Warning as most Americans ignore the easiest Social Security advice at a cost of tens of thousands

UK Daily Mail ^ | 10/23/2025 | Tilly Armstrong

[fruser1]

From my own math, the "breakeven" point is about age 79.5, meaning, if I start taking benefits at one age vs another, I'll have wound up collecting the same total amount of money by that age. If living beyond 79.5, the later start dates would pay more.

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.

[ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton]

Doesn’t inflation make the case for claiming benefits earlier?

[karnage]

Get da dough before it all runs out.

[sonova]

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...

[PGR88]

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.

[Dr. Sivana]

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.

[ClearCase_guy]

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.

[V_TWIN]

“Doesn’t inflation make the case for claiming benefits earlier?”
-
My motivation for collecting at 62 was I’m not one of those people that thinks they’re gonna live forever......tomorrow is not guaranteed people......and neither is the SSA benefit 10 years from now.

[Texas Eagle]

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.

[Leaning Right]

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.

[V_TWIN]

“everyone has a unique situation. 62? 65? 67? 70? it all depends on your circumstances.”
-

Agreed......and that’s exactly what the instructor taught in the retirement classes I attended when I was working.

[cgbg]

I waited until 70 but that was due to my own unique circumstances which may not apply to many others:

—Both my parents died in their mid nineties and other close relatives lived a long time
—My health was excellent (and remains so)
—My income was a lot higher than my wife so maximizing my benefit meant hers would be much higher as well—regardless of when she started taking benefits
—I could afford to wait

Every person’s situation is different.

[chuck allen]

There are 2 very good reasons to take SS at 62.

1. You need the money.
2. You don’t need the money.

[montag813]

God only knows if this will even exist in 10 years.

[Myrddin]

I delayed signing up until age 68 (almost 69) because I was employed full time. Continuing to work at a job that ensured I paid the maximum social security every year had more impact on my benefits than just waiting to FRA. Of course, that comes with a 2 year "look back" penalty for Medicare payments. I never expect to live to the "break even" point anyway after last years cancer festivities. My odds of making 5 years past the Whipple surgery for ampullary cancer are about 32%. My retirement planning and assets are certain to outlive me.

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

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.

[montag813]

If I die (God forbid) will my wife get a death benefit? For how long? Does it matter if I am 60 or 70?

[Brian Griffin]

I’m nearly 67.

I haven’t taken it yet.

I’m pretty healthy and my family members are naturally long-lived.

[Leaning Right]

> That’s if you make it to 70. <

Good point. When I was trying to make the decision, I checked a government website. If I recall correctly, it was the official Social Security website.

Anyway, the advice there was to hold off as long as possible to collect benefits.

So I’m thinking, maybe they’re hoping a good portion of us will die before 70. That should save them a few bucks.

No thanks to that.

[SaxxonWoods]

People without savings take SS at 62, compounding their problem for the rest of their lives.