Should I take Social Security at 62 or wait until FRA at 67? Family longevity making me question early claiming

take it now!!! ive been collecing since 62 (im 68 now) and ZERO regrets. all that talk about SS going broke is why i took mine early. who knows what congress will do to our benefits? they keep threatening to cut them. that money is YOURS, you earned it, take it before they change the rules!!

I'd suggest carefully calculating your break-even point. With your family history of longevity, waiting could significantly increase your lifetime benefits. The break-even age between claiming at 62 vs. FRA is typically around 78-80. If you live into your 90s like your parents, you could receive tens of thousands more by waiting. While there are concerns about Social Security's future, the system is not going to disappear. The 2025 Trustees Report indicates that even if no changes are made, the system can still pay about 80% of promised benefits after the trust fund depletion (currently projected for 2034). Considering your parents' longevity and assuming you're in good health, mathematically waiting makes sense. But finances aren't the only consideration - your current needs, other income sources, and personal preferences matter too.

UGH this decision is SO FRUSTRATING!! I'm 64 and still haven't decided what to do. Every time I think I'm ready to file, I chicken out. SSA makes this UNNECESSARILY COMPLICATED and their website is useless for personalized advice. I've called them SIX TIMES and either get disconnected or wait forever just to speak to someone who gives generic answers. I tried getting an appointment at my local office but they're booked out for MONTHS. Why even have offices if no one can get in?? The whole system is BROKEN. OP, at least you're thinking about this early. Whatever you decide, just don't expect ANY HELP from SSA in making your decision. They're completely useless!!

I took mine at 62 (I'm 81 now) and honestly, I do sometimes wish I'd waited. My monthly check is $725 less than what my sister gets, and she's only 3 years younger but waited until 70 to claim. That difference adds up month after month, year after year. With your parents both in their 90s and doing well, genetics are on your side. The extra money would be especially helpful if you end up needing long-term care or have other health expenses that Medicare doesn't fully cover. One thing to consider: the "Social Security is going broke" argument has been around for decades, yet Congress has always made adjustments to keep it going. The system needs reforms, but it's unlikely to just disappear - too many voters depend on it.

To answer your follow-up question - I definitely regret it now. Those first few years of smaller checks seemed fine at the time, but as inflation has increased costs over the last 19 years, that extra $725 monthly would make a huge difference in my budget now. Medical costs especially have gone up so much more than I expected. And honestly, the "peace of mind" argument didn't really pan out either. I still worried about money, just different aspects of it. Instead of worrying about SS "not being there," I worried (and still worry) about having enough each month to cover my expenses.

My granpa told me b4 he died that his biggest mistake was taking SS early. He lived to 97 and always said if he knew hed live that long he would have waited. But nobody has a crystal ball right? I think its just a gamble either way.

Financial advisor here. The decision should be based on four key factors: 1. Longevity expectation (which seems high in your case) 2. Current income needs 3. Other retirement assets 4. Spousal benefits considerations If you're still working or have other retirement assets to draw from, waiting makes financial sense. While Social Security does face funding challenges, it's extremely unlikely that benefits for those nearing retirement age will be significantly reduced. Most reform proposals protect those who are close to or in retirement. Given your family history, if you're in good health, waiting to at least FRA (67) or even 70 would maximize your lifetime benefits. The 8% per year increase between FRA and 70 is essentially a guaranteed return that's hard to beat elsewhere. One compromise: If you're worried about the "bird in hand" aspect, you could start at FRA rather than waiting until 70. This gives you 100% of your benefit rather than the reduced 70% at age 62.

why not split the difference?? wait until like 65 instead of taking it at 62 or waiting all the way to 67? that way you get a bigger check than at 62 but dont have to wait as long as FRA. thats what my neighbor did and she said it was a good compromise for her!

Just be prepared for SSA to MESS UP your application regardless of when you file! I claimed at FRA and they STILL calculated my benefit wrong. Took me 8 MONTHS to get it fixed!!! Had to send the same paperwork THREE TIMES because they kept "losing" it. Their incompetence is ASTOUNDING!

One important factor many people overlook is the impact on survivor benefits. If you're married, the higher of the two spouse's benefits becomes the survivor benefit when one passes away. If you expect your benefit to be higher than your spouse's, waiting to claim increases not just your retirement benefit but potentially your spouse's survivor benefit as well. This creates an additional incentive to delay, especially with family longevity on your side. The survivor benefit protection is essentially free "insurance" that comes with delaying your claim. If you're concerned about Social Security's future, remember that any legislative changes would almost certainly be phased in gradually and likely wouldn't affect those already near retirement age. Current retirees and those close to retirement are typically protected in reform proposals.

i think your overthinking this. SS was never meant to be your only retirement income anyway. do you have a 401k or pension? if you got other money coming in just take SS now and enjoy it! none of us know how much time we got left.