I am always suspicious of people that tell me we have to spend down our portfolios. Seems to me that is what the IRA is for. And if we can hang onto some of that, by golly . . .
The house is paid for. We're enjoying security we never enjoyed before. And now we're supposed to change our lifestyles to what end? Consume more stuff? Wander around? Geez we did a heck a lot of that on the cheap while we younger and spryer and child free.
Maybe we would have more to not spend if we had buckled down to the grindstone suggested by those folks that sneer at work-life balance. But we have our memories.

they’re just not spending what they should, and they’re not living the life and retirement that they should afford.

I always wonder what sort of relationship such people have with their parents. We wouldn't be where we are now without a little help from our parents. If we can help our kids a little, that would make us happy. Seems to me that happy is the point.

Barron's RETIREMENT & WELL BEING (online). The SEC panel on including private-equity/credit (p-e/c) within retail funds and retirement 401k/403b has made several recommendation (28-page report): avoid self-standing p-e/c offerings; include p-e/c within allocation/hybrid funds and TDFs; different restrictions in retirement and nonretirement accounts; any redemption restrictions may be similar to interval-funds but with monthly redemptions at higher %AUM; revision of the definition of “accredited investors”; more disclosures and investor education.
(Subscription) https://www.barrons.com/articles/sec-private-assets-retail-investors-1d83d3cd
SEC, 28-pg Report https://www.sec.gov/files/iac-private-markets-091125.pdf

There's a fair amount hidden under the covers here. Not that the conclusions aren't sound, but some of the reasoning bears scrutiny.
Thinking in terms of COLA annuities, I agree with the conclusion that "buying" more SS by delaying benefits is better than buying a commercial annuity with COLAs. Though looking at the reasoning ...
In saying that 10% should be allocated to delaying SS, the paper seems to be saying that this 10% represents the cost of that delay. It calculates that cost for the typical investor to be $108K. Does that mean that the paper is assuming that a typical investor has a $1M portfolio at age 66? Mixing dollars and percentages is confusing at best.
Commercial annuities with fixed COLAs (e.g. 2% of 4% adjustment per year), are dismissed as having higher risk, citing Blanchett.
Blanchett's analysis shows that for these annuities

The expected benefit of including the COLA is negative. This is primarily because the retiree has to deplete the portfolio faster earlier in retirement for the annuity with the COLA due to the lower initial payment. The portfolio has a relatively higher return, which benefits the retiree as well. The COLA does the best only when inflation is relatively low and life expectancies are notably longer.

This analysis would seem to also apply to delaying SS benefits. With a commercial COLA annuity, the investor is accepting lower monthly payments at the start in exchange for higher (adjusted) payments later. With delayed SS, the investor is accepting even lower zero monthly payments for four years in exchange for higher payments once SS starts.
There are differences between commercial COLA annuities and SS but this question of possibly increasing inflation risk by delaying SS is not discussed or dismissed.
People's propensity to spend income but not principal, even as that principal appreciates faster than inflation is not exactly ignored. It's finessed rather than addressed directly.
The suggestion is made that because some companies use what would be dividend money to buy back shares (and boost their prices) you're not really selling off principal when you sell shares. You're just capturing these "dividends". As opposed to companies that plow profits back into their businesses, thus raising their value?
I don't have significant disagreements with the conclusions. And it's hard to clearly articulate reasoning in a limited space.

This has also been pointed out by others - Wade Pfau, rtc.
That is, adding guaranteed-income to the fixed-income portion makes retirement income portfolios more stable and less worrisome.
Just don't overdo it (so, partial annuitization to cover basic expenses) and use low-cost SPIAs (not fancy annuities with lots of bells-and-whistles).

Don't know if the new Congress bill would help,
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/26/social-security-retirement-age-wording-change.html

the IRS is looking to restrict retirement savings
The IRS had little to do with this other than restate what Congress required. Give credit where credit is due.

SECURE 2.0 introduced two notable changes to this system:
mandatory Roth treatment for catch-up contributions by high earners for taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2023
optional "super catch-up" contributions for participants ages 60 to 63 for taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2024

https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/05/irs-proposes-key-changes-to-roth-catch-up-contributions
As a practical matter, the executive branch does have limited discretion in carrying out what Congress says, especially in making sure that the law can actually be executed:

Due to concerns that plan sponsors and recordkeepers would be unable to comply with the mandatory Roth catch-up requirement by the original deadline, Notice 2023-62 provided a transition period that delayed the effective date until Jan. 1, 2026 (although, a later effective date may apply for collectively bargained plans).

