You can only “maximize” your benefit if you know exactly how long you’re going to live. If you know you won’t live beyond 83, take it sooner. If you know you will live longer than 83, wait until you are 70. Most can’t make that determination at 62. So rather than trying to beat the odds (which we should have log ago learned favor the house, take it when you need it.

Is the minimum age 62 or 62.5? I'll be taking my SS this year after I turn 62.
I have no choice as my Obamacare premiums will exceed $10,000 this year, but I don't pay enough Federal tax to get a subsidy, and have too many assets to qualify for any other 'assistance'!

Happy Motoring, Mark

__________________
DrDKW

62

__________________
“Whatever story you're telling, it will be more interesting if, at the end you add, "and then everything burst into flames.”
― Brian P. Cleary, You Oughta Know By Now

22 months to go until 70 yrs old for maximum monthly SS $s. I feel my chances of making it are pretty good at this time.

Good to see you Joe.

__________________
Jim

Ditto on what Jim said!

The question in the OP is a simple question, but not a simple answer. My late wife worked for SS in her past so I understand the ins and outs pretty well. Most people jump on it as soon as they turn 62. Problem is not only that your monthly benefit will minimize, but if you make very much money from other sources, it will decrease your benefit until you reach full retirement age which for many will be about 66 or 67.

If you wait until seventy you will be leaving the money you would have drawn earlier on the table. If you live to a ripe age you will get it back due to increased monthly benefit.

If you knew ahead of time how long you will live, it would be easy to determine the optimum age.

Everyone's circumstance is different and there is no easy answer. Too, you need to consider possible survivor benefits, what you want to do with your life (retire early and live a retired person's life at 62, or wait for a lot longer to get your money.)

Then there is the interaction between your SS and 401k and IRA plans, plus some people still have pensions to toss into the mix.

It is not an easy choice.

You can do a lot of stuff at 62 that you can't do, or won't want to do, at 82. Hopefully, you have arranged your life so that when you take SS does not really matter to your well being in retirement.

Just turned 62 a few days ago so now I need to make a choice about when to collect-or I guess I have already made the choice. I plan on waiting until 66.5 FRA to collect. My wife is a little older than me so she started collecting a few years ago. My wife collecting early reduced the spousal benefit but it's not a huge amount.

__________________
Tony H
W111 280SE 3.5 Coupe
Manual transmission

Past cars:
Porsche 914 2.0
'64 Jaguar XKE Roadster
'57 Oval Window VW
'71 Toyota Hilux Pickup Truck-Dad bought new
'73 Toyota Celica GT

If you do not need the pension money to retire with. I found it really does not matter that much. I am 77 and the wife is 72.

I can see a strong possibility of a reduction of some sources of our current income. Perhaps even sooner than later. It is far too late to make any form of substantial difference. When this does or does not occur. In our situation.

We went through a period of people retiring earlier. Today there is a trend to retire later. This may be much healthier for individuals. As long as it is not driven by financial need. Yet even then it still may be healthier.

In my lifetime we went through the transition of people being just basically worn out by age 65. Where in my generation many of us where still in really good shape even at 70. It might be a fools errand to try attempting a guestimate at your own lifespan. Unless you already have some issue medically brewing.

The above are just my perceptions. More people die suddenly while from all appearances they are in decent condition. Than we expect. Actuary tables on when to draw any benefits are just based on lifespan averages. Not on your financial condition.

I personally defined retirement as not having to work to put food on the table basically. What you do with the time after that is in place is up to the individual.

After a very thorough discussion with my financial advisor, I came to the conclusion that the so called FRA is meaningless as a guide to when to collect. Every date prior to age 70 gives a reduced amount per month, and waiting until age 70 leaves a lot of money on the table that you won’t catch up with until your 80s.

You need to consider a slew of things other than merely a higher or lower monthly SS check.

And that is for those of us fortunate enough to make our own choices, rather than have circumstances make the choice for us.

Very good post Captain. The one thing I would stress to someone making this decision is that if you still have much of any income at all before your full retirement age it will significantly decrease what you’re drawing until you reach that age. In such a situation it would eat into that money that your advisor said would never be made up. Full retirement age varies, but for most of us is about 66 or 67. If you have more than about $15,000 in income before full retirement age it will decrease monthly benefit. The

Income from earnings is what reduces the SS check, not income from pensions, investments, 401, etc. And, as I understand it, if you lose a check because of earnings, they refigure your benefit and you lose the reduction for that check that you lost.

I think they worked out the math that, on average, it doesn’t make that much difference what you do, you either get lower checks for a longer time, or higher checks for a shorter time, on average. How that applies to an individual varies greatly.

Well we might as well get into another reality. You wait and inflation will reduce your increased amount. So there may be even a negative effect from waiting. I believe under Canadian law I had to take old age security at age 65. Besides the lifespan issues.

Although I could modify the start of the Canada pension plan timing. A real life situation. I drew the mandatory benift starting 12 years ago. No choice in the matter. Since then they have been increasing the first year it is issued. Seventy is the proposed target.

I can assure you at least up here in Canada the buying power of the amount of money I drew at 65 has seriously declined. Even with the very flawed so called adjustments for inflation. To me the deck is highly stacked against you. Unless inflation is really low. That is the real rate of inflation I refer to.

We as a couple somehow live in a society that their official claimed rates of inflation are far from the reality we experience.

As I have mentioned elsewhere they are force feeding credit into the systems consumers. . This is totally a bad practice. Other than it supports a consumer based economy. If they had any other option for a plan B type economy it would be less damaging overall. To engage it.

I may sound cynical at times but over time to me the governments of north America have not really served the peoples best interests. In far too many ways they work against them.

In the future a lot higher percentage than currently. Of the population will have to depend on pensions alone to survive. As they age. Already a lot of people cannot retire and meet their essential needs. Without doing so.

It is pretty hard to find tax free income. Yet at the same time not impossible. Otherwise you are penalized. Rather than increase the pensions based on the rate of true inflation. Those on the bottom are eligiable for special programs. I do not mean food stamps as that program does not exist as such in Canada. Yet as this easy credit keeps manipulating and distorting prices further upward. We will need it here in Canada.

Without much of a doubt. We need governments of the people and for the people. The vast masses that actually have to work for a living. Need representation that does not exist. Having wealth is perhaps the worst scenario for a politician. I am not wealthy but it is quite a shock when I get into working class areas. Over time with some affluence you tend to forget they even exist. So how can you participate in meeting their needs if you are totally unaware of what they are. Except in some abstract way.

I am almost ashamed we have some children of ours that are so focused on just themselves and money. Yes they still work. The reality is they have absolultly no knowledge of the average working class peoples situations. The prime minister wants to have a meeting with one daughter. He wants her to run for federal election I suspect. . Yes she is super efficient. At the same time is totally unaware of how average people live. Another daughter travels the world six months a year in style with her husband. If this is what gets elected in reality. Expectations for the working class should not be optimistic.

These are not bad children but have no social conscience. The blinders they wear are probably for convienience. They have absolutely no concept of what adversary is. Except again in some abstract way if at all. I have tried talking with one daughter about this area but she deflects it all so easily. Her husbands father has tried the same with his son to no effect as well. If a person thinks entitlement is only at the bottom they need a serious rethink. These to me are the class that gave away the industrial economy in north America as it would not harm them without much of a second thought. They do wield that much power. We all are aware of the growing spread in income levels. Yet not all the consequences of them.

Yes inflation is most certainly a MAJOR variable in this equation.

Yes, I wasn’t clear. My comments applied to those who start drawing their benefits while still working. I have known a few people who were so ill informed that they did that.