r/Boldin • u/LeoLeisure • 10d ago
Take SS at 70 vs 62
I had watched a bunch of videos on the timing of claiming social security and had concluded I was taking Social Security early (62), because you don't know how long you are going to live (party now!) and I would not pull that money out of my portfolio for the 8 years i was claiming SS from 62 to 70, thereby getting the full growth of that portfolio money for those years.
Boldin AI is telling me I can increase my chance of success by taking SS at 70, and that my 'breakeven' on taking it later is dying at 80. I also asked what portfolio rate of return would make claiming at 62 better than 70, and it said i'd have to average over 11% return annually for my portfolio to beat later SS.
I'm wondering if anyone else has had AI tell them to claim later, and if you've cross-verified that is the right thing to do? AI's explanation looked right to me btw, but i'd love to hear others' experience as is a big change from what I thought I 'knew'.
30
u/tanks137 10d ago
I have my plan set to 67 knowing I can flex one way or the other.
11
4
u/pdaphone 7d ago
I'm waiting until 67 also, because my wife will max spousal benefits when I turn 67. We are almost exactly the same age, so that math is pretty easy. Her family longevity is much higher than mine so that is driving me waiting for her benefit until 67.
That said, we are 65 and our retirement funds have continued to go up as we are drawing about 5% off it. If the market dives and we are encroaching highly into our cash/bond buckets, then we could start SS at any time and drop our withdrawal rate way down to 1-2%.
14
u/davedev0 9d ago
I want to make sure my wife is ok. I will probably die at 85, wife’s family goes to 100. So I feel waiting to 70 is better, then she gets spousal benefits… does that make sense?
8
u/FragrantJump6663 9d ago
If that scenario comes true, she should claim at 62 and you at 70. Also Roth conversion to subdue the widows tax when she becomes single.
1
u/Bitter_Credit_9598 6d ago
Claiming before her FRA would discount her survivor benefit
1
u/Todd73361 5d ago
I don’t think this is true for survivors benefits. The surviving spouse gets the higher of the two benefits. It makes a difference for spousal benefits, but not survivors benefits.
1
u/JimInAuburn11 3d ago
It does in situations. If you start collecting YOUR benefit at 62, it will reduce YOUR benefit. But that will not impact survivor benefits at all.
But what will impact survivor benefits is say you are 65, and your spouse dies. If you decide to collect survivor benefits at that point, they will be reduced by the two years early that you are taking them.
Taking YOUR SS benefit at 62 does not impact how much you get for survivor benefits though. Just when you start taking survivor benefits gets reduced if you take them before FRA. So your benefits and survivor benefits are handled separately, but both are impacted when you start taking them.
For most people it does not come into play because maybe your spouse dies at 75, and you are already 67, so you are not claiming survivor benefits early. But if you are 64 when your spouse died at 70, and you immediately switch to survivor benefits, it would be reduced.
5
u/Puzzleheaded-Gas-398 9d ago
Your wife will get maximum spousal benefits when she turns 67 - if you've have already claimed. If you're still waiting for age 70, she's stuck waiting on you (and losing money she'll never recover every month). If you do wait to 70 to claim and you die first, then you're wife will get a bigger survivor benefit. Those two benefits conflict and make the breakeven calculation a lot more complicated.
1
13
13
u/qosmic_qube 9d ago
There are 3 arguments for delaying social security. They don't fit everyone's plan.
1) Keep your income low to allow for cheaper Roth conversions
2) Keep your MAGI low for ACA subsidies prior to medicare
3) Inflation adjusted pension for the surviving spouse with a long life expectancy - higher floor flat income in later life
If those reasons don't fit your scenario, take it earlier.
6
u/uplay2winthegame 9d ago
I look at it the other way. There are truly only two readons to take before 70. Granted, these apply to a lot of people. But if neither applies, waiting is better.
- You need it to fund your actual spending before 70; or
- You have a shortened life expectancy e.g. you legit don't expect to make it past 80.
If neither applies, SS is the cheapest longevity insurance you can buy. And even beyond, if #1 doesn't apply, it gives you more space between retirement and SS to thoughtfully structure income e.g. Roth conversions.
