Here's the difference in SS benefits between 62 and 67 for me. (friend, teenager)

[ShampooBanana]

Originally Posted by HedgeYourInvestments

With life expectancy reaching towards 90 these days, YES IT IS.

$800*12*23=$220,800 more in the time after age 67.
Assuming your benefit is about $1,200 at 62 and $2,000 at 67, you will still make $403,200 as an early retiree compared to $552,000 = $148,800 more total.
That increase does not count the fact that you will also have five more years to contribute to a 401(k) (with catch-up contributions) and an IRA contribution as well. Five more years of earning money and five fewer years to pay for.

Life expectancy in the US is not close to 90. Highest is Japan where it's getting close to 84 years. In the US it's 78.6 (~76 for men and 81 for women) and has dropped the past two years. https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/21/healt...udy/index.html

I guess it depends on one's total income and family and personal health history whether it's worth it for an additional $800/mo to work for another 5 precious years, but to me it sure wouldn't be worth it based on so many unknowns about what could happen to me healthwise by then, especially with how much more rapidly mobility and health can decline the more one ages.

[Hefe]

Originally Posted by ShampooBanana

Life expectancy in the US is not close to 90. Highest is Japan where it's getting close to 84 years. In the US it's 78.6 (~76 for men and 81 for women) and has dropped the past two years... .

OTOH if one has reached 65yo, for men life expectancy then is 83 & for women it's about 86yo. So many people who are 65yo+ now will live past those ages.

[mathjak107]

Originally Posted by ShampooBanana

Life expectancy in the US is not close to 90. Highest is Japan where it's getting close to 84 years. In the US it's 78.6 (~76 for men and 81 for women) and has dropped the past two years. https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/21/healt...udy/index.html

I guess it depends on one's total income and family and personal health history whether it's worth it for an additional $800/mo to work for another 5 precious years, but to me it sure wouldn't be worth it based on so many unknowns about what could happen to me healthwise by then, especially with how much more rapidly mobility and health can decline the more one ages.

for a 65 year old couple the odds of one of them seeing 90 is just under 50%.

life expectancy at birth 79 , plays no part when discussing older groups . that includes lots of infantile deaths as well as the sick and weak who are now gone and no longer in the statistic . it is far older once you reach 65. it is 84 and 86 male/female . however that is the 50% point .1/2 go on to older ages .couples have even a greater expectancy since either can outlive the other so you have two horses in the race with one bet ..

that point only means that from that point on 1/2 the group has died and 1/2 will go on longer , we all just don't die . lol.

[SFSGood]

As dothetwist so wisely opined, depends. At 62 I was three years into retirement with funds, including DW's, that would likely last oru lifetime. So when it came time to take SS at 62 or not, and having no guarantee that I'd be around in several years to come, I took the lowered monthly stipend. DW did as well when she reached 62.

I don't know for sure, as I'm not in this position, but if I was still working at 62 of necessity, and getting by, I believe I'd have put off signing up in order to increase my income as I reduced my work hours.

So, again, depends.

[mathjak107]

the irony is that those who could benefit the most from delaying don't or can't because they either stop working earlier or they just don't have the assets to delay safely without spending to far down if they don't work longer .

so most of those who chime in here how they took ss early really did not even have a choice to delay . it really is those who likely don't need the bigger ss check and stop working that ironically are the ones with the choices and assets to delay . .

for those dependent on ss and their own investing for their income it would make little sense to plan a retirement around the delayed ss money kicking in 8 years later . so if you can't lay out the money day 1 and draw the same amount , then you really are not a good candidate for delaying .

kind of like to get a bank loan you have to prove you don't need the money lol .

[MichiganGreg]

Originally Posted by NYJoe

This is overly simplistic, but I think it may help. Say you and your brother have the same numbers. You retire at 62 with $1000/mo. By the time your bro retires at 67, you have netted $60,000. It will take him about 6 1/2 years at $1800/mo for that extra $800/mo to equal 60000. At this point, he obviously makes $800/mo more than you. But you have already been retired for over 11 yrs. before he starts bragging that he makes more. So, you had 11 yrs to watch him go to work every day while you wave at him as he leaves(assuming you bother getting up that early).

Just my two cents.(it was one cent cent 5 yrs ago).😉

You are right...that is over-simplistic. Case in point: my older brother is five years older than me. If he waited to file until age 67, and he and I filed on the same day, he would be financially ahead of me on day one of my retirement. Forever.

