youbet
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Part of what makes when to draw SS a challenging proposition are the conflicting factors.
Although we often focus on the break-even point and our expected mortality, maximizing our 'take' from Uncle Sam oftentimes misses the larger point.
The retirement years from age 62 to FRA are, for most of us, qualitatively superior to those after FRA. We're younger, we have more energy, our health is better, and we have yet to receive that today-is-the-day-you-die wildcard that some morning we will receive.
Similarly, the retirement years from FRA to age 70 are qualitatively superior to any that will follow.
So the first factor is whether drawing SS is necessary in order to retire in the first place. If it is, then that quickly becomes a powerful argument for taking it sooner, than later. Why trade away those "best" retirement years?
The answer why one might, of course, is written in the second, conflicting, factor: longevity and survivorship risk. If drawing SS early means an essential bet that one or both of a couple will check out fairly early - because the longer term financial horizon looks pitiable - then you hold off drawing SS. You trade away those "best" retirement years hoping not to have to eat dog food in your later years.
For some, SS is rather icing on the cake - they could retire without it. For most, however, it truly is a conundrum.
I think you're missing something Jeff.......
Your "safe" annual spend rate between 62 and 70 doesn't change much, if at all, whether you start SS at 62, 66 or 70. Try it in FireCalc. You should see little difference in portfolio survival rates whether you plug in your smaller SS at 62 or your larger SS at 70.
See post #62 by NW-Bound (above) for some examples.
There are lots of legitimate and sound reasons to start SS at 62, but having more money to spend while you're younger isn't one of them because it isn't true.
Last edited: