many years that I have been reading these sort of threads that have admitted to needing the money.  I guess - even in Internet obscurity - candor can be a hard thing to find.  

However, if the experts are even remotely correct about the fact that 40% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck, it goes way just past blue collar workers.  My sister does taxes and says that I would be surprised at the number of upscale living families that have virtually no savings.  

ctyankee

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Isn't it about your budget, not SS age?

Thanks for the reality check, Big Steve.

FWIW, according to Social Security statistics, many folks take Social Security at 62 and very few delay to age 70.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/retirement/2018/06/19/whats-most-popular-age-to...

Bob

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Participant ○○

Re: Isn't it about your budget, not SS age?

Regarding "needing the money," things happen. We filed at age 66 because our daughter had decided to go back to school for an MBA + and MS, a 3-year program at costs in excess of $50K per year. She took out prodigious loans -- Federal Direct Loans -- at absurdly high interest rates. Created a >$100K pile of debt. Not only did we help to subsidize her expenses (mainly housing) while she was enrolled, but after she graduated the interest rate (7.65%) was going to turn this into a never-ending nightmare.

There were, I think, some long-term costs for us filing at age 66 rather than at age 70, but it was a necessary trade-off. This was actually about our budget, given our commitment to support our daughter's professoinal education. Concidentally, just as I was about to retire at age 70 -- and after our daughter had received her new degrees -- we suddenly ran into a lot of money in bequests from both sides of our family. While we applied that money first of all to liquidating our daughter's loans, fortunately there was also much more money to come. We invested that mainly in a brokerage account at Fidelity, as well as in a couple of supplemental 403b/457b accounts at Fidelity.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Isn't it about your budget, not SS age?


@ctyankee wrote:

@bigsteve wrote:

Always easy for pencil-pushers and desk jockeys to talk about/recommend delaying SS.  And when I see these articles, there is rarely even a mention of blue collar folks like me who are pretty banged up, physically and mentally, from our careers, and have to leave the workforce sooner rather than later  It's like these advice-givers don't even consider or realize that the workforce has people like me who have little option but to pull the pin at 62 or thereabouts.  They can't see us from the windows of the ivory towers and worldview of their (and most folks') soft jobs.

Vent over.  I went out at the very month I was 62 in 2017, and now do a little part-time work (still manual labor) just to be active and make a little extra cash.


Thanks for your candor.  I doubt that there have been more than a handful of people in the many years that I have been reading these sort of threads that have admitted to needing the money.  I guess - even in Internet obscurity - candor can be a hard thing to find.  

However, if the experts are even remotely correct about the fact that 40% of Americans are living paycheck-to-paycheck, it goes way just past blue collar workers.  My sister does taxes and says that I would be surprised at the number of upscale living families that have virtually no savings.  

ctyankee


ctyankee... don't get me wrong.  Even though I started relatively late in the investing game (due to non-working spouse for years, kids, and doing things like 12.5 yrs in the military where I usually didn't have a lot I could save), I still retired with a 401K and 2 IRAs with a reasonable 6 figure sum total.  But I ran, with pen, paper, and calculator numerous scenarios, and given all the variables I kept concluding that it would not make sense for me to draw down on my investments to delay SS.  A major reason being, for example, that when you delay it takes X number of years to reach the break even point vis-a-vis what you have foregone by not starting to draw at 62.  That was a big one for me, as I figured if I delayed to FRA, it would take 12+ years at the delayed, higher payment to break even.

We were always fairly frugal by American standards, but I still wasn't able to save seriously until I was about 50.  Around that time I got enough inheritance to pay off approx 70K remaining on mortgage, with some left over, and that was the turning point where I was able to really save and invest.  And it helped that I found this whole investing game very interesting and have spent quite a lot of time studying and learning.  This forum has been an integral part of that.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Isn't it about your budget, not SS age?


@bigsteve wrote:

Always easy for pencil-pushers and desk jockeys to talk about/recommend delaying SS.  And when I see these articles, there is rarely even a mention of blue collar folks like me who are pretty banged up, physically and mentally, from our careers, and have to leave the workforce sooner rather than later  It's like these advice-givers don't even consider or realize that the workforce has people like me who have little option but to pull the pin at 62 or thereabouts.  They can't see us from the windows of the ivory towers and worldview of their (and most folks') soft jobs.

Vent over.  I went out at the very month I was 62 in 2017, and now do a little part-time work (still manual labor) just to be active and make a little extra cash.


+1.

I would not have been able to conclude early retirement, without a "taking social security at age 62" component.

BTW, from actual experience, the comparable reinvestment of these annual social security payments has driven my break-even point to far above age 100, had I waited to age 70.

  Not saying it's not possible, but what would I do with the small extra money above age 100?

R48

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Follower ○○○

Re: Isn't it about your budget, not SS age?

Lots of ways to skin the SS cat. I retired and took SS at FRA, because my 7 yr-old would get 50% of my SS level tax-free.  We use about 56% for her support and put the rest in laddered CDs at the credit union.  SS also allowed my wife to max out her 457 plan while I pulled enough out of my 457 to live on and reinvest in a taxable account, while barely staying in the 12% bracket and reducing future RMDs that will hit 22% within a few years after they become mandatory.  When she retires with her pension we will surely be doomed to the 22% bracket so she may as well wait till 70 for SS. 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Frequent Contributor

Re: Isn't it about your budget, not SS age?


