Taking Social Security at 62

Discuss all general (i.e. non-personal) investing questions and issues, investing news, and theory.
GP813
Posts: 1242
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2019 9:11 am

Re: Taking Social Security at 62

Post by GP813 »

Why is it always an argument between "as soon as you can take it and as late", does nobody advocate for just taking it at full retirement age?
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: Taking Social Security at 62

Post by JoeRetire »

dh wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 3:33 pm
JoeRetire wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 11:03 am
You seem not to understand that delayed retirement credits accrue only until 70, not 72?
And perhaps you don't understand that the checks you get starting at 70 are much larger than the ones starting at 62?
And perhaps you aren't clear on how long a 62 year old could expect to live?
Did you know that social security benefits are guaranteed and inflation protected?
Do you have a spouse with lower benefits? If so, have you considered the impact of social security survivor benefits?

If you require the money at 62 to get by, there is no choice to be made. If you don't need the money, use https://opensocialsecurity.com/
Thank you, JoeRetire. I haven't firmed up my plan as to when to take social security, yet I appreciated your comments in this thread. You highlight the key factors in the decision.
It's a complicated topic. Further complicated by emotional and behavioral factors.

Fortunately, for most here, it's a choice between "good" and "better" so nothing fatal no matter what the choice. It's only when the dollars are very important for the specific retirees (usually those with little to no retirement savings) that a less than optimal choice matters a lot.

I live in an over-55 association. I know a few of the widows are currently unhappy with the choice their late husbands made.
My brother in law decided to "get his" the first day he could. ("don't want the government to keep my money another day"). He's in his late 80s now. He gets by. He would get by better if he had delayed.

When my siblings ask my opinion about when to claim their social security benefits, I tell them what I am doing. I explain my reasoning. But I never tell them what they should do.
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
User avatar
samsoes
Posts: 2802
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 8:12 am
Location: Northeast Rat Race

Re: Taking Social Security at 62

Post by samsoes »

JoeRetire wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:37 pm
Stuckinmn wrote: Mon Feb 14, 2022 4:23 pm From a bogleheads point of view, I bet it makes sense more often than not to claim early.
I'd take that bet.
So the tldr version, if you don't really need the money and are comfortable with stock market risk, claiming early makes sense IMO. I imagine that describes the majority of bogleheads
You completely disregard the guarantee factor in social security benefits? The tax favorability? The inflation protection? The survivor benefit?
The projected SS Trust Fund insolvency by 2035?
"Happiness Is Not My Companion" - Gen. Gouverneur K. Warren. | (Avatar is the statue of Gen. Warren atop Little Round Top @ Gettysburg National Military Park.)
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: Taking Social Security at 62

Post by JoeRetire »

samsoes wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 3:59 pm
JoeRetire wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:37 pm
Stuckinmn wrote: Mon Feb 14, 2022 4:23 pm From a bogleheads point of view, I bet it makes sense more often than not to claim early.
I'd take that bet.
So the tldr version, if you don't really need the money and are comfortable with stock market risk, claiming early makes sense IMO. I imagine that describes the majority of bogleheads
You completely disregard the guarantee factor in social security benefits? The tax favorability? The inflation protection? The survivor benefit?
The projected SS Trust Fund insolvency by 2035?
2034. But what's that got to do with anything?
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
User avatar
TheTimeLord
Posts: 12130
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:05 pm

Re: Taking Social Security at 62

Post by TheTimeLord »

GP813 wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 3:44 pm Why is it always an argument between "as soon as you can take it and as late", does nobody advocate for just taking it at full retirement age?
I do my planning based on taking SS at FRA, but will likely make the decision when I reach FRA based on how my portfolio does between now and then.
IMHO, Investing should be about living the life you want, not avoiding the life you fear. | Run, You Clever Boy! [9085]
secondopinion
Posts: 6011
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:18 pm

Re: Taking Social Security at 62

Post by secondopinion »

GP813 wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 3:44 pm Why is it always an argument between "as soon as you can take it and as late", does nobody advocate for just taking it at full retirement age?
There is usually nothing wrong with that age; it is just not optimal to either point of view. It is like eating a half of a slice of two different cakes that are claimed to be the best.

