Social Security filing at 62 vs 67 with FERS pension - is breaking even at 80 worth the wait?

I was in a similar position (retired LEO with FERS) and chose to take SS at 62. I've NEVER regretted it. Yes, I'm leaving theoretical money on the table if I live to 90, but I'm enjoying actual money in my pocket NOW. Don't forget that starting early gives you 5 extra years of SS income that the delayers never get back. My financial advisor actually ran the numbers and showed that if I invested just a portion of my early SS checks, it would nearly eliminate the 'break-even' advantage anyway. The peace of mind knowing I don't need to touch my TSP/IRAs as much has been worth it. You're in an excellent position financially either way, so pick what gives you the most peace of mind. There's no 'wrong' answer with your asset level.

take it at 62! no brainer! bird in hand worth 2 in bush lol. u could die at 75 and then what? all that waiting for nothing

This is actually a perfect scenario for delaying benefits. Here's why: 1) You have more than enough assets to comfortably bridge the gap 2) Family longevity increases the statistical value of waiting 3) Your TSP has excellent growth potential during these bridge years 4) Social Security provides inflation-protected income for life 5) The higher your SS benefit, the more potential survivor benefits if you're married The break-even calculation is often misunderstood. It doesn't account for the insurance value of maximizing lifetime income that can't be outlived. If you live to 90+, the difference between filing at 62 vs. 70 can be hundreds of thousands of dollars. I'd suggest a middle path: Consider withdrawing from your IRA (the conservative one) until FRA, preserving your TSP growth, then start SS at 67. This gives you both some increased benefit and doesn't make you wait until 70.

I'm currently waiting to file for SS (I'm 64) and it is MADDENING trying to get through to anyone at SSA to ask questions about my specific situation. I've been trying for WEEKS to speak with someone about WEP calculations since I also have a pension. The phone lines are always "experiencing higher than normal call volume" and my local office requires appointments which are booked 2+ months out!!! How am I supposed to make an informed decision when I can't even get basic information??? I'm afraid of making a mistake that will cost me thousands, but I'm also afraid of delaying too long just because I can't get answers!!

I took SS at 62 and regret it now that I'm 72. I didnt realize that the COLA increases would be on a smaller base amount. Now my friends who waited get WAY bigger COLA increases every year than me! With inflation these days thats HUGE. Just my 2 cents as someone on the other side who wishes they waited...good luck whatever u choose!!!!

whats ur health like? thats what really matters. papers full of obituaries of ppl who waited to enjoy life

With your asset level ($1.8M combined), this is less about mathematical optimization and more about personal preference and risk management. The financially optimal choice is typically to delay SS as long as possible, especially with family longevity, but there are other factors to consider: 1) RMD implications - Delaying SS means larger withdrawals from tax-deferred accounts now, potentially reducing future RMDs 2) Tax efficiency - Compare your projected tax brackets now vs. when SS and RMDs are both in play 3) Roth conversion opportunities - Taking SS later creates a potential "tax valley" for Roth conversions 4) Long-term care risk - Higher guaranteed SS income provides better protection against late-life care costs For someone in your position, I'd strongly consider a delay to at least FRA (67), using some modest withdrawals from your conservative IRA, allowing your TSP to continue growing, and potentially doing strategic Roth conversions during this period.

If you start SS at 62, that FERS supplement stops immediately, right? Make sure you're factoring that in - you can't double-dip on those. The FERS supplement is designed to bridge until your SS starts, so most FERS folks I know just naturally start SS when the supplement ends.

I was in almost your exact situation (FERS, similar assets) and chose to delay SS. What pushed me toward waiting was analyzing my spending patterns. I realized my spending in my 60s (travel, hobbies, home improvements) would likely be higher than in my 80s when health issues might limit activities. So I'm using more of my TSP/IRA now while I can enjoy it fully, and setting up higher guaranteed SS income for later years when I might need care but have fewer other expenses. Just an alternative way to look at it.

wait the fers supplement is 1400 but ur ss at 62 would be 2k? thats weird, isnt the supplement supposed to estimate ur ss benefit?

I'm so FRUSTRATED with how the SSA makes this decision so complicated!!! Why can't they just tell us the objectively best choice instead of making us guess?? I've spent HOURS on their website calculating different scenarios and still don't feel confident. And trying to factor in taxes makes it even MORE confusing! The whole system needs an overhaul!

Don't overthink this. At your asset level ($1.8M), the SS decision isn't going to make or break your retirement either way. You're in an enviable position where you'll be fine regardless. I tend to favor taking it at 62 because it gives you more flexibility early in retirement when you're most active and can enjoy it. Just my two cents having been on both sides of the decision.