Clear article about when to take Social Security

[Old Microbiologist]

Montecfo - No, as per usual with governmental programs it is riddled with exceptions and tradeoffs. I get hot and bothered when Congressman start talking about means testing and limiting benefits to those who are insolvent otherwise. Also, they keep referring to it as a huge tax burden on income taxes but it is separately funded and has been borrowed from to the tune of $2.7 trillion with no hope of repayment. So as for it being insolvent sometime in the near future that is because Congress stole from it back in the day when they actually tried to balance a budget and didn't just throw in the towel and just start printing money like there is no day of reckoning. That was another reason to take it early. I don't trust our government to keep up its end of the bargain. I recall being promised free health care for life back in the Vietnam era if I would re-enlist which I did and they reneged on that promise. There are many other examples but that is when I learned about how much you can trust our government. What riles me is they will print money for ridiculous wars that never end and the military has 60% of the federal budget yet there still isn't enough for Veteran's care or retiree medical. Yes, I know---priorities.

 

[Rianne]

The podcast "Big Picture Retirement" has several episodes about Social Security and when to claim. But they caution that every case is different.

Just started this podcast, awesome. The one about Trusts-I'm scrambling to write down what they said to bring to attorney in May. The banter is cute between the hosts, makes it fun to listen. But the information is great. I've only listened to 2 of them. I hate to ignore or lose the downloads on my 10 other podcast channels, but I might have to.

 

[CRLLS]

Montecfo - No, as per usual with governmental programs it is riddled with exceptions and tradeoffs. I get hot and bothered when Congressman start talking about means testing and limiting benefits to those who are insolvent otherwise. Also, they keep referring to it as a huge tax burden on income taxes but it is separately funded and has been borrowed from to the tune of $2.7 trillion with no hope of repayment. So as for it being insolvent sometime in the near future that is because Congress stole from it back in the day when they actually tried to balance a budget and didn't just throw in the towel and just start printing money like there is no day of reckoning. That was another reason to take it early. I don't trust our government to keep up its end of the bargain. I recall being promised free health care for life back in the Vietnam era if I would re-enlist which I did and they reneged on that promise. There are many other examples but that is when I learned about how much you can trust our government. What riles me is they will print money for ridiculous wars that never end and the military has 60% of the federal budget yet there still isn't enough for Veteran's care or retiree medical. Yes, I know---priorities.

Just to be accurate, the Military is only ~16% of the Fedral budget. That 60% is a slightly exaggerated percentage of congress's "discretionary spending" category. The 16% comes in way behind SS and Health And Human Services, 25% and 28% respectively in 2015.

 

[joeea]

has been borrowed from to the tune of $2.7 trillion with no hope of repayment.

You are correct that it has been borrowed from. You are incorrect that it will not be repaid.

So as for it being insolvent sometime in the near future that is because Congress stole from it back in the day when they actually tried to balance a budget and didn't just throw in the towel and just start printing money like there is no day of reckoning.

Nope. Congress did not steal from it.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/20/did-congress-really-steal-from-social-security.aspx

"No, the federal government didn't raid Social Security

As for Social Security's most pervasive and borderline irritating myth, that goes to the belief that the federal government raided Social Security's coffers and never put the money back. As a financial journalist of nearly eight years, I can confirm that the comment section on most Social Security articles over the years has been riddled with allegations that Congress stole money from Social Security and never put it back -- and that this is the primary reason why the program's asset reserves will be depleted within the next 16 years.

In reality, none of this is true.

The folks who perpetuate this myth strongly believe that Social Security's current asset reserves of nearly $2.9 trillion is a sham. In other words, they don't believe the money is there. They believe lawmakers on Capitol Hill absconded with this money, and that seniors and future retirees will suffer as a result.

The truth is that the Social Security Administration takes this extra cash, which would be earning nothing if it were sitting around in a trust, and invests it in various special-issue bonds, and to a lesser extent certificates of indebtedness, with staggered maturity dates ranging from a year to perhaps longer than a decade from now. By placing this excess cash -- which has been built up since 1983 as a result of Social Security being a cash-flow positive program -- into special-issue bonds and certificates of indebtedness, it earns interest. In 2016, $88.4 billion of the $957.5 billion in revenue that was generated came from interest income earned on its bonds and certificates of indebtedness.