@retiredat48 wrote:

@bigsteve wrote:

Always easy for pencil-pushers and desk jockeys to talk about/recommend delaying SS.  And when I see these articles, there is rarely even a mention of blue collar folks like me who are pretty banged up, physically and mentally, from our careers, and have to leave the workforce sooner rather than later  It's like these advice-givers don't even consider or realize that the workforce has people like me who have little option but to pull the pin at 62 or thereabouts.  They can't see us from the windows of the ivory towers and worldview of their (and most folks') soft jobs.

Vent over.  I went out at the very month I was 62 in 2017, and now do a little part-time work (still manual labor) just to be active and make a little extra cash.


+1.

I would not have been able to conclude early retirement, without a "taking social security at age 62" component.

BTW, from actual experience, the comparable reinvestment of these annual social security payments has driven my break-even point to far above age 100, had I waited to age 70.

  Not saying it's not possible, but what would I do with the small extra money above age 100?

R48

 


Wow.  Good job.

I was also lucky to have spent the latter part of my working career in a unionized joint with pretty good benefits, which included a small pension and good, cheap medical insurance, both available at 62.  I have the VA for most things, but would have had to buy private insurance *minimally* for my wife, if not something for me for the things which might be outside of VA expertise or purview.  Once I turn 65, I can keep the retiree health plan, at an even lower premium.  It will serve as secondary insurance to my Medicare, and my wife will continue to be covered as normal until she turns 65.

I am SO glad I was able to leave my workplace at 62,drawing the SS, and having the small pension and medical coverage.  Waiting til 65 would have **bleep** near killed me.

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Participant ○○○

Re: Isn't it about your budget, not SS age?


@retiredat48 wrote:

@bigsteve wrote:

Always easy for pencil-pushers and desk jockeys to talk about/recommend delaying SS.  And when I see these articles, there is rarely even a mention of blue collar folks like me who are pretty banged up, physically and mentally, from our careers, and have to leave the workforce sooner rather than later  It's like these advice-givers don't even consider or realize that the workforce has people like me who have little option but to pull the pin at 62 or thereabouts.  They can't see us from the windows of the ivory towers and worldview of their (and most folks') soft jobs.

Vent over.  I went out at the very month I was 62 in 2017, and now do a little part-time work (still manual labor) just to be active and make a little extra cash.


+1.

I would not have been able to conclude early retirement, without a "taking social security at age 62" component.

BTW, from actual experience, the comparable reinvestment of these annual social security payments has driven my break-even point to far above age 100, had I waited to age 70.

  Not saying it's not possible, but what would I do with the small extra money above age 100?

R48

 


R48,

Your anecdotal situation aside, this is not helpful to many in my view. 

Wade Pfau does a good job of making the case for when taking SS early makes sense.  Pointedly, some high return on what someone *could* make on their early SS withdrawals is not one of them

https://www.onefpa.org/journal/Pages/DEC15-The-Case-for-Delaying-Social-Security.aspx

I would also interject that ... 10 years into a bull market, it is easy for many to believe that they are better investors (a rising tide lifts all boats) than they really are.  And unfortunately, people forget the lessons of history, such as when times get bad for the stock market is the time that many retirees panic and sell low.  Then what happens to all those lovely projections after a 25% hit to their portfolio?  What happens when they also miss the rebound because they are still on the sideline? 

In the last few threads on the issue of when to take SS, some posters have mentioned the relief they have felt to be able to 'sleep at night' now that their decision is behind them.  But is it?  Really?  Unfortunately, we don't have too many older posters still active here.  But, in the past, some have written about the stress of living with a nest egg with uncertainty and at the same time having their adult children ask them if they could have their inheritance early, or being asked to pitch in for an adult child that has lost their job or even an adult grandchild that comes to their door with dependency issues.  Point being that financial stress (unfortunately) does not wash away for many, if ever. 

Many an O.P. on this subject over the years that claim to be in good health and in a good financial situation, never seem to be able to explain why they need to make a decision on SS now versus just deferring the decision until their situation changes ...

Meanwhile, Lefty appears to have left ...

ctyankee    

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Explorer ○○○

Re: Isn't it about your budget, not SS age?

ct, I have not left, I am here every day, LOL.  None of us really knows the answer, not even the experts.   The unknows of when you die and what returns and inflation will really be, make it impossible to accurately predict the best decision.   Unknown or unforeseen events could change life as we know it, up or down.  So you have to go with what works with you, as long as you can cover your budget, or are willing to adjust spending as you go.  It's just educational to read and consider comments, points of view, and real experiences of others.

 

0 Kudos
Highlighted
Participant ○○○

Re: Isn't it about your budget, not SS age?


@Lefty wrote:

ct, I have not left, I am here every day, LOL.  None of us really knows the answer, not even the experts.   The unknows of when you die and what returns and inflation will really be, make it impossible to accurately predict the best decision.   Unknown or unforeseen events could change life as we know it, up or down.  So you have to go with what works with you, as long as you can cover your budget, or are willing to adjust spending as you go.  It's just educational to read and consider comments, points of view, and real experiences of others.

 


Lefty,

Glad to hear that you're still around.  

Yes, unforeseen events can change life as you know it.  But the question remains ... in your situation, why not just the defer the SS decision until something calls for taking SS then and there?  

ctyankee

0 Kudos
Announcements