If one has zero idea of what is best for their SS, it is not a bad option at all to go for full retirement age; it will likely be sub-optimal, but it will not be 100% wrong. But the point is to identify the personal risks and determine the best choice given those risks; very often, it is one of the edge cases and not full retirement age.
Passive investing: not about making big bucks but making profits. Active investing: not about beating the market but meeting goals. Speculation: not about timing the market but taking profitable risks.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 95686
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Taking Social Security at 62

Post by LadyGeek »

Regarding insolvency, Social Security is authorized under US law (legislation). Speculation about future legislation (what "might" happen) is prohibited by forum policy, see: Unacceptable Topics
Politics and Religion

In order to avoid the inevitable frictions that arise from these topics, political or religious posts and comments are prohibited. The only exceptions to this rule are:
  • ...Discussions about enacted laws or regulations that affect the individual investor. Note that discussions of proposed legislation are prohibited...
This forum is focused on investing that is directly actionable to personal investors. We don't hold debates on conjecture.

The whole point of the policy is to (1) eliminate contentious disagreements that result from these discussions and (2) keep investors from making bad decisions. Proposed legislation changes many times between the time it's introduced and signed into law.

We do permit discussions which plan for reductions in Social Security, but not about the future of Social Security itself (political conjecture).
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
User avatar
celia
Posts: 16774
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:32 am
Location: SoCal

Re: Taking Social Security at 62

Post by celia »

JoeRetire wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 4:01 pm
samsoes wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 3:59 pm
JoeRetire wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 1:37 pm
Stuckinmn wrote: Mon Feb 14, 2022 4:23 pm From a bogleheads point of view, I bet it makes sense more often than not to claim early.
I'd take that bet.
So the tldr version, if you don't really need the money and are comfortable with stock market risk, claiming early makes sense IMO. I imagine that describes the majority of bogleheads.
You completely disregard the guarantee factor in social security benefits? The tax favorability? The inflation protection? The survivor benefit?
The projected SS Trust Fund insolvency by 2035?
2034. But what's that got to do with anything?
There have been insolvency claims for over 20 years. The insolvency date keeps getting pushed into the future. . .

And I disagree with the part that most Bogleheads agree that taking SS early makes sense, whether or not their portfolio has stock market risk. I can’t speak for the majority here, but those in early retirement (not yet 70) seem to be waiting to 70, usually because they want to get a handle on Roth conversions while guaranteeing the highest benefit for the surviving spouse.
A dollar in Roth is worth more than a dollar in a taxable account. A dollar in taxable is worth more than a dollar in a tax-deferred account.
JAFFX2
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun May 21, 2017 2:33 pm

Re: Taking Social Security at 62

Post by JAFFX2 »

How about this.........I don't need it and but decided to collect at 62 and buy a boat with it to go fishing whenever I want. And that makes me happy! :happy
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: Taking Social Security at 62

Post by JoeRetire »

celia wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 4:55 pm There have been insolvency claims for over 20 years. The insolvency date keeps getting pushed into the future. . .
"Pulled closer" is probably more appropriate. In subsequent years, the insolvency date projection has been getting earlier and earlier.

There's absolutely no doubt that the trust fund will be depleted sometime around 2034 if things continue at the current rate. It's just math.

Of course that doesn't mean that benefits will stop. And to me it seems unlikely that Congress will fail to do something about it before that date. We aren't allowed to discuss potential future legislation, so we can't talk about what I think will happen and when.
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: Taking Social Security at 62

Post by JoeRetire »

JAFFX2 wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 5:11 pm How about this.........I don't need it and but decided to collect at 62 and buy a boat with it to go fishing whenever I want. And that makes me happy! :happy
Sounds good!

Of course if you didn't need the money you probably could have purchased the boat and still delayed your benefits.

Happy fishing! (Or water skiing, or just boating, whatever) Have fun!
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
User avatar
windaar
Posts: 1673
Joined: Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:31 am

Re: Taking Social Security at 62

Post by windaar »

My Dad delayed until 70 and then died at 70. If I take at 62 I will have 8 years of payouts that I can do whatever I want with until I'm 70 and that's a lot. I've never understood the argument for waiting; too much can go wrong. Bird in the hand and all.
Nobody knows nothing.
AUH2O
Posts: 31
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:39 pm

Re: Taking Social Security at 62

Post by AUH2O »

On the other hand, my Dad claimed at 62 and lived to 91. You never know.
User avatar
calmaniac
Posts: 1325
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 2:32 pm

Re: Taking Social Security at 62

Post by calmaniac »

