3 reasons I'll be taking Social Security long before age 70
A bit of number-crunching and realistic strategizing suggests I'm better off with a little less of this benefit money now, rather than a little more of it later.
Waiting as long as you possibly can to claim Social Security retirement benefits makes superficial sense. Holding off until you max out these benefits at 70 years of age adds roughly 25% more to your payment than you would have received by claiming at your official full retirement age (FRA) of between 66 and 67, maxing out your monthly payment.
Conversely, claiming at the earliest-possible age of 62 will cause your monthly check to be 30% less than your intended payment if you started benefits on reaching your FRA. (Adjust accordingly for filing dates between those two extremes.)
There's a case to be made, however, for claiming Social Security earlier rather than later, despite the adverse impact it will have on the size of your eventual payment. I'm thinking about making that choice myself in the not-too-distant future — and there are three specific reasons.
See if they apply to your situation as well.
1. Payment cuts may be coming sooner than later
The underfunding of Social Security is a tired and over-politicized debate that's likely to be resolved before it's allowed to become an actual problem. But on the off chance that it truly will force across-the-board payment reductions in the foreseeable future, claiming earlier will allow me to collect 100% of whatever age-adjusted amount I'm owed for a longer period of time.
In other words, I'd rather have all of a smaller amount I'm due for longer, rather than risk getting only part of everything I'm owed after waiting. That's a net win for me.
The most recent assessment of the program's health comes from the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, published in early June. It suggests that — without any changes in the meantime — Social Security recipients will see a 19% to 23% reduction in their payments come 2034.
I still won't be eligible for any benefits by then, although I'll be getting close. But if the Committee's projection is off by even just a few years, a reduction will impact me. That's why I'm watching the matter closely, since I could at least get a few years' worth of fully due benefits under my belt before suffering a reduced payment because of the program's solvency problems.
Note that I can afford to think like this because of the other two reasons I'm also considering claiming Social Security well before I turn 70.
2. I can get a better return on the money
The effective return on your money tied up by Social Security is fair — but not great — at roughly 2.5% last year, to round out a 40-year average of around 6%. You can typically expect a return of about 2% above any given year's rate of inflation (although 2023 was a stark exception that exacerbated the program's solvency problems).
That's not to suggest your eventual benefits payments are determined by the returns the Social Security Administration (SSA) achieves on what's currently a $2.7 trillion pool of assets. They're not. While higher interest rates certainly help grow this fund, which exclusively owns government-issued bonds, the bulk of the payments the program is making to retirees right now are funded by the FICA taxes that workers are currently paying into Social Security; its assets are mostly just a buffer to smooth out ebbs and flows in peoples' taxable incomes. Higher interest rates earned by this pool of money simply help keep the program flexible.
Even so, once you turn 62 and become lifetime-eligible for at least some Social Security benefits, your risk-versus-reward math changes. There may not be many additional advantages in waiting all the way to age 70 to file. (That's particularly true if your highest-earning 35 years are in the rearview mirror, rather than ahead of you.)
If you can put this money into the stock market and earn something closer to its average annual gain of about 10%, for instance, you may be better off in the long run even if you just end up converting this accumulated stash into an annuity, for another stream of lifetime income.
Most guaranteed lifetime-income annuities currently offered by private insurance companies are paying between 4% and 6% per year for people starting payments in their 60s, while folks starting to annuitize their nest eggs in their 70s can lock in rates on the order of 8% or more. Not bad.
But if annuities aren't your thing, that's OK. This is one example to compare to Social Security's lifetime income benefits. You can turn cash into reliable income in other ways, like owning quality dividend stocks. You just need the flexibility that the cash can provide, but Social Security doesn't offer.
3. I don't mind payment reductions due to work-based income
Finally, while I'll likely end up starting my Social Security retirement benefits well before I turn 70, I'm also likely to continue working (at least on a part-time basis) well after I initiate benefits.
Anyone who's looked into this already knows the risk here: Earning work-based taxable income after you've already begun receiving benefits could reduce those payments. This year, for anyone who's not yet at their full retirement age, the SSA will impose a $1 reduction in full-year retirement benefits for every $2 above and beyond $23,400 that they earn in taxable income.
Note that these rules change slightly for the year in which you reach your full retirement age. For people reaching their FRA in 2025, the Social Security Administration will deduct $1 in benefits for every $3 earned above $62,160. Both income thresholds are regularly raised.
So the concern is a reasonable one — anyone under their FRA who's earning enough work-based income could easily end up completely negating their Social Security payment. Here's what many people don't realize about this rule: You're not actually losing money. The SSA credits your future benefits accordingly, raising them to reflect the amount of money you didn't end up receiving in the meantime.
