The recent GOP talk about trying to raise the age for full benefits and some other stuff has gotten me to thinking about this. I have always planned on deferring until 67 and possibly even 70 to get the most. For some reason SS locked me out of my account and while I wait for them to send me a new code, by US mail!, they gave me some estimates. At 62 I'd get just over 20K a year in benefits, at 67 it's 28K. It's always seemed like a no brainer to me to wait the 5 years and get 25% more per year but I'm now starting to think that might not make sense? The idea is if you take it at 62, by the time you reach 67 in this scenario you have received just over 100K in benefits. you can always bank and invest some of that if you don't need it all, or you can use that as your primary income use your IRA's and savings as secondary. The extra 8k a year means it takes about 12 years at the higher rate to break even waiting for 67 over 62, which means you are 79 years old when you finally pass the point where 67 really means more money over the long haul. The whole reason the SS experts advise you to wait of course is they want more money in the Social Security "pool." If everyone starts taking out at 62 they pay in less, if they work another 5 years they pay in another 5 years of FICA. That is they tell you we don't want you to miss out on that extra 25% per month but what it really is, is they want your extra 5 years of FICA to beef up the pool to pay the current people on SS. I'm not trying to be greedy here but I'm also not yet at an age(52) where it seems practical to me to be making life decisions on things that will happen after I'm 79 years old. I don't have kids so maybe that's part of it, but it just seems to me like maybe it makes more sense to file at 62, have 5 years when i'm "younger" where I have that extra 20K a year(before tax) to help me enjoy living? the other idea would be to wait until 65 and file then because my girlfriend would be 62 then so we'd both start at the same time, but then I "lose" about 60K in benefits those 3 years I'm not claiming. Just curious what others think, apparently lots of people do file at 62 and I've always assumed that was a mistake or people who planned poorly but now I'm wondering if they just did the same math I'm doing and came to the conclusion they'd rather have the 100K?