From the study:
As shown in Table 28, assuming a maximum age of life of 80, 12.5 percent of households age 45-62 optimize by collecting at age 70. This is slightly higher than our no-optimization baseline, which entails 10.5 percent collecting at 70. Optimization nonetheless leads to later collection for most households: across all respondents, the retirement-benefit collection age increases by a year, from a baseline of 65.1 to 66.1. In the baseline, 29.5 percent of respondents collect starting at age 62, only 8 percent should do so after optimization even when the maximum age of life is 80. With this maximum lifespan, 82.1 percent of 45 to 62 year old households will benefit from delaying collection. Hence, our findings suggest that, even if household members set an unrealistically low maximum age of life, their actual collection decisions are sub-optimal.
Doesn’t inflation make the case for claiming benefits earlier?
Get da dough before it all runs out.
the “breakeven” point is about age 79.5
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks, I have calculated this also.
I have just a few years until 62, and I will begin collecting asap. I don’t plan to live past 75, and I am not willing to gamble on SS not running out of money. To say nothing of the shrinking value of the dollar...
You are 100% correct it all depends on age.
I know people at 62 years old who look about 80 years old. I have advised them to take Soc. Sec. ASAP.
I know others who are still doing triathlons at 70 - statistics say it makes sense for them to wait for higher payments.
I plan to collect at 70. Not uust because both my parents are long lived and and still alive in late 80s and 90s, but because my wife is 14 years younger and will largely live off my ss.
Some people stop working and spend a couple years retired, with no wages. They can pull money from some stock portfolio or 401(k) to pay with bills while waiting until they reach age 67 or 70 for that bigger Social Security check. Meanwhile, their stock portfolio gets smaller and smaller. This can be a bad decision. For some people, it’s better to keep the money in the stock market and to accept Social Security as early as possible, even at a slightly reduced amount.
On a different note, both my parents died in their 60s, before they ever collected a dime from Social Security. They paid in, but never got any payout. Waiting for the “right time” just isn’t always the best strategy.
Bottomline: everyone has a unique situation. 62? 65? 67? 70? it all depends on your circumstances.
That’s if you make it to 70. If you don’t, you don’t get squat. If you started paying in at 18 that means you would have paid in for up to 52 years and not received a penny. That’s bullsh*t.
I did a rough break-even calculation, too. I came up with a little past age 78.
Anyway, it was an easy call for me. I retired and took Social Security at age 62. I’d rather have the money while I was still young and healthy enough to enjoy it.
Plus I’ll be forced to take distributions from my retirement account once I hit 73. That should smooth things out.
Of course your mileage may vary, and vary a lot.
There are 2 very good reasons to take SS at 62.
1. You need the money.
2. You don’t need the money.
God only knows if this will even exist in 10 years.
When I filed, I did an actuarial analysis that showed that starting at 67 or 70 was “actuarially neutral”, using Social Security’s actuarial tables, and assuming 6% ROI and 2% inflation. I decided to stash the money in my 401k tax free by making catch-up payments while working.
Future Social Security payments are subject to the whims of a future congress, which may have more Adam Schiffs and Chuck Schumers than Tom Cottons and Mike Johnsons. Taking the money up front subjects me to market forces, but shelters me somewhat from political whims. Thanks to DJT, my calculation has paid off handsomely so far.
If the future presidents and congresses come out of the Kamala Harris and Hillary Clinton mold, God help us, regardless of what decision you make.
If I die (God forbid) will my wife get a death benefit? For how long? Does it matter if I am 60 or 70?
I’m nearly 67.
I haven’t taken it yet.
I’m pretty healthy and my family members are naturally long-lived.
People without savings take SS at 62, compounding their problem for the rest of their lives.
Why is the UK Daily mail giving SS advice? We did not wait. My husband’s retired with a pension in 2008, but that was halved when he hit 62. His plant was wiped out anyway. The timing was good to escape my job when I hit 62, also. It depends on circumstances.
And that’s with no time value for the money.
If those early years funds were invested it pushes it back even further.
I was still working at 70 when I started SS.The SS employee asked me if I wanted a lump-sum payment of $13,000 for waiting until 70. I took the money and ran.
Who's going to hire a 63 year old Journeyman electrician? After 6 months of looking for work the answer was NO ONE and so I applied for SS.
I have other retirement $$ too so I'm doing OK.
I quit my job when I was 63. It was a stressful job and my blood pressure was sky high. I had a heart attack at 56 and did not know how long I had. Finally one day the company I work for pissed me off and I quit. I got tired of their bonus programs that dangle the carrot in front of you and you will never get it.
I get enough social security to get by without too much hardship. I would do it again in a heartbeat since my health is so much better without the stress.