re: Social Security at age 62

quote:

---

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

---

I think I follow your logic.

What income tax bracket will you be at age 62?
How are you covering health insurance? (ACA is income tested)
Have you priced out Medicare at age 65? (It is income tested)
Are you married)?

“
Posted on 4/16/26 at 11:23 am to Y.A. Tittle
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.”

^this.

I’m older than my wife, and was a much higher earner. I decided to wait bc it will better for her for me to wait.

To each his own.

quote:

---

One of the strategies I've been looking at is where you have a spouse, and both of you will likely max out benefits. A lot I've seen, suggests it might be advantageous for one to take early and one hold out to 70.

---

Been toying with that, that scenario (both maxed-out) is us and we are only two months age difference.

She’ll work 2-3 years longer than me (probably) so we are tossing this about.

It’s not a huge amount of money but the repercussions could last for 30+ years of our decisions.

The Calvinist in me says delay taking both until the latest possible. I have to mute that voice sometimes as it’s not always the best policy.

quote:

---

I don’t see how any of that makes a difference.

---

Thanks for putting some effort into thinking about your retirement.

Your tax bracket makes no difference?

IRMAA makes no difference?

Survivor benefit makes no difference?

It sounded like you were well off enough to look into other approaches utilized by people who have enough resources to keep great cash flow and depress their MAGI at the same time.

It is your retirement.
You can be defensive.
Or open to questions which mau confirm your current philosophy. Or improve upon it.

There is a Don Rumsfeld quote floating out in the internet somewhere. It might be worth a listen.

quote:

---

Thanks for putting some effort into thinking about your retirement. Your tax bracket makes no difference?

---

LOL, I’ve had a spreadsheet I created in the mid 1990’s planning and tracking my retirement since early in my career. I’m amazed it still opens being it was created on Excel so long ago. It has my salary, raises, projections, earnings, portfolio balances backfilled with my info going back to 1990, so I did plan my retirement.

I was stating the questions asked have nothing to do with whether or not I take social security at 62. If my tax bracket were 10% or 37% the answer is the same. I can pay the taxes on 401K withdraws and give up the 401K earnings and hold off on social security to get higher payments later or take a lower social security amount now and let the equivalent amount continue to grow tax free until withdrawn from my 401K. My social security payments will be the smallest portion of my budgeted income. I will maximize my income from social security, dividends, and real estate earnings before I touch my 401K. My math says keep my 401K money in my 401K and use social security to provide a portion of my income. I do realize that my 401K withdraws will be taxed differently depending on whether it is capital gains or based on income bracket. The answer would still be the same. If my spreadsheet has been accurate, the market continues to operate the same as it has historically and if there isn’t an alien invasion or zombie apocalypse, I should be alright, Lord willing, and my kids, grandkids and great grandkids will have plenty to spilt up.

I prefer getting the 8% inflation adjusted payment later. I’ll take at 70, wife will begin at 67 (we’re the same age). In the meantime this gives me more room to do Roth conversions before RMDs hit.

quote:

---

I will be taking SS early but I also have 14 rentals that will be owned free and clear by that time

---

So, again, the key question is - do you need the income from SS or not? Because, if you don't, it is still probably smarter to wait until at least FRA, unless your longevity prospects are weaker than average.

What these advisors fail to factor in is at 62 you are or should be faily healthy and can enjoy retirement for at least 10+ yrs. Once you get to your late 70s and up you're not buying new toys or traveling the country. And even if you're healthy you could have a stroke, get cancer or dementia. I'm taking my at 62 and enjoying what life I have left.

quote:

---

What these advisors fail to factor in is at 62 you are or should be faily healthy and can enjoy retirement for at least 10+ yrs. Once you get to your late 70s and up you're not buying new toys or traveling the country. And even if you're healthy you could have a stroke, get cancer or dementia. I'm taking my at 62 and enjoying what life I have left.

---

Meh. I don't think that's what they're saying at all. It's about structuring what you have available the most efficient way. If the decision is made to retire at 62, you might have a small pension. You might have some rental property income. You might have a 401k, IRA, etc. Adjusting the flow from those various buckets/sources of income might get you closer to FRA or beyond and your total income (based on your projected longevity) might be better if you do it A versus B versus C.

No one is telling you cats to not take it at 62. When you're 84 or whatever, you might have wished you waited. It shouldn't be reflexive. It should make sense in a rational, mathematical way.