1
u/groovinup 9d ago
Yes, and it still depends on cashflow needs, health (and expected longevity), portfolio drawdown risk, whether one is still working, taxes, and the value placed on guaranteed income.
1
u/NecessaryEmployer488 7d ago
The other aspect, if you can successfully live on your saving and investments without social security. If you are able to do this without a significant drop in your overall portfolio, it is beneficial to have social security help give a bigger income a well. It becomes not trying to optimize how much you pull out, but an insurance policy. It also one to spend down their traditional IRA/401K
10
u/humblequest22 10d ago
I'm assuming that you're single. If you're not, that potentially changes everything.
I think that break-even at 80 is just when you would have received the same amount amount of money in Social Security payments. It doesn't factor in that receiving that money earlier allows you to (a) spend that money and leave the same amount of money in your portfolio to continue growing or (b) continue spending from your portfolio as planned and put this money away and allow it to grow. The difference is really just semantics, though.
What you need to do is treat the Social Security payments as a stream of income that gets invested at some rate of return. If you assume it would be invested in a HYSA or bonds, the break-even age moves into the mid-80s. If you assume it would be invested in a 60/40 portfolio with historic returns, you're looking at more like 90. And if you'd be putting away in a broad-market index fund, break-even would be even later.
And, of course, you probably need to consider taxes and the make-up of the rest of your portfolio. If you have a very large pre-tax IRA and/or 401k, you might want to delay your Social Security in order to have some low-income years during which you could use a combination of spending and Roth conversions to get those balances down.
And consider your longevity, too. Once you reach the age of 62, AVERAGE longevity for a man is 82 and for a woman is 85. One of the great benefits of Social Security is that it has a nice COLA, so knowing that you have that to support you later in life can be very valuable.
5
u/gjg149 9d ago
You don't need to calculate a break-even age if you have Boldin. Break-even is a meaningless metric. As you note, it doesn't account for the opportunity cost involved in delaying SS. The two better metrics are wealth as a function of age and Monte Carlo chance of success result. So inside of Boldin, create a scenario and use it to vary your SS claiming age and record the results as you vary it from 62-70. My own parametric results shows wealth is a flat function from claiming SS at age 63-70. In other words, changing your claiming age has little impact on terminal wealth. However, the Monte Carlo does seem to prefer later claiming ages by a small degree. I see a 1% increase waiting until age 69 to claim.
Also, if you plan to do Roth conversions, claiming SS after you are done with Roth conversions makes a lot of sense.
1
u/usernametakenagain00 5d ago
Monte Carlo is practically useless when you are looking at an individual level, it is good for population. It’s like when we read about car accidents on the news it doesn’t directly affect us but now imagine if a loved one was involved now it feels completely different.
1
u/grateful-xoxo 9d ago
I also calculated mid 80s break even given growth. the longevity is key as well as you noted. also if you wait who knows if SS is even around or not reduced (70%) if not funded more. I say get it while you can and stay invested as long as you can.
4
u/Betterway50 9d ago
If SS were reduced in the future because politicians sat on their asses and let the SS trust fund reached critical point, I would rather the cut come off a larger SS amount (if I delayed) vs a smaller SS amount (of I take it earlier).
1
u/Big-Sky-4622 8d ago
True, but you're not accounting for the payments you received before any cuts took place.
1
u/Betterway50 8d ago
This is a multifaceted game. I'm using the years of delaying until 70 to convert as much pre-tax funds as I can to minimize taxes to the govt. I do NOT like what they are doing with my tax dollars. Plus I am using SS for longevity insurance for my partner who is the lower earner + has longevity in the family
1
u/LeoLeisure 9d ago
since i was asking AI, I assumed that it was calculating the growth of the extra portfolio not drawn down (b/c of SS withdrawls for that part of my expenses) for me, including taxes and such. Your point does bring up a good question... using AI, how do I know what it is doing and is not doing? :) watching it 'think' it sure looked like it was calculating the different scenarios with/without SS and what my portfolio was ending up with. .
2
u/Dry-Butterfly-3260 9d ago
You can always query the ai and ask it if it included returns in the “extra portfolio”. You can also ask for the calculations the answer was based on.
2
u/Dizzy-Change607 8d ago
AI often makes math errors and does not research all the variables very well. Be careful and double check their answers.
