Clearly, there is a big difference between a single person and a married couple when it comes to the way the longevity insurance of SS plays out.
Yes, survivor benefits (if they apply) really tip the scales towards taking it at 70. I have not done the 'deep dive' into the numbers yet, I will look closer in ~ 4 years as I approach 62, but my more casual look says it makes sense for me to wait for this relatively cheap 'longevity insurance'.
The OP states that he has no wife/children to consider, so 62 might be the right decision in that case, but it still might not be open/shut.
We will wait 'til 70. In a world of low investment returns SS has an amazing 8% yearly increase if you wait. For an individual or couple with no other annuity or pension income and depending entirely on portfolio, SS lowers the risk of running out of money. That's a fact. ...
You need to offset that 8% by the amount
not received though, right? I haven't done the math on that yet.
Life isn't just about money it's about quality of life and fun to me. ...
Some years ago, there was a poster who was trying to make the point that you could effectively
'take SS late, and spend it now'. It sounds a little convoluted, but I think he was correct. If your portfolio has a larger COLA in later years, you don't need such a big portfolio now to support those later years. So
'take SS late, spend it now'.
For me, I suspect that waiting will increase my quality of life. Knowing that my later years are better protected, that DW is likely better protected - that helps me to relax today.
I can also understand
REWahoo's decision to take it early when that coincided with a 30% portfolio drop. But I question if that reduction in WR would really be that significant. But if one is already stressed out over the market drop, the 'sleep factor' might be well worth it.
-ERD50