I don't get the continuous comparisons with break-evens (and I have been guilty of that, too), but that isn't what we live on. All I know is that by waiting, I get free cable TV+ cellphones and a new truck payment for the additional $800, and have enough left over for dinners out for DW and I. And STILL have a decent chunk of the age 62 SS check for investment and discretionary spending because I am out of debt. It also helps to live in 'cheapsville' (which, interestingly enough, is only a few minutes away from 'expensiveville').

That said, if one has lots of investments aside from SS, and doesn't even need the extra $800 (and there are quite a few here in that case), the argument is nearly moot anyway. Somehow, too many people associate retirement (not working) with having to collect smaller SS from day one. They are not the same. I am not collecting... but I am retired and can still wave to the ones going to work (when I get up early enough).

[Perryinva]

That is the perfect analogy.

The majority that file later fall in to a few main categories, or a combination of:

All typically assume they will live to at least 82 and

1 : keep working because they know they have to, to have enough income to retire on, and have health insurance.
2 : Have a working spouse that provides benefits and more than adequate income, so they don’t want the tax hit.
3 : Are positioned financially such that there are other incomes that maximizing SS generates considerable tax savings and reduces or eliminates necessary withdrawals from savings and adds market risk avoidance, so has little impact on their savings.
4 : Are the much older half of a couple, where the younger has little earned SS, so there is certainty that the survivor will need the largest income as possible.
5 : Love their job and want to work as long as possible, so no reason to file.
6 : Because of how they earned their living, they are both financially secure and/or retired very early and have little SS benefit but still have their 40 quarters. They have lived without it for so long, that they are used to not collecting so wait until it is as much as possible.
7 : Believe that by reducing dependence on savings/market income later, can enjoy a higher income at 62 (or earlier) because the higher SS later will carry them or rebuild their savings.
8 : Believe that SS is not actuarially neutral and they will get more over their lifetime by filing later. A sub category of that is they are afraid that there is a chance they may run out of/lose savings or other income later in life and desire another maximum source of (tax free) income that can’t be lost.

Those that file early mainly fall into or are a combination of those that.

1 : typically assume the chances they will die before they “break even” makes a difference, and they want little chance to not get the most.
2 : are the “bird in the hand type”, ie it may not be there later, may get cut later, there is no guarantee for tomorrow etc,
3 : Have a family history and/or physical conditions that lead them to believe they will live a shorter life.
4 : Have a spouse that earned/earning much more and has a much higher SS, (typically planning to file later) but filing early provides more income sooner to enhance quality of life.
5 : Hate their job/wore out/bone tired of work and filing for SS at the earliest possible retirement date allows them to retire ASAP.
6 : Lost their job, unable/can’t find another and must file in order to live.
7 : Believe that SS is actuarially neutral, so the more lower payments you get sooner, balance out the higher payments you would get later. A sub category of This group are those that want it ASAP as they believe they can invest the early SS and that investment will generate more income than filing delayed would.
8 : “Its mine, and I want it now”
9: The file early amount is more than adequate added to other sources of income to provide the retirement they desire. No reason to take any chances.
10 : Are so wealthy that the difference between taking it now or later is just financial noise.
11: Want to always maintain the highest savings amount possible for heirs or for emergencies. Reduction of savings to delay is not acceptable.
12 : Are single and survivor benefits mean nothing.

Any others? No judgment here, all cases are individual choices and there are winners and losers in both choices.

[smt1111]

You don't have to think in terms of 62 versus 67 or 70. One can take SS at 63 or 64 or 65, whenever it suits your situation.

This is off topic but as I scan the posts, I'm really surprised about the poor spelling and lack of proper punctuation and capitalization throughout this forum. I could understand it if the posters were teenagers but this is a Retirement forum and most of you are adults with a fair amount of education and probably highly successful careers. It boggles my mind how sloppy and lazy Americans are becoming. It makes me unable to take the information in these posts seriously. Of course I'll probably get back a lot of comments on this...

[Perryinva]

Yes you will. You assume everyone is typing on a computer keyboard. For instance, I NEVER contribute or respond on a keyboard. It is only from an iPhone where corrections and accurate typing can be a challenge for fat fingers. Usually when I am eating or on a break.

[mathjak107]

same here . i use a nook and not only that , i type with one finger , left handed because of diabetic neoropathy in my finger tips .

capitals and most punctuation marks are not even a thought . anyone who wants to be the typing police can skip my posts