I think anybody who is surprised at this is in a cocoon, and expecting that everybody else should be thinking the same way they do.
As I stated above, there are reasons to take benefits early and reasons to take them later. Because you have resons to take early does not mean others are wrong for choosing to take them later.
* Delay SS until 70? And live on what for the 5 years between 65 and 70?
Delaying is only an option for people who have a great pension or a lot of money in investments. That's got to be a portfolio of at least $250K to $500K.
Yes. Live off your investments and/or pensions from 65 through 70, and far into the future. Some of us are blessed with good pensions and adequate portfolios. I would not have considered myself FI if my porfolio were south of $500k and therefore would not have retired.
* Much of the hoop-la w/r/t delaying until 70 is the substantially higher monthly benefit. Most of the proponents ignore the time-value of money and act as if a dollar in 5 years has the same value as a dollar today. This, even though the SSA says that whenever you start taking benefits, the dates are all actuarilly equivalent. "Age-related adjustments to Social Security benefits are intended to be actuarially equivalent, on average rendering lifetime benefits invariant to the timing of first receipt."
Not all people intend to die on the date the actuary tables state. Even if I were to pass prior the break even point, I could not care less about not taking benefits early. I did not need them early. Taking the benefits later gives an insurance that DW will have a higher benefit when I die and my pensions cease.
The SSA links to a 2002 research paper which says, in part, "Generally, with an age-65 normal retirement age, the profiles imply an actuarial premium for males, particularly low-earnings males, who accept benefits early" [actuarial premium means they get more than they should]
and
"Particularly for males, the eight percent annual credit for benefit claims past the NRA appears to be woefully inadequate, falling short of the age-70 AAF (actuarial adjustment factor) by almost seventeen percentage points." and
"Under our midrange discount rate assumption, most male beneficiaries face actuarial premiums that decline with benefit acceptance after age 62 and most females face actuarial losses that also decline with delayed acceptance. Thus, males have little actuarial incentive to delay their initial benefit claim and the disincentive is strongest for low-earning males. In contrast, most female beneficiaries have little actuarial incentive to accept benefits early. These gender differences in relative benefit profiles can translate into substantial lifetime actuarial premiums for males who claim early, and actuarial losses for early-claiming females."
...