RetiredScientist wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 10:41 am I can’t find any reason not to take Social Security at 62. If you don’t and die before 72, you lose 100%. If you do take it at 62 and get 1 check, you are ahead. By 72, you will have gotten 120 checks. Then you could use your own money to make up the difference.
Why would you use your own money before 70 when using Social Security at 62, probably gives you the best annuity you can have.
1. I have the money to wait to 70
2. I ❤️ secure income with COLA
3. I want the maximal amount of secure income forever for both me and my wife
4. Current Social Security does not factor in recent increases in longevity --> an even better deal for those taking at 70!
5. Very good chance wife or I will make it into our 90's, Social Security is longevity insurance
6. Appreciate y'all taking Social security at age 62, helps keep down costs for those of us in it for the long game

:beer
"Pretired", working 20 h/wk. AA 75/25: 30% TSM, 19% value (VFVA/AVUV), 18% Int'l LC, 8% emerging, 25% GFund/VBTLX. Military pension ≈60% of expenses. Pension+SS@age 70 ≈100% of expenses.
Stuckinmn
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon May 13, 2019 5:11 pm

Re: Taking Social Security at 62

Post by Stuckinmn »

calmaniac wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 8:42 pm
RetiredScientist wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 10:41 am
6. Appreciate y'all taking Social security at age 62, helps keep down costs for those of us in it for the long game

:beer
Pretty sure it's designed to be pretty revenue neutral to the government no matter which choice people make. There are probably as many people waiting until 70 that die at 68 and collect nothing as there are that claim at 62 and live to 95.
User avatar
celia
Posts: 16774
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:32 am
Location: SoCal

Re: Taking Social Security at 62

Post by celia »

If you are married and both of you have work histories, the person with the lower benefit can start at 62, while the higher earner starts at 70. Then you can have it both ways and the longer-lived spouse will still get the larger benefit for the rest of his/her life!
User avatar
JoeRetire
Posts: 15381
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

Re: Taking Social Security at 62

Post by JoeRetire »

windaar wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 6:15 pm My Dad delayed until 70 and then died at 70. If I take at 62 I will have 8 years of payouts that I can do whatever I want with until I'm 70 and that's a lot. I've never understood the argument for waiting; too much can go wrong. Bird in the hand and all.
If you expect to die at 70, then you certainly should start your benefits at 62.

Do you understand that the argument for waiting is the much higher payout starting at 70 and continuing for the rest of your life?
Do you understand the life expectancy for a 62 year old?
Do you understand that social security benefits provide a guaranteed, inflation-protected, tax-beneficial, potentially survivor-beneficial income stream?
This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
chipperd
Posts: 1674
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2011 5:58 am
Location: here and now

Re: Taking Social Security at 62

Post by chipperd »

chitownguy wrote: Mon Feb 14, 2022 6:52 pm The guys who do the Allworth Money podcast have an interesting take on this. Their opinion is based on their feeling that there is legislative risk in receiving your full benefit if you are high income. So they say:
    If you don't need social security you should take it since they believe it will be reduced in the future
      If you do need Social security you should defer and let it grow so you get the maximum benefit

      I trust their opinion on this and am considering taking it early.
      So the guys on this podcast sound like they are assuming:
      1) Legislative possibility of social security reduction means those who already started social security wouldn't get a reduction, and
      2) Should social security be reduced, it would be a hard cut off, meaning those who haven't taken any social security yet would be in the group that gets the reduction and those who have started social security would be in the group that wouldn't get this proposed reduction.

      Given the gradual way the FRA social security age was increased from 65 to 67, I doubt scenario #2 would happen in that manner.

      In hypothetical #1, there may be some kind of legislative risk, but I could propose various hypothetical scenarios in which one reaches 55 or even 50 and the reduction won't impact workers/retirees of that age.

      These hypothetical musings are nothing more than a parlor game.
      "A portfolio is like a bar of soap, the more it's handled, the less there is." Dr. William Bernstein
      mptfan
      Posts: 7217
      Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:58 am

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by mptfan »

      RetiredScientist wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 10:41 am I can’t find any reason not to take Social Security at 62. If you don’t and die before 72, you lose 100%. If you do take it at 62 and get 1 check, you are ahead. By 72, you will have gotten 120 checks. Then you could use your own money to make up the difference.
      Why would you use your own money before 72 when using Social Security at 62, probably gives you the best annuity you can have.
      What has 72 got to do with this decision?
      mptfan
      Posts: 7217
      Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:58 am

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by mptfan »

      windaar wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 6:15 pm My Dad delayed until 70 and then died at 70. If I take at 62 I will have 8 years of payouts that I can do whatever I want with until I'm 70 and that's a lot. I've never understood the argument for waiting; too much can go wrong. Bird in the hand and all.
      Here is the argument... if you are dead at 70, it won't matter to you whether you delayed taking social security because, well, you are dead. But if you are alive, and you live to say 90, you may regret taking social security at 62.
      User avatar
      calmaniac
      Posts: 1325
      Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 2:32 pm