Still, why would you bother claiming benefits, knowing your work-based compensation would likely mean you don't end up collecting much — if any — Social Security yet? That's a legitimate argument against the idea, if you're under your FRA and don't want to deal with the headache of ever-changing annual income, or keeping the SSA informed.
If you've already reached your FRA (around age 67), though, you've got the best of both worlds. Not only can you earn as much as you want on the job during this time without undermining your current Social Security payments, but if you're earning enough taxable income, you may even end up bolstering your future monthly benefit.
Just be careful if this is your plan and you're currently under your full retirement age. See, once the SSA recalculates what it owes you each month based on your prior year's income, you're stuck with that payment for a whole year until it's recalculated and adjusted. Also know that the reporting process can be a bit of pain if you're self-employed, especially when your income and work schedule are inconsistent. Contact the SSA for details if that applies to you.
The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY.
The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook
Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income.
One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies.
View the "Social Security secrets" »
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
an hour ago
- Indianapolis Star
Social Security change coming in July: Agency begins taking back 50% of overpayments
Some Americans will start getting smaller Social Security payments in July. Don't worry, it's not because of the impending shortfall – although many might already be fretting about that. However, if the Social Security Administration happened to issue you an overpayment in the past, the agency is now seeking to get it back. An overpayment can happen when a beneficiary fails to update a change in income, for instance, and as a result Social Security overpays them. Or the SSA can incorrectly calculate a person's benefits. Social Security paid out nearly $72 billion in improper payments – most of which were overpayments – during fiscal years 2015-2022, according to an August 2024 report from the Social Security Administration's Office of the Inspector General. Improper payments accounted for less than 1% of the almost $8.6 billion in benefits paid. As of September 2023, the agency had $23 billion in uncollected overpayments, according to the report. Social Security: How long will you wait for Social Security help? Why it's anybody's guess Some beneficiaries who have been overpaid could have their monthly Social Security benefits cut in half beginning in late July. In April, the SSA announced it would begin withholding 50% of benefit payments to overpaid recipients. That's a partial retreat from the SSA's initial announcement in March to withhold all of a recipient's benefit until their overpayment was recouped. Previously, the agency had been withholding only 10% of a recipient's benefits to recover overpayments. The SSA had lowered the recovery rate to that level after negative media coverage in 2023 about the agency's collection process, reporting how some had lost their homes after benefits were cut off to make up an overpayment. "Innocent people can be badly hurt," then-Social Security chief Martin O'Malley said, according to the Detroit Free Press, part of the USA TODAY Network. The SSA tried to reclaim overpayments from about 2 million people in the fiscal year that ended September 2023, according to KFF and Cox Media Group, based on data acquired in a Freedom of Information Act request. Under its new policies, the SSA said it would begin issuing overpayment notices on April 25, 2025 and would start withholding 50% of the recipient's benefits after about 90 days (or approximately July 24, at earliest), until the overpayment is repaid. You can repay the overpayment by credit card, online bill pay or check. For more information on repayment of overpaid benefits, visit the SSA website. You can also request a waiver to not repay the overpayment if you believe it was not your fault or if you cannot afford to repay it (or think it is unfair for some other reason), using a form on the SSA website. Mike Snider is a reporter on USA TODAY's Trending team. You can follow him on Threads, Bluesky, X and email him at mikegsnider & @ & @mikesnider & msnider@
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Congress should look to Tennessee as an example for Medicaid reform
As Congress wrestles with the need to trim spending, attention has turned to Medicaid, and to a lesser extent, Medicare. These are hardly new issues. Within seven years of the 1965 enactment of Medicaid, for those eligible for federal income support (largely those in poverty), and Medicare, primarily for those eligible for Social Security, Congress in 1972 turned its attention to concerns about containing costs in those programs. Tennessee has been a pioneer in managing its Medicaid costs, and Congress might benefit from the Tennessee experience with TennCare, the state's Medicaid program. About 30 years ago, Tennessee faced unsustainable annual increases in its Medicaid program. A popular Democratic governor, Ned McWherter, called the state's Medicaid program the Pac Man of the state's budget. He sought to find a way to pay for the Medicaid increases through a state income tax (Tennessee does not have one) but failed. The TennCare program was designed to address the issue by containing the rate of increase in costs. Tennessee received a waiver so that it could implement a universal and mandatory managed care program. Tennessee had no managed care in Medicaid, and a move to 100 percent managed care was projected to reduce costs by 20-25 percent on a recurring basis. Support from patient advocates was secured by agreeing that cost savings would be used to increase access to Medicaid to previously uncovered persons. The mandatory Medicaid managed care program was deemed such a success that, in 1997, Congress allowed states to implement Medicaid managed care without a waiver. Managed care introduced economic considerations