Why It Makes COMPLETE Sense To Claim Social Security At 62

[@keithwalters318]

Good stuff. Remember, even if you decided to delay your Social Security to say…. 67 or 70, if you retire at age 62 and you believe you’re gonna have sequence of return risks or that the market is going to stay down, you can always start Social Security at any point between age 62 and 70. Said a bit differently, my strategy will be to retire around 62, delay Social Security until 67 , but if the market turns down material, I’ll probably, then start claiming SSI earlier in order to protect my investments

[@coastalhillbilly3419]

Gotta stay nimble

[@davegenet]

I like the thought of the flexibility. If the market is soaring or flat at a high level when you first retire it makes sense to pull more from your portfolio earlier anticipating that there may well be a correction later when you’d like to pull less.

[@Bondbeer]

Good point. Sequence of return risk only applies if you need to withdraw from the accounts that have lost value. One way to mitigate that risk is have enough funds available that are invested in assets that will not decrease such as CDs or bonds to cover expenses until the market recovers

[@StressLessFinancial]

Great strategy on balancing Social Security with market risks! It’s wise to stay flexible with your plans. How do you plan to monitor market conditions and adjust your strategy accordingly?

[@Bondbeer]

Is this question meant for me? It came through my email but does not seem to relate to my comment.

[@tonysilke]

I retired at 55 and only had 25 yrs of contributing to SS(immigrant) but all maxed out except for the first yr which was short about 3K from max. so i know 25 yr of income will be divided by 35 yrs of income but still will get a significant amount. will still get SS at 67 or later.

[@Nernst96]

Retirement becomes truly fulfilling when you possess two essential elements: ample financial resources and a meaningful purpose in life. Make prudent investment choices to secure good returns and ensure a comfortable retirement.

[@PatrickLloyd-]

A lot of folks downplay the role of advlsors until being burnt by their own emotions. I remember couple summers back, after my lengthy divorce, I needed a good boost to help my business stay afloat, hence I researched for licensed advisors and came across someone of utmost qualifications. She's helped grow my reserve notwithstanding inflation, from $$275k to $850K...

[@RobbieNixon-d1w]

@@PatrickLloyd- This is definitely considerable! think you could suggest any professional/advisors i can get on the phone with? I'm in dire need of proper portfolio allocation.

[@PatrickLloyd-]

I've stuck with SOPHIE LYNN CARRABUS since the pandemic, and her performance has been consistently impressive. She’s quite known in her field with over two decades of experience, simply look her up.

[@PhilipDunk]

Benevolence, this reference seems valid.. Just inputted her full name on my browser and found her site without sweat, 15 years of experience is certainly striking! very much appreciate it

[@LesterHess-t1x]

I turned 67 in August and will be getting my first social security check in 20 days and plan on investing a portion of it every month. I do not have any debt. I work one day a week and do not want to withdraw any money from my 401K unless it is necessary. I need some time to heal my mind and body, after putting in too many years at a physically demanding job!

[@j.ottinger]

When you have two things, retirement becomes genuinely satisfying: a substantial amount of money and a purpose in life. To guarantee strong returns and a comfortable retirement, make wise investing decisions.

[@wmwoods-l4f]

Many people minimise the importance of advisors until their own feelings become intense. A few summers ago, following a protracted divorce, I needed a boost to keep my firm viable. I looked for licensed consultants and found someone with the highest qualifications. Despite inflation, she has helped me increase my reserve from $275k to $850K.

[@karitanaw]

@@wmwoods-l4f Could you kindly elaborate on the advisor's background and qualifications?

[@wmwoods-l4f]

I have worked with a few financial advisors before now but i ultimately settled for 'Annette Marie Holt'. She is SEC regulated and licensed in US. You can easily look her up

[@karitanaw]

Thanks a lot for this recommendation. I just looked her up, and I have sent her an email. I hope she gets back to me soon.

[@mcsephoenix]

The reason mortality effects people who retire earlier is many people who retire early do so due to health issues.

[@kay203]

I was thinking the same thing. He's def wrong on the cause effect vs correlation here

[@AxelQC]

People who have horses live longer than people who don't. It doesn't mean you should get a horse; it means that they are wealthier and wealthy people live longer.

[@BoomerLicks]

And most eat crap and sit on their asses too.

[@ScottGoodwinFlash]

Yeah - the "work is a prophylactic" hypothesis seems to close to "Arbeit macht frei"

[@AlfredKriman]

That's a sensible conclusion in general. However, he's referring to studies that try to control for this effect: they compared mortality for people not planning to retire immediately who were or were not forced to retire regardless of health. You could say that being forced to retire early was a stressor that harmed the health of some of these people, but that's a different argument. Maybe the most that can be said for certain is that the study's result was interesting but maybe not relevant for most people.

[@gsmollin2]

At 62 I founded a startup and spent the next 6 years working furiously to make it successful. Those were some of the best years of my life. My years of schooling and experience finally paid off. I was at the top of my profession when I sold out and retired. 62 may be the optimal retirement age for some people, but everybody has a special story. Life is not about an age number, it is about you. Retire when it feels right.

[@88888gerald]

I liked your story....mine involved waiting til 70 for ss....so now I put 4k in the bank monthly......larger checks are happier checks....

