Getting Your Financial Ducks In A Row Rotating Header Image

3 Myths About Social Security Filing Age

This article takes a long hard look at these three “facts” about Social Security filing age and shows the real math behind them. All three are only true to a point – and as you’re planning your Social Security filing age, you should understand the real truth behind these three items.

First, let’s look at the concept of delay.

You Should Always Delay Your Social Security Filing Age to 70

This one is the easiest to understand why it’s wrong – but the component of truth in it can be important because it could work in your favor to delay. Of course an absolute like this is going to be proven incorrect in some circumstances.

If you happen to be able to delay your Social Security filing age and you live a long time after age 70, over your lifetime you will receive more from Social Security than if you file early. However, if you need the cash flow earlier due to lack of other sources of income, filing early may be your only choice.

Filing earlier can provide income earlier, but depending on your circumstances you may be short-changing your family by filing early. When you file early, you are permanently reducing the amount of benefit that can be paid based on your earnings record. Your surviving spouse’s benefits will be tied to the amount that you receive when you file, and so if you delay to maximize your own benefit and your spouse survives you, you’re also maximizing the benefit available to him or her. This is to assume that your surviving spouse’s own benefit is something less than your benefit.

John has a benefit of$1,500 available to him if he files at age 66, his Full Retirement Age (FRA). His wife Sadie has a benefit of $500 available at her FRA. If John files at his age 62, his benefit is reduced permanently to $1,125 per month. When John dies, assuming Sadie is at least at FRA, Sadie’s benefit will be stepped up to $1,237 (the minimum survivor benefit is 82.5% of the decedent’s FRA benefit amount).

On the other hand, if John delayed his benefit to age 68, he would receive $1,740 per month since he has accrued delay credits of 16%. Upon John’s death, Sadie will receive $1,740 in survivor benefits. By delaying his benefit 6 years, John has improved his surviving spouse’s lot in life by over $500 per month. Of course this has required him to come up with the funds to get by in life in the meantime, and so if he has the funds available this makes a lot of sense. If he doesn’t have other funds available, one thing that can help matters out is if Sadie files for her own benefit at age 62 – this will provide them with $375 per month while John delays his benefits.

The key here is that it’s often wise for the member of a couple that has the larger benefit to delay benefits for the longest period of time that they can afford, in order to increase the survivor benefit available to the surviving spouse. But it’s also often necessary for household cash flow to file earlier. As we’ll see a bit later, only the question of surviving benefits makes this delay a truism. Otherwise, it could be more beneficial to file earlier.

Increase Your Benefits by 8% Every Year You Delay Filing

This one again comes from a truth: for every year after FRA that you delay your Social Security filing age, you will add 8% to your benefit. But the year-over-year benefit differences are not always 8%, and often the difference is much less.

It is true that if you compare the benefit you’d receive at age 66 to the benefit you’d receive at age 67, it will have increased by 8%. However, if you compare your age 67 benefit to your age 68 benefit, it will have increased by 7.41%. This age 68 benefit is 16% more than the age 66 benefit, but only 7.41% more than the age 67 benefit.

The table below shows the differences across the spectrum of filing ages when your FRA is age 66:

Filing Age Difference
62
63 6.67%
64 8.33%
65 7.69%
66 7.14%
67 8.00%
68 7.41%
69 6.90%
70 6.45%

And this table shows what the differences are year-over-year if your FRA is age 67:

Filing Age Difference
62
63 7.14%
64 6.67%
65 8.33%
66 7.69%
67 7.14%
68 8.00%
69 7.41%
70 6.90%

So as you can see, only from one specific year, your FRA, to the following year, is the increase 8%. Otherwise, with only the exception of one filing age (the difference between 3 years before FRA and 2 years before), the year-over-year increase is less than 8%, and sometimes it’s less than 7%.

The Break Even Point is 80 Years of Age

I’ve often quoted this as a fact – rarely pinning it down to a specific year, but giving the range of around 80 years old. It’s not that simple though when you consider all of the different ages that an individual can file.

For example, when deciding between a Social Security filing age of 62 versus filing at age 63, your break even point occurs at age 77 (when your FRA is age 66).  But when deciding between age 63 and age 64 (with FRA at 66), the break even occurs at age 78.

On the other end of the spectrum, when choosing between filing at age 69 versus filing at age 70 (FRA of 66), the break even occurs at age 84 – considerably later than age 80. The break even for the decision to file at age 68 versus age 69 occurs at age 82.

The two tables below illustrate the ages at which the break even occurs between the various filing ages. This first table is when your FRA is 66:

Filing Age Break Even
62
63 77
64 78
65 76
66 79
67 80
68 80
69 82
70 84

And this table shows what the differences are year-over-year if your FRA is age 67:

Filing Age Break Even
62
63 77
64 75
65 78
66 79
67 79
68 81
69 83
70 85

So the year-over-year break even point ranges, depending on which Social Security filing age you’re considering. If the two options are earlier (before FRA) the break even point occurs before age 80. If at or around FRA, then the break even occurs right around age 80. But if the Social Security filing age you’re considering is near age 70, count on the break even being much later, as late as age 85.

5 Comments

  1. James C.No Gravatar says:

    Jim – The breakeven chart shows some new info to me. For a FRA of 66, is it saying that the BE age for delaying until 70 is age 86? That’s quite a difference from age 80 that I was planning on.

    1. jblankenshipNo Gravatar says:

      No, James, the table I produced for the article above only shows the year-over-year break even points. So the figure next to age 70 is the break even point between filing at age 69 versus waiting to age 70. The break even point between age 66 and 70 is likely still around 80 (I haven’t run those numbers recently but that’s what I recall).

      1. James C.No Gravatar says:

        I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but let’s say I deferred at 66 and planned on taking it at age 70, which gives a BE of roughly age 80. At age 69, I decide momentarily that I want to start my benefit, then I decide not to after all.. How can that decision now bump the BE to age 86? I must be missing something.

        1. jblankenshipNo Gravatar says:

          For the record, no horses, alive or dead, were harmed in the writing of these comments.

          You’re still looking at the differential between starting at age 66 versus age 70.

          My table in the article is explicitly showing the break even point between the choice to start benefits from one year to the next. In your example this is looking at the choice between age 69 or age 70. If you started benefits at age 69, receiving an amount equal to 124% of your PIA and compared that to starting at age 70 with 132% of your PIA, until you reach age 86 the choice of starting at age 69 is superior to the choice of starting at age 70. During your 86th year (16 years after starting benefits at age 70), the age 70 option is superior.

  2. timo2bNo Gravatar says:

    For me, the only consideration is leaving the largest amount SS benefit possible for my spouse. All my retirement planning works backwards from that. So I had to plan for a interim source of income, and also work a year longer.

Get involved!

%d bloggers like this: