That makes a TRUE break-even of age 83 to really break even, where my savings and my SS draw are now at the same value. Actually, that doesn't even consider the lost growth of my own savings I'd be gaining for those years between 62 and FRA when I'd be on SS.
Am I missing anything or misunderstand this?
No, you got it right.
Myriads of people have gone through the same calculations, and come up with pretty much the same result -- the breakeven age is middle 80's, right around the life expectancy of a person between 62 and 70.
The amusing thing is, the SSA comes right out and says that it was designed to be actuarially neutral. But people keep running thru the numbers anyway -- only to discover for themselves that the SSA spoke true.
If (big IF) you can earn an average of 5% above inflation, the breakeven age is around 90. If you can earn 6% above inflation, breakeven is around 100.
My plan is to have enough in savings & investments so that whatever I get from SS will be effectively pocket change. And who cares about maximizing pocket change?
-------------
W/R/T Spousal & survivor:
I am enhancing my SS breakeven spreadsheet to incorporate these. It's quite complicated. (No surprise there.)
What it looks like to me so far is that as long as both are living, the decisions of early/deferred for each are independent of each other. The actual number change but not the relative amounts.
Survivor is where it gets complicated. The widows benefit base depends on when and if he filed. If he filed, widow base is his actual benefit (with reduction/increase for filing early/late). If he didn't file (or file & suspend), widow base is his benefit amount at his death, but not lower than his FRA amount.
To that is applied the widow reduction (reduction only, no extra credit for delaying). Widow can start as early as 60.
What all this amount to is that the optimal survivor choices depend on how their ages overlap in the range of 60-66 (her) and 62-70 (him).