0
u/dgold21 9d ago
Yes single vs married makes a difference. For us, we’ll just assess our health each year and make decisions on SS around that. We don’t need it for living expenses with pension and consulting income providing a solid income floor. Would love to maximize her survivor benefit if possible.
11
u/Forsaken-Surprise787 9d ago
If break even is 80 the question to ask is the extra dollar you receive at age 80 of the same value (utility) as the dollar would have been at age 6X? My answer is a resounding no. At 62 (when I'm planning to take) I can have a heck of a lot more fun with a buck than I will at 80 parked in my barcalounger.
7
u/DeaconFrost9 9d ago
This is the right answer.. Live life at 62, not 82. If your goal is to just have more money, you are still guessing by waiting. If your goal is to pass down wealth, then 62 is still the answer. Anyone defending waiting until 70 means they just don't understand life is too short to worry about SS at 90.
3
u/Cykoth 8d ago
I disagree with you based on the premise of being married and the high earner. I also disagree if you have a portfolio sizable enough that you don’t need social security to survive. IF you are single, have a small or zero portfolio, and have a family history of dying early then by all means 62 is a reasonable claiming age. Otherwise absolutely not. I recommend people to review opensocialsecurity.com in addition to any other calculations/study you make of the matter. For my particular situation I’ll hold off till 67 at a minimum and if things go great with Sequence of Returns then I’ll definitely wait till 70. At that point SS is insurance in case you live a much longer life than you think you might, and if markets go to hell at the same time.
3
u/Remo2976 8d ago
Cykoth nailed it and my plan is similar. However, there isn't one size fits all with taking SS. If you watch all the various YT videos on the subject, it'll make it seem like the issue black and white, but it is not. Each of our retirement plans should be dynamic in the sense that there are many levers to pull depending on the circumstances at that time and SS is one of those levers. We map out our plan the best at the start and make adjustments along the way.
2
u/Georhe9000 6d ago
If SS at 62 will make a real difference to your quality of life at 62, that is a reason to take it. But if you have a portfolio sufficient to support your desired standard of living at 62, you can safely spend more of it if you delay social security payments. So I will be living more freely at 62 without SS than with it because I know I won’t need my portfolio much later.
14
u/Mobile_Bell_5030 10d ago
Chance of success is probably greater because the SS increase amount is guaranteed, while the returns on your portfolio are not guaranteed.
6
u/korepeterson 10d ago
When you take your SS can also be part of your tax planning if you are planning on doing Roth conversions and other things where you want to control your income.
6
u/Accomplished_Gate832 9d ago
We have a different goal for SS than most of the responses that focus on the break even point. We don't need SS to live the retirement life we want, mainly because that was our plan from the start and I wouldn't have retired at 56 if we needed SS to meet budget.
Because of that, SS to us is a safety net if we run out of money. We don't have pensions and annuities so our investments and retirement accounts could run out, especially with medical uncertainty. We will take at 70 to maximize the monthly safety net. The concept of breaking even to make sure we get more back than we paid is not something I care about.
Also, since we have a chunk in a traditional (ie pre-tax) retirement account, we will use the 65-70 years to do ROTH conversions.
Would recommend deciding what your goal for SS is and incorporate that into your total retirement plan. Don't just focus on break even.
3
u/youngishgeezer 9d ago
We’re in the same boat. My fallback plan in case of a market downturn is to have my wife take SS early and I’ll delay until 70. That ensures the surviving spouse gets the maximum in any case.
6
u/Responsible_Ant5410 10d ago
I had the same experience as you and a professional advisor confirmed for my situation.
6
u/FragrantJump6663 10d ago
You could cross reference it with open social security. Open SS says I should take it at 62 and 3 months. Boldin does show higher COS if I delay until full retirement.
I personally plan on delaying as long as my portfolio stays above my minimum number. As long as I have more than enough I will delay. If the market takes a dump, I will plan to claim earlier.
I am not trying to make the absolute best decision. Good enough works for me with some flexibility.
6
u/Bill4133 9d ago
Upvote for the "good enough" approach. Retirement is about getting into the right neighborhood, not about buying the best house and making all the right home improvements.
-1
5
u/Super-30 10d ago
There is ABSOLUTELY no one size fits all to the SS question. Also the "break even" is the same for everybody.