[@SilverLiningsGoldenYears]

I took my SS at 62. I, also, took a 3 day a week part time job at $15 an hour WITH employer provided health insurance. I am under the earnings threshold, and now that I am 65, I don't have to pay for Plan B premium. Works for me.

[@88888gerald]

your still working three days a week?

[@briand4000]

We're both claiming at 62, we're in year 60 now. I'm retiring next year at 61, she's a free-lancer in real estate and online sales/auctions so will keep doing that indefinitely. I'm going to just NOT be slave to an alarm clock anymore and with no ongoing requirements of maintaining a security clearance. I'm going to enjoy my many hobbies without always feeling rushed to get it all done over a weekend. SS will be $4100/mo for us and is actually enough to fund our needs without taking anything from our portfolio. We have no debts and will be mortgage free before I retire. I'm excited and scared but it's gonna happen!

[@scottscott5827]

That $4100/month may drop to $2100/month if your spouse dies. When that happens you need to have $600,000 invested in a low cost balanced fund or S&P 500 index fund so you can pull 4% per year ($24,000 or $2000/month) out for 30 years to replace the $2000 drop in income.

[@July.4.1776]

@@scottscott5827…. You assuming that the expenses would not drop. ….. They most certainly will..

[@88888gerald]

congratulations...look up a guy online ed slott.....he talks about the money in an ira being a time bomb when your old enough for rmd......do this earlier than later its hard to find the money to pay the tax on rmds.....

[@joseborja3831]

Your video confirms my plan as I am taking SS starting in 2025 at 63. The objective is to use the SS income to reduce the retirement portfolio withdrawls from equity positions as you explained so well. My plan is to have an additional 2 years of expenses in short term bonds to help avoid hitting the equity positions on a bear market. I'd love to see the example modified to have 2 columns for the portfolio: 1 for equities and 1 for the short term bonds. When the market goes down the withdrwals come from the bonds column to avoid selling equities in a bear market. When the market recovers the portfilio would be rebalanced to replenish the short term bond column by selling equities at a better price. That strategy should help minimize the market recovery pain at the expense of a portion of the portfolio being dedicated to short term bonds. I appreciate your work. Subscribed!

[@davegenet]

This is the best video on this subject I’ve seen. Most of these videos don’t even mention sequence of return risks. The other thing is if you’re planning to pull more than the necessities because you can afford to you can always cut back a bit if you need to and SS helps enable this.

[@ThePeakFP]

Thank you for the kind words. Glad you enjoyed the video!

[@July.4.1776]

@@ThePeakFP Excellent upload what a great presentation. I agree 100%

[@Old_Sailor85]

Whatever you do, don't just do nothing when you retire. Exercise, garden, enjoy your hobbies or start a new one. Move and do something. Anything.

[@antknee6579]

Why I want to retire enjoy life

[@ericchang9568]

This video is gold and confirms my own analysis: for people who retire with a portfolio of index funds and sell 2-4% every year to cover living expenses, early withdrawal at 62 outperforms delayed withdrawal at 70, because social security reduces the percentage of withdrawal, ultimately leading to a bigger portfolio at 70.

[@richconboy6896]

I have never read about or heard anyone say that they regretted retiring and taking SS at 62. Never. Not once. Universally, I see and hear that "It was the best decision ever." Live your life while you can live it to the fullest.

[@scottscott5827]

That is because they brag until they are 80 (breakeven point) then spend the next 20 years eating humble pie or dead.

[@jeffbrown5709]

​@@scottscott5827 😂😂😂

[@trebleboost7]

@@scottscott5827strong words but indeed what seems to me a very likely scenario if you are generally healthy.

[@apollocobain8363]

Yes. Waiting because the monthly check will be 7% higher with each year of waiting is short-sighted. It leaves thousands on the table. $1475/mo at 62YO = $17,700 x 3 years (62, 63, 64) = 53,100 + COLA of 2.5% on years 2 and 3 = 54,000 1753/mo at 65YO = 21,036/year but the guy who retired at 62 can put the $54K into an ETF like QYLD that pays 1% per month, eg $540 so he is netting 1475 *1.025 * 1.025 COLAs ($1550) + that $540 = $2,090/mo ($25,080) plus he has the $54K so the 65 YO will never catch up. The market is backstopped now. Look at charts from the Covid crash (March 16, 2020) -- recovery was not "7 years" because the Fed backstopped the market. You can still get 10% downturns but if you stay in the index funds (SPY, QQQ) and don't do anything risky it is all good. Take those checks at 62 and live your life!

[@Collusion10]

I’m 65. Took it at 62. Best decision ever.

[@TM_Stone]

For me, people like you, who have taken SS at a certain age, are the ones to listen to because of their experience. The majority I see who have taken it at 62 are glad they did.

[@Diego-fb5fq]

Agree. Got all my "contributions" back in 4 years. Kept my income low to not be suckered by the greatest Ponzi ever.