into the process of medical decision-making. While the cost savings projections were pretty much on target; once those savings were fully realized, the projections recognized that the rate of cost escalation would be restored, albeit from a lower cost basis. That projection also turned out to be pretty accurate. A Republican governor, Don Sundquist, succeeded McWherter and unsuccessfully sought to implement an income tax. Another wonderful Democratic governor, Phil Bredesen, was elected to succeed Sundquist under a promise not to seek an income tax. Bredesen was determined to find a way to manage down the rate of increase of Medicaid spending. I served as his outside counsel. A reform team determined that the target for reform should focus on the concept of 'medical necessity.' That insight was informed by work I had done as part of an Institute of Medicine study group, which looked at hospital staffing in a system that had recently merged three hospitals. There were three distinct models, and no consensus about which was the 'right' one. Traditionally, the concept of 'medical necessity' was the term used to define the scope of benefits under health plans, including Medicaid. The concept assumed that there was a single correct way of practicing medicine, and that it had a justification based on scientific consensus. But the existence of clinical uncertainty called into question that traditional view. As it turned out, many alternatives were available at varying costs, and evidence of superiority of one particular approach was often lacking. Those insights led to the policy conclusion that, if a more expensive alternative were proposed, the state should not pay for that more expensive alternative unless there was good scientific evidence that it was superior and worth the additional cost. If an aspirin were adequate, it should be used instead of a more expensive prescription-based alternative. If an adequate outpatient procedure were available at lower cost, TennCare should not pay for a more expensive inpatient option. These insights resulted in a TennCare definition of 'medical necessity' that could serve as a national model at considerable (but hard to measure) cost savings. That definition has been in place for nearly 20 years and has been approved by a federal court. TennCare has kept costs manageable so that the state has been able to live within existing sources of revenue, and the state even proposed to accept financial risk if it could share in the cost savings from TennCare above a projected baseline. The TennCare definition includes the traditional requirement that a medical item or service be recommended by a treating physician (no doctor shopping) and that it be 'safe and effective.' The reasonably anticipated medical benefits must 'outweigh' the reasonably anticipated medical risks 'based on the enrollee's condition and scientifically supported evidence' to be covered under TennCare. That is, a medically based risk-benefit calculation is a requirement as part of medical decision-making. The innovative aspects have three components. First, a medical item or service must be required 'in order to diagnose or treat an enrollee's medical condition.' That circumscribes the type of item or service covered under the program. Second, the medical item or service must be the 'least costly alternative course of diagnosis or treatment.' That expressly incorporates economic factors into medical decision-making. An alternative course of diagnosis or treatment 'may include observation, lifestyle or behavioral changes, or, where appropriate, no treatment at all.' If an item or service can be safely provided in an outpatient setting at lower cost, then that is what TennCare will pay for. More expensive inpatient treatment is not 'medically necessary.' Third, the less costly alternative need only be 'adequate for the medical condition of the enrollee.' The yardstick is not the best possible standard or some comparison with private plans. The standard of 'adequacy' means that sub-standard medicine is not acceptable, but that some differences between benefits for TennCare enrollees and those on private plans are acceptable. These innovations were controversial 20 years ago, when proposed and enacted, but they have become part of the fabric of TennCare and have been in place successfully for two decades. They help shape the medical decision-making culture that costs are to be considered and that the issue is the adequacy of care not what might be available in some private plans. That type of modest stratification, by the way, is expressly endorsed in the Affordable Care Act. Section 1302(b)(5) expressly allows for supplementation by health plans beyond the essential health benefits mandated by the Affordable Care Act. In the discussions that led to these reforms, the estimated range of savings was from 1 percent to 5 percent of total Medicaid spending. In an environment in which a program entails large expenditures, even a 1 percent per year savings could be considerable. James F. Blumstein is University Distinguished Professor at Vanderbilt Law School and the director of Vanderbilt's Health Policy Center.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
Social Security Benefit Cuts Are Coming: Here's the Timeline of How We Got Here and the Latest Forecast of When These Cuts Can Take Place
The latest Board of Trustees Report estimates that the 75-year funding deficit for Social Security has ballooned to more than $25 trillion. Even worse, cash outflows from the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance trust fund, which doles out monthly benefits to retired workers and survivor beneficiaries, are accelerating. More than a half-dozen variables have played a role in Social Security's weakening financial outlook. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook › For many of the nearly 53 million retired workers who receive a monthly Social Security benefit, this income is indispensable. In 2023, the Social Security program pulled 22 million people above the federal poverty line, including 16.3 million adults aged 65 and older. Further, it's helped lower the federal poverty rate for those 65 and older, from an estