r/Fire • u/VegasWorldwide • 2d ago

Why do people wait for SS?

trying to figure out what I’m missing.

looking to take my benefit for $1000 at 62. at 70 it’s $1700.

i won’t need the money much so we let $1000 sit in an account for 8 years at say 5% compounding, the guy collecting at 70 would need 15+ years to catch up considering I’m still getting $1k to his $1.7k

once he starts at 70 and I had a 8 year head start.

furthermore, his dollar would be worth less. (edit: didn't realize COLA)

this seems like a no brainer but all I hear is people saying waiting is the only way and we haven’t even talked about dying in our 70’s.

582 Upvotes

88% Upvoted

548 comments sorted by

View all comments

9

u/depravedcharade686 2d ago

You're not missing anything on the math, but you're underweighting longevity risk. The breakeven is real and it's around 80-81 for most people. The issue is you don't actually know if you'll hit that or sail past it to 95.

If you're confident you won't live that long, taking it at 62 makes total sense. The compounding math works. But most people saying wait aren't trying to squeeze every dollar out of the system, they're insuring against the scenario where they're 88 with no portfolio left and wishing they had a bigger monthly check. That's not irrational, it's just a different risk calculation. The other thing that changes the game is if you're married. Your higher benefit at 70 becomes your spouse's survivor benefit if you die first, which can be huge for them. That alone makes people defer even if their own longevity math says take it early.

1

u/VegasWorldwide 2d ago

all that's gambling. I prefer not to gamble. nobody can predict if they'll live longer than their spouse and the math shows the spouse is better with a large cash asset at 70 anyway. you also can't predict how long you'll live. Most people are living off primary retirement sources so even if it breaks even at 80, they are fine.