[@jamesallen8107]

@@TM_Stone Ok - I retired before 60. I am delaying taking SS till 70. It increases my monthly income by well over $1000 / mo (amt varies based on a calculation using highest working income years). You can see projections for your personal SS based on history to date, at the social security site and read general info at: www.ssa.gov/myaccount/assets/materials/workers-61-69.pdf People have different situations to take into account (expected life expectancy concerns, personal or family health or need to care for a family member, etc), but someone in reasonable health, particularly with family history of long life (many of the men in my recent family history lived well over 90), could benefit significantly with a higher lifetime monthly benefit. So higher SS can be a form of longevity insurance with higher benefit for remainder of life, which can also impact spouse's survivor benefit. But it is a personal choice. As far as lifetime returns, taking benefits early, is kind of betting on a shorter life (because that would be how you would get higher total lifetime returns by starting SS early). Taking SS later, or at 70 is betting on a possible longer life, or at least insuring better monthly income, which provides a better lifetime income if the person lives longer than average life expectancy (and may benefit a surviving spouse, regardless), but there are of course no guarantees. --- You know the monthly rates are calculated, assuming you will live to the statistical average life expectancy from whatever date you start collecting SS. So essentially they take your estimated lifetime SS and spread it from your retirement age till life expectancy date. If you retire at 62 in theory the lifetime amount is just spread over 8 more years than if you retire at 70, when it is spread over 8 less years than the 62 year old retiree. Then that lower or higher rate is just extended (with some cost of living adjustments... at lower calculated totals for the people who collect early) for the rest of your life. No pressure.

[@dlouis3926]

Did you stop working at 62? What did you do to keep busy?

[@July.4.1776]

@@dlouis3926… I can only speak for myself, but the short answer is is want ever I like.

[@glenncook8140]

I don't understand why advisors focus on withdrawing from a portfolio relying on the growth /loss of that portfolio. Why not have the portfolio be in investments that pay a month dividend and only withdraw the dividend portion. That way, the Sequence of Returns doesn't matter. I have a $500k investment in a fund that produces more than $5k per month. The value goes up and down, but the monthly income is steady. I firmly believe you don't retire on a lump sum of money. You retire on the amount of money that lump some can produce. Why don't advisors think this way???

[@johnscott2746]

I retired at 61. They were going to give me $1350 a month at 62. I declined. I’m currently 65 and I just checked and I could get $2,000 a month if I started right now. But by waiting until 70 my benefit will be around $3,300 a month. My wife is 11 years younger than I am so she will get my higher benefit when I pass.

[@myvenusheeler]

That's all and well IF you live to age 70. I knew three people that recently died at ages 63, 67, and 71. Once a human hits age 60 time is fleeting.

[@johnscott2746]

I have a different viewpoint. Social Security is insurance. If I die without ever collecting it, then I will be dead and won’t need the money. But if for some reason I live to 100, I will be glad I waited.

[@ThePeakFP]

This is an equally valid way to approach the claiming decision. As with most financial planning decisions, there is both a qualitative and quantitative evaluation that need be done. Quantitative is the #'s. Qualitative are the personal factors. Most financial planning decisions are actually determined by the qualitative factors - in this case, your belief about what purpose social security should serve you.

[@AndrewBurbo-zw6pf]

@@johnscott2746 try running a spreadsheet where you collect early and invest the money, if you can get 6% above inflation you will always beat taking the money later. a dollar in your hand is worth 2 in the bush and ten in the government's hands

[@dlouis3926]

@@ThePeakFP Thanks for a more comprehensive explanation; no cookie cutter answer! Good job!

[@pizza4me298]

I was forced to retire at the very beginning of this year 2 months before turning 60. I will delay taking social security as long as I can, but my retirement was 3-4 years before I had planned to. It's working out so far, having a little side hustle is very helpful. I am living off what I can earn with what I saved but will not hesitate to take it at 62 if needed. I try to keep at least 2 years expenses in cash at all times so I have that going. Just, everyone, be prepared for your plans happening earlier than wanted, some things are not in our control.

[@jamesmarsh8707]

Very good explanation. Great details. Like others have said it would be nice to see up to age 85. Thanks for all your hard work.

[@spookietowne7932]

For those that can quit working & take SS at 62 and are in good health usually have at least this 1 thing in common & that is to have a large enough sum of money in some sort of savings and/or investment portfolios that will pay out $4,000+ per month, just in dividends, to go with their $2,000+ per spouse SS ($4,000+ SS total) benefits. I mean, without having those dividend payments, why would you quit working and try to live on $4,000 total per month on SS payments? And this is probably why many folks delay their SS from 62 until 70 & work until a later age because many do not have investments that can pay them even $1,000 per month.

[@dormandavis2767]

I claimed mine at 64. Even with 2 government pensions and a IRA. I retired 5 years ago. Have not dipped into my IRA. Able to save my SSN 100%. House is 1 year being paid for. Glad I claimed SSN. Sitting on a beach in Hawaii now, life is good.

[@70qq]

my philosophy is if youll need SS , because you didnt save well for retirement , delay as long as possible ... if you dont need it to survive , take it at 62 and make sure you get as much as possible and leave your investments to your kids ... only two things are certain in this life .... 1. you will die .... 2. you cant leave your SS to your kids

[@Jupiterplus]

It is kind of reverse logic but I like it 😊

[@ItsEverythingElse]

If you need SS most people will need to claim it ASAP.

[@July.4.1776]

@70qq … I completely agree with you! Very well stated. 👍👍

[@johndotter351]

64 1/2 in the process if putting my retirement in the next 90 days. Don't know how much longer I have on this Earth so decided to just enjoy the rest of my life!