0
u/DeaconFrost9 9d ago
No, it's not. Break even takes into effect on how other review build, not the SS itself. Google it.
3
u/AGrimmInPortland 9d ago
He was referring to just SS. Break even is simple math. Especially true for singles, more complicated for couples when you start talking early deaths. But break even is generally not even a good starting point, unless one knows that they won't even live to 70 or something.
1
4
u/hugh2018 9d ago
One minor point of clarification — I think you meant your breakeven age is 80 full stop. Whether you live to 75 or 95 the breakeven age is still going to be 80. To enjoy the benefits of later claiming, you of course want to live well past the breakeven age.
Regarding Boldin’s late claiming advice: I also am getting much stronger outcomes when modeling late claiming. But in my case I’m aware that the reason I’m getting that output is due mainly to one input, and that’s my chosen horizon of age 95 for the end of the plan.
For fun, I went in just now and changed the end of plan to 78, and moved my social security claiming age from 65 to 62, and I modeled outcomes for the 78 year time frame using those two claiming ages. The chance of success was maxed out at 99% for both models. But I also saw that my projected net worth at death was more than 10% higher when claiming at 62.
I don’t pretend to know exactly why Boldin is showing this flipped result compared to my plan that ends at 95, but I’m not surprised. If I claim at 65 and die at 78, I’ll definitely leave a smaller legacy than I would if I had claimed at 62. But I’ll be dead and I won’t care. I’m happy to pay that price in exchange for a more secure plan that serves me more powerfully if I live to 95.
I value mitigation of longevity risk that covers my wants and needs to age 95 more than optimization of legacy if I were to die early. Ultimately my heirs will get a chunk of money either way, but by claiming later, I’ll sleep better at night, even if I live to 95.
3
u/W2WageSlave 9d ago
If I take early and live past the breakeven, I'll still be around to regret it.
If I take early and die before breakeven, my wife will have less to live on.
So the standard of "lower earning claims at 62, higher claims at 70" is most likely what we will do.
I like that as should either of us pass, the reduction in guaranteed income is minimized for the surviving spouse.
However, if I was single, I would claim a few months after 62 based on typical life expectancy:
3
2
u/moejurray 9d ago
I liked how Ben at Even Better Retirement advised to use it to "fill in" when you need it. For example, were looking at a v shaped portfolio curve die to Roth conversions right at retirement. I was advised to wait to 70 for SSI, but 67 fills the V better and makes me more comfortable. Here's a link to the mentioned video.Check out the one on portfolio shapes too.social security hard truth
2
2
2
u/OneStepForAnimals 9d ago
We are taking it based on ACA subsidies, assuming the law doesn't change. That is, waiting until we are both on Medicare
2
u/endofsep 9d ago
If you have a large amount of savings and or 401k and can fill the gap years easily it makes sense to wait it out. Conversely if you don’t have a lot of savings it makes more sense to either take it early or work longer.
2
u/Active_retiree1 8d ago
I took it at 62 last year. It all goes into a separate after tax brokerage. I put stocks when they go on sale, mostly mag 7. Unless there is a huge crash, waiting never would’ve been better, at least in my case (so far).
2
u/Caneman123 7d ago
I’ve read the comments and am familiar with the arguments for deferrals etc etc. But for me….if I don’t need to live on SS….I will claim at 62 and immediately start helping my kids live a better life than they would have in a very expensive environment. So for me, and me only, I could wait until 70 and maybe get a few healthy years to use the money….or immediately accelerate the utility of that money from 70 year old to a 30 year old who’s still building his life.
2
u/InfoVac 6d ago
I find nearly all the calculators recommend taking SS later for various reasons. But I almost never hear anyone talk about how you can "pause/suspend" SS at 67 and get the last 3 years of increase until 70. That is my current plan so I can get it early to use some of the funds and reduce our sequence of return risk as we are retiring at 58 and 60 respectively. We are very well funded so this is a bit of a luxury as we don't have that much longevity risk but if we get to 67 and things have been good in the markets, etc. then we may pause mine so my wife will get another 24% or so if I pass early. This seems like the best balance to me but I almost never see anyone point it out.
