Do you know anybody that only gets 400.00 a month on Social Security?

It’s important that everyone understand there is no such thing as a best time to take ss for all .

in fact the reality is those that retire at 62 and want to delay or need to delay , may not even be able to safely delay if they need to use their own assets to live on .

so those that need the money the most are the same ones who may be putting themselves in danger by depleting to much of their own nest egg trying to delay .

a big factor can be spousal benefits when delaying , as a spouse may get thousands of dollars in a spousal benefit. ..yet they can’t get any of that until the higher earner files .

so the longer they delay the more they give up while delaying , and the harder it is to get a head .

also , when you are collecting , what you pay for Medicare is capped by the amount of the cola adjustment under the hold harmless provision .

they can’t raise you more than the cola .

if you delay you are uncapped And unprotected….while I was delaying and my wife was collecting I paid more for Medicare when I started on it.

there can be Medicare surcharges triggered by delaying with the bigger check and rmds .

there can be tax ramifications as well delaying .

so there is no way what is good for one person may be the same for all.

I would seriously have to question using an advisor who throws out canned advice as being good for all as to when to take ss
 

Last edited:
My advisor said to absolutely file before age 70. After 70, you actually start losing benefits, not only because of longevity but also, if you file at 70, SS pays you for less than 100 months, but at, say 67, it pays for almost 200 months, and the ultimate total is higher.

I'm not sure I remember all that right, but I remember he said the worst age to file is 62, and everyone should file by age 67.

what i take issue with is that last line where he said the worst age to file is 62 and everyone should file by 67 ..

That is just poor advice as a statement for all.

I can list loads of reasons why that isn’t good advice starting with what I said above and we haven’t even discussed survivor benefits and planning
 

what i take issue with is that last line where he said the worst age to file is 62 and everyone should file by 67 ..

That is just poor advice as a statement for all.

I can list loads of reasons why that isn’t good advice starting with what I said above and we haven’t even discussed survivor benefits and planning
He was talking to me. In my circumstance, it was excellent advice, and I shared it here assuming most people who saw it would look into it before deciding when's the best time for them. There are better and worse times depending on your circumstances.
 
Realize though that is not what was conveyed in your post …

that last line doesn’t sound like it’s advice to you ….it reads like you passing on advice he said which is as a blanket statement and no one other then you should assume that advice is meant for them to listen to.

after all you did say he said everyone should file by 67 ….as well as he said 62 is the worst age

which spurred my comments on that .
 
Realize though that is not what was conveyed in your post …

that last line doesn’t sound like it’s advice to you ….it reads like you passing on advice he said which is as a blanket statement and no one other then you should assume that advice is meant for them to listen to.

after all you did say he said everyone should file by 67 ….as well as he said 62 is the worst age .
I don't know why you insist

From beginning to end my post conveys what my adisor said....to me, obviously. It's unfortunate, I guess, that you somehow interpreted it differently, so, my apologies for whatever caused that to happen.
 
For heaven's sake, y'all. Stop beating a dead horse! We get it; there are only so many ways to say the same thing.
 


Back
Top