[@Travelin_Man1]

Im 68 and delaying retirement and taking SS for 2 nore years. Since I didn't have a pension (but do have a good-sized 403b) SS is the only guaranteed income my wife and I will have until we pass into the Great Beyond. Unlike most people, though, I have a really good job that isn't very stressful and that i enjoy. I can also fade out of it gradually, which I'm beginning to do. I also have done a lot of travel in my life, not wanting to 'wait until retirement' in case I never made it. So if I die tonight I'll really have no regrets or things I wish I had done. I'm not waiting until I retire to live the life I want to live. I'm fortunate to already be doing that.

[@thachnnguyen]

People retire early are mainly because their jobs suck. If I loved my job, I'd do it for free even. So, yes, you are a lucky man, brother.

[@nickcordone-x2b]

If you are not working any more, so the decision is early collect or later delay, you are a winner up until the break even age. You may not make it that far or much farther anyway so you may as well enjoy it while you can. Having more money in your 60s is better than having more money in your 80s.

[@July.4.1776]

Peak Financial Planning …. Your examples are the best I have ever seen! 👍👍 ……

[@BornToFly4031]

Thanks…I instinctively knew this content, but it’s never been quite laid out like you did. Great job.

[@malinallitekpatl1]

Great video. My first, of yours. Just subscribed. Well done overall. And I never heard of the "Retirement Smile."

[@davidgavney6711]

The way I look at it is if you can wait until 70, then it's a much higher annuity for life, inflation adjusted. With the current bull market, it's easy to keep withdrawing without much reduction of the portfolio or even growth. If there's a long term downturn, then I'd start to think twice.

[@ThePeakFP]

I think this is a very reasonable and wise option!

[@bk-fr8hm]

What if you don't live that long

[@davidkim3854]

Great illustration of the numbers. Extending it out, the person that then takes SS at 70 gets a bigger payout that will eventially breaks even with the person that took it at age 62. This happens at age 78. But that is a full 17 years later. Damn, im taking it at 62 so i can enjoy my retirement when im younger

[@DP-ol5uv]

It all depends on what other assets you have and what other sources of income you have. The more assets and income you have from other resources then the more beneficial it is to delay your social security to another future date. If you are fortunate to be able to live off other assets until age 70 then you delay. If you have much fewer assets then you will need to take social security earlier….you have to run a roll forward projection of various social security start dates to see what financial projections provide you with the highest level of income 10-20 years out along with the impact on the value of your other financial assets

[@Mariner1460]

You make a good point about using social security distributions to reduce withdrawals from other accounts when they are down, but from a long term planning perspective there are a couple of issues. First, life expectancy at 65 is significantly higher than at birth and even higher at 75 (the older you get, the longer you can expect to live.) Don’t be using 75 years as life expectancy for retirement planning. Second, and most importantly, what happens in your scenario when the retiree lives past 70? Getting to 70 is easy. Your example retiree could have the 1.4 million just sitting in cash and likely not out live it. Run your spreadsheets (better yet, use simulation) to 85 or 90 and tell me what the delta is then.

[@StressLessFinancial]

Excellent points on factoring in extended life expectancy and long-term planning. It’s crucial to consider how strategies will play out over a longer horizon. How do you currently adjust your retirement plans to account for such longevity risks and ensure sustainability throughout a potentially long retirement?

[@Mariner1460]

@@StressLessFinancial Don't know if you are asking me the question, but . . . regarding social security, I try to always remember what it really is. It's nothing more than an annuity that we are all forced to pay into for up to 35 years of our working lives. As an annuity, it's death insurance (insurance against a long life--the opposite of life insurance) not "income." That's why I'm letting it ride to its maximum payout while using other retirement assets to cover current expenses.

[@Csharpflat5]

Sarasota Tim believes 62 is the ideal age for most, as most people never reach the age they believe they will die at.

[@DunRovinRanch-1969]

Sarasota Tim lives in a trailer on borrowed lot and has to work part time as a greeter to cover expenses. I’m not taking financial advice from a man with a lifetime of poor decisions.

[@ssimulacron-DeportFrail2025]

Sarasota Tim is uneducated and cannot comprehend Actuarial Tables based on age. He is not mentally that sharp IMHO.

[@markstone6263]

Who da fuk is Sarasota Tim? 😂

[@buyerbware25]

Sarasota Tim dropped out of tenth grade, cannot handle basic math, never worked enough to build a decent Social Security account of his own, and started drawing from one of his ex-wives' Social Security accounts at age 62 because he was flat stinking broke.

[@carltonbaer4278]

If you take SS at age 62, this increased income would reduce your tax credit if you need to get health insurance through the marketplace (below age 65). So that’s an important factor that you didn’t mention.

[@sumoneskid]

Good video. A piece of feedback if I may. I know you said "we don't know what will happen here" after year 70, but that is entirely the purpose of delaying SS. I see a benefit in stretching this video out just a minute or two longer to see what another 10 years could look like. If at 80, there is still a tangible benefit to starting SS early, I would see a stronger conclusion.

