FREE NEWSLETTER
I am incensed when I read nonsense posted on social media about social security – “Congress stole the SS funds and never paid it back,” “there would be plenty of money if we didn’t give it to people not eligible” and worse. All nonsense.
Is it worth me getting upset over? It is, because uninformed people believe it and now it appears people are acting on the lies and misinformation they read and hear. They don’t understand that SS can’t go bankrupt or run out of money and that there is a different between SS’s ongoing revenue and the reserve trust. The trust can be depleted, but tax and other revenue would continue to pay (reduced) benefits.
It makes no sense to claim benefits at 62 because you fear SS won’t be there. In fact, if a person believes benefits will be reduced, they should delay to claim a larger benefits.
A Northwestern Mutual study found about 25% of Generation X and 40% of Baby Boomers who aren’t yet eligible said they intend to claim as soon as they turn 62, with fewer than half of Gen X planning to wait until full retirement age.
The Urban Institute (via SSA filing data) found that from January–July 2025, more than 2.3 million people filed for Social Security retirement benefits, up 16 percent from the same period in 2024. Separately, Empower reported the SSA was on track to receive nearly four million retirement-benefit claims for fiscal year 2025 — up 15% from 2024, and about five times the average 3% annual increase seen over the prior 12 years.
An AARP poll points to fears that Social Security is “running out of money” as a driver of the spike starting benefits at age 62 – a poor reason to claim early, since benefits are higher the longer you wait.
Another form of financial illiteracy at its worse.
My wife and I started taking social security the month we first became eligible at 62. Our break-even point is age 79. Regardless, the reason we didn’t wait is that we have plenty of retirement income already…social security is simply travel money. Our goal wasn’t to maximize the net present value of the draw of funds, which is only a guess anyway since you don’t know how long you will live, but to maximize the enjoyment of the healthiest portion of retirement years.
IMO, making disability part of the SS system was a mistake. Originally it only covered disabled individuals between 50 and 64, based on their work history, but Congress couldn’t resist sweetening the benefits.
This is part of the reason the trust fund has been depleted.
My cancer returned for the 3rd time and things looked rough. I immediately started SS at 64 yo even thought this had never been the plan. I was offered disability SS as well since I was/am stage 4 and will remain so. It felt self defeating to accept such a thing. I declined. I also believe each application to disability SS should be evaluated carefully.
I think you have a point. That provision is subject to abuse. The claims tend to rise during poor economic times and high unemployment. But I wouldn’t eliminate it completely.
I had a nephew who was totally disabled from birth with CP. He eventually collected SS on his father’s record.
For those of us lucky enough to have sufficient assets, isn’t Social Security longevity insurance?
Taking it early because you may not live long enough to “get your money back,” or because your heirs can inherit your investments but not your Social Security, seems to miss that point?
The value of delaying is the larger inflation-adjusted income if you happen to live a very long time. We don’t normally judge other insurance by whether we got our money back, do we?
Because our portfolio alone provides for us to live the way want, my wife and I both started taking the money at 62. I know this is not the best way to maximize our benefit, but who cares, if it’s just icing on the cake anyway? Those calculations only work if you live long enough for them to play out anyway.
I claimed social security before 70 partly due to my lack of faith in our lawmakers to address this issue until absolutely forced to at the end when all the options are more painful. I also looked at what happened to Medicare part B premiums in 2007 when they became income based (IRMAA), followed by part D premiums in 2011. They talk about the “break-even” point for claiming social security at 62 versus 70 being between ages 80 to 82 such that, if you live beyond that age, you’re generally better off if you wait. But what if, as part of the solution for a shortfall in revenue to support the program, your projected benefits are decreased if your retirement income exceeds some threshold? According to an AI search, if social security benefits were decreased by 20% at age 70 due to being a higher-income beneficiary, the breakeven point for waiting becomes age 89. Two years ago, I spent a couple of days entering different scenarios into an Excel spreadsheet and got a similar number for the breakeven point, so I decided to claim earlier than I had planned.
As I have posted before, we took our Social Security as soon as we could.
Our reasoning was that our children can inherit our other financial assets but NOT our SocSec.
Nonsense posted on social media? You don’t say! No doubt. A few additional points to ponder. One, anyone paying attention has been hearing for years about an apparent funding shortfall under current trends, estimated now +/-20% in about six years. So early filers, perhaps many without adequate personal savings to delay, could be argued are showing rational human behavior given the situation. Two, whilst the number of benefit filings may be up in recent years, perhaps some or much of this may be attributed to natural and expected demographics as the baby boomer wave continues to age into their 60s?
I refer you to the Northwestern and AARP results cited.
Not sure early filers are rational. Any cut in benefits should it occur will apply to their lower benefit so they are even bigger losers.
Sounds very much like an AI clickbait headline. Has Quinn been subsumed by Anthropic?
Overblown reaction to a poll? Check
Condemnation of the less fortunate? Check
Believing himself to be the arbiter of financial savviness? Check
More accurately I am concerned about the Chicken Little response many people have to the misinformation they read and in the process harm themselves. I guess that wasn’t clear.
I was wondering if the Urban Institute information was just age 62 filers or all SS filers for 2025. The peak of the Baby Boom is finally old enough for Medicare, so that may also be a reason there were so many filings. This included Spouse and me. I agree with what you wrote, unless you are in one of the unfortunate situations like my brother in law had with his ALS. Chris.
I plan on using the years after retirement to do Roth conversions. Once that’s done we may claim my wife’s SS at age 67 and mine at 70, or just wait until we both hit 70. We’ll see what makes sense as we get closer.
All true, Dick. I think also at play here is one’s desire to get their hands on that SS money ASAP, and all of those things that you mention gives them justification to do that.
So my advice to those not yet collecting SS is to approach the decision making process with an open mind. Don’t manipulate the research to confirm your desire. The best claiming strategy may not be the one that you want it to be.
Free Newsletter
Arrives weekly.