|
When Should You Claim Social Security?
Executive Summary
Social Security is one of the few sources of guaranteed, inflation-adjusted income available in retirement, so the decision of when to claim is critical for building a resilient income plan—especially for couples planning for a potentially long retirement. In many households, the benefit that matters most is the one that may later become the survivor benefit, which is why coordinated strategies often differ between partners.
This article explains the key trade-offs (income now vs. higher income later), how portfolio and market risks can affect the ‘bridge’ years, and common myths to avoid, with brief case studies showing why strategies can differ for earnings-gap couples versus near-equal earners.
The article draws from a paper by Brian Allevia, a research analyst at the Social Security Administration, recently published in the Journal of Financial Planning, as well as articles from practitioners Edward McQuarrie, William Bernstein, Derek Tharp, and Michael Kitces.
A Deceptively Simple Question
One of the most common questions we hear from clients approaching retirement is deceptively simple: “When should we start Social Security?”
If you’ve ever tried to answer that question by searching online, you already know the problem: the internet offers confident advice in every direction. “Always claim at 62.” “Always wait until 70.” “Just calculate your break-even age.”
The truth is more nuanced—especially for couples.
Social Security is a unique component of the retirement plan. For most households, it’s the only source of income that is (1) guaranteed for life and (2) inflation-adjusted. That combination makes it a foundational building block for a retirement that could last 25, 30, or even 35+ years.
A more appropriate question to start with may be “how long might retirement last?”
When people debate Social Security claiming, they often frame it as an investment decision: “Will I get my money back if I delay?” But the bigger issue for many retirees is longevity risk—the risk that you live longer than expected and need steady income far into the future.
Delaying Social Security can be valuable because it increases the amount of inflation-adjusted income you cannot outlive, strengthening the “income floor” that supports your lifestyle even if markets disappoint or inflation runs higher than planned.
And this matters even more for couples: while any one person may or may not live into their 90s, the odds that at least one spouse/partner does so are meaningfully higher. That’s one reason delaying can look especially attractive for couples—because the higher benefit may be paid for as long as either spouse is alive (through survivor benefits).
Income Now vs. Higher Check Later (For Life)
You can generally claim Social Security as early as 62 or as late as 70. Claiming early means you receive more checks sooner, but at a permanently reduced monthly amount. Waiting means fewer checks at first, but a higher monthly benefit for life.
Example (illustrative): A retiree might receive roughly $2,100/month at age 62, $3,000/month at full retirement age (around 67), or $3,720/month at age 70.
A quick note on “break-even”: People often ask for the “break-even age”—the point when total dollars received by delaying exceed total dollars received by claiming early. Break-even analysis can be a helpful reference, but it’s incomplete.
The breakeven period depends on inflation and the returns you assume you could earn if you claimed earlier and invested the payments (or avoided withdrawals).
More importantly, break-even analysis often misses the real retirement planning goal: building an income plan that can support you if you live a long life—and for couples, supporting the surviving spouse as well.
Why Couples are Different: Not Two Separate Decisions
For married couples, Social Security is rarely just “two independent choices.” It’s a household decision.
Survivor benefits change everything: When one spouse dies, the surviving spouse generally keeps the higher of the two benefits. That means the higher earner’s claiming decision often determines the survivor’s long-term income.
This is why many studies and planning frameworks often find that for “traditional” couples—where one spouse clearly earned more—the strategy that often makes sense is: higher earner delays (frequently toward age 70) and lower earner claims earlier.
Complexity warning: Couples can face thousands of claiming combinations once you account for worker benefits, spousal benefits, and survivor benefits.
As more couples reach retirement with similar earnings histories, the “standard” strategy can shift—sometimes dramatically—based on age differences and earnings ratios.
Why One-Size-Fits-All Advice Doesn’t Work – Two Case Studies
Case Study #1: A classic earnings-gap couple (where the familiar approach often fits)
John is 66 and Meghan is 64. John has the stronger earnings record and expects about $3,200/month at full retirement age, while Meghan expects about $1,600/month (illustrative).
They asked: “Should we both wait until 70 so we get the biggest checks?”
For John and Meghan, the survivor benefit is the center of the analysis. If John delays, his benefit increases—and if he dies first, Meghan can step up to that higher amount as her survivor benefit. The result is often a meaningful increase in the survivor’s lifetime inflation-adjusted income.
A coordinated strategy that frequently fits this earnings-gap structure is: John (higher earner) delays (often toward or at age 70) and Meghan (lower earner) claims earlier (sometimes at 62 or around full retirement age depending on cash flow and goals).
Case Study #2: Near-equal earners (where the strategy flips relative to earnings)
Jane is 66 and Lucy is 68. They both worked full careers and have very similar benefits, with Jane’s record slightly higher: Jane ≈ $3,050/month at full retirement age and Lucy ≈ $2,950/month.
They assumed: “Jane is the higher earner, so Jane should delay to 70.”
In near-equal earner couples, the survivor-benefit advantage of delaying the “higher” record can be smaller because the two benefits are already close.
In these cases, research suggests timing and age order can matter more—specifically, the advantage of having the spouse who can reach age 70 first be the one who delays, so the household begins a maximized benefit sooner while maintaining survivor protection.
So for Jane and Lucy, a coordinated approach can look like this: Lucy (older, slightly lower earner) delays to 70, while Jane (younger, slightly higher earner) claims earlier (for example, around full retirement age).
That’s the flip relative to earnings: the lower earner delays and the higher earner claims earlier. As more couples retire with similar earnings histories, this nuance becomes increasingly important—and it’s why we avoid blanket rules-of-thumb.