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by calmaniac »

      Humble dollar had a timely posting on this question.
      "Pretired", working 20 h/wk. AA 75/25: 30% TSM, 19% value (VFVA/AVUV), 18% Int'l LC, 8% emerging, 25% GFund/VBTLX. Military pension ≈60% of expenses. Pension+SS@age 70 ≈100% of expenses.
      User avatar
      jeffyscott
      Posts: 13484
      Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:12 am

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by jeffyscott »

      GP813 wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 3:44 pm Why is it always an argument between "as soon as you can take it and as late", does nobody advocate for just taking it at full retirement age?
      There's really nothing special about the so-called full retirement age. So most people are going to go with delaying as much as possible in order to maximize the monthly benefit or else taking it as soon as possible. And for couples, one of each often makes the most sense.

      There is one small potential advantage to taking at 65 or at any point that there is a projected increase in Medicare premiums that would exceed the CPI based increase in your SS benefits, the Medicare "hold harmless" provision.

      My plan is to possibly take it in-between, in order to avoid having income get pushed in to the next tax bracket. So when a further delay looks like it would result in the increase in benefits being taxed at 18.7% rather than 10.2%, I would start taking it. Coincidentally for us, this is also about the point where sole survivor would be able to remain below the second IRMAA tier.
      User avatar
      mrmass
      Posts: 1521
      Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2018 6:35 pm
      Location: MA

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by mrmass »

      One post mention dying at 70. What happens to the lower earner if the high earner wants to wait until 70, to get the higher benefit for the lower earner, but dies before taking/filing for social security?
      User avatar
      samsoes
      Posts: 2802
      Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2013 8:12 am
      Location: Northeast Rat Race

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by samsoes »

      Take it early. I understand the "longevity insurance" argument, but what about quality of life? I'd rather have the extra money in my senior citizen go-go years than have bigger payments in my no-go years when I am really, really old and likely incapacitated to a significant degree.
      "Happiness Is Not My Companion" - Gen. Gouverneur K. Warren. | (Avatar is the statue of Gen. Warren atop Little Round Top @ Gettysburg National Military Park.)
      User avatar
      jeffyscott
      Posts: 13484
      Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:12 am

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by jeffyscott »

      mrmass wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 7:56 am One post mention dying at 70. What happens to the lower earner if the high earner wants to wait until 70, to get the higher benefit for the lower earner, but dies before taking/filing for social security?
      I believe that the lower earning, surviving spouse can wait until reaching their FRA and then switch from their own benefit to the survivor benefit. My understanding is that the surviving spouse would not get a higher benefit by delaying beyond their own FRA.

      I am not entirely clear on what that benefit would be, SS says: Widow or widower, full retirement age or older — 100% of the deceased worker's benefit amount.
      https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/survivors/ifyou.html#h6
      I would hope that means 100% of what the deceased workers benefit would have been at that time, i.e. if when the surviving spouse is at FRA, the deceased spouse would have been 70 or older, the survivor's benefit is equal to what the deceased spouse's benefit would have been at 70.
      markcoop
      Posts: 1516
      Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:36 am

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by markcoop »

      jeffyscott wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 7:54 am So most people are going to go with delaying as much as possible in order to maximize the monthly benefit or else taking it as soon as possible. And for couples, one of each often makes the most sense.
      For people who do "one of each" where the lower earner collects at 62, are you doing Roth conversions from 62-70 as well? Seems to me if you are doing conversions, it really does not make sense for the lower earner to collect at 62. Reasons:

      1) Not able to convert as much in lower tax brackets.
      2) If doing conversions at 62, then the full 85% of SS from 62-70 will likely be taxed, and probably higher % taxed after 70.

      Both waiting till 70 results in a better outcome if doing conversions - more converted, less total SS taxed (assuming 85% not being taxed at 70).
      Last edited by markcoop on Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:35 am, edited 2 times in total.
      Mark
      Tom_T
      Posts: 4836
      Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:33 pm

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by Tom_T »

      samsoes wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:04 am Take it early. I understand the "longevity insurance" argument, but what about quality of life? I'd rather have the extra money in my senior citizen go-go years than have bigger payments in my no-go years when I am really, really old and likely incapacitated to a significant degree.
      What if I have enough savings so that I don't need to draw on SS until 70? And the time when you'll need extra money is when you're "really, really old and likely incpacitated." Unless you have less than $2,000 to your name, you won't be eligible for Medicaid, so good luck finding a nursing home that takes Medicare. You could always sell your house and give them the money, I guess.