Does the federal government use the cash that's invested in these bonds, as well as non-special-issue bonds, for regular revenue items? Absolutely! Selling Treasury notes is a common way Congress raises money to pay the bills. The thing is, these bonds are backed by the full faith of the U.S. government, and the federal government is legally obligated to honor both the interest payments and maturities as they come along. Every single interest payment on Social Security's special-issue bonds has been paid, and every last maturity has been met with a full repayment. "

 

[Crabby Mike]

Crabby,

I'm not following your reasoning - especially given that most analysis points to an AA with low cost index funds outperforming most, and almost all, managed approaches over a few years ... mainly because the managed funds have a good year or good guessing, followed by a few years of bad guessing - that combined with 1% plus fees, and then if there is an FA involved, another 1% fee ... I'm not trying to sound like a Boglehead .... but ...

Help us understand, better, please?

Not sure what part of my comments you're asking about, but I think you misunderstand what I was trying to say. In fact, you're making my point -- Old Microbiologist was advocating actively trading for maximum returns, even using the term "day trading," while I'm just cautioning that most people won't consistently beat the market, and would be better off not trying. I'm actually a big fan of index funds, and any low-cost approach to investing, as opposed to paying FA's who probably can't outperform the market either. And I hope no one judges their own trading performance by the last 10 years -- one could have traded randomly during this bull market and made money. I don't expect the next 10 to be so easy.

 

[ncbill]

Any redemption of SS's special, non-marketable trust fund bonds in order to meet current year obligations requires an equal amount of marketable debt be sold...will such "crowd out" the private sector?

We won't know until we see significant "redemptions" from the SS Trust Fund...considering how much federal borrowing occurs now that might just be a drop in the ocean.

 

[stephenson]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer...-trust-fund-is-real-but-so-what/#450306fa3c4a

 

[Doribe]

Thanks the the informative breakdown on how SS works. I've read bits and pieces of the explanation of the workings, but your tutorial is the most informative.

 

[JJpop]

My wife took hers at 68 when I was able to file for spousal benefits.After 4 years I will switch to my own at age 70,when she is 72.Right now we get about 2700 a month and that will change to a little over 5000 a month.Great way to do it if you have the right birthdates.

 

[pb4uski]

....But upon reflection, if I max the size of DWs annuity, then unless I pass after my respective break even point, I will also be leaving her a smaller nestegg. ...

I'm not sure if your logic is right.... for each month that you live beyond your breakeven point you will be taking less out of your nestegg than you would have if you took SS earlier.... so compared to the alternative your nestegg will be growing and DW ends up with more. Here is an example of 62 vs 70 assuming 2% inflation and 3% real rate of return.

	2.00%			5.00%		2.00%			5.00%
	Spending	SS	Withdrawals	Nestegg		Spending	SS	Withdrawals	Nestegg
				1,000,000					1,000,000
62	50,000	9,000	41,000	1,007,975		50,000		50,000	998,750
63	51,000	9,180	41,820	1,015,508		51,000		51,000	996,413
64	52,020	9,364	42,656	1,022,561		52,020		52,020	992,913
65	53,060	9,551	43,510	1,029,092		53,060		53,060	988,171
66	54,122	9,742	44,380	1,035,057		54,122		54,122	982,105
67	55,204	9,937	45,267	1,040,411		55,204		55,204	974,626
68	56,308	10,135	46,173	1,045,104		56,308		56,308	965,642
69	57,434	10,338	47,096	1,049,086		57,434		57,434	955,054
70	58,583	10,545	48,038	1,052,301		58,583	18,559	40,024	961,782
71	59,755	10,756	48,999	1,054,693		59,755	18,930	40,824	968,026
72	60,950	10,971	49,979	1,056,199		60,950	19,309	41,641	973,746
73	62,169	11,190	50,978	1,056,756		62,169	19,695	42,474	978,897
74	63,412	11,414	51,998	1,056,296		63,412	20,089	43,323	983,436
75	64,680	11,642	53,038	1,054,747		64,680	20,491	44,190	987,313
76	65,974	11,875	54,099	1,052,034		65,974	20,901	45,073	990,479
77	67,293	12,113	55,181	1,048,075		67,293	21,319	45,975	992,879
78	68,639	12,355	56,284	1,042,788		68,639	21,745	46,894	994,456
79	70,012	12,602	57,410	1,036,082		70,012	22,180	47,832	995,151
80	71,412	12,854	58,558	1,027,864		71,412	22,623	48,789	994,900
81	72,841	13,111	59,729	1,018,034		72,841	23,076	49,765	993,636
82	74,297	13,374	60,924	1,006,489		74,297	23,537	50,760	991,289
83	75,783	13,641	62,142	993,118		75,783	24,008	51,775	987,783
84	77,299	13,914	63,385	977,804		77,299	24,488	52,811	983,042
85	78,845	14,192	64,653	960,425		78,845	24,978	53,867	976,980
86	80,422	14,476	65,946	940,852		80,422	25,478	54,944	969,511
87	82,030	14,765	67,265	918,948		82,030	25,987	56,043	960,543
88	83,671	15,061	68,610	894,570		83,671	26,507	57,164	949,977
89	85,344	15,362	69,982	867,566		85,344	27,037	58,307	937,711
90	87,051	15,669	71,382	837,778		87,051	27,578	59,473	923,636
91	88,792	15,983	72,810	805,037		88,792	28,129	60,663	907,638
92	90,568	16,302	74,266	769,167		90,568	28,692	61,876	889,597
93	92,379	16,628	75,751	729,980		92,379	29,266	63,114	869,386
94	94,227	16,961	77,266	687,281		94,227	29,851	64,376	846,870
95	96,112	17,300	78,811	640,863		96,112	30,448	65,663	821,908
96	98,034	17,646	80,388	590,509		98,034	31,057	66,977	794,353
97	99,994	17,999	81,995	535,989		99,994	31,678	68,316	764,046
98	101,994	18,359	83,635	477,062		101,994	32,312	69,683	730,824
99	104,034	18,726	85,308	413,475		104,034	32,958	71,076	694,512
100	106,115	19,101	87,014	344,959		106,115	33,617	72,498	654,927