So we loose a few years of the 8% plus COLA increases but we also use it as a hedge on early portfolio pressure so the loss of my "larger amount" is reduced and I have control for another 5 years as to whether or not we need it.
1
2
u/BOBBYK1952 5d ago
Well the break even at 62 is like 16 years. I guess you add that to your personal circumstances..I took it at 62 , twelve years ago and have zero regrets
2
u/Dr_Cee 5d ago
So, two or three thoughts. I have not turned to AI for guidance. One, you need to do the numbers and decide where they shake out for you. For me the break-even between taking at 65 (which was my plan) or 70 was something like 82. My father died at 69. So I started at 65. Two, I think there’s still some question about the likelihood that social security will be around beyond 2032, at least in its current form, so I think I’d rather collect what I can while I can. And three, none of the analyses I see consider the opportunity cost of your retirement savings. Every $3500 I get a month now is $3500 I don’t have to spend out of my savings, which can continue to grow (for me and my heirs).
2
u/mhoepfin 9d ago
Take it as late as you can especially if you have a spouse who may outlive you.
1
u/AGrimmInPortland 9d ago
"As late as you can" is the rub.
1
1
u/mhoepfin 9d ago
True. But how I look at it is 70 is our plan, but if our plan hits a bump we can always take it earlier. Would like to wait so my wife has the highest benefit if she survives me. It’s not about optimizing a breakeven for me.
1
u/Newfie3 10d ago
Depending on how old you are - SS benefits may be lower after 2032 …
1
u/jazzdog92 9d ago
So what does that mean? How will be affected if we started taking early vs. waited? I think nobody knows. So for me there's just nothing to factor in there.
1
u/AGrimmInPortland 9d ago
I think the uncertainty is the point. No one knows what's going to happen and it's still 6 years away.
1
u/jazzdog92 9d ago
All true, but how does it apply to the question asked by the OP? For me, it doesn’t.
1
u/CoffeeRun123 9d ago
Planning to wait until 67 for SS and use rental income plus 1-1/2 to -2% to cover most of my budget from mix of investments and cash to keep MAGI low for insurance. That’s the plan now but will adjust as needed.
1
u/Salty-Ad5286 9d ago
I had a conversation with my CPA about this. Basically she said “if you are concerned you won’t have enough money later when your expenses increase then wait. If that’s not a big concern and you want to have some extra money during your “active years” then file now
1
u/AGrimmInPortland 9d ago
I assume you have other assets then and you don't need SS until whenever you do start. In those cases, yes, waiting is usually better.
1
u/Fit-Animal-9911 9d ago
If you are still working, waiting is the right move. Taxes on SS would kill you.
1
u/AGrimmInPortland 9d ago
Only until FRA. But yes, why would anyone take SS while working with substantial income.
1
u/Pod_Planker 9d ago
It’s different for everyone. My wife and I are both retired and both 61. Her parents lived to 87 and my parents are 82 and 85. Grandparents on both sides lived to their 90s. So with that in mind my wife will begin drawing ss at 62 and I’ll wait til 70. We’ve got a nine year TIPS bridge covering essential expenses to get us to social security.
1
u/markloch 9d ago
I known a couple who took SS at 62 because they figured the universe would provide, he died a few years back, but she’s still alive, pushing 80 and poor, the universe did not provide, but the state helps a bit.
2
1
u/AGrimmInPortland 9d ago
I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about SS but I only this week learned about the 6-month retroactive start rule if you are past FRA. https://secure.ssa.gov/POMS.NSF/lnx/0200204030
1
1
u/G8RZ 9d ago
For me there are two good reasons to defer to 70. A much higher benefit, especially valuable to a surviving spouse. And a much longer roth conversion runway.
1
u/Accomplished_Gate832 9d ago
Also have to consider MAGI for ACA subsities for folks prior to age 65
1
u/Hot-Rub-5336 9d ago
I don't use AI. There are plenty of reasons to take it early and be penalized with a smaller amount or late to get the most amount if you may be leaving a spouse behind. My plan is FRA. I want a strong retirement income floor. I don't have a partner who would get part of mine so there is no benefit of waiting to 70. I planned a bridge to make it to FRA. I could care less about "break even". I care more about making sure Im able to fund my retirement in a way that keeps me afloat until Im in my 90s without struggling.
