I’m sure of my numbers, and am fully aware of the annuity value that SS offers. Let me suggest a corollary. If instead of only $6840/yr for $72k, what about $20k/yr for $210k (which are my numbers), for $3420/$36k. All the same percentages obviously, but vastly different out of pocket costs. It would be impudent to suggest that simply because all the percentages are the same, that anyone should be willing to always take the largest annuity. The average person would find it much easier to part with $36k vs $210k regardless of the equality. Plus, to be more exact as I explained earlier, unlike a normal SPIA where the payment is entIrely upfront, and done is done, every single month, you are reminded of what you are not getting as you make those “monthly annuity payments” by not collecting. This is not the same mentally as making a payment for annuity that starts immediately. Would you be comfortable making zero interest payments on a car for 8 years, but not get the new car until the last payment, even knowing you only paid the 8 year old price instead of the current price? It is the same mindset. I fully understand that the actual annuity cost is even better than you posted, because you can stop/start or regress any month you want, something not possible with a SPIA.
And since I cannot even start SS until age 63, my annuity cost is actually less, overall. As stated, the need to Roth convert through 2025 at least, for RMD reduction, means I should have no trouble justifying delaying until age 67, which is after my FRA, but after that it is the differential increase that I will have to mentally deal with. The largest percentage gain for delayed credits starts from FRA, and slowly decreases from there. That is why I doubt I will have any trouble delaying to age 68, assuming all else is well and holds true.