No. of Recommendations: 7
Sounds like you are saying that for pretty much anyone, taking social security at age 70 instead of at age 65-67 will give them an overall increase in spending money in retirement.
Hmmm. As I mentioned up thread, somewhere around age 79-80 is breakeven for everyone. If you die before 80 you would have received more of your SS by starting early. If you plan on living past 80, then waiting will get you more, but the difference is pretty small until you get to, say, age 95. For instance, even at age 85 you will have gotten essentially ~$1250 more per year by waiting until 70 vs starting at 65.
Even these numbers presume a certain income during your employment years. If you've been working at a minimum wage job your entire life (as unlikely as that seems) the difference is even smaller. So I am not denying that if you fit all the assumptions outlined in the paper, the most important of which is living to 100, then you'll have made the right choice by waiting until 70. But it is not cut and dried. Taking into account family history, lifestyle choices, current medical conditions, all have a bearing on the decision. Simply asserting that "the math" leads to one conclusion is misreading the results of the paper.
Lastly, rich folks die before age 80. Being affluent doesn't guarantee living longer. It certainly helps, but as rayvt pointed out up thread, lots of famous (and much richer than I am) folks have died this year before reaching 80.
Rgds,
HH/Sean