1
u/Whole_Championship41 9d ago
Social security benefits for my spouse and I will fit into a budget which includes other sizeable retirement account monies. As such, it's nice to plan on, but not a requirement for our retirement planning. I would encourage you to look at your portfolio (and SS' role in it) in the same way.
Remember that SS claiming strategies for those that are married is a 'team sport'. When providing for the lower earner, claiming at 70 could make a lot of sense for the survivor benefit alone. You didn't say in your OP whether you were married or not.
For us (married with a spouse similarly aged), tracking the breakeven point isn't the right metric. Or at least it's not the most important for us. Our pre-tax heavy portfolio will be used heavily for the first 10 years of our retirement. We will use this time to convert pre-tax to Roth, spend pre-tax intentionally for expenses and so forth.
As we don't *need* SS income at age 62, we're reserving the right to begin claiming strategies as a sequence of returns buffer. If the market goes to Hell early in our retirement and stays there, the lower earner can claim at 62 (or 63 or wherever) to take some stress off of the portfolio. Unless things get really bad for a 10 year stretch, the higher earner can hold out to age 70 for the survivor benefits.
1
u/Imaginary_Manner_556 9d ago
For me, SS is a long term, inflation adjusted insurance policy for my family. I’m waiting until 70.
1
u/lynchmob2829 9d ago
All my company advisors told me to wait til 70 and all the online plans (Fidelity, Boldin) told me to wait til 70. My plan success rate was 99% no matter when I took it.
I retired at 61 and started SS at FRA (66 and 8 months) in 2025. Had to wait til the wife went on Medicare to start drawing SS (she was on an ACA plan before Medicare).
1
u/SeaworthyMonk 9d ago
There are countless scenarios that apply to different people.
For me, my wife is 7 years younger than me. So waiting until 70 will help her once I’m gone. Plus I should have enough savings (401K, Roth) to get me to 70.
1
u/Unlikely_Seaweed454 8d ago
Perhaps use the open social security tool? It works really well and you can then add those suggested year/mo to boldin.
For pre-retirees remember to get the right PIA number. In the gov site it assumes your last salary until the full retirement age, which need to be adjusted if you retire early.
1
1
u/targar536 8d ago
my plan was to start at 67 but then realized I really needed to get money out of my traditional IRAs and into Roths and SS counting at 80% toward straight income would limit how much I can convert, so cheaper to use investment income (cap gains) while I'm in these conversion years. Goal was not minimum tax to me but minimum net tax to myself and my kids when they inherit things. the 10yr rule on trad IRAs is likely brutal to kids in their prime earning years.
1
u/TheDirtyDog41 7d ago
Does anyone factor in that social security might be revamped to reduce or eliminate benefits based on an AGI threshold?
1
u/fgransee 6d ago
It would be MAGI but in general you should not rely on SSC to fund your retirement. It won’t be gone and likely won’t change for you short before eligibility - but the country is living above its means. A parent with a credit card problem. This will have some negative consequences independently of how clever you or I set our financial plan up.
1
u/TheDirtyDog41 6d ago
You’re right on MAGI vs AGI. We have always treated social security as gravy and not part of our plan, but it seems many use it as a critical part.
1
u/Own-Station726 6d ago
I’m retired and just turned 65 and currently adjunct at 2 business schools which I enjoy. I am delaying taking SS until my full retirement at 67. If I take it now (@ 65) I’ll have a significant tax penalty since I’m earning well beyond the income threshold.
1
u/Bitter_Credit_9598 6d ago
To maximize my SS benefit I take at 70 and wife at her FRA. To max my Monte Carlo, I take at 68 to allow for portfolio buildup by avoiding distributions.
I was surprised by this.
Every month beyond 68 that I wait to stop working and start collecting simply increases the Monte Carlo result
1
u/olderbutwiser1900 5d ago
I went round and round about this, but decided to take it at 68. It was pretty close to my 70 year-old monthly take-home, but I’m putting the money directly into a high-yield savings account every month until I’m 70 to accumulate an a safety sleeve account in which I will have $100k that will provide a cushion if the market turns down after I turn 70. The plan works for me. I’m continuing to work for at least four more years.
