FREE NEWSLETTER
We have discussed many times when to start Social Security and pretty much concluded the decision is personal and need based. I don’t have a problem with any of that, but what bugs me is concern over breaking even considering amount received and years of benefits.
It seems to me the monthly benefit, the income when needed most is all that matters. Since I once again find myself in the minority, I asked a neutral party, Gemini AI. Here’s is the answer I received.
“The Social Security breakeven date is important because it helps individuals understand the long-term financial implications of when they choose to start receiving their Social Security retirement benefits.”
“The Social Security breakeven date is a valuable tool for retirement planning. It provides a financial benchmark to help you decide when to start your benefits to potentially maximize your lifetime income from Social Security based on your individual circumstances and life expectancy.”
What long term implications? Valuable for what? What financial benchmark? How could it possibly matter at all? You receive benefits you need and then somewhere along the journey they stop, breakeven or not.
Are you any better off going past breakeven or worse off missing the mark. Not that I can figure.
What do you say?
After reading some of the comments below, I sense that, in some cases, we’re talking past one another.
If you’re married and your spouse’s monthly SS amount is less than yours, it may be prudent to wait until age 70. If you die first, your spouse would benefit from your higher monthly income.
If you are single and have reason to expect a shorter-than-average lifespan, it may be prudent to begin SS earlier.
In neither case does breakeven point appear to be a major concern.
From my perspective, concern over breakeven point is an attempt to avoid regret if you die before your cumulative benefits exceed what you could have received had you started benefits earlier.
But the dead don’t suffer regrets, so why the concern over breakeven point? I assume this is the thrust of Dick’s argument.
Yup
So are you now agreeing that there’s a strong argument for delaying if you believe you’ll get a higher total lifetime benefit, either because you’re in good health or because, if married, either you or your spouse is in good health?
What I agreed to above was “why the concern over breakeven point?” It’s all and only about monthly income when needed most and maximizing that income. That could be an individual, a couple or a survivor.
That income may last a year, ten years or twenty. The accumulated total makes no difference to the person collecting.