      My point is that there are good reasons to wait. If you're broke and you need the income, then claim early. If you can still live your life without SS income for a few years, it can pay to wait.
      User avatar
      calmaniac
      Posts: 1325
      Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2015 2:32 pm

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by calmaniac »

      samsoes wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:04 am Take it early. I understand the "longevity insurance" argument, but what about quality of life? I'd rather have the extra money in my senior citizen go-go years than have bigger payments in my no-go years when I am really, really old and likely incapacitated to a significant degree.
      Good point about go-go years. Each person has a different set of variables they are trying to optimize in regard to when to take SS. So these discussions become a bit absurd, as one person's plan does not necessarily apply to another's. There is no one right approach.

      Having the money sooner will do nothing to change our lifestyle in retirement, for us it is all about optimizing security and payout. YMMV.
      Last edited by calmaniac on Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
      "Pretired", working 20 h/wk. AA 75/25: 30% TSM, 19% value (VFVA/AVUV), 18% Int'l LC, 8% emerging, 25% GFund/VBTLX. Military pension ≈60% of expenses. Pension+SS@age 70 ≈100% of expenses.
      User avatar
      jeffyscott
      Posts: 13484
      Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:12 am

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by jeffyscott »

      markcoop wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:14 am
      jeffyscott wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 7:54 am So most people are going to go with delaying as much as possible in order to maximize the monthly benefit or else taking it as soon as possible. And for couples, one of each often makes the most sense.
      For people who do "one of each" where the lower earner collects at 62, are you doing Roth conversions from 62-70 as well? Seems to me if you are doing conversions, it really does not make sense for the lower earner to collect at 62. Reasons:

      1) Not able to convert as much in lower tax brackets.
      2) If doing conversions at 62, then the full 85% of SS from 62-70 will likely be taxed, and probably higher % taxed after 70.

      Both waiting till 70 results in a better outcome if doing conversions - more converted, less total SS taxed (assuming 85% not being taxed at 70).
      That will vary too, for example our circumstances are that 85% of SS will likely be taxed, due to pension income alone.
      markcoop
      Posts: 1516
      Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 7:36 am

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by markcoop »

      jeffyscott wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:53 am
      markcoop wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:14 am
      jeffyscott wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 7:54 am So most people are going to go with delaying as much as possible in order to maximize the monthly benefit or else taking it as soon as possible. And for couples, one of each often makes the most sense.
      For people who do "one of each" where the lower earner collects at 62, are you doing Roth conversions from 62-70 as well? Seems to me if you are doing conversions, it really does not make sense for the lower earner to collect at 62. Reasons:

      1) Not able to convert as much in lower tax brackets.
      2) If doing conversions at 62, then the full 85% of SS from 62-70 will likely be taxed, and probably higher % taxed after 70.

      Both waiting till 70 results in a better outcome if doing conversions - more converted, less total SS taxed (assuming 85% not being taxed at 70).
      That will vary too, for example our circumstances are that 85% of SS will likely be taxed, due to pension income alone.
      Sure, and that is why I qualified some of the comments. But there are many people that won't be at the max 85% of SS being taxed. I think of all the talk about the SS heat maps and SS torpedo, in those cases people are not at 85% of SS being taxed and trying to avoid more SS being taxed. Having the lower earner not take SS at 62 should be part of that strategy. I totally agree with celia that it is the elephant in the room.
      Mark
      User avatar
      deanbrew
      Posts: 1500
      Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 12:05 pm
      Location: The Keystone State

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by deanbrew »

      A factor that is important to me is ACA health insurance. I plan to delay taking SS until at least 65 when I can get medicare. If I take it before 65 the added income will decrease or eliminate the ACA subsidy we get, which will significantly increase our net health insurance cost. My wife is younger, so I will have to analyze when I turn 65. So that is an additional factor to consider for some people.

      If ACA weren't a factor, I'd likely be in the "take it early" camp, due to the "bird in the hand" argument.
      "The course of history shows that as the government grows, liberty decreases." Thomas Jefferson
      oldfatguy
      Posts: 1434
      Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:38 pm

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by oldfatguy »

      Tom_T wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:24 am
      samsoes wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:04 am Take it early. I understand the "longevity insurance" argument, but what about quality of life? I'd rather have the extra money in my senior citizen go-go years than have bigger payments in my no-go years when I am really, really old and likely incapacitated to a significant degree.
      What if I have enough savings so that I don't need to draw on SS until 70? And the time when you'll need extra money is when you're "really, really old and likely incpacitated." Unless you have less than $2,000 to your name, you won't be eligible for Medicaid, so good luck finding a nursing home that takes Medicare. You could always sell your house and give them the money, I guess.