Even Congress isn't restricting retirement savings; see e.g. rforno's post above. What Congress has always done is to restrain the government's largesse by limiting contributions. That's far and away the larger restriction. And with its new "super catch up" provision, Congress is enabling earners to shelter of another $11K of assets that would otherwise sit in taxable accounts.
Still, not to worry if you're a really high earner (read business partner). Congress continues to give them favorable tax treatment on profit sharing (carried interest) and even on catch up contributions:

No FICA Wages, No Roth Mandate. Participants without FICA wages (e.g., partners who have only self-employment income) are not subject to the Roth requirement.

Stuff like this is another reason I'm glad nearly all of my retirement assets are in taxable accounts .. i don't need to worry about playing these games, planning withdrawls, dealing with RMDs down the road. Keeps things rather simple.

SECURE 2.0 (2022) - Final IRS rules for Catchups for 401k/403b
From 2026, all catchups above the threshold at a single job must go into Roth 401k. So, below the threshold, catchups can go to 401k or Roth 401k.
Threshold used is for income in the prior year & are inflation-adjusted: $145K (2025), $150K (2026 est)
If Roth 401k isn’t available, then one is out of luck – complain to HR.
Catchup for 50+ is $7,500 (2025), $8,000 (2026 est).
Super Catchup for 60-63 is $11,250 (2025, 2026 est). It’s about 150% of the regular catchup amount.
Relevant age is for the DOB in the applicable calendar year.
Estimates will have to be confirmed by IRS later.
403b rules are similar to 401k, but there is also a limited 15-yr catchup.
Catchup for IRA & HSA is $1K. These have their own income limits.
IRS Final Rules, 9/15/25
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/treasury-irs-issue-final-regulations-on-new-roth-catch-up-rule-other-secure-2point0-act-provisions
(LONG) https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/16/2025-17865/catch-up-contributions
Some IRS links in 09/2025 show rules only for 2025, not for 2026.
Other Sources
https://www.wsj.com/personal-finance/retirement/high-earners-age-50-and-older-are-about-to-lose-a-major-401-k-tax-break-75572091?mod=hp_lead_pos11
https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/retirement/catch-up-contributions

The 'catch-up' is lost only by those over 50 who earn > $145K (per employer), at least for now.
But it's a horrible signal that the IRS is looking to restrict retirement savings. The govt is so wasteful in its spending and this is simply not an area to be targeted.
There is no excuse for this.

I know this can be a 'good problem' for many, but the meta is clear: the IRS restricting 'catchup' contributions for older workers who can afford to do so is one more shift towards the government creating an uncomfortable retirement for many as costs continue to rise everywhere.
(free link)
https://www.wsj.com/personal-finance/retirement/high-earners-age-50-and-older-are-about-to-lose-a-major-401-k-tax-break-75572091?st=o7HbQA&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

@msf Excellent. Great information and clarification. Thanks again!
I know that a Roth conversion is a taxable event, of course. But, does it also count as unearned income, as it pertains to LTCG tax treatment. Or is it more of a "unique" event?
I've thought about delaying anywhere from 6 months to 24 months. And using that time to cash out some LTCG positions, perform Roth conversions and/or spend down some (taxable?) accounts.
I am playing with some tax calculators, trying to see what works best. Our spending needs will drop off significantly in 2026. We have been spending on home improvements, automobile upgrades, education, medical/dental, all in preparation for retirement over the past 6-7 years. All of that will be behind us at the end of this year.
We are about 62% tax-deferred, 5% Roth and 33% taxable. Our taxable accounts hold a great deal of LTCG and cash.
A few articles/calculators that I have squirreled away on retirement taxation:
https://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/t037-c032-s014-tax-efficient-retirement-withdrawal-strategies.html
https://www.irscalculators.com/tax-calculator
https://www.schwab.com/ira/ira-calculators/roth-ira-conversion

