Just today I was reading this...
For example, suppose at full retirement age (which is 67 if you were born in 1960 or later) your Social Security check is $2,000 per month (or $24,000 per year). At age 70, that check would be $2,480 per month ($29,760 per year). By waiting until age 70 to start taking benefits, by the time you reach age 83 you would have been paid a total of $386,880, compared with the $384,000 you would have gotten if you had started at age 67, even though you got income for three extra years. The average life expectancy of a 67-year-old is at least 85, and growing, so any year you live past age 83 is money in your pocket.
Basically, the advice to delay Social Security is correct.
______________________________
Excuse me??? This is only a $2,880 difference. Biig Whoop. I'd rather take and spend the $2000 per month now. While money is still worth something.
The article is full of other inconsistencies also. Yes, there are benefits to waiting. Like if you can afford to. But to always claim it is better to wait is false financial advice.
It’s best to start as early as you can without facing a penalty for it.
My problem is that I plan to keep working after I retire. My income will double when I retire because I get paid more as a contract programmer plus pensions plus Social Security plus 401k withdrawals. So I will have money but my wife will have to spend it for me.
I guess I would lean toward taking the SS FIRST, and then later taking the IRAs and 401(k) monies, or using them to supplement the SS as needed. Let’s say you retire at 65, and plan to start taking IRA money first, and nothing from SS until age 70, so as to increase your monthly benefit slightly.
But the Grim Reaper shows up when you are 69. You have spent down your own funds that might have been passed on to your spouse and/or children, and now you will get ZERO from SS.