The thing about all these ābest time to take social securityā is a big fat āit dependsā, I took mine at 62 and Iām entering my 7th year of retirement and it has been wonderful.. My ex wifes cousin didnāt want to work until 70 so she took it a 66.5. She retired on 12/31/25. She died on February 21. No health conditions. That waiting got her a bigger check for two months., If she would have followed Suzeās advice, she would have received nothing. Thatās something they donāt take into account - no matter what age you take it, the ābreak evenā is about 80. If I only make it to 66.5, Iāve had 4.5 years of fun in retirement. For my exes cousin , she got two months. The other thing is - the older you get, the harder it is to do the āfunā things in life. You might retire at 70 but then your health might not allow you to check off as many things on your bucket list.
If your goal is to die with as much as your own money as you can, wait until 70. If you want to have a blast in retirement while many of your friends are trudging into a job that they are getting less and less enjoyoment from for 8 more years, more power to them.
I like the enjoying retirement. My dad got early onset dementia. My grandma lived to 105. She was healthy till 101 but probably stopped airline traveling in her early 90s so she enjoyed from 57 to 89+
Iām sorry for your familyās loss.
Exactly. Neither Orman nor Ramsey are right or wrong. There is no generally correct answer, because It depends on each recipientās, or potential recipientās work, life and financial situations. This article, and others Iāve seen, advise waiting until 70 because the monthly payments are higher. if you look at S/S as a series of guaranteed (maybe) payments over time, the present value of beginning those payments at ages below 70 coincide with standard life expectancies. Live longer than your normal life expectancy and you should have waited, die earlier and you made the right choice. If you need the money to live earlier than 70, then financial analyses are meaningless.
Disclosure - we both began at 62, have no regrets and would do it again because it was an asset that helped us retire very early.
I will take mine at 63, and only that extra year because I need 8 years to vest in one of my retirements at my new job. When I step away from everything I will be getting 4 checks for doing nothing.
I 100% agree that there is zero reason to work until 70 just to āmaximizeā your check, when you wonāt have the time or health to enjoy it.
We also plan on collecting at 62, thatāll be $50,000 less a year we need to take from our retirement accounts.
KC, I completely agree with you. I also started SS at 62, almost 7 years ago. Clark Howard is a guy who almost died of a heart concern a year ago at 70? But he still touts waiting to 70. Your story about your exās cousin absolutely proves it for me. 4 1/2 years without that check, a lot of money. Of course she doesnāt care nowā¦.
I know people who retired at 60 or 62 and didnāt start collecting Social Security until age 67 or later, they just used 401k and IRA money. Personally, Iād rather keep more in my retirement accounts and take Social Security at 62, even if it is a lower amount than full retirement age.
Now, I will disagree with Ramsey too.
I am not going to invest that money. I am going to piss it away and live go sliding into my grave with a margarita and Hawaiian shirt!
I always told my wife that I wanted to go while drinking the B&B I had just used my last $20 bill to buy (it was $10 when I first said this). As I am apparently closer to that event than ever before, I am considering options.
Exactly.
Numbers say most people would be better to wait until 70, if they financially can, but itās a wager on how long youāll live.
But now, itās another wager, on how much you trust politicians to come up with a solution before the trust fund runs out in less than a decade. If you think they wonāt, then it might advantage you to take it early.
Agreed, completely.
Anyone who says or implies there is only one obvious choice for everyone loses my attention and respect immediately, no matter what the rationale.
Peopleās financial situations, family circumstances, individual life expectancies, and health concerns are all highly variable compared to anyone else.
All I really want is for people to think through the pros and cons of each choice, make a decision, and know that it may not turn out to be ideal, because no one has a crystal ball.
Going off topic a bit. I worked for the state of Massachusetts. Was 23 years of age when I started.
Could have retired at age 43 and collected a 50% pension.
Some of my fellow workers decided on that option. I chose to work another 10 years. Making that 30 years and retired at age 53 collecting a 72% pension.
Moved to another state[North Carolina]. At the time, there was big difference in housing costs between NC and Ma.
Sold the house in Mass and was able to pay cash for the house in NC.
On a side note, didnāt have enough quarters paid into Social Security. If I did would have been able to collect a small monthly check when I turned 62.
The guy who lives behind me worked for the Social Security Administration. I worked for the county (State of Kansas) and I told him I was retiring. He said I needed to make sure Iād even get social security. I said they withheld for it, so he said I should be okay. I guess in some states, if you are paying into a pension, you donāt have social security withheld. Kansas isnāt one of them. I paid into SS and had the state pension, which is what allowed me to retire as early as i did.
That was generally for people employed by some unit of government. My Dad worked for the post office. For several years, he paid into the postal retirement plan but not S/S. I think that late in is career he had S/S contributions. As a result, his S/S benefit on retirement was pretty small.
Some governmental employees originally excluded from S/S were later added because the system needed added contributions and the folks just entering the plan would not get benefits for 10 years. Biden (I saw the video) signed a law shortly before leaving office increasing S/S benefits for those who had govrnmental pensions reduced if receiving S/S benefits.
FIL worked for the Railroad and draws from that instead of SS.
Wife works in education and will draw from that instead of SS (FYI, she let me look at that, and HOLY SHIT, we donāt have to re-invent the wheel to fix SS!)
My neighbor retired last year with a railroad pension, cha-ching. Much better than social security and getting most pensions, plus it has a generous survivor benefit for his wife.
My wife works at a school in the office and will be getting an Illinois state pension and she is paying into social security. The last she checked sheāll be getting around $2,000 a month at age 60 with 25 years service plus her social security. Teachers get 75% of their best few years, there are school districts where the average teachers pay is over $100k and a lot of teachers are near $150k a year towards the end of their career. Most teachers donāt pay into social security in Illinois.