 

[Crabby Mike]

I'm not sure if your logic is right.... for each month that you live beyond your breakeven point you will be taking less out of your nestegg than you would have if you took SS earlier.... so compared to the alternative your nestegg will be growing and DW ends up with more. Here is an example of 62 vs 70 assuming 2% inflation and 3% real rate of return.

2.00%5.00%2.00%5.00%
SpendingSSWithdrawalsNesteggSpendingSSWithdrawalsNestegg
1,000,0001,000,000
6250,0009,00041,0001,007,97550,00050,000998,750
6351,0009,18041,8201,015,50851,00051,000996,413
6452,0209,36442,6561,022,56152,02052,020992,913
6553,0609,55143,5101,029,09253,06053,060988,171
6654,1229,74244,3801,035,05754,12254,122982,105
6755,2049,93745,2671,040,41155,20455,204974,626
6856,30810,13546,1731,045,10456,30856,308965,642
6957,43410,33847,0961,049,08657,43457,434955,054
7058,58310,54548,0381,052,30158,58318,55940,024961,782
7159,75510,75648,9991,054,69359,75518,93040,824968,026
7260,95010,97149,9791,056,19960,95019,30941,641973,746
7362,16911,19050,9781,056,75662,16919,69542,474978,897
7463,41211,41451,9981,056,29663,41220,08943,323983,436
7564,68011,64253,0381,054,74764,68020,49144,190987,313
7665,97411,87554,0991,052,03465,97420,90145,073990,479
7767,29312,11355,1811,048,07567,29321,31945,975992,879
7868,63912,35556,2841,042,78868,63921,74546,894994,456
7970,01212,60257,4101,036,08270,01222,18047,832995,151
8071,41212,85458,5581,027,86471,41222,62348,789994,900
8172,84113,11159,7291,018,03472,84123,07649,765993,636
8274,29713,37460,9241,006,48974,29723,53750,760991,289
8375,78313,64162,142993,11875,78324,00851,775987,783
8477,29913,91463,385977,80477,29924,48852,811983,042
8578,84514,19264,653960,42578,84524,97853,867976,980
8680,42214,47665,946940,85280,42225,47854,944969,511
8782,03014,76567,265918,94882,03025,98756,043960,543
8883,67115,06168,610894,57083,67126,50757,164949,977
8985,34415,36269,982867,56685,34427,03758,307937,711
9087,05115,66971,382837,77887,05127,57859,473923,636
9188,79215,98372,810805,03788,79228,12960,663907,638
9290,56816,30274,266769,16790,56828,69261,876889,597
9392,37916,62875,751729,98092,37929,26663,114869,386
9494,22716,96177,266687,28194,22729,85164,376846,870
9596,11217,30078,811640,86396,11230,44865,663821,908
9698,03417,64680,388590,50998,03431,05766,977794,353
9799,99417,99981,995535,98999,99431,67868,316764,046
98101,99418,35983,635477,062101,99432,31269,683730,824
99104,03418,72685,308413,475104,03432,95871,076694,512
100106,11519,10187,014344,959106,11533,61772,498654,927

^ that's useful [emoji12]

 

[pb4uski]

You are correct that it has been borrowed from. You are incorrect that it will not be repaid.


