Posted on 10/23/2025 10:20:16 AM PDT by fruser1
Almost all Americans say they are planning to ignore a key piece of Social Security advice, which means they will miss out on higher monthly payments.
Only 10 percent of those still working plan to wait until they are 70 before they start claiming benefits, according to findings from investment firm Schroders.
Americans can begin claiming Social Security as early as 62, but doing so permanently reduces their monthly payments.
To receive a full retirement benefit, workers must wait until their full retirement age, which stands at 67.
However every year after full retirement age that Americans delay claiming Social Security, their payment will increase by 8 percent.
According to a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research, people who claim before age 70 are wasting an average of $182,000.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
There are even a few traditional single-income families, or those in which the (usually female) spouse earns far less, where the spousal benefit comes into the equation (being half of the earner’s benefit).
Or double-income couples could split the strategy. Lots of variables.
Just for the record 67 felt about right for me but I waited another year. Good enough for me. Feels like the right balance of risk and benefit.
Such a complex topic.
I just watched a video on a common omission - that if you do retire at 62 but don’t take SS, the amount you have to withdraw from your retirement savings is ~$28k/yr MORE until you do. Then you should calculate the yearly interest on that money until you do to figure out what was the real capital loss. It completely changes the ‘break even’ date to well into your 80’s....that most people don’t live to.
It does assume that you don’t work when you retire....but if you don’t, take SS at 62 vs living immediately on your retirement savings. Of course some people will continue to work, some know their health is not good, etc. etc. - so it’s always based on your circumstances....but just “doing the math” of what you get from SS at 62 vs. 65/67/70 and how long it’d take to maximize the most you get from SS is an imperfect view if you’re looking to retire and draw from savings until you take SS.
The table for that is on the Social Security website, and the year of birth (subsequent to 1943 I think it is) determines how many additional months one has to work to get that last 1.something percent, easy to cope with IMHO. I think the $8000 working income limit is now gone, but there's no way most will collect $800,000 ($8k is 1 percent of that) in Soc Sec benefits anyway. And if ya did, I'm pretty sure you could live on it and support your spouse, kids, kids' spouses, grandkids, and have a cottage and a boat to boot. Oh, oops, the last 65 years age full retirement was born in 1942.
With my health issues, and our financial situation, I figured I could use the money now. I can't take it with me, so I might as well take it while I can get it.
Additionally, you never know when the politicians are going to screw with the ages and amounts, or the whole thing could just run out.
Same plan for me as well.
For those who are married and the high earner in the family with the expectation that your spouse will outlive you well beyond the break even point, you have no choice but to wait.
That's life expectancy at birth. If you make it to 62, life expectancy is 81 (US male). If you make it to 70, it's 84.
But people really need to look at their own financial situation and health, their spouses health, and familial life expectancy.
age 67 gives retirees most of their benefit, full benefit kicks in at 72
“My dad lived to 77. Mom to 92.”
Very familiar. Big range in those genetics. Mom’s family tended to the same across the board while Dad’s did the same with no male having lived older than 78 in generations. My cousin and I are the last men of our generation standing on Dad’s side and trying to beat the odds. His brothers did not die of natural causes and his mother made it to 95, Dad’s sister made it to 99 in spite of herself. So far so good but I never take anything for granted.
I have a SS payment record dating back to when I was 12 and started helping to lay carpet for a guy. I did not miss a lick paying for the next 53 years.
If you are not expecting to live past 80, it does t make sense to wait.
You are assuming that the government inflation numbers are correct and that they won’t cut SS in the future.
Real inflation will go up as there is no fiscal responsibility from either party. The money supply is again increasing - this will be followed about 18mo later with more increases in inflation.
If you took it early in 2020 - the high inflation puts you ahead - not behind.. The price of copper more than doubled from 2020 to 2025 - clearly the government numbers are fraud.
This is my attitude towards inflation—fwiw.
I take it and measure it personally.
How much are my costs going up each year?
Those are easily trackable and are different for each person.
National statistics or any other analysis is irrelevant to me.
Dad came down with prostrate cancer when he was 70. They discovered it when he had to go to the hospital in an ambulance because he couldn’t pee.
He had not been to see a doctor in at least 30 years.
Maybe even since getting discharged from the Army Air Corps after WW2.
So, if he wasn’t such a stubborn Pollock and gone to see a doctor regularly, he may have lived longer.
The fact is that most things that people die from like heart disease are caused by lifestyle choices and living in denial. However, if you smoke for 30 years, eat crap food and drink like a fish you ARE going to shorten your lifespan FACT! Of course, you can also get hit by the bus.
I just turned 62 and my first SS payment comes in December. I’m taking it now because I can’t stand the thought of something happening that would let the government keep what I’ve contributed. They’ve taken enough already.
I will wait as long as I can to take social security, but considering both my Dad, and Grandfather died at age 75, I won’t wait too long.
Get the money up front. Unless you don’t really need it and can afford to gamble.
So might suspicions that the government will find another way to cut benefits in the future.
My wife died of cancer-related complications in February. The SSA told me (and sent the earnings tables to prove it) that I could draw her SS benefits when I turn 60, based on what she could have drawn if she had lived to retire at 62. The amount would increase the longer I wait. When I reach my own retirement threshold, I have a choice to make: continue or take hers (if I waited) or take my own...whichever is higher. You cannot have both.
The kicker: my working income will be capped at $24k (rounding off) per year if I take her SS benefits. Not a good deal for me right now, until I at least get debt-free.
I retired at 62 — fully knowing this information — and no regrets.
If one collects his Social Security but keeps working, he can save either his checks or his earnings, even shelter his earnings and get big tax refund the next year.....so it’s not such great advice to wait for the money. Who knows how long you are going to live or be well enough to enjoy retirement???
What needs to be fixed, is perverse Social Security rules about losing benefits permanently if you work and collect Social Security at the same time before age 67. It makes no sense for economics, fairness, social policy. I can retire at 62 or 63 and collect Social Security early, but get less money than if I waited until age 70.....maybe close to $1,000 per month, which would be $12,000 per year.......but I collect for 8 more years......during which time, I still can work and save. But under current rules, which have not been adjusted for inflation for many years, if I earn more than $21,000 per year or something close to that, and even though I am paying income and payroll tax on my earnings......I lose even more benefits and lose them permantly. Does it make any sense for somebody who works for more years and pays payroll taxes and income taxes for more years, lose Social Security benefits compared to somebody who retired at the same age, but did not keep working and paying tax? No. But after age 67, you can work as many hours as you want and earn as much as you want without any penalty, so even though I now am 65 years old, because of this, I have to wait until I am 67 years old to collect Social Security, so before that, I have to put as much money in my HSA and 401K plan as I can before I retire while still having enough left to live on. I imagine that this might be the reason for the rule, except that high rollers with huge paychecks are working into their 80s, and the rule won’t affect them, but ir will affect people who earn under $100K, who are trying to max out their HSA every year and their 401K every year before they retire and are allowed to “catch up” by putting $30,000 in their 401K plan. Getting a little less per month but collecting for more years while working and saving all the SS or the work income would be the best plan for many people. Or one can wait until one is 70 yrs old and not save as much, but get another $10,000 per year in SS. I think collecting at 65 and working, saving until 70 makes sense. One could save several hundred thousand dollars in tax sheltered manner, get big tax refunds each year.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.