If I am reading it correctly (probably not), my spouse still gets more than her current benefit (claimed at 65 and much lower earnings), when I claim at FRA and she switches to spousal benefits, just not as much as it might've been had she also waited until FRA. We are about the same age. Is that correct interpretation?
Yes.
And the spousal benefit is half of my PIA, regardless of when I claim. Though she cannot switch to spousal, until I start my benefits? In layman's terms her spousal benefit is already fixed/determind before I decide to claim?
Yes. When you claim (as opposed to when you stop working) affects when she can switch to spousal benefits but doesn't affect the amount of those benefits.
Though the longer you work, potentially the larger your PIA becomes, since it is based on your highest 35 years of earnings. And a larger PIA makes her spousal benefits larger. So to maximize spousal benefits, claim early (to start those benefits earlier) but continue working (to increase PIA).
Survivor benefits work the opposite way. The longer you wait before claiming (up to age 70) the larger your own benefits become. Consequently the larger her survivor benefits become (if/when you predecease her).
Having a spouse complicates life :-)
Also, it appears that the SSA is using the terms "FRA" and "normal retirement" interchangeably?
That's certainly what it looks like. Here's an SSA table with a column labeled "Full (normal) Retirement Age". If I'm wrong about the NRA don't shoot me (ouch!).
the specter of cut SS benefits is not unrealistic. So, another unknown variable. And that suggests one should take the money and run.
If the government doesn't reduce benefits, you'll reach the break even point in about 14 years, i.e. at the end of 2039. If nothing is done, the government is predicted to cut benefits by about 1/4 after 2033. So for the last 6 years (2034-2039) you'll be catching up only 3/4 as fast as originally planned.
So rather than taking another six years after 2033 to catch up, you'll need another 8 years (4/3 x 6) to catch up. That makes your break even point the end of 2041 instead of 2039. Whether that extra two years tips the scales is up to you to decide.
The fact that SS is inflation adjusted makes the calculation above simple. It's all in real dollars so you don't have to worry about inflation or depreciating future dollars or present value. It's already baked in.

@msf Thanks for all of that information, most appreciated. I see how muck work you put into it.
I'll clarify the last part first. The anxiety would emanate from wondering the entire time, if I was going to live long enough to break even. lol From wondering if I chose poorly. Not a big issue either way though. More of an afterthought.
Definitely not worried about income or our retirement funds lasting. More about making a "best" choice.
I am now a bit confused about the spousal benefit. If I am reading it correctly (probably not), my spouse still gets more than her current benefit (claimed at 65 and much lower earnings), when I claim at FRA and she switches to spousal benefits, just not as much as it might've been had she also waited until FRA. We are about the same age. Is that correct interpretation?
And the spousal benefit is half of my PIA, regardless of when I claim. Though she cannot switch to spousal, until I start my benefits? In layman's terms her spousal benefit is already fixed/determind before I decide to claim?
Also, it appears that the SSA is using the terms "FRA" and "normal retirement" interchangeably?
I have been vacillating on taking SS at FRA. You have given me something to consider.
@sfnative. A lengthy but valuable read. Thanks.
Based on what has happened thus far, the specter of cut SS benefits is not unrealistic. So, another unknown variable. And that suggests one should take the money and run.

And the wife, who took her benefits at 65, gets a bigger (spousal) benefit at the same time
FRA = full retirement age, PIA = primary insurance amount
Wife spousal benefit (if less than her own benefit) =
1/2 (or less, if taken before her FRA) x your PIA (independent of when you take benefits).
Spousal benefit is reduced (below 1/2 of PIA) if spouse (here, wife) starts taking benefit before their FRA. But when you take doesn't matter.

If you claim your spousal benefit at FRA, you will receive ½ of your spouse’s PIA regardless of when your spouse claims. I.e. a higher earning spouse claiming his/her reduced benefit at age 62 will not affect a spousal benefit claimed at FRA. A higher earning spouse claiming early would, however, affect Survivor benefits, but that is a topic for a future blog.

https://counterweightpw.com/insights/should-my-spouse-claim-early-understanding-social-security-spousal-benefits

The spousal benefit can be as much as half of the worker's "primary insurance amount," depending on the spouse's age at retirement. If the spouse begins receiving benefits before "normal (or full) retirement age," the spouse will receive a reduced benefit.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/quickcalc/spouse.html
That links to this SSA definition of PIA (emphasis added):

The "primary insurance amount" (PIA) is the benefit (before rounding down to next lower whole dollar) a person would receive if he/she elects to begin receiving retirement benefits at his/her normal retirement age. At this age, the benefit is neither reduced for early retirement nor increased for delayed retirement.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/piaformula.html
Finally, please don't rely on AI for help. Here's what Google's AI said (searching for spousal benefit half PIA early retirement):

Your Claiming Age: The spousal benefit calculation uses your PIA at your FRA, not the actual amount you are currently collecting. If you claim your own benefit early (before your FRA), this will result in a lower PIA, and thus a lower maximum spousal benefit.

The first sentence appears correct - your spouse's benefit depends on your PIA (which is calculated as if at FRA). The second sentence is not - if you claim early, that reduces your benefit but not your PIA, which is defined as what your benefit would be at FRA. Thus it does not result in a lower maximum spousal benefit.

My situation seems simple. FRA is 66 and 10 months. My employer will be in no need of my services at almost precisely that time. I also subscribe to the notion that by taking SS, one can let investments grow, as Crash suggested. And the wife, who took her benefits at 65, gets a bigger (spousal) benefit at the same time. My state does not tax retirement benefits, either. And I will be retiring mid-year, so less earned income.
Life expectancy is an unknown. Dad lived to be 96. Mom lived to 81. I think my situation may be closer to my mother's. Split the difference and it would be around 88.
I could delay benefits and use taxable funds, paying lower LTCG. Or make bigger Roth conversions during those years. Splitting it in the middle ( 62 - 70) seems like a decent choice. Maybe not the optimal choice. But waiting would make me anxious, I think.