Nope. Congress did not steal from it.

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2018/05/20/did-congress-really-steal-from-social-security.aspx

"No, the federal government didn't raid Social Security

As for Social Security's most pervasive and borderline irritating myth, that goes to the belief that the federal government raided Social Security's coffers and never put the money back. As a financial journalist of nearly eight years, I can confirm that the comment section on most Social Security articles over the years has been riddled with allegations that Congress stole money from Social Security and never put it back -- and that this is the primary reason why the program's asset reserves will be depleted within the next 16 years.

In reality, none of this is true.

The folks who perpetuate this myth strongly believe that Social Security's current asset reserves of nearly $2.9 trillion is a sham. In other words, they don't believe the money is there. They believe lawmakers on Capitol Hill absconded with this money, and that seniors and future retirees will suffer as a result.

The truth is that the Social Security Administration takes this extra cash, which would be earning nothing if it were sitting around in a trust, and invests it in various special-issue bonds, and to a lesser extent certificates of indebtedness, with staggered maturity dates ranging from a year to perhaps longer than a decade from now. By placing this excess cash -- which has been built up since 1983 as a result of Social Security being a cash-flow positive program -- into special-issue bonds and certificates of indebtedness, it earns interest. In 2016, $88.4 billion of the $957.5 billion in revenue that was generated came from interest income earned on its bonds and certificates of indebtedness.

Does the federal government use the cash that's invested in these bonds, as well as non-special-issue bonds, for regular revenue items? Absolutely! Selling Treasury notes is a common way Congress raises money to pay the bills. The thing is, these bonds are backed by the full faith of the U.S. government, and the federal government is legally obligated to honor both the interest payments and maturities as they come along. Every single interest payment on Social Security's special-issue bonds has been paid, and every last maturity has been met with a full repayment. "

I agree... in effect the Federal government has been able to issue $3T less debt to the public that it otherwise would have to support non-SS spending because it borrowed the money from SS rather than having to sell bonds to the public. Once the SS Trust Fund benefit payments exceed taxes collected, the SS Trust Fund will be redeeming some of those bonds to fill the gap... when there are no bonds left then benefits will be reduced to be commensurate with taxes being collected.

 

[Crabby Mike]

^ that's useful [emoji12]

OK, I take back the sarcasm ... when I looked at this on my phone, it was just a useless stream of numbers, probably just showing me a raw csv file. Now that I'm on my computer, I see it as a table. Live and learn.

 

[Perryinva]

It’s never (IMHO) about the size of the nest egg at the time of one death. It is about the income at that time. If the much higher SS plus a smaller income from a smaller nest egg is higher and increases with less dependence on market conditions then it is a win in my book. The chart is fine, ut one with income mrans more

 

[camfused]

Perryinva, I am not sure I follow you on that. If you have a $10M nest egg, but $20K income, it seems like that is much better than $10K nest egg and $50K income.

 

[joeea]

It’s never (IMHO) about the size of the nest egg at the time of one death. It is about the income at that time.

I think the word "never" negates any value here.

 

[Markola]

It’s never (IMHO) about the size of the nest egg at the time of one death. It is about the income at that time. If the much higher SS plus a smaller income from a smaller nest egg is higher and increases with less dependence on market conditions then it is a win in my book. The chart is fine, ut one with income mrans more

I think I understand your point, which is that you would rather have an income from stable sources rather than an equivalent income from less stable sources, even if it allowed you to die with more in the bank. Others want to leave more to heirs or charity, so they might think differently. For fun,I like to think of our future SS income as part of our equivalent investment portfolio, i.e. multiply annual SS income by 25. It makes me feel wealthier.