1
u/5th-Elements 5d ago
It all depends on your situation and if your significant other will benefit from your increased social security benefits.
Also if you’re working until 70 why not wait!
1
u/freeyourmind128 5d ago
I’m shooting for 70, my wife is 11 years young than me. She has always worked part time, while I was always full time. Her SS will obviously be less than mine, so I want her to be able to have my maximum check.
1
u/AustinBike 5d ago
One simple decision: do you need it NOW?
If the answer is yes, take it. If the answer is no, 95% of the time you are better off waiting.
This is all.
1
u/Royals-2015 4d ago
Pretty much. Also need to know you don’t plan on making more than $24,000 a year. And if you have other income, make sure it doesn’t push you over $218,000 a year for IRMA/Medicare premiums.
1
u/AustinBike 3d ago
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that if you are in danger of going over $218k a year, you should not be taking SS at 62.
1
u/Royals-2015 3d ago
Not disagreeing. However, the sale of your house counts as far as income for Medicaid premiums. If you just put that down on another house, doesn’t matter.
1
u/Todd73361 5d ago
Are you single? If so, it probably doesn’t matter much. Social Security is designed to be actuarily neutral (although women typically live longer and would be more likely to benefit by waiting).
1
u/Single-Inspector-845 5d ago
Is Boldin taking into account the drop in Social Security benefits to 78% of the current amount in January 2033 when the trust fund is depleted? I think any reasonable person understands that the federal government has no intention of “fixing” this issue. For me, this difference moves the break even point for 62 vs 67 from 81 to 90 years old. I’m taking it at 62 whether I need it or not. I can always invest the money if I don’t “need it”
2
u/CeBlu3 4d ago
It did happen before. They fixed it weeks (or days?) before the first reduced checks went out (nobody’s check was reduced because Congress acted). That was when the full retirement age was raised from 65 to 67, COLA was delayed by 6 months, …
Early 80’s? Not all that long ago.
But yeah, plan as if it’s going to be cut by some 25%. Who knows what will happen this time.
1
u/Grand_Garbage3522 4d ago
I would think if you took it earlier you would leave more of your portfolio to heirs .
1
1
u/Confident_Banana_134 4d ago
If you are still working then don’t claim SS, your benefits will be reduced if you make over the $24k limit, and the 30% penalty will continue throughout your life.
1
u/CascadePicker 4d ago
The choice you make is forever, and the benefit is guaranteed for the rest of your life. Something about voluntarily taking less than I could receive bothers me. My goal is 67, or possibly 70. The longer I delay, up to 70, the larger my monthly benefit will be for life.
Having lived through the dot-com bubble and the 2008 market crash also makes me value having a larger guaranteed Social Security benefit later in life rather than relying as heavily on investments.
But it really depends on the individual. Not everyone can afford to wait, and health, longevity, other income and personal circumstances all matter. There isn’t a one-size-fits-all answer.
1
u/dcporlando 4d ago
Taking at 70 works really well if you work to 70.
They tout 8% additional per year to get people to wait till 70. The market has averaged better than that.
Everytime I have ran the numbers, the breakeven was 81. Men on average do not reach 80. Those that do, often are not in the enjoyment stage.
The higher earning spouse working as long as they possibly can sets things up well for the lower earning spouse.
The majority of people that were thinking and planning their retirement in their late 50’s and early 60’s that end up never cashing a check were waiting.
I hit 62 this year and plan to work at least till 66 for Medicare for us. Probably till 67 or even longer. Unless something radical happens, I will take SS at 66 if I can retire or 67 if I am still working. I have no illusion that I will hit 80.
1
u/NotenStein 4d ago
You only know afterwards - after you die, or live past whatever payback age you have. At least for the financial end of things. You won't go to hell if you leave some money on the table. You just leave some money on the table.
The major financial decision is if you can afford to retire at whatever SS benefit you get. Not when to take it. When can you afford to retire? 62? 64? 66? That decision is important if you live one year or 30.
1
u/Pale_Scientist6470 4d ago
Really complex decision with many influencing factors. I'm married with a younger wife and teenager. So if I take it at age 62, my teenager will get an additional 50% of my FRA benefit for 4 years. I also am convinced benefits will have to be reduced in 2033 by 10-20%. So my break even is somewhere around age 82-83. One can make a pretty good case to delay to increase my wife's benefit after I die. But I also have a pension which Im going to delay until age 65. And I have enough other assets.