[@PorscheSpeedster-kz6nc]

I would like to see you carry these tables out to 85 to see the changes beyond 70. It a no brainer that additional income will slow the portfolio draw initially. What does the catch up look like.

[@austinburns4213]

Agree. If the scenarios only go to 70yo, and one portfolio doesn’t collect SS until age 70 before their first SS check, this analysis becomes meaningless by comparing a portfolio with SS to a portfolio with no SS. No brainer which will win. Only makes sense for someone who passes away at age 70.

[@markstone6263]

So are u guys suggesting that going out to 85, it would prove to make more sense to delay ss?

[@Collusion10]

You won’t live long after 70. And if you do why? You’ll have health problems. You’re not a productive member of society, your old and you’re in young peoples way.

[@wampy31]

I think the catch up time, or break-even that I’ve seen elsewhere is somewhere around 16 years. So if you start claiming at 70, it would take til age 86 to catch up to the guy that started at 62. You might not even make it to 86! Claim at 62.

[@PorscheSpeedster-kz6nc]

@@wampy31 what rate of return are you expecting 10%+? 78.5 is generally the expected breakeven between 62 and 70 take points.

[@1dash133]

This is one the most in-depth videos covering this subject that I have seen. Well done. The only thing that I wish you had covered would be the comparative end results at say age 80 or age 90. Thank you!

[@markb8515]

Thanks Eric for another very informative video!

[@ThePeakFP]

You bet!

[@kenhart2516]

Seems smart to reduce risk. There are enough variables to make this a personalized decision, and it may make no effective difference for some, but I see value in taking early

[@Travelin_Man1]

Another way to interpret the correlation between early retirement and increased mortality rates is to turn it around: people with poorer health will be more likely to be forced into an earlier retirement. So the conclusion in that case would not be that retiring later is healthier, rather that poor health will lead to earlier retirement. Of course, we don't know which is true (no cause and effect known here) but it seems to me that this is more likely than the reverse conclusion.

[@Sylvan_dB]

Re. being forced to retire early, "Be Prepared." I've known many who were forced to retire and I didn't want that for me. I prepared financially, then decided I was ready mentally, then I hung around a bit longer to get the next bonus. Always better to leave on your terms. Maybe delay social security if: * portfolio is sufficient that higher early withdrawals do no harm * market is doing well In addition I'd consider: * spouse won't need the longevity insurance (the old age security in OASDI) * 8% annual increase in withdrawal for equal safety requires an 8% annual increase in nest age, will you get that if you claim earlier?

[@lisasullivan9712]

I plan to take SS at 67 but if there is another 2008 type financial crisis I will probably take it earlier. I feel fortunate that i currently have that financial flexibility. Many people do not.

[@yougeo]

It's important to remember that most people will have some major affliction by age 70. They'll start having heart problems prostate problems or something that will radically change their life and put them on a short leash to a doctor. So you may have more money by delaying and think oh I'll be able to do more but your body will no longer be able to do the same things. And that's true even if you don't have an affliction. Because being 70 years old is different than being 62. So that's another reason to retire or take social at 62. And don't forget that you can take that extra money and you can invest it in things that will grow capital gains wise and since inflation is so terrible right now in the dollar is losing value so much it's really in a way seems to me better to take the cash as social security and take whatever of that you can and put it into things that will grow as capital gains faster than inflation will destroy the future value of future dollars. That's my theory anyway I'm not a financial planner and this is not Financial advice

[@stevenanderson9660]

A lot of my friends who retired early had to find a job to make ends meet. Especially after the inflation of the last few years. Unfortunately they left great paying jobs and can’t get them back once they leave.

[@ChristopherMarshburn]

The chances that Congress will successfully reduce benefits across the board has now increased exponentially. Another good reason to claim now if you are 62 and lock in your payout.

[@jmb-cm7mr]

My husband has a pension and we both started collecting our SS at 62. We have more than enough to live off of these 2 incomes. We also have a 457 b which we don't need to draw from it will most likely be for our long term care. And we have quite a bit in savings.

[@kdkragt]

Did you ever consider claiming the lower earner’s SS at 62, and higher earners later (67 -70)?

[@kdkragt]

I can start my pension at 62. My wife will take her SS at 62. I may wait. The surviving spouse gets the higher SS and my pension for life. (We are the same age).

[@Diego-fb5fq]

Very helpful. I calculated decades ago that the breakeven age for me, a single male, would be 82. I've seen 78 as the breakeven number for actual dollar total received, but that does not consider the interest value of dollars received earlier vs postponed. And so, both you and the US Treasury need to survive past your age of 82 for you to begin to come out ahead. I also consider (via my father's hints) that Medicare may one day triage our available coverages, and so I would emphasize conserving those cashable assets for your medical and care needs in the 80s and 90s.

[@georgepatterson5885]

One thing I have never seen anyone address... Do delayed SS benefit payouts get adjusted at the same COLA rate as those that are currently being paid out? For example...@62 my stated benefits on the SS website are approx $2900/mo...if I wait it to 65, jumps to approx $3500. So the question is...assume we have an avg inflation rate of 5% per year between my age of 62 through age 65...does the projected benefit @ age 65($3500) see the same COLA increase as the actual distributions @62 ($2900) if I were to take SS@62? If the deferred benefits do not get the same COLA increase, then taking them early is a must in a high inflationary environment!