 

[pb4uski]

It’s never (IMHO) about the size of the nest egg at the time of one death. It is about the income at that time. If the much higher SS plus a smaller income from a smaller nest egg is higher and increases with less dependence on market conditions then it is a win in my book. The chart is fine, ut one with income mrans more

But if you don't care to leave a legacy and expect to live to 100 (or some other age) then you could increase the spending level so the ending nestegg is zero... as long as your ending age was age 84 or more then your spending would be higher by deferring... IOW, if the remainder nestegg is higher then you could increase spending so that it ends up at zero.

 

[Perryinva]

I think I understand your point, which is that you would rather have an income from stable sources rather than an equivalent income from less stable sources, even if it allowed you to die with more in the bank. Others want to leave more to heirs or charity, so they might think differently. For fun,I like to think of our future SS income as part of our equivalent investment portfolio, i.e. multiply annual SS income by 25. It makes me feel wealthier.

Exactly. And I do the same thing. I look at what I would have to have saved to make the equivalent of a tax advantaged, COLA inheritable annuity with easy payment plans to generate that same income with the same stability. I really didn’t think I had to spell it out, it has been rehashed before. And I said IMHO, which I meant in regards to my own or similar circumstances, where the objective is to live on a stable, hopefully COLA, income, not simply trying to increase the nest egg for heirs. And yes, if it is paramount that at any time in your portfolio history, you never want it to decrease, then delaying with ER is not an option usually. The “ break even” argument is worthless, to me, because whether my nest egg is $2M or $1.75M, it makes ZERO difference to my quality of life compared to collecting $26k@62 which becomes $30k at 70, vs the smaller nest egg and $52k@70. I start spending what that $52 would have been at 62 (or 63, or whenever my work income goes away) by drawing more from the nest egg, knowing that it WILL be replaced whether I die or not, and regardless of market condition. That larger $52k with COLAs keeps outpacing the smaller one, naturally, so each year the delta between file at 62 vs 70 grows, and recoups the “lost” SS. Of course, since I have to spell it out, the usual assumptions of SS fidelity, average or below average market conditions etc, etc are made. There can always be a case made where someone will be able to take the unneeded early SS, invest it, and always stay ahead of the delayed filing amount. I would rather the smallest percentage possible of my income be dependent on equities. Probably, mainly because I’ve never been a true FIRE and lived off my investments, ever. I retire in 23 days, and am comfortable knowing that pensions, interest, and SS will cover way more than I need, and I get to actually use my portfolio to make that happen, and still have plenty left over for the unknowns and splurges as I see fit. Or LTC. Or charity. Whatever.

 

[dtbach]

Every situation is different. I'm waiting until 70 to draw as my family is long lived (mother, father, one grandfather died in 90s) but also so that DW can get a larger payout if I do go early. She would lose 1/2 of my military pension and the larger SS payout would make up the difference.


She will be taking at 62 this Oct and I (66) will file restricted SS for the spousal benefit. That all works in our favor.


In addition I'm pulling money out of IRA's to enjoy life now, so that my RMD payments will be less later.

 

[Perryinva]

Now that I can read pb4uskis chart, I see it is exactly what I meant. On my phone it looked like just a nest egg calculation. The increasing income from SS, based on 2%, and nestegg growth based on 5% is an apples to apples comparison. Of course, changing returns can alter time frames. But it brings the whole thing back to the same discussion. If you live past 82, not only do you have a higher income, but also a larger nest egg. If I die sooner, the difference is not enough to care, especially from the grave, and the higher SS benefits my investment ignorant spouse. If I live, it COULD make a difference. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[levindb]

I did some arithmetic....

Assumptions:

$2,500,000 nest egg
$170,000 annual spending
No legacy...last check will bounce
PIA DH $2700 - current age 62
PIA DW $2000 - current age 60

Question:
What REAL ROI will be needed to run out of money by DH age 105 if we both take SSA at 62, 66, and 70?

Both at 62 4.4%
Both at 66 4.2%
Both at 70 4.0%

What I learned from all of this is that if I KNOW I will get much more than 6-7% interest (assume inflation is 2-3%) then I should take SSA early. Since I do not know what ROI I will get, I have to guess what my returns will be for the next 43 years...knowing that I will choose lower ROI later in life to reduce market risk (less stock more bonds).

In reality, we would all adjust our spending and our AA to maintain our lifestyles. We would also have normal variability in our returns and spending.

This exercise helped me support my age 70 decision since I am assuming a 3% real ROI. We also get small tax advantages of a larger SSA benefit (max 85% taxed), and a larger survivor benefit for my wife to pay for her private duty nurse when that time comes.

