Whenever Clark talks about SS distributions, he always seems to focus on the monetary aspect only. But there are other factors that should be considered with the primary ones being a persons life expectancy based on family history AND as we age, we are less capable of doing things at age 70 vs age 62 even if we live to be 100. Therefore, the life expectancy should be considered especially if family history indicates an average age of passing in the 70’s as opposed to living longer (I am a FIRM believer that genetics are the number on factor dictating how long we live, barring any non-health related causes). So someone who “genetically” has a shorter life span should take SS ASAP to get the most “living” out of their remaining years as possible. ALSO, even if you have a family history of good genes and they live into their 90s or beyond, physical and/or mental health issues will most likely come in to play which may prevent someone from “living to the fullest” if they wait until they are 70 to start using SS towards life experiences.
If you know when you will die, the decision on when to take Social Security is easy…
Exactly my point. Even if your expected longevity is into the 90s, and you decide to wait until 70 to start getting SS but then die in a car accident or other non-health related issue (or even a health-related issue) at 69, you miss out on the funds you could have been using to enhance your lifestyle and provide more opportunities for “living” the good life. The longer you wait, the more chances that something could happen and thus miss out on the potential opportunities you could have experienced. My personal opinion is to start getting SS no later than 65 based on the aforementioned reasons.
I know Clark strongly advises to wait till 70. If I did that I know I would die at 69.9. I decided to start at 62, 7 years ago, for piece of mind. Clark says the males in his family don’t live to a ripe old age but he still waited to 70! That doesn’t make sense to me. To each his own.
Did you know that 12.5% of America will become disabled from work for five years or longer between the ages of 35 and 65? Both my wife and myself fell within the higher ages in our 50s but the impact on our emotional and financial lives would not have been resolved with even the best of high school algebra formulas. We had no choices but take SSDI and drain the little 401k or tiny pensions from the past.
I did the same thing. I retired 7 years ago and have had a wonderful time, but I have a few more aches and pains at 69 than I had at 62…I’m wondering if I would have had as much fun had i waited until 70 to start taking it.
My husband and I both waited till 70 and are enjoying the extra income. I am 77 he is 70. Because I have studied how to have a healthy body, we are both able to do anything we want. We take breaks and pace ourselves, but we will be able to work around the house, volunteer to help others and travel all we want. We might be in an accident and our lives cut short, but barring that, we should benefit from waiting.
Question: So what is your “break-even point” between taking SS at 70 vs. 62?? I am just going to guess that it is probably mid-80’s. So as long as you both live longer than that (hopefully), you will be in the “black” for your SS distributions. Otherwise, you will have received a lower TOTAL amount if you would have started taking SS at 62 instead of 70. Good luck and take care.
I read somewhere it’s 18 years, which would be 80. Since I turn 78 in 2 weeks, I am likely to make it. We like work, so that was part of our decision. Since I am 8 years older than my husband, if I had taken mine while he was still working it would have been greatly diluted. To be honest, we have enough ROTH income to do without SS, so it doesn’t really matter. Financial decisions are multi-faceted and different for each person. Clark focuses on money because that is his bailiwick and his website is one of my favorites. But health, family, personality, lifestyle, other monetary factors are all part of each person’s decision. The unfortunate thing is, too few people sit down and think all this through.
[quote="Lyn, post:10, topic:9345"]
The unfortunate thing is, too few people sit down and think all this through.
[/quote]
Clark is correct that many individuals would benefit from delaying filing for social security to make it less likely that they will face the financial risk of outliving their resources. For a 62 year old male life expectancy is about 19 years and for a 62 year old female it is about 22 years. Despite their life expectancy, in 2023 31% of males claimed at age 62 and only 19% claimed at ages 67-70.
For those approaching retirement, consider using the social security retirement calculators opensocialsecurity.com or maximizemysocialsecurity.com and reading the book Social Security Made Simple by Mike Piper. The book is available through many libraries.