[@RobboHouTex]

Yes, delayed also get COLA adjusted.

[@chrisharrison2552]

For me sooner better then later had major heart attack (crashed 9 times) at 56 still working EZ job with free full health care health care is important to me. At 56 my hospital bill was $80k by other ins paid in full had n have low ldl no high blood pressure ( plaque eruption) ( family history)I have no physical limits in very 🍀 so waiting might not be a good choice I’m 63 now

[@lonwoock9881]

Tax implications and age adjusted mortality need to be included in any break even calculation.

[@scottscott5827]

In the United States, for females, the average 65-year-old can expect to live to 86 years old, and males can expect to live to 83.

[@h1888d]

Thanks for detailed discussion on this complex but critical topic. Granted highly subjective. One point i disagree about the methodology that drives this conclusion favoring early SS at 62. One reason for deferring SS upto 70 is to have higher SS benefit then on. By limiting the calculation upto 70 in this video, that benefit is being entirely ignored. Ideally, author should extend period upto, say, 90 years with those latter 20 years having higher SS benefit lowering burden of distribution on investment portfolio. It is therefore at 90 we want to see which portfolio is higher, thereby making comparison (SS 70 vs 62) fair and decisive. I am 55y, so just getting into mindset of what lies ahead.

[@nickt.2825]

I have longevity from my parents but a few weeks after retiring I started having health issues so I started SS at 63. My wife was also not qualified to get much if any spousel SS, so it'll be nice if the Bill gets signed so she gets something. We both have pensions so we can wait out a down market.

[@keysersoze503]

So you spent your entire working life to collect S.S. at 62. What an accomplishment!

[@notanomad9320]

Why do so many people work jobs in they hate and can't wait to retire? I imagine the daily stress and frustration affects your health.

[@julieboehme7241]

Because that's what life has thrown at me.

[@kurtbjorn3841]

If work was fun, you'd do it for free. Work, even at something you loved at first, turns into a grind for 95% of the people after years and years of doing it.

[@notanomad9320]

@@kurtbjorn3841 never felt that work was a grind, just time to move on and do something different.

[@kurtbjorn3841]

@@notanomad9320 - You are fortunate then. I adored aviation, became a commercial pilot. A dream job. After 30 years of 3:00 AM trans-atlantics, FAA check rides every 9 months, FAA aeromedical exams yearly, drug and alcohol tests, bad weather, bad passengers, etc etc. It turned into... something unpleasant. The magic was long gone.

[@dking1362]

@@notanomad9320Not necessarily easy for everyone to do. Single mom of 3 kids, relatively small town with no equivalent position/employer/income in the same field. Not going to uproot my kids for my job satisfaction; that would be selfish.

[@scottscott5827]

The S&P 500's average annual return over the last 100 years is 10.569%, assuming dividends are reinvested.

[@scottscott5827]

During retirement you will be 25% to 50% invested in equities so you won't have large negative market returns.

[@tedroybal5231]

Please get an accurate estimate of your health insurance premiums because you won't get Medicare until age 65. Health insurance rates are over $1000 per month for an individual age 62 where I live.

[@timsilva1944]

One thing that no one seems to mention is if you take SS early, it doesn't mean that you have to spend it all. A bird in the hand...

[@kersting13]

Thank you for showing that the basic "break even" points that people use as a rule of thumb is more nuanced. SOOOO many people think that they can just "straight line" SS payments at 62 vs 70 and determine that as long as they live past 82, they'll be ahead, when the reality is - if you are in the scenario that you have depicted here - the break even could be much later than 82. I mean, even at better rates of return than your example, the age 62 filer has a much more robust account balance at 70 than the 70 filer. Taking SS early is not only a prophylactic against poor returns, but also a benefit in good returns. I'm not saying 62 is the right choice, just that this scenario has to be considered in any break-even analysis.

[@TheK9Shepherd]

Retiring in 7 years when I am 62. I'll collect at that time. Because I'll have an 11yo child so they'll collect 50% of my FRA for about 8 years. Then my wife can collect 50% of my FRA till the child is 16 (called Child in care) You also might want to research Voluntary Delayed Retirement Credit. Take SS at 62-67, then voluntary delay it till 70 and get that 8% per year for 3 years. Then starting back up at 70, you'll get that 24% increase. While this doesn't help me, it might help others.

[@mikemustang5488]

The sequence of return risk is typically why people put some money in bonds. Ideally enough to cover whatever income is needed during a downturn in the market. That way the person can avoid selling stocks when they are low in value. Interesting video, though. A lot to consider.

[@lonwoock9881]

Mortality age needs to be adjusted to your current age. If you are 62, your mortality age is higher than it was when you were 52. A 62 year old male is likely to live until about age 82.

[@SP81dt225]

The SSA has a pretty good handle on when we’re going to check out and while we may go beyond that there are a lot who check out quicker. The breakeven point between taking it at 62 and 70 is somewhere around 80 +- it really doesn’t make a lot of difference except in those rare cases where we out live the tables. In any case you really need the money sooner in the go go years and not in the slow or no go years. I’m taking it at 62 because my wife didn’t work and is 5 years older than me so she’ll get the full measure of half of my benefit at 67 while I will have a 30% reduction but overall it would be better as a family. For something so simple it is really complicated.

