Social Security at age 62

I'm not entirely following the logic, is it assuming you are continuing to work and don't actually need the SS checks for income at that time, so you invest all of it?

quote:

---

I'm not entirely following the logic, is it assuming you are continuing to work and don't actually need the SS checks for income at that time, so you invest all of it?

---

The logic is messed up because every situation is different. If you're still working, it is more likely you should wait.

The "claim early and invest" strategy just doesn't make sense. You can't work over a certain amount. So, you either have to have a pension and bridge the gap with investments which you are taking out of the market to put your SS back in if you claimed early? #Nonsense

Unless it is speaking to folks who work off the books (which is, obviously, tax/SS fraud).

Here’s what the (yucky) USA Today article actually said-

quote:

---

Do the math, however, and you will see compelling evidence for waiting until age 70 to take Social Security.

The reason is simple human longevity: An average American retiree will live long enough to get the most money over their lifetime if they wait until 70 and claim the maximum monthly benefit. USA TODAY published an article in 2025 that explains the calculations.

One scholarly paper found that the typical retiree who claims before 70 loses $182,370 in potential Social Security income.

---

I’m in between 62 and 70 and haven’t considered taking my retirement yet.

For me, the retirement benefit increases ~8% per year.

I average making more than that on my personal investments but I don’t need the retirement income yet and my reasonable life expectancy is way past age 80. So why lock in to a lower “benefit” now, (other than the ugly thought that the benefit goes away before I do). It reasonably could diminish or be more heavily taxed and that would/will suck.

quote:

---

Yea, a roughly "guaranteed" 8% increase in your 60's isn't too shabby if you don't need the funds.

---

And it's permanent with some inflation protection. Of course, there will be a fix required for the older Gen X folks, but other than that waiting appears to be a "no brainer" UNLESS YOU NEED THE INCOME.

Obviously, if you need the income, you're not investing it at 4% compounding.

There are some times where it is advantageous to do so or makes sense to do so, especially if there is a large income disparity between spouses or a longevity concern witht he higher earner.

I would like them to run the numbers considering this aspect-
I have a friend that turns 62, in 4 years. He said he plans to take it at 62 because if he waits until 70, SS won't have the funds to pay the full benefit. He claims he would be waiting on a reduced amount.

Last I looked, the problem is that if you make more than a little bit of income, they take back a percentage. I was still working at 62 and my net SS would have been virtually nil. The earned income limit when I turned 62 was $14,000. After that, they took back $1 for every two dollars earned.

The laws may have changed.

Grok says:

2. Temporary Earnings Test Reduction (While Working and Under FRA)If you claim at 62 and keep working with "good" (high) income, the retirement earnings test can reduce or eliminate your SS payments in the short term. This is not permanent — any withheld benefits are later added back by increasing your monthly check starting at FRA.

ssa.gov

For 2026 (rules adjust annually for inflation):If you are under FRA for the entire year: The limit is $24,480 in earned income (wages or net self-employment).SS withholds $1 in benefits for every $2 you earn above $24,480.
With "good" income (e.g., $80,000+), you could easily exceed this and have most or all of your monthly SS checks withheld for the year.

There's an earnings limit with give back of benefits calculation. FYI for understanding.

Agree. Just know the earnings limit give back AND your that your benefit at 62 is @ 30% lower than at full retirement age (67, if born in 1960 forward). @ $48,000 of earned income would negate 100% of SS prior to FRA.

quote:

---

I'm not entirely following the logic, is it assuming you are continuing to work and don't actually need the SS checks for income at that time, so you invest all of it?

---

My logic is that I will be reducing what I pull from my 401K every year when I’m 62 by taking the $36K I get from social security. I can either pull $36K from my 401K and pay the federal and state taxes on the earnings and miss out on whatever it would earn on my investments that year (assume > 5%) or take the social security which also won’t have any state taxes. I just retired at age 59, so won’t be working when 62.