My view early on in this thread was "I think that is why there is no single correct answer to the SS question for every household. We all have different priorities and goals to maximize. "
In this thread and others I have noticed terms like waiting is a "no brainer", "collect SS at 62 so they can get screwed", "No need for any stupid 'break even analysis'", "a lot of folks cannot resist the 'early money' ", taking SS at 62 is a non-optimum decision by people who can't afford to be efficient, no quantitative case for taking SS at 62, where else can you buy an annuity for 8% (one sided claims because it does not consider the downside - the income lost if one dies prior to the crossover point), etc.
Well, I'm investing way too much effort in this, but...
Since you put "screwed" in quotes, I searched the thread and only
you used the term.
The 'stupid break even' analysis was by the same poster who made the 'no-brainer' comment, so just a bit more of the same. However, I pretty much agree that a break even analysis isn't what is important to most people - we are looking at it as insurance, it's just different. Using the word 'stupid' might be a little harsh, but he's just trying to make a point, nothing worth getting worked up about, IMO. And again, it is case dependent - if you
know you and spouse can expect an unusually short LE, then a break even analysis probably makes sense. Most of just don't have that info.
'taking SS at 62 is a non-optimum decision by people who can't afford to be efficient' - That's not the quote, and I think you are putting that out of context as well.
'where else can you buy an annuity for 8%' (one sided claims because it does not consider the downside - the income lost if one dies prior to the crossover point), it's not one-sided, you have to
buy it - that's the downside, right there in black and white. And it is a very astute question, worthy of serious consideration, IMO.
"a lot of folks cannot resist the 'early money' " Isn't that true?
Go ahead and point out the flaws in anyone's comments on delaying, that's how we learn. But I think you are off-base to simply paint them as 'negative'. From what I've seen, those looking to delay seem to fully understand the downsides, and feel the longevity insurance is worth it. I don't see dogmatic responses from them (with the
possible exception of the one I have mentioned. One.).
Some of the discussions supporting taking it early do appear to be twisted though (we showed you
can take that cruise and delay SS, and do just fine). But that doesn't make it wrong, or a bad idea for that person. But they ought to understand whether their thoughts are straight or not. At least that's what I'm trying to gather to help me make that decision.
-ERD50