You could have been taking it and investing it for 8 years. There is no break even as you could have done a lot better investing it on your own. $2000 into VOO last 10 years would have given you $360k.
If you have other income, your higher ss may get taxed. You'd right back to lower SS.

Anonymous wrote:Break even age is like 80 if you take it at 62 and 82, if you take it at 67. You only make out better if you live longer than 80, which isn’t guaranteed.

It's not only about breaking even. It's the insurance aspect of having the highest possible inflation-adjusted annuity for the rest of the survivor's life. If a male and female couple are both 62, there's a 59.3% chance one of them will live past 90.

If you have a younger SAHM wife who is healthy wait till 70.

Not sure how to weigh in the scheduled cuts in 2033? When the trust fund runs out...Which may or may not really happen

Do the math for you/your spouse. It's over $1000/month extra for us by waiting for 5 years, and both of spouses parents lived well into their 90s. That's an extra $240,000 for us if spouse only lives until 90. Also deoends if you need it to live on between 65-70 or not, and what your estate plan/how much you want to leave to your heirs. Worth it for us to wait until 70 (stopped working at 55, yes we have health insurance through former employer, and Medicare premiums are paid at 65 through the same former employer)

Break even age is like 80 if you take it at 62 and 82, if you take it at 67. You only make out better if you live longer than 80, which isn’t guaranteed.

Hahaha you think SS will exist after Trump stays in office 4 a third term

I retired early but with a large nest egg and didn't need the SS so I just went ahead and took it.

You can run scenarios at opensocialsecurity. Generally with 2 earners it will suggest one person taking at 62 and one person at 70. That starts the collection but also preserves the higher benefit for a survivor.

I think a lot depends on your personal financial situation as well as your retirement readiness. If you have minimal retirement savings, waiting until 70 where you get a larger monthly check might give you a more satisfying retirement. Similarly, if you haven’t set up your life for a satisfying retirement, no point in taking social security early since you’ll be happier working. Or if you have large expenses in your future you might want to keep working - like college bills.

If you have sufficient savings and are retirement ready then no reason to wait.

If you have savings, you likely have a financial planner who can walk you through your options and how your finances will work out in different scenarios.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes if your family has longevity gene. Otherwise, 62. I plan to take it at 62. DW at 70.

Are you the higher earner? The one with the higher benefit should likely be the one to take it at 70 so the survivor gets the higher benefit for life.

Slightly higher but no meaningful differences. We are about equal

Anonymous wrote:Yes if your family has longevity gene. Otherwise, 62. I plan to take it at 62. DW at 70.

Are you the higher earner? The one with the higher benefit should likely be the one to take it at 70 so the survivor gets the higher benefit for life.

Yes if your family has longevity gene. Otherwise, 62. I plan to take it at 62. DW at 70.

I plan on taking it at 62. There has been a lot of ink spilled on this topic, particularly on what age would be your break even point if you start taking it at 62 vs 70.

Is it worth it to wait till 70 for social security?