      My point is that there are good reasons to wait. If you're broke and you need the income, then claim early. If you can still live your life without SS income for a few years, it can pay to wait.
      The difference in SS from 62 to 70 isn't enough to pay for nursing home care for most people.
      User avatar
      TheTimeLord
      Posts: 12130
      Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:05 pm

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by TheTimeLord »

      samsoes wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:04 am Take it early. I understand the "longevity insurance" argument, but what about quality of life? I'd rather have the extra money in my senior citizen go-go years than have bigger payments in my no-go years when I am really, really old and likely incapacitated to a significant degree.
      In theory you have savings you can spend can spend in your go-go years. So unless you think the money you save by taking your SS benefit early is going to outperform the increase you get by delaying taking your benefit I would lean towards delaying.
      IMHO, Investing should be about living the life you want, not avoiding the life you fear. | Run, You Clever Boy! [9085]
      Tom_T
      Posts: 4836
      Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:33 pm

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by Tom_T »

      oldfatguy wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:42 am
      Tom_T wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:24 am
      samsoes wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:04 am Take it early. I understand the "longevity insurance" argument, but what about quality of life? I'd rather have the extra money in my senior citizen go-go years than have bigger payments in my no-go years when I am really, really old and likely incapacitated to a significant degree.
      What if I have enough savings so that I don't need to draw on SS until 70? And the time when you'll need extra money is when you're "really, really old and likely incpacitated." Unless you have less than $2,000 to your name, you won't be eligible for Medicaid, so good luck finding a nursing home that takes Medicare. You could always sell your house and give them the money, I guess.

      My point is that there are good reasons to wait. If you're broke and you need the income, then claim early. If you can still live your life without SS income for a few years, it can pay to wait.
      The difference in SS from 62 to 70 isn't enough to pay for nursing home care for most people.
      Obviously. Nursing homes cost $120,000 a year. The point is that being old and unwell is a time when you need more money, not less money. Saying things like "I don't care about waiting because I won't be able to enjoy the extra money when I'm old and sick" is silly because you're still going to need money when you're old and sick. If you can afford to wait, then wait.
      oldfatguy
      Posts: 1434
      Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:38 pm

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by oldfatguy »

      Tom_T wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 10:00 am
      oldfatguy wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:42 am
      Tom_T wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:24 am
      samsoes wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:04 am Take it early. I understand the "longevity insurance" argument, but what about quality of life? I'd rather have the extra money in my senior citizen go-go years than have bigger payments in my no-go years when I am really, really old and likely incapacitated to a significant degree.
      What if I have enough savings so that I don't need to draw on SS until 70? And the time when you'll need extra money is when you're "really, really old and likely incpacitated." Unless you have less than $2,000 to your name, you won't be eligible for Medicaid, so good luck finding a nursing home that takes Medicare. You could always sell your house and give them the money, I guess.

      My point is that there are good reasons to wait. If you're broke and you need the income, then claim early. If you can still live your life without SS income for a few years, it can pay to wait.
      The difference in SS from 62 to 70 isn't enough to pay for nursing home care for most people.
      Obviously. Nursing homes cost $120,000 a year. The point is that being old and unwell is a time when you need more money, not less money. Saying things like "I don't care about waiting because I won't be able to enjoy the extra money when I'm old and sick" is silly because you're still going to need money when you're old and sick. If you can afford to wait, then wait.
      If I can't afford tp pay for nursing home care with or without an increased SS benefit, then why do I need more money when I am old and sick? If I need nursing home care I will be on Medicaid rather quickly, regardless of whether I take SS at 60, 67, or 70.
      User avatar
      JoeRetire
      Posts: 15381
      Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by JoeRetire »

      mrmass wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 7:56 am One post mention dying at 70. What happens to the lower earner if the high earner wants to wait until 70, to get the higher benefit for the lower earner, but dies before taking/filing for social security?
      If the lower earner starts survivor benefits after reaching Full Retirement Age, they will get 100% of what the deceased spouse would have gotten had they started their benefits the day they died. If they die at 70, the survivor benefits are maximized.
      This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
      Tom_T
      Posts: 4836
      Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:33 pm

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by Tom_T »

      oldfatguy wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 10:48 am
      Tom_T wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 10:00 am
      oldfatguy wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 9:42 am
      Tom_T wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:24 am
      samsoes wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:04 am Take it early. I understand the "longevity insurance" argument, but what about quality of life? I'd rather have the extra money in my senior citizen go-go years than have bigger payments in my no-go years when I am really, really old and likely incapacitated to a significant degree.
      What if I have enough savings so that I don't need to draw on SS until 70? And the time when you'll need extra money is when you're "really, really old and likely incpacitated." Unless you have less than $2,000 to your name, you won't be eligible for Medicaid, so good luck finding a nursing home that takes Medicare. You could always sell your house and give them the money, I guess.