The Portfolio Question: Can You Fund the Bridge Years Safely?
Claiming decisions don’t happen in isolation. They interact with your investment portfolio.
If you delay Social Security, you typically rely more on savings early in retirement, then rely less later because Social Security covers more of your ongoing expenses. That can be a great trade—if the bridge is affordable and well-managed.
Reasons delaying can be attractive: Delaying can increase the inflation-adjusted income floor, reducing the risk of running short later in life—especially if markets disappoint or inflation rises more than expected.
Reasons delaying may be less attractive for some households: Delaying can increase sequence-of-returns risk if markets decline early and you’re forced to take larger withdrawals while waiting.
Bottom line: The decision often comes down to how much guaranteed, inflation-adjusted income you need to feel secure—and whether the bridge years can be funded without undue risk.
Behavioral Realities: the Best Strategy Is Also the One You’ll Follow
There’s also a human element here.
Some retirees are more comfortable spending from a “paycheck” than drawing down investments. In practice, delaying Social Security can sometimes lead to underspending and reduced enjoyment, particularly early in retirement.
At the same time, delaying the right benefit—especially for couples where survivor benefits matter—can be an effective way to protect the household later in life, when flexibility is lower and the consequences of reduced income can be more severe.
Our goal is to find the strategy that balances both: enjoying the early years of retirement and protecting long-term income security.
A Practical Framework for Evaluating Claiming Decisions
When we help clients decide, we typically walk through four questions:
- Which benefit is most important for survivor planning? If one benefit is clearly higher, its claiming age often has outsized impact because it can become the survivor benefit.
- What does longevity look like for your household? We consider family history, health, and the realistic possibility that one spouse lives well into their 90s.
- How will we fund the bridge years, and what is the market risk? We assess the portfolio withdrawal plan and the potential impact of early market declines (sequence risk).
- What strategy will you feel comfortable sticking with? A plan that creates anxiety is less likely to be followed—so preferences and spending comfort matter.
Common Social Security Myths (and What Really Matters)
Over the years, we’ve noticed that many Social Security decisions are driven by rules of thumb that sound reasonable—but don’t always hold up when applied to real households. These myths persist because Social Security rules are complex, and it’s tempting to reduce an important lifetime decision to a simple slogan.
Myth #1: “I should claim as soon as I break even.” Reality: Break-even analysis focuses on total dollars received, but it often ignores longevity, inflation, market volatility, and survivor income needs.
Myth #2: “If I die early, delaying was a mistake.” Reality: This treats Social Security like an investment rather than what it often represents in a plan: longevity insurance.
Myth #3: “For couples, both spouses should always delay.” Reality: In reality, it often does not pay for both spouses to delay.
Myth #4: “The higher earner should always be the one who delays.” Reality: Often true in earnings-gap couples—but not always. In near-equal earner couples, the strategy can flip relative to earnings.
Myth #5: “Delaying is always better than investing the money.” Reality: Portfolios carry risk and inflation is unpredictable. Whether delaying makes sense depends on portfolio size, withdrawal needs, and sequence risk.
Myth #6: “There’s a single right claiming age for everyone.” Reality: Claiming decisions vary by health, longevity, earnings history, household dynamics, portfolio structure, and preferences.
Bringing It All Together
Taken together, these myths point to a simple conclusion: Social Security claiming is not about finding a perfect age—it’s about building a resilient retirement income plan.
For some households, that means delaying at least one benefit to protect against a long life and rising costs. For others, it means coordinating benefits to support early-retirement cash flow without sacrificing long-term security.
At Moore Financial Advisors, our goal is not to push clients toward early or late claiming by default. Our goal is to help you understand the trade-offs, coordinate benefits thoughtfully, and choose a strategy that still works if retirement lasts longer than expected or markets don’t cooperate.
Social Security is one of the few financial decisions that can permanently raise—or lower—the income you can never outlive. When coordinated carefully, it can play a powerful role in supporting both your lifestyle today and your security far into the future.
If you’re approaching this decision, we encourage you to reach out. A well-designed Social Security strategy is one of the most valuable planning opportunities available—and one that deserves careful attention.
Checklist for My Family
Sally Balch Hurme, is an elder law attorney and longtime expert on aging, family caregiving, and end‑of‑life planning. She has spent decades working with families on issues such as long‑term care, estate planning, and decision‑making during medical crises, and she has also served in advisory and educational roles related to aging and public policy.
In Checklist for My Family: A Guide to My History, Financial Plans, and Final Wishes, Hurme delivers a practical, compassionate resource designed to help individuals organize the information their loved ones will need in the event of illness, incapacity, or death.
The book’s strength lies in its checklist format, which walks readers through topics that are often postponed because they feel overwhelming or uncomfortable. Hurme covers far more than just finances.
The guide prompts readers to record personal history, key contacts, legal documents, financial accounts, insurance policies, digital assets, medical preferences, and final wishes.
By breaking these subjects into clear, manageable sections, the book reduces the likelihood that important details are forgotten or left scattered across files, emails, and conversations.
This book is especially useful because it is about preparing families to act with clarity and confidence when it matters most. For spouses, adult children, and other caregivers, having this information in one place can significantly reduce stress, conflict, and uncertainty during already emotional times.
For the person completing the checklist, the process itself often leads to better conversations and more intentional planning. In short, Checklist for My Family is a valuable complement to professional financial and estate planning—helping ensure that a well‑designed plan can actually be carried out smoothly by the people you care about most.
| 
