When to start Social Security?

I retired at 58 and I'm currently 63. My full retirement age is 67. I've been living off portfolio withdrawals and my wife's part-time income. The big question I keep going back and forth on: when do I start taking Social Security?

My estimated benefits:
- Age 62: $2,180/mo
- Age 67 (FRA): $3,120/mo
- Age 70: $3,870/mo

The math seems to say wait until 70. But that's 7 more years of drawing down my portfolio. And what if I die at 72? Then I left a ton of money on the table.

I'm in good health, both parents lived into their 80s. Portfolio is about $1.4M. No pension. Wife will get her own smaller SS benefit.

What would you do?

The break-even analysis is the standard framework here:

62 vs 67: You collect $2,180/mo for 5 extra years = $130,800 head start. But at 67 you get $940/mo more. Break-even: 67 + ($130,800 / $940/mo) = about 78.5 years old. If you live past 78.5, waiting to 67 wins.

67 vs 70: You collect $3,120/mo for 3 extra years = $112,320 head start. At 70 you get $750/mo more. Break-even: 70 + ($112,320 / $750/mo) = about 82.5 years old. If you live past 82.5, waiting to 70 wins.

With $1.4M and good health/longevity genes, I'd wait until 70. Here's why:

1. You can afford to. Many people claim early because they NEED the money. You don't.
2. SS is essentially a longevity insurance annuity with a COLA adjustment. That $3,870/mo at 70 grows with inflation. Try buying an inflation-adjusted annuity on the private market -- it's insanely expensive.
3. If you die early, your wife may be entitled to a survivor benefit based on your higher benefit amount. Waiting to 70 maximizes HER benefit too.

The "what if I die at 72" fear is understandable but statistically a 63-year-old male in good health has about a 50% chance of living to 85+.

Wait until 70. With $1.4M you don't need the money early. Delaying SS is the best annuity deal available -- guaranteed 8% per year increase from 62 to 70, inflation adjusted, backed by the US government.

Anyone who tells you to take it at 62 is either broke or bad at math.

My dad took SS at 62 because he was terrified the program would be "bankrupt" by the time he was 70. He's 78 now and regrets it every time we talk about it. The reduced benefit really adds up over time, especially with COLAs compounding on a smaller base.

That said, my mom's friend's husband died at 64 never having collected a dime. So there's that.

I think with $1.4M and good health, the smart move is to wait. But there's no wrong answer really. Even at 62, $2,180/mo is meaningful money.

I ran some numbers including portfolio impact since that's the part people forget:

Scenario A: Claim at 62, withdraw less from portfolio
- SS income 62-90: ~$916k (nominal, with 2.5% COLA estimate)
- Portfolio at 90 (4% withdrawal minus SS offset): ~$1.8M

Scenario B: Claim at 70, withdraw more from portfolio for 7 extra years
- SS income 70-90: ~$1.13M (nominal, with 2.5% COLA)
- Portfolio at 90 (higher withdrawals 63-70, lower after): ~$1.95M

Scenario B wins by about $350k in total wealth at age 90. Even at age 80, scenario B is roughly break-even.

Of course these are projections with assumed returns (7% nominal portfolio, 2.5% COLA). But the direction is clear: delaying wins if you live into your 80s.

The survivor benefit angle that bogle mentioned is also huge. If you predecease your wife, she can switch to your higher benefit. That can be the difference between comfortable and tight for a surviving spouse.

Something nobody here has mentioned: tax planning. If you claim SS at 62 while your wife is still working, you could end up paying MORE tax because the SS income pushes you into a higher bracket and triggers the SS taxation thresholds.

Between 63-70, while you have no SS income, that's a golden window for Roth conversions. Convert some of your traditional IRA to Roth while your income is low, pay less tax now, and then when SS kicks in at 70 your required minimum distributions are smaller.

With a $1.4M portfolio I'm guessing a good chunk is in traditional/pre-tax accounts? If so, the Roth conversion strategy alone could save you $100k+ in lifetime taxes.

Walt that's a really good point actually. I have about $900k in traditional IRA and $500k in taxable. I've been doing small Roth conversions but maybe I should be more aggressive before 70.

The survivor benefit angle also hit home. My wife's own SS benefit will only be about $1,400/mo. If I die first and she can get $3,870 instead of $2,180 as a survivor benefit, that's an extra $20k/year for her for the rest of her life. That's significant.

Ok, I'm pretty convinced to wait until 70. Thanks everyone. This forum is more useful than the financial advisor I paid $250 to talk to for an hour last month lol.

Great thread. Just want to add the standard disclaimer that we're all internet strangers and this isn't professional financial advice. Retired_in_FL's situation is specific to him (portfolio size, health, wife's benefits, tax situation) and the right answer for him might not be right for everyone.

For people reading this who DON'T have $1.4M saved: if you need the money to live, taking SS at 62 is perfectly valid. Don't let anyone make you feel bad about it. The "optimal" strategy assumes you have other resources to bridge the gap.

Also the SSA.gov website has a great calculator if you want to run your own numbers. And for the love of god, create your my Social Security account and verify your earnings record. Mistakes happen and they're easier to fix sooner than later.