      My point is that there are good reasons to wait. If you're broke and you need the income, then claim early. If you can still live your life without SS income for a few years, it can pay to wait.
      The difference in SS from 62 to 70 isn't enough to pay for nursing home care for most people.
      Obviously. Nursing homes cost $120,000 a year. The point is that being old and unwell is a time when you need more money, not less money. Saying things like "I don't care about waiting because I won't be able to enjoy the extra money when I'm old and sick" is silly because you're still going to need money when you're old and sick. If you can afford to wait, then wait.
      If I can't afford tp pay for nursing home care with or without an increased SS benefit, then why do I need more money when I am old and sick? If I need nursing home care I will be on Medicaid rather quickly, regardless of whether I take SS at 60, 67, or 70.
      And how are you going to get onto Medicaid?
      User avatar
      JoeRetire
      Posts: 15381
      Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:44 pm

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by JoeRetire »

      samsoes wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 8:04 am Take it early. I understand the "longevity insurance" argument, but what about quality of life? I'd rather have the extra money in my senior citizen go-go years than have bigger payments in my no-go years when I am really, really old and likely incapacitated to a significant degree.
      And some people feel empowered to spend down more of their portfolio from 62 to 70, knowing that they have a much higher guaranteed, inflation-protected, tax-beneficial, perhaps survivor-beneficial income stream starting for them at 70. Thus, they maximize their "go-go years" without jeopardizing their "no-go years".

      Money is fungible. It doesn't know where it came from.
      This isn't just my wallet. It's an organizer, a memory and an old friend.
      User avatar
      Candor
      Posts: 1287
      Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 4:25 pm

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by Candor »

      Although I plan to wait until 70 I have noticed retirement calculators such as FIRECalc show a better % success rate with taking SS at 62 vs 70.
      The fool, with all his other faults, has this also - he is always getting ready to live. - Seneca Epistles < c. 65AD
      oldfatguy
      Posts: 1434
      Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:38 pm

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by oldfatguy »

      Tom_T wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:20 am And how are you going to get onto Medicaid?
      By exhausting my assets? I feel like this is a trick question.
      Tom_T
      Posts: 4836
      Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:33 pm

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by Tom_T »

      oldfatguy wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:38 am
      Tom_T wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:20 am And how are you going to get onto Medicaid?
      By exhausting my assets? I feel like this is a trick question.
      Five years before you know you have to apply? I won't turn this into a Medicaid thread. Let's just say that you'll claim SS when you see fit, and I'll do the same, and hopefully it all works out.
      User avatar
      jeffyscott
      Posts: 13484
      Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:12 am

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by jeffyscott »

      Tom_T wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:43 am
      oldfatguy wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:38 am
      Tom_T wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:20 am And how are you going to get onto Medicaid?
      By exhausting my assets? I feel like this is a trick question.
      Five years before you know you have to apply? I won't turn this into a Medicaid thread. Let's just say that you'll claim SS when you see fit, and I'll do the same, and hopefully it all works out.
      I think the plan would be that the assets pay for the care until they are exhausted, then go on Medicaid, there's no 5 year issue.
      oldfatguy
      Posts: 1434
      Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:38 pm

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by oldfatguy »

      Tom_T wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:43 am
      oldfatguy wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:38 am
      Tom_T wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:20 am And how are you going to get onto Medicaid?
      By exhausting my assets? I feel like this is a trick question.
      Five years before you know you have to apply? I won't turn this into a Medicaid thread. Let's just say that you'll claim SS when you see fit, and I'll do the same, and hopefully it all works out.
      The 5 year look back does not apply to spending your assets on living expenses and medical care. Regardless, my point is simply that for most people (myself included), paying for nursing home care for a significant length of time is simply out of reach and a higher SS benefit isn't going to make it affordable.
      Tom_T
      Posts: 4836
      Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 2:33 pm

