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. Plus, if you don’t happen to live past the magic 80-82 age, you’ll do better off by filing early.
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 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 filing 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 to file earlier due to household cash flow shortages. 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 accrue 8% in delay credits. 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 year-to-year increases across the spectrum of filing ages when your FRA is age 66:
And this table shows what the year-over-year increases are if your FRA is age 67:
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 – 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 only illustrates the breakeven between in one year versus filing in the following year. In addition, this only considers one individual, not a married couple, as the variables become far too complex for this short article.
This first table is when your FRA is 66:
|Filing Age||Break Even|
And this table shows what the differences are year-over-year if your FRA is age 67:
|Filing Age||Break Even|
So the year-over-year break even point varies, 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.