[@toddgabweg]

I’m planning on retiring at 58 (5 more years) and my wife will retire 4 years after that. We are both teachers in PA and will have a nice pension plus other savings. I am not sure what I want to do with my social security- we will have full health care until my wife retires. So much to consider.

[@kdkragt]

Dang! I am jealous. In MN, teachers like me would lose 48% of our pension if we retired at 58. I have to wait until 65 to avoid a penalty. Sucks.

[@scottscott5827]

Your 9 years of annual returns in the example have an average annual return of less than 1% per year.

[@0007tad]

Excellent presentation, I have a question, Im a 63 y/o retiree, collect SS and have a pension ( house paid for ), no kids or heirs ,800 K , dont mind spending down my monies , Im of the believe a Roth Conversion is NOT for me ( Im in a 12 % bracket ) Im I correct in my assumption?

[@dbulsa]

Great explanation! All should watch and think about….

[@Hank-t5b]

Well this advice is good for people below the 26K mark on income. My Money markets make well over 5K a month so I can not get my SSN at 62, I can apply but I am screwed plus my day job pays well over 6 figures so again I am screwed. this sucks and making me wait to 67 blows. The SSN is my money and at 62 no matter what I make I should be able to collect all of it and not be shot in the head because I was smart and make too much.

[@jefflloyd394]

Thanks. Taking ss late is longevity insurance. It also gives bigger spousal benefits and a longer roll over window. In a downturn, do bigger roll overs. Can you give us these examples too? Cheers

[@jps0117]

A person might retire early *because* of ill health. So, we can't conclude that early retirement *causes* an early demise.

[@WilliamInternational]

I’m claiming at 62, will have a salary of 22k so i don’t get penalized and won’t get jacked on my medicare, which uses your income a couple years before taking it.

[@mobiusx8117]

Per the Social Security website, "The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund will be able to pay 100 percent of total scheduled benefits until 2033, unchanged from last year's report. At that time, the fund's reserves will become depleted and continuing program income will be sufficient to pay 79 percent of scheduled benefits." So, payments will be cut by 21% in 2033, and it seems likely that further future cuts will follow. I'd say that taking SS at 62 is a smart move, as it is better to get something now versus nothing later.

[@spookietowne7932]

SS will not be cut at all - let alone by 20% or more - simply because it cannot be cut. A very large number of folks are solely living on SS and can barely squeeze by month to month. Any cut in SS will wreak havoc and cause instant chaos across this nation, especially when SS can be saved by a few changes in the law.

[@mobiusx8117]

@@spookietowne7932 I appreciate your optimism.

[@Hank-t5b]

How can I keep making money on my saved money and not exceed the 26K allowed a year, my wife is older, can I place the money in her name and then be able to collect my SSN any time between 62 and 67 if I leave my day job?

[@July.4.1776]

Saved and invested money is not earned income for SS purposes.

[@Saundra-cg2bl]

Bad idea to collect at 62. I know too many people who had to go back to work for one reason or another, but we’re limited to only making $21k/yr due to pulling before their full retirement. Be careful.

[@bjbhehir]

I retired 12 years ago at 50 and next month I'm colleting SS at 62. I don't need the money but I'm taking it and investing it. My break even age is 77 but if I invest it all it could be around 85. Plus, the way the Govt is spending I'm getting mine now before it's all gone!! But good luck!!

[@catherinesanchez1185]

I’ve worked with a number of older people who had this issue . I think they just liked the idea of retiring but never did the numbers

[@July.4.1776]

The people that you’re referring to most likely didn’t plan or had no plan…

[@Chief_Gray]

I'm well past age 62 and still working. I can make double the SS payments by working and I enjoy my job so why retire? It's not about getting the most payout from the government. It's about enjoying life and contributing in a meaningful way to society while I still can.

[@danlay3372]

Problem is I will ALWAYS work and can only make $22k. a year if I take it now at 62.

[@orlymarq6238]

I take at 62

[@andrewmoss6006]

You can’t take SS if you still need a decent income. If so, wait until 67 and then you can earn all you want on top of that bigger gov check. But if you can afford not to work, start taking it at 62. Its easy math

[@andre1987eph]

He said "trusted love one such as a spouse" 😅

[@deliveryguy7402]

I took ss at 62 because I'd heard too many late claimers who died before they got it. You don't know what will happen tomorrow.

[@tomblevins5020]

You will regret collecting at 62. Your check will always be puny.

[@mobiusx8117]

According to the SSA website, "The Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund will be able to pay 100 percent of total scheduled benefits until 2033, unchanged from last year's report. At that time, the fund's reserves will become depleted and continuing program income will be sufficient to pay 79 percent of scheduled benefits." So, payments will be cut by 21% in 2033, and it seems likely that further future cuts will follow. So I'd say that taking SS at 62 is a smart move.

[@paulbunch5657]

But, correct me if I am wrong, if I start getting my Social Security at 62, won't I be penalized if I am still working a full time job?

[@catherinesanchez1185]

If you haven’t reached full retirement age per SS then yes . I know a number of older people who have to be careful about how much they make

[@KathyJacksonSanDiegoRealEstate]

What if you’re still working making six figures and are 65? Claim now or at 67?