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by Tom_T »

      oldfatguy wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:50 am
      Tom_T wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:43 am
      oldfatguy wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:38 am
      Tom_T wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:20 am And how are you going to get onto Medicaid?
      By exhausting my assets? I feel like this is a trick question.
      Five years before you know you have to apply? I won't turn this into a Medicaid thread. Let's just say that you'll claim SS when you see fit, and I'll do the same, and hopefully it all works out.
      The 5 year look back does not apply to spending your assets on living expenses and medical care. Regardless, my point is simply that for most people (myself included), paying for nursing home care for a significant length of time is simply out of reach and a higher SS benefit isn't going to make it affordable.
      OK, so more income when you're older isn't useful. Got it.
      oldfatguy
      Posts: 1434
      Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:38 pm

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by oldfatguy »

      Tom_T wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:53 am
      OK, so more income when you're older isn't useful. Got it.
      It might be, but not enough for nursing home care. More income when you are younger might also be useful.
      User avatar
      Elsebet
      Posts: 1606
      Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 1:28 pm
      Location: Erie, PA

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by Elsebet »

      celia wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 1:26 am If you are married and both of you have work histories, the person with the lower benefit can start at 62, while the higher earner starts at 70. Then you can have it both ways and the longer-lived spouse will still get the larger benefit for the rest of his/her life!
      This is exactly what we plan to do. My husband is the lower earner and will take his at 62 while I will wait until 70
      "...the man who adapts himself to his slender means and makes himself wealthy on a little sum, is the truly rich man..." ~Seneca
      bikechuck
      Posts: 1473
      Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2015 9:22 pm

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by bikechuck »

      windaar wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 6:15 pm My Dad delayed until 70 and then died at 70. If I take at 62 I will have 8 years of payouts that I can do whatever I want with until I'm 70 and that's a lot. I've never understood the argument for waiting; too much can go wrong. Bird in the hand and all.
      Personal finance is personal and a good decision for one person might not be the best decision for another.

      I am married and likely to pre-decease my spouse. Because of my decision to wait until 70 she will enjoy a significantly higher benefit when the time comes. She began taking her benefit at the age of 64 shorty after she retired. Having been born in 1953 I was able to file a restricted application for benefits on her work record while my benefit continues to grow. We used Mike Piper's excellent calculator at opensocialsecurity.com prior to finalizing our decision.
      tj
      Posts: 9366
      Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:10 pm

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by tj »

      bikechuck wrote: Wed Feb 16, 2022 12:09 pm
      windaar wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 6:15 pm My Dad delayed until 70 and then died at 70. If I take at 62 I will have 8 years of payouts that I can do whatever I want with until I'm 70 and that's a lot. I've never understood the argument for waiting; too much can go wrong. Bird in the hand and all.
      Personal finance is personal and a good decision for one person might not be the best decision for another.

      I am married and likely to pre-decease my spouse. Because of my decision to wait until 70 she will enjoy a significantly higher benefit when the time comes. She began taking her benefit at the age of 64 shorty after she retired. Having been born in 1953 I was able to file a restricted application for benefits on her work record while my benefit continues to grow. We used Mike Piper's excellent calculator at opensocialsecurity.com prior to finalizing our decision.
      You get the best of both worlds because you were able to file and suspend. Those born after you not so lucky.
      User avatar
      willthrill81
      Posts: 32250
      Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
      Location: USA
      Contact:

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by willthrill81 »

      RetiredScientist wrote: Sun Feb 13, 2022 10:41 am I can’t find any reason not to take Social Security at 62. If you don’t and die before 72, you lose 100%. If you do take it at 62 and get 1 check, you are ahead. By 72, you will have gotten 120 checks. Then you could use your own money to make up the difference.
      Why would you use your own money before 72 when using Social Security at 62, probably gives you the best annuity you can have.
      And what if you live to age 95?

      Why do you want to reduce the 'best annuity you can have' by about 40% by claiming at age 62 rather than 70?

      If you die at age 72, you won't care that you didn't collect many SS benefits.
      The Sensible Steward
      User avatar
      willthrill81
      Posts: 32250
      Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:17 pm
      Location: USA
      Contact:

      Re: Taking Social Security at 62

      Post by willthrill81 »

      GP813 wrote: Tue Feb 15, 2022 3:44 pm Why is it always an argument between "as soon as you can take it and as late", does nobody advocate for just taking it at full retirement age?
      Because there's no clear and widespread benefit for doing so. If you want to claim early so you can invest the difference and try to outperform deferring SS benefits, then claiming at age 62 makes the most sense. If you're treating SS benefits as insurance against longevity risk, then deferring benefits for as long as possible makes the most sense.
      The Sensible Steward
      Locked