There was a thread about these a couple of months ago and most comments advocated taking SS at 62 if you were not planning to work after that time, even though the benefits would be reduced.
So I can retire at 62 and still earn another $14K. Geez, add the free healthcare Obama’s gonna give me and I can do pretty well. Now, if he would fill up my tank and pay my mortgage.................
This all assumes your life is in no way dependent on ANY medical care after age 65, because the tests to verify that you’re sick won’t be allowed, so there’s no risk of your receiving ANY expensive medical care to treat the illness.
My better half can’t find work and will be forced to take SS early. We are thankful that we have the option - even a reduced amount will pay the bills, we hope.
I am rapidly approaching age 62 and have contemplated taking my social security at that time. My rational for doing so is that if I delay seeking benefits for another 5 years, I run the considerable risk that social security, now going broke, will devise new ways to keep me working longer or deny benefits such as by means testing. I believe it would be harder for the government to take away a social security check I am already getting than devise new ways to keep me from getting benefits in the first place.
The one piece of information you need to make the right choice is to know how long you are going to live. If you’re going to live to 100, you’re better off waiting to 70 to start collecting benefits.
People unclear on the concept...
Retirement is not the act of receiving social security payments. Retirement is the act of ceasing to work.