Take Social Security at 62?

the standard formula, without adjusting for inflation, crosses at 76 years old. Meaning that if you took the money at 62 and added it up over the years, it would equal taking the cash at 66 when you reach 76. So then waiting would be better.

But, a different scenario. If you do not need the money, take it at 62 and invest it (8% return) and when you reach 66 take from the invested Social security the difference between the age 66 amount and what the age 62 is paying. Then the SS money doesn't become greater until you are 88, fianlly waiting until 66 pays more. This still works out in the persons favor if started at 63 for a normal take out at 66, just not quite as long.

Now how long are you going to live. Actuarily,
not to 88. But then you did not need it to start with.

Makes a nice contribution mechanism to a Coverdell for the grandchildren.

I've been wondering about this since I'm already 62 and am semi-retired. My only comments to this is several points: One is in your younger life in my 60s I'm want to travel, be active and to a lot of things. This all may cost money and Social Security along with my IRAs and other things would help. When I'm eighty, if I relied more on my SS., I would be able to draw upon my other savings - IRA's, annuities and other things that hopefully compound by not drawing so much on when I'm 62 to 66 or 70. My other point is after experiencing both of my parents never reaching retirement age (I'm in good health) why wouldn't I want to draw on SS. sooner rather than later? Another point - Congress and the President will sooner or later start tampering with these numbers. If I wait until I'm 66 or 70 will that "retirement age for baby boomers" be suddenly moved up to 70 or more years?

Of course this argument goes to hell when recently I was given a dream project and will make a substantial amount of money. You don't want to be on SS. and making lots of money? So I have plenty of cash now and the question will come up when I'm 63 or 64.