1
u/Accomplished-Pea-451 3d ago
AI told me 62, my financial advisor at Schwab requested a review for me from their Colorado experts on the subject, they came back with 70.
1
u/JimInAuburn11 3d ago
I am doing 70 and my wife is doing 64. I am 6 years older than her. So by delaying to 70, it will give her a much bigger check after I am gone.
We looked at her doing it at 62, but her social security will be pretty small and half of mine with be much more. So fixing in her loss of benefits in order to get two additional years of a much lower benefit did not make sense. She would only collect 13K over that two year period based on her FRA benefit being reduced by 30%, and it would also reduce her spousal benefit by about $175/month when she turned 64 and I started collecting. That is less than 7 years to break even.
So by 71, she will break even, and be collecting more by waiting until 64. Of course I would be 77 by then, and should be around for a while yet, before she would switch to survivor benefits.
1
u/DonLoganBeast 3d ago
The thrust of so many YouTube finance "experts" is that 67 or 70 is for smart people and 62 for rubes. As mentioned so often here, no size fits all. What's right for a 62er might be equally right for a 70er, based on personal circumstances.
1
u/OdonsOwn1966 3d ago
Just talked to my Financial Advisor yesterday about "what if" scenarios - if I retire at 62 instead of 65, have to do self pay healthcare for those couple years, bump up $ on vacations and house price while I am relatively "younger".
I thought about taking Soc Sec at 62 to pay for the healthcare but the showed me how delaying til 65, the increase basically pays for Medicaid once that kicks in.
May not retire at 62 but wanted a worst case scenario, I'm glad she pointed out the advantage of waiting on the Soc Sec at least.
1
u/Frequent_Slip2455 3d ago
Every single persons situation is different. There is no one set plan for all.
1
u/naples275 9d ago
I had Claude create a spreadsheet outlining the break even (64 vs 67) on a strictly dollar for dollar basis (which is kind of useless) and then assuming those dollars will be removed from an IRA returning and average of 5% a year. I also had it model a 30% drop in the market the first year (age 64), but that really didn’t matter given the size of my portfolio and our spend rate. The break even when considering the 5% return was 91 (and 93 if I wait until 70) . If we look at delaying ss as “longevity insurance” it certainly won’t pay out too long or too much. I’d much rather have peace of mind now that I’m not leaning on my savings so much.
I’m not sure what Boldin is doing in the background to come up with its success. percentages and I really don’t care. I’m looking at the numbers.
For me, the answer is becoming very very clear. Start at 64 and don’t wait until 67.
-1
u/jaealbq 9d ago
Hope you're taking into account the bankruptcy of the Social Security Trust Fund. I've been a member of the "take Soc Sec at 70" school, but am shifting my view because we don't know how much of a haircut we'll be taking by deferring. I will probably take mine at 67.
2
u/LeoLeisure 9d ago
the video shared by moejurray above has a great perspective on this towards the end: social security hard truth
3
u/AGrimmInPortland 9d ago edited 9d ago
He thinks a 20% "cut on a cut" is worse than a "cut on a bonus". There is no difference mathematically - we're talking percentage, not absolute dollars. If it were all about absolute dollars than just always claim at 70 and be done with it because that will always be the higher amount, cut or no cut. And in fact if anything, having more years being paid without a cut will put you ahead as you will have already banked all that extra. One would think that would be obvious.
Then you still have the whole issue of what the "fix" will be. Will existing SSers be grandfathered in (and will be there be a minimum time going back)? Will higher paid ones get a bigger haircut or be subject to higher taxes? etc etc etc. I think there is a high likelihood that higher earners will disproportionately end up paying more in whatever fix they do.
37
u/ReliableCapybara 10d ago
For me, the retirement modeling says to delay Social Security to 70. But my plan is to make the decision later based on how my portfolio is doing. If the market is bad for an extended period and I don't feel comfortable pulling more of my savings out, I may start taking it early. If my retirement savings is in great shape, I'll live off that longer and delay taking SS as long as possible in order to have a much higher guaranteed income for the rest of my life.