Most of this stuff is individual.
One thing is purely mathematics.
You can find many calculators online about what age collecting Soc Sec gets the most dollars before death. These will usually say age 70 gets the most before normal life expectancy.
And there are articles about getting it early because death may be closer than “normal” and also articles about how Soc Sec may be cut.
My point in all this is back to the calculators. They all, ALL, find the “breakeven age”. At what age does collecting at 62 stop having an advantage in total collections over age 70 . . . this is presented as the definitive question.
It’s not. There is another question. “Suppose I collect early and the breakeven occurs before I’m dead and so the people collecting at a later come out ahead . . . By How Much?”
The calculators never look past breakeven age. If you do, you will find you don’t accumulate even a 10% difference until about 95 or whatever (which the vast majority of us won’t reach).
So yes, they are ahead, but only by a small amount, and by going early you have money before arthritis robs you of mobility or other problems, before death, arrive. The right threshold is not year of death. It’s year of life getting unpleasant.
The “breakeven age” was not a consideration for me, never tried to calculate it.
I almost feel sorry for those that only have SS for retirement, but in most cases that was an individual choice. So it’s in their interest to work longer and wait.
I retired at 56 for personal reasons which is too bad as I still miss working.
100%, exactly, spot on.
First of all, any *leaning* on Social Security is an exercise in futility. I’ve lived and planned - and continually pounded into my kids’ heads - ignore it for your long-term financial planning. Pretend it doesn’t exist. Save, invest, be wise with your money... and then when the day comes? Enjoy the unplanned. Focus on what you can directly, yourself, individually control.
Second, though - and I’ve mentioned this before... I wish our idiots in charge would start thinking outside the box on something like Social Security.
In particular, one idea I’ve long wanted - a bulk payout. The reality is yes - I’ve paid in a lot to Social Security. My employers have matched it. Whether one goes early/standard/delayed — I’d like to see the implementation of a bulk payout option. For purposes of Social Security as a program - which I don’t like, but accept as a fact of life - it would benefit the program generally. Get me off the actuarial rolls. I’d even look hard at a potential discount bulk payoff. I’ve planned our retirement such that a monthly SSA check is just honey.
So... make me a deal. Offer me a proposal. A one-time, lump sum payout. Again, using standard math and tables? It would benefit the supposed “trust fund”. Near-term math to resolve, but there are plenty of people who don’t *need* Social Security month-to-month. But - are “entitled” to it anyway. Get us off the rolls.
I know I’m pitching pipe dreams that go back further than Reagan and even Goldwater... but if we are at a point where there is an appetite for disruption? Here’s the chance. Let’s stop with the collectivist “entitlements” and at least start with offering folks at the backend some opt-outs. It will save the program money in the long-term, start to shift broader thinking away from reliance on government, and everybody wins!
I’m perfectly willing to accept that the reasonable math on such a plan wouldn’t be optimal for me - but like I said. I believe in personal responsibility and I’ve planned my life in a manner that when SSA collapses?
My gift to the socialists. I’ll take a haircut in exchange for direct access to my supposed tax “entitlement benefits” at a reduced rate but in the nearer term.