Should we both claim Social Security at 62 vs waiting until 70? Worried about survivor benefits if one dies early

You're overlooking a crucial point - the 8% per year increase in benefits by delaying. Yes, if you both claim at 62, you'll get two smaller checks immediately. But if you wait until 70, those checks will be about 76% LARGER for LIFE. People often focus on the "breakeven" point, but that's not the whole story. The real insurance value comes from protecting against longevity risk. If either of you lives into your 90s (increasingly common), those larger checks become extremely valuable. One strategy worth considering: have the lower earner claim early (62-FRA) while the higher earner delays until 70. This gives you some income now while maximizing the survivor benefit later, which will replace the smaller check when one spouse passes.

u should definately just take the money now!!! my cousin waited till 70 and then died at 72... only got checks for 2 years!! all that money GONE that the govt keeps. dont let them keep ur money!!

I've been thinking about this EXACT SAME THING for me and my husband!!!! We're both 61 and have almost the same benefit amounts. Our financial advisor keeps pushing us to wait but I keep thinking WHY???? If one of us dies early, we lose all those years of double checks!!! Did you calculate how many years you'd need to live to make waiting worth it? I tried but got confused with all the different calculators online. Some say wait, some say take early... I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO BELIEVE ANYMORE!

When spouses have similar earnings records, the survivor benefit aspect is less impactful in your claiming decision than for couples with disparate earnings. Here's why: If you both claim at 62, you'll each get about 70% of your FRA amount (~$1,610 each based on your figures). When one spouse passes away, the survivor keeps their own benefit (the higher of the two similar benefits). If you both delay until 70, you'll each get 124% of your FRA amount (~$2,852 each). When one spouse passes, the survivor keeps the higher amount. The key question: Is maximizing total household income during your JOINT lifetime more important than maximizing income for the SURVIVING spouse? A middle-ground approach worth considering: One of you claims at FRA (100%) and the other delays to 70 (124%). This balances some income now against some inflation-protected longevity insurance later.

i filed at 62 and my wife at 63 we both have no regrets... you never know when your time is up so enjoy the money while you can thats what we decided... just my two cents

Consider this important factor: taxation of Social Security benefits. If you're still working part-time, claiming early could subject more of your benefits to taxation. Up to 85% of your benefits can be taxable if your combined income exceeds certain thresholds. Have you factored this into your calculations? Many people overlook how taxation affects the real value of claiming strategies. This could significantly impact the true financial outcome of your decision, especially during years when you have other income sources.

Everyone always talks about waiting or claiming early but nobody mentions how IMPOSSIBLE it is to even get someone on the phone at Social Security to discuss your options!! I tried to call for THREE WEEKS and either got disconnected or was on hold for hours. How are we supposed to make these important decisions when you can't even talk to someone about your specific situation?? The whole system is broken!

One more critical factor to consider: cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs). These are applied to your base benefit amount, so delaying means COLAs will be applied to a larger amount. With inflation concerns rising, this could be significant over a 20-30 year retirement. If we average 2.5% inflation, a benefit that starts at $2,852 (at age 70) would grow to about $4,685 by age 90, while a benefit that starts at $1,610 (at age 62) would only reach about $2,645. For couples with similar earnings, one reasonable approach is to have one spouse claim at FRA (or earlier if needed for cash flow) while the other delays until 70. This provides current income while still securing one higher benefit that will be enhanced by all future COLAs.

My brother in law waited to claim and then got cancer at 69... passed before ever seeing a penny from ss... just saying you never know what tomorrow brings

Another consideration is the future of Social Security itself. While benefit cuts aren't imminent, the trust fund is projected to face challenges in the 2030s. Some financial planners argue this uncertainty provides a slight preference for claiming earlier rather than later, though any actual changes would likely impact future beneficiaries more than current ones. However, it's worth noting that historically, when changes have been made to shore up the system, existing beneficiaries and those close to retirement age have typically been protected. The most prudent approach is to make your decision based on current rules while staying informed about potential legislative developments.

After reading through this discussion, I want to suggest a specific strategy for your situation: Since you're both still working part-time, consider having one of you file at FRA (not 62) and the other delay until 70. This accomplishes several things: 1. Avoids the early filing reduction of 30% at age 62 2. Minimizes the earnings test impact since you'll be at FRA for one benefit 3. Provides some Social Security income during your 60s 4. Still maximizes one benefit for longevity protection 5. Creates a higher survivor benefit for whichever of you outlives the other With nearly identical earnings records, it doesn't matter significantly which one of you delays and which claims at FRA. This approach provides a balanced middle ground between claiming everything early vs. delaying everything.