Social Security breakeven point vs life expectancy - worth waiting until 70?

I spent HOURS researching this exact question last year. The breakeven point is NOT the same as life expectancy. Breakeven is simply the age where delaying benefits starts paying more total $ than filing early. The SSA doesn't actually use mortality tables for determining your benefit amounts! They use actuarial formulas for the early/delayed credits that are supposed to be "actuarially neutral" but those calculations were set up decades ago when lifespans were shorter. Trust me - they DON'T want you to see those calculations because more people would claim early if they understood how the math works against many people.

The breakeven point and life expectancy are related concepts but not directly connected in SSA's calculations. The breakeven point is the age at which the cumulative benefits from delaying exceed what you would have received by claiming earlier. SSA doesn't publish their full actuarial life expectancy tables for benefit calculations, but they use data similar to what's available from the CDC. For planning purposes, the Social Security Administration's Period Life Table is a good resource: https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html Regarding your strategy, consider that: 1. Monthly benefits increase approximately 8% per year from FRA to age 70 2. If you claim at 63, you'll receive reduced benefits (about 25% less than FRA) 3. If you wait until 70, you'll receive approximately 32% more than at FRA The family longevity history you mentioned is certainly a factor to consider. Have you calculated your actual breakeven age between filing now versus at 70?

I filed at 62 and have ZERO regrets!!!! My neighbor waited till 70 and died 6 months later. No one knows when their time is up - get the money while you can enjoy it!

This is actually a complex calculation that depends on multiple factors beyond just mortality statistics. You're right to consider your family history, but also think about: - Your current health status (which sounds decent with just high BP) - Whether you have a spouse who might receive survivor benefits - Your other income sources and tax situation - Inflation expectations The breakeven calculations actually underestimate the value of delaying in many cases because they don't account for the survivor benefit impact. If you're married and are the higher earner, delaying can provide significant protection for your spouse. A strategy many people don't consider is claiming some benefits earlier while letting others grow. For example, if you're married, one spouse might claim early while the other delays until 70. I've helped many clients work through this decision, and there's rarely a single "right" answer, but you should definitely run personalized calculations rather than rely on generic breakeven points.

I needed to call SSA about this exact question last month! I spent DAYS trying to get through on their 800 number. Complete nightmare. Finally I tried this service called Claimyr (claimyr.com) that got me connected to an agent in about 15 minutes. They have a video showing how it works: https://youtu.be/Z-BRbJw3puU The agent confirmed that SSA doesn't publish their full actuarial tables but explained that the delayed retirement credits are set by law, not by current life expectancy data. He said they don't actually use their life expectancy data to determine the early/delayed filing adjustments at all! It was really helpful to speak with someone knowledgeable.

@casual_commenter Yes, it worked great for me. I was skeptical too but was desperate after trying for days. Got connected to an agent who actually knew what they were talking about within about 15 minutes. Way better than waiting on hold for hours or getting disconnected repeatedly like I was before.

To directly answer your question about where the breakeven point and life expectancy intersect: For a person with average life expectancy, the breakeven age would be approximately 80-82 (depending on exact filing ages being compared). The system is designed so that if you live to your exact statistical life expectancy, you'd receive roughly similar lifetime benefits regardless of when you claim. But that's theoretical. In real life, people don't live exactly to their life expectancy - roughly half live longer and half shorter. That's why this decision needs to be personalized. The 2020 Period Life Table (link shared earlier) shows a 63-year-old male can expect to live to about 82-83 on average. But that doesn't account for your specific health factors or family history.

Look the TRUTH is that Social Security is designed to be neutral for the "average" person but NONE of us are average! Their actuaries use outdated mortality tables that don't reflect modern medicine or lifestyle factors. My financial advisor showed me how the system effectively PENALIZES people with lower-than-average life expectancies (like those with family histories of shorter lifespans or certain medical conditions). The REAL question should be: what's the value of that money to YOU now vs. later? If having that money at 63 would significantly improve your quality of life, take it. No one on their deathbed wishes they'd left more money in government coffers!

my friend waited till 70 and got alzheimers at 73 so all that extra money didnt even matter because she couldnt enjoy it. sad but true. life is SHORT grab the money while you can!!!

I think about this all the time. I'm 67 and still haven't filed. Every month I wonder if I'm making a mistake by waiting. Does anyone know if the life expectancy tables account for income and education level? I've read that makes a big difference.

Thank you all for the thoughtful responses! I really appreciate the different perspectives. I hadn't considered the survivor benefit angle at all, which is a major oversight on my part since my wife would likely outlive me based on our family histories. I'm going to take a closer look at that SSA life expectancy table and run some more specific calculations that include the survivor benefit impact. I'm still leaning toward claiming before 70, maybe at my full retirement age of 66 and 6 months, as a middle ground approach. But I feel much better equipped to make this decision now. It's comforting to know others struggle with the same questions!

Connor, you're making a smart move by considering the survivor benefit angle - that's often the biggest factor people overlook in this decision. Since you mentioned your wife is 61 and would likely outlive you, delaying your benefits (even just to FRA instead of claiming now at 63) could significantly increase her lifetime financial security. Here's something else to consider: at 63, you're still 3.5 years away from your FRA of 66 and 6 months. If you claim now, you'd face a roughly 25% permanent reduction in benefits. But if you can bridge the gap until FRA with other income sources, you'd avoid that early filing penalty while not having to wait all the way until 70. Also, don't forget about the earnings test if you're still working - if you claim before FRA and earn more than about $22,320 annually, they'll withhold $1 for every $2 you earn above that limit. That money gets added back to your benefit later, but it's another complication to factor in. The middle ground approach of claiming at FRA sounds reasonable given your family history concerns while still maximizing the survivor benefit for your wife. You might want to use SSA's online calculator to see the exact dollar differences between your options.

As someone who went through this exact decision process two years ago, I want to add another perspective on the life expectancy vs. breakeven calculation. You're absolutely right to question whether the breakeven point relates to SSA's life expectancy data - it doesn't directly, but there's an important connection you should know about. The SSA's actuarial assumptions built into the delayed retirement credit system were designed decades ago when life expectancies were shorter. What this means is that if you have reason to believe you'll live longer than the "average" person from those older tables (better healthcare, higher education, good genes on one side of the family), the 8% annual increase for delaying becomes even more valuable. But here's what really struck me about your situation: you mentioned your wife is younger and would likely outlive you. Have you looked into the "claim and invest" strategy? Some people in your position claim at FRA, then invest the difference between what they would have received versus what they'll eventually get at 70. If you're disciplined about investing that money, you might come out ahead even if you don't live to the traditional breakeven age. One more thought - at 63 with some health concerns, consider getting a more comprehensive health evaluation. Sometimes blood pressure issues can be early indicators of other cardiovascular risks that might influence your longevity projections. Knowledge is power in this decision!