Anyone over 70 who took social security at 62 and now regrets it? (spouse, state)

[tarragon]

I recently had a friend that retired early at 62, and took her SS. She's always been in great health, in good shape, a good life. She just passed away at the age of 63. She developed a headache, which come to find out, she had an inoperable brain tumor and just like that is now gone.
I would say, take your SS and live each day with some sort of purpose. There are no guarantees.

[mathjak107]

Originally Posted by V8 Vega

I'm approching 80, took ss at 62 and never regretted it one second. I read someplace that by 80 I will have gotten the same amount of money than if I had waited to 66.

Depends …if you took it early and we had average market returns and you were laying out the money you weren’t getting , it can take to age 90 for delaying to equal early ss and a balanced portfolio.

It would take until age 95 under most cases to beat early ss and investing

Throw in the fact most won’t live to 90-95 and most scenarios left you with less delaying

[ansible90]

I took Social Security at 62 because I had enough saved and invested to cover what the Social Security payment wouldn't cover at that time. Now 74 and with RMDs dumping into my checking account quarterly plus the Social Security, my balance just keeps on growing. I guess I am not spending enough.

I have no idea what my Social Security payment would have been if I had waited until 70 to take it. As it stands now, I am sitting pretty financially and feeling quite good about it. I never expected to be this financially secure in retirement so I must have done something right.

[mathjak107]

Originally Posted by Chas863

I haven't read all the replies, so forgive me if this has already been covered.

Here's the deal: Regardless what age you begin taking Social Security, your "break even" point is around the age of 81 or 82. In other words, if you do the calculations (which I have done), you'll find that it takes many years of higher monthly payments to make up for those several years of ZERO payments. The longer you have ZERO payments, the longer it takes to make up for those years of ZERO payments.

AND, this doesn't even take into account the loss of interest and loss of purchasing power from waiting all those years to begin taking Social Security. It is simply a dollar-for-dollar comparison which isn't really a true comparison because a dollar in your pocket today is worth more than a dollar in your pocket several years from now due to inflation.

Nor does it take into account the possibility that you may kick the bucket before you get to the age of 81 or 82, in which case, if you elected to delay taking SS, then you lose.

Bottom line, the only way to win (financially) by waiting to take SS at age 70 or 71 is if you can be guaranteed to live well past the age of 81, and even if you do live to age 85 or 87, the gain will be rather small and not worth the risk you took by waiting.

Even if you don't NEED money at age 62, go ahead and take it and put the money away in a savings account or safe investment of some kind. That way, it will grow due to compound interest, and you'll be WAY ahead of the game compared to if you had chosen to wait and had ZERO SS income for 8 years.

Break even is only about 80 if you are not pulling money out to live on to replace the ss you are not getting .

Early ss and spending money from a balanced portfolio or money held as cash for spending that could be in a balanced portfolio if you took ss would take until age 90 delaying to break even.

That does not include spousal benefits that can’t be collected until the higher earners files .

So this breakevem at 80 is like the wrong stat that is used for things pertaining to retirement which is life expectancy from birth ..

Both can be the wrong criteria for comparing all situations too ..it only applies to some

[Thoreau424]

My wife is planning to do this, with the philosophy that investing the money she takes out will get her farther than leaving it until 65 or 70. So, she doesn't need the money to "live on". She'll be 63 in March.

Any comments on that? I guess it really depends on how the money is invested, and well that might perform, which can't be predicted at this point. But she has an advisor who's done well so far.

[mathjak107]

here you can see the internal rate of return on ss vs a balanced portfolio in just average markets,

a balanced portfolio has returned about 5- 6% growth on average

As the charts show while it takes many years for the real rate of return to merely turn positive after delaying benefits, however in the later years the real returns become very large, crossing about 1.3% after 20 years, 4% after 25 years, 5% after 30 years, and 6% after 34 years.







even using TIPS which have a lower return then a balanced portfolio would have a much longer break even then the 80 so frequently spewed

[WRM20]

I'm still working at 64, and make a lot more than the maximum for no penalty. So, I'll keep working at least until FRA, since I like what I do and it's not a physical strain.

[Always Needmore]

Just got home from a friend's funeral, he was 70. He appeared happy he retired at 65, and got some of his money back before clocking out.

I ran some quick numbers when I turned 60, comparing taking SS starting at 62, vs 66 1/2, and found my break even was at about age 73...and I just don't have a lot of confidence that I'm gonna live that long. So, I took the age 62 option, and have no regrets.

And, just based upon how many people I've known my whole life who are passing in their 60's, while others brag of their intent to wait until 70 as part of a strategy to maximize their SS benefit... the latter really appear to me to be gambling foolishly.

Take the sure money while you can, before someone who has never worked a day in their life can cut in line in front of you.

[Disgustedman]

Frankly, if I make it to 70, I'll be either on life support or needing it. Previous health issues/covid were my reasons.

My mother took hers at 70. Only because her inner ear was causing her to fall. Otherwise, she'd have kept working.

[old fed]

Originally Posted by rummage

The number of years between 62 and 70, it only 8 years, but I've read how many take Social Security at 62 instead of waiting until FRA or longer to age 70. Is there anyone here over 70 who took Social Security at age 62, but now regrets doing that because you've been stuck in the lower monthly benefit?

no, but probably for different reasons than most. I am subject to WEP so waiting would not have made much of a difference and being subject to WEP I obviously have other money coming in.