I Don't Need Social Security. Should I Skip Benefits and Save Them for People Who Do?

An attractive older woman smiles at the camera. She is wearing glasses and has graying, long hair.

(Image credit: Getty Images)

published 12 June 2025

As of May 2025, more than 54 million Americans aged 65 and older were receiving Social Security. And for retirees without much savings, those monthly benefits can be a true financial lifeline.

But what if you’re a retiree with plenty of savings — more than enough money to support the lifestyle you want without Social Security?

At that point, you have choices. You could delay your Social Security claim beyond full retirement age for boosted monthly checks — an option you might as well take advantage of in the absence of needing the money sooner. Or, you may be thinking of saying no to Social Security completely.

From just $107.88 $24.99 for Kiplinger Personal Finance

Be a smarter, better informed investor.

CLICK FOR FREE ISSUE

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/hwgJ7osrMtUWhk5koeVme7.png

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.

At a time when Social Security’s finances are on shaky footing and benefit cuts are a possibility in the future, you might think forgoing benefits is a helpful thing to do. That way, you can save the money for retirees who truly need it to get by. But while that’s a generous idea in theory, it may not be so effective in practice.

Being eligible for Social Security does not compel you to take benefits. In fact, age 70 is generally considered the latest age at which it makes sense to file for benefits, as it’s when the program’s delayed retirement credits stop accruing.

But people who don’t claim Social Security by 70 aren’t signed up automatically. And if you opt not to take your benefits because you don’t need the money, no one is going to force you to file.

That doesn’t mean you’ll be helping others, though.

"There's a more reliable way to do good," says Ken Robinson, JD, CFP®, and principal and wealth adviser at Sax Wealth Advisors. "Skipping your own Social Security benefit so there's more for others is a generous idea, but whether or not it works is at the whim of Congress, who can change Social Security and take away any benefit you would have provided."

A more effective approach, Robinson insists, is to use your Social Security benefits to provide an ongoing gift to charity.

"You can target whatever need is most important to you,” he says. “Instead of your benefit making an immeasurably small difference to Social Security, every dollar you give to, say, your local food bank can create three meals for people facing food insecurity."

Taking a stand

You may feel that claiming Social Security is unethical when that money won’t make a material difference in your life. But Andrew Constantinides, CFP and investment adviser and RSU (restricted stock units) strategist at Neil Jesani Wealth Management, LLC, says that line of thinking is a bit skewed.

"When a high-net-worth retiree asks whether they should forgo Social Security benefits out of principle or to leave more for those who need it, it’s worth stepping back and considering what Social Security actually is and what it isn’t,” he explains.

“Social Security is not a needs-based welfare program. It is a legislated entitlement based on lifetime contributions. To decline benefits as a symbolic gesture misunderstands the system's structure.”

Constantinides also insists that forgoing Social Security benefits doesn’t redistribute wealth. Rather, he says, “It just reduces your own lifetime return on a mandatory contribution.”

Furthermore, Constantinides thinks retirees looking to skip Social Security should consider the positive impact it might have on their finances, even when money isn’t a concern.

“From a portfolio construction perspective, I view Social Security as a baseline, inflation-protected income stream that carries zero correlation to market assets,” he says. “That makes it valuable, even to those who don't strictly need the cash flow.”

Constantinides says that some of his wealthy clients choose to delay their Social Security claims for various reasons, such as to optimize spousal benefits. And he doesn’t see a problem with that. Rather, he thinks choosing not to file for Social Security at all out of moral discomfort is a decision to approach carefully.

“It’s one thing to redirect the income toward philanthropy or family legacy planning,” he says. “It’s another to let it vanish into the system unused.”

It’s a nice thing to be concerned about the welfare of others, and to be thinking of giving up Social Security to save that money for people who need it more than you do. But forgoing your benefits won’t save the program from broad cuts, nor will it make the same type of impact as donating to a charity that’s meaningful to you.

As Constantinides says, "Declining Social Security to save the system is like refusing dessert at a buffet because you’re worried they’ll run out. The buffet isn’t built that way, and neither is the program."

Maurie Backman is a freelance contributor to Kiplinger. She has over a decade of experience writing about financial topics, including retirement, investing, Social Security, and real estate. She has written for USA Today, U.S. News & World Report, and Bankrate. She studied creative writing and finance at Binghamton University and merged the two disciplines to help empower consumers to make smart financial planning decisions.