What's the Best Age to Take Social Security? 3 Questions Advisers Should Ask
The Social Security decision isn't all about math — it should also reflect how clients want to spend, withdraw from wealth and experience retirement. These three questions can help advisers provide the right recommendation.
When people ask when to claim Social Security, the conversation usually starts with math. Claiming at 62 locks in a permanently smaller check, while waiting to 70 increases monthly benefits and builds a larger inflation-adjusted income stream for life.
Most advisers and do-it-yourself retirees translate that trade-off into one practical question: How long do I need to live for delaying to pay off?
Depending on the assumptions used, break-even points often land around age 80 when you compare a claim at 70 versus full retirement age, and in the early 80s when you compare 70 versus 62.
From just $107.88 $24.99 for Kiplinger Personal Finance
Become a smarter, better informed investor. Subscribe from just $107.88 $24.99, plus get up to 4 Special Issues
Sign up for Kiplinger’s Free Newsletters
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice on investing, taxes, retirement, personal finance and more - straight to your e-mail.
Profit and prosper with the best of expert advice - straight to your e-mail.
Broad longevity data makes those ages plausible. The Social Security Administration's 2022 period life table shows a 70-year-old man has a remaining life expectancy of about 14.1 years and a 70-year-old woman about 16.3 years, putting the averages in the mid-80s.
Even with that context, many people still claim early, and the explanation for doing so usually sits outside the spreadsheet.
Recent research helps shed light on the issue by framing claiming as a decision shaped by client preferences around spending and security — not just a calculation designed to maximize lifetime dollars.
A strategy can look "suboptimal" on paper and still fit the way a household experiences retirement, particularly when comfort and follow-through matter as much as the break-even point.
A framework built around real preferences
In a recent paper, Revisiting the Social Security Claiming Puzzle: Behavioral Preferences as Rational Explanations for Early Claiming, Derek Tharp, PhD, from the University of Southern Maine, analyzes Social Security claiming using a utility-based framework that builds in three behavioral preferences that show up in retirement decisions.
The framework incorporates front-loaded consumption, meaning some retirees place more value on spending in the early, active years of retirement.
It also incorporates source-dependent utility, where people feel more comfortable spending from a steady income stream than selling investments.
A third factor is claim-retire linkage, where retirees prefer to claim when they retire instead of managing a separate bridge period.
When those preferences are included, the model can point to earlier claiming ages for some households, including those with substantial assets, because the "optimal" strategy shifts once the inputs reflect how people actually prefer to spend and draw from wealth.
This framing is useful for advisers because Social Security sits in a unique category. It is one of the few retirement decisions that can create a guaranteed, inflation-adjusted income stream for life, and the client's comfort with the plan often determines whether they will carry it out through the bridge years and into later retirement.
Start with the math, then test the assumptions that drive behavior
A break-even analysis remains a good entry point for claiming decisions because it clarifies the trade-off in plain terms.
However, it usually needs a second layer that tests whether the assumptions behind the "optimal" strategy match the client's real preferences.
Discounting is one of those assumptions. A dollar at age 62 can have more value to a household than a dollar at 70 because it supports flexibility, reduces near-term stress, or preserves a sense of control. Therefore, two households can look at the same breakeven chart and reach different conclusions for valid reasons.
The decision set also deserves more realism than the typical "62 versus 70" framing allows. Many people claim at full retirement age. But some claim early because their work ends earlier than planned. Others delay because they continue working, do not need the income yet, or want stronger survivor protection.
The conversation tends to get clearer when the plan is built around the client's most likely path, rather than forcing the client into a simplified comparison that never really fits.
Three questions that help surface the right claiming age
A short set of preference checks can reveal whether delaying benefits is likely to feel sustainable or whether it is likely to create friction that undermines the plan.
1. Do you expect spending to be higher early in retirement?
Spending is rarely flat across retirement. Many households spend more in the first phase when health and energy support travel and activity, then slow down and may spend more again later if health care needs increase.
When a client strongly values the early years, earlier claiming can support that spending pattern by reducing the need to treat the first decade of retirement as a holding period.
One prompt that tends to work well in meetings is: "Do you want your plan to support more experiences in the first phase of retirement, or do you want to emphasize higher guaranteed income later?"
The answer changes the structure of the recommendation and sets expectations around what the client is trading.
2. How do you feel about spending principal?
Many retirees treat "income" and "principal" differently even when the dollars are interchangeable. They might spend a Social Security check, dividends or interest with little hesitation, while feeling real discomfort about selling shares or watching an account balance decline. That discomfort can shape behavior in meaningful ways.
A delay-to-70 plan often assumes steady portfolio draws during the bridge years, but a client who dislikes selling may respond by underspending during that period even if they can afford to spend.
In that situation, the plan may deliver a larger check later at the cost of a smaller life earlier, and that may not be the trade-off the client intended to make.
Two precise questions that can surface this quickly are: "When you think about selling investments to fund retirement, does it feel routine or does it feel like giving something up?" and "Would a larger Social Security check later increase your willingness to spend today, or would you still prefer to keep spending tight?"
3. Do you mentally connect retirement and claiming as one milestone?
Many people view claiming as the start of retirement even if they retire earlier. They want a single starting line and a simple rhythm to the plan. Tharp treats this claim-retire linkage as a real preference, not a planning error.
This preference affects follow-through. A recommendation built around retiring at 62 and delaying benefits until 70 can create ongoing discomfort if the client experiences the wait as unfinished retirement, which can turn the bridge years into a long exercise in restraint.
A straightforward test question often clarifies the issue: "If you retire at 62, would waiting several years to claim feel fine, or would it feel like retirement has not fully started until benefits begin?"
A strong Social Security recommendation usually combines the break-even math with a clear read on the client's preferences around early-retirement spending, portfolio drawdowns and simplicity.
When the strategy fits how the household actually behaves, clients are more likely to stick with it.
Ideally, Social Security can then support a steadier spending rhythm and a retirement plan that feels workable over decades.
The information contained herein is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial, legal or tax advice. Circumstances may change over time so it may be appropriate to evaluate strategy with the assistance of a financial professional. Federal and state laws and regulations are complex and subject to change. Laws of a particular state or laws that may be applicable to a particular situation may have an impact on the applicability, accuracy, or completeness of the information provided. Janus Henderson does not have information related to and does not review or verify particular financial or tax situations, and is not liable for use of, or any position taken in reliance on, such information.
Related Content
- I'm a Financial Adviser: This Is the $300,000 Social Security Decision Many People Get Wrong
- Retiring in the Next 12 Months? Answer These 3 Questions Before Your Paycheck Stops
- How to Plan for Retirement's Go-Go, Slow-Go and No-Go Years
- Three Financial Planning Strategies for When Markets Fall
- What's Up With the 10-Year Treasury Bond: Four Financial Experts Weigh In