If one assumes a larger ROI on their nest egg, then an early SSA benefit might work best for them. If one wants max $$ from the government, or to leave the max legacy, then you may have to factor in your planned age of death...but it is still all arithmetic...

 

[joeea]

but it is still all arithmetic...

Certainly you have focused solely on the arithmetic part.
And of course your arithmetic contains a huge number of assumptions/guesses.

Other people include not just arithmetic, but emotion.
And of course other people make different assumptions... and thus come to different conclusions.

 

[Montecfo]

I'm not sure if your logic is right.... for each month that you live beyond your breakeven point you will be taking less out of your nestegg than you would have if you took SS earlier.... so compared to the alternative your nestegg will be growing and DW ends up with more. Here is an example of 62 vs 70 assuming 2% inflation and 3% real rate of return.

2.00%5.00%2.00%5.00%
SpendingSSWithdrawalsNesteggSpendingSSWithdrawalsNestegg
1,000,0001,000,000
6250,0009,00041,0001,007,97550,00050,000998,750
6351,0009,18041,8201,015,50851,00051,000996,413
6452,0209,36442,6561,022,56152,02052,020992,913
6553,0609,55143,5101,029,09253,06053,060988,171
6654,1229,74244,3801,035,05754,12254,122982,105
6755,2049,93745,2671,040,41155,20455,204974,626
6856,30810,13546,1731,045,10456,30856,308965,642
6957,43410,33847,0961,049,08657,43457,434955,054
7058,58310,54548,0381,052,30158,58318,55940,024961,782
7159,75510,75648,9991,054,69359,75518,93040,824968,026
7260,95010,97149,9791,056,19960,95019,30941,641973,746
7362,16911,19050,9781,056,75662,16919,69542,474978,897
7463,41211,41451,9981,056,29663,41220,08943,323983,436
7564,68011,64253,0381,054,74764,68020,49144,190987,313
7665,97411,87554,0991,052,03465,97420,90145,073990,479
7767,29312,11355,1811,048,07567,29321,31945,975992,879
7868,63912,35556,2841,042,78868,63921,74546,894994,456
7970,01212,60257,4101,036,08270,01222,18047,832995,151
8071,41212,85458,5581,027,86471,41222,62348,789994,900
8172,84113,11159,7291,018,03472,84123,07649,765993,636
8274,29713,37460,9241,006,48974,29723,53750,760991,289
8375,78313,64162,142993,11875,78324,00851,775987,783
8477,29913,91463,385977,80477,29924,48852,811983,042
8578,84514,19264,653960,42578,84524,97853,867976,980
8680,42214,47665,946940,85280,42225,47854,944969,511
8782,03014,76567,265918,94882,03025,98756,043960,543
8883,67115,06168,610894,57083,67126,50757,164949,977
8985,34415,36269,982867,56685,34427,03758,307937,711
9087,05115,66971,382837,77887,05127,57859,473923,636
9188,79215,98372,810805,03788,79228,12960,663907,638
9290,56816,30274,266769,16790,56828,69261,876889,597
9392,37916,62875,751729,98092,37929,26663,114869,386
9494,22716,96177,266687,28194,22729,85164,376846,870
9596,11217,30078,811640,86396,11230,44865,663821,908
9698,03417,64680,388590,50998,03431,05766,977794,353
9799,99417,99981,995535,98999,99431,67868,316764,046
98101,99418,35983,635477,062101,99432,31269,683730,824
99104,03418,72685,308413,475104,03432,95871,076694,512
100106,11519,10187,014344,959106,11533,61772,498654,927

My logic is correct. Key phrase is "unless I pass after my respective break even point".

The benefit of delaying does not kick in until after the break even point. It is by definition.

I think earlier you were making what I thought was a very apt analogy: by delaying SS you are buying an annuity. The premium is non-refundable. Only future events can determine if that "investment" made you better off financially.

 

[pb4uski]

.... If you live past 82, not only do you have a higher income, but also a larger nest egg. If I die sooner, the difference is not enough to care, especially from the grave, and the higher SS benefits my investment ignorant spouse. If I live, it COULD make a difference. Sorry for the confusion.

Great point on it not making enough difference to care if you die sooner and the higher survivor benefits.

The other benefit of delaying in many cases, including mine, is more headroom to do low tax cost tIRA withdrawals or Roth conversions before SS and RMDs bump you into a higher tax bracket.