[@88888gerald]

congratulaitons Im here to award you for silly ideas concerning taking social security.......there were plenty just as bad but you were chosen as the winner and worst person to take advice from...

[@ChrisSmith-eo1xu]

Would have been more revealing if the example went out to 85 or 90 years of age. The outcome would have been much more positive for taking it at 70.

[@wuddayameen]

I was waiting for the 'sequence of returns risk' analysis to continue after age 70 but - nadda. Because of that, you communicate only part the retirement story. Shouldn't you be modeling both scenarios to death so we see the whole picture? Or, are you arguing death at age 70, an "early" death, is a good reason to claim SSA early? If so, I agree. I'm sure you know that the guy who waited till 70 to claim SSA will subsequently draw less from his portfolio, and that in time, his portfolio may recover/exceed that of the claim at 62 guy. It is in this sense I find the analysis incomplete and thus potentially misleading to those seeking answers to when to claim SSA. Maybe I just don't understand - wouldn't surprise me.

[@myusrn]

Thanks for excellent video. How long do i need to be married to someone in order for them to qualify for 1/2 of what I'm getting in social security benefit checks? Does that amount of time have to have transpired before i start withdrawals for them to qualify for this benefit?

[@DanSmith-zp1uq]

Well, In the scenario provided the avg annual rate of return he is showing from the investments is 0.833%. So this skews the numbers in favor of taking SS early. In the last 100 years there has not been a return that low over a 9 year period. Therefore the conclusion drawn is way off and very inaccurate information.

[@shayneyoung5394]

Life expectancy is dependent on current age. A male that is 62, life expectancy is now 81.1 years old.

[@Bondbeer]

Another video says you can apply for a spousal benefit and then change to your own benefit later. For my wife, her own benefit at full retirement age is $2100 vs $2000 for the spousal. Can she allow the $2100 grow for 3 years while collecting $2000 then switch at age 70 to get $2600? If so it seems like $72k of free money?

[@user-bg9em7ch6k]

That’s what I’m going to do, and as a widow I’ll start at age 60, and let my own grow until I’m 70, which will obviously make an enormous difference. I had no idea this was possible until I watched Dr Ed Weir’s channel. He worked for social security for decades (as he will mention repeatedly in his rather rambling, but still unbelievably informative videos😂). I’m grateful for all the channels providing insight into this essential topic 🙏

[@penelope5500]

In order to draw married spousal benefits the higher earning spouse must also be drawing. And the lower earning spouse would be required to take any SS benefits they have first. So no, that would not be an option.

[@PorscheSpeedster-kz6nc]

What do the stats say when I retired at 51 voluntarily? Will I not even make 70?

[@stephtraveler7378]

Missing a component... Long Term Care. When you hit something close to your 80's many need semi or full dependent care. That's when you need that higher payout from SSA (that you got from waiting to age 70). Its crazy expensive living in dependent care. So, if you can afford to delay to 70 to begin your SSA, do it. You will be thankful when in your 80s and 90s that you waited. Almost none of these YT breakeven analysis videos address LTC. Even if you spend your wanning days in your own home, you will need some element of Companion Care (daily visits, house keeping, transportation to Dr, etc). Companion Care is expensive. DO youself a favor and delay.

[@JBoy340a]

I am not taking mine until FRA which is 67 for me. I am over 62, still work, and I don't want my SSA payment reduced based on my earnings.

[@ThePeakFP]

This is entirely viable!

[@stevennovakovich2525]

Yeah, I actually prefer working so I'm with you @JBoy340a

[@dianaa.8270]

I don’t know if I should at 62 years old . Maybe 67 I wait

[@biketothetop]

Shouldn't be getting those negative returns while in retirement.

[@DashCamCinema]

I'm sorry but your assertion that early retirement kills people is garbage. I saw a study several years ago that counters your study. A corporation with thousands of retirees provided age of retirement and how long they drew a pension to a study group. From THAT data they learned that the people who retired EARLY by age 55 lived well into their 80s while the rest lived about 7 years on average. That really is the opposite of your study. I think you are just wanting to "push" people to be a slave to the man and needlessly keep the wheels turning for the corporation. To somehow suggest that one must "work" to live longer and not supplement work with a hobby like hiking and travel cannot do the same thing is crazy. I suspect in your study... the people who retired early did so because they were in very poor health and going to die anyway. Few people can retire early unless they are financially set and can afford it.

[@doidletp]

Early retirement doesn't mean that it causes people to die earlier. Correlation doesn't prove causation. It is more likely that people who have poor health (i.e. going to die earlier), retire earlier.

[@tomm.3994]

This is NOT a fee only firm

[@pbr4814]

I am not one to stress a point using extremes BUT, it makes little sense to claim SS when working, that is unless you have reached FRA.

[@kellychuba]

The break even point is now aged 81. I have the maths to prove it.

[@econdude3811]

I read a statistic that only 5% of Social Security claimants maximize benefits by taking them at age 62. While my concern will never be getting the most out of Social Security to the penny (which can't be fully known anyway), I am going to wait until 70 for various reasons

[@victordasilva5255]

In my case, I spend many years overseas….i do not have the 35 years necessary. I get a 40 percent penalty for early. Not for me