Do you mean your FRA was 66+ (born between 1955 and 1959 inclusive) or actually 67 (born in 1960 or later)? Those born after 1959 haven't yet reached FRA, so at least one of us is a bit confused.
As yogi's chart above shows, a plurality of people take SS as soon as they are able to (age 62). They may be concerned about losing to the government by dying early, or they may be in need of cash flow.
There's a much smaller spike at age 70. Those people hope/expect to win their bet with the government that they will have a long life. And they are not strapped for cash before then.
The middle spike, not quite as large as the number of people taking benefits as soon as they are eligible, is at FRA (age 66). People might chose that age for a few reasons:
- This maximizes their spousal benefit. If their spouse gets the higher SS payments and dies first, they get that larger income stream. Except that this amount is reduced if they started SS before FRA. So waiting until FRA (but not later) has a benefit.
- This avoids a temporary reduction in SS benefits if they are still working and draw SS before FRA. The reduction is only temporary because the full amount of the reduction is added back (inflation adjusted) to their benefits once they reach FRA. Still, this is a temporary reduction in total cash flow ($1 reduction in SS for every $2 in earnings).
- FRA is perceived as the proper age to start drawing SS. That's when "full" benefits begin. Though what "full" means when there's a sliding scale between ages 62 and 70 is somewhat fuzzy.
ISTM that the reasons for taking benefits at age 62 or age 70 are more compelling than taking benefits at FRA, though selecting FRA does confer some benefits also. As others have said, each person's situation is different.

My full retirement age for social security was 67 and I started taking it, never regretted not waiting until I was 70, so many friends passed away while waiting to draw it at 70. Its a government gamble waiting to 70. The gamble for you that benefits the govt is that you never use it.

So Gretchen Morgenson wound up at NBC. For many years she was a muckraking business reporter at the NYTimes. Mostly excellent, though IMHO she occasionally latched onto something so much that she went over the top. There's some of that here.
TIAA has been under pressure for a couple of decades to retain assets and improve profits. Like many employer plan providers, it began offering retirement plan advice once the Dept of Labor opened up the floodgates in 2006.
Of course TIAA's advisors steer participants into more expensive plans. An irony in the report is that it holds Vanguard out as a model of what should be done, when Vanguard just settled with the SEC for failing to "disclose to clients that its advisors had financial incentives to funnel them into certain managed accounts."
There are no white hats in this industry.
I largely agree with yogi that the article exhibits poor understanding of fixed annuity fees. But Morgenson knows better and does not lack for understanding. Her complaint here is over the top. One does not ask a bank what its expense ratios are on its CDs; the profits are built into the rates it offers. Likewise, one does not ask an insurance company what its expense ratios are on its fixed annuities.
Why not ask Vanguard what the "expense ratios" are of the underlying bonds in its MMF portfolios? Just how much does the Treasury make on its T-bills?
To nitpick, it looks like PTTRX (the only Pimco offering) and RERGX (the only American Funds offering) are only in RI's 457 plan, not the 401(a) plan that's the subject of the article.
https://www.tiaa.org/public/tcm/ri/view-all-investments

This was posted in Facebook TIAA Group and here was my reply:
"My take - 2 links are at the end.
1. Plan fees are $32/yr plus fund ER (if applicable).
2. TIAA Traditional is RCP (flexible). There is no ER as it's run directly from TIAA General Account. RCP rates are published monthly (& here too) & seem good. The guessed ERs in the NBC article are speculations & show poor understanding.
3. Also available are TIAA Stable Value (with lower rates) & Vanguard money-market fund.
4. TDFs available are TIAA RetirePlus Select (ER 3 bps only) & Vanguard TDFs.
5. Other funds available are from American Funds, Pimco, State Street, Vanguard.
6. As for restrictions on in-service withdrawals & loans, neither is available, but that is the decision of Rhode Island. I am surprised that loans aren't allowed. But why blame TIAA? Complain to Rhode Island HR.
IMO, it's a GOOD plan & I hope that TIAA responds to the shoddy NBC piece. If not, you are at the right place to get right information (-:)"
NBC https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/rhode-island-sheriffs-retirement-account-woes-bring-scrutiny-state-run-rcna229290
TIAA Rhode Island DC Plan https://www.tiaa.org/public/tcm/ri/retirement-benefits/plan-405868
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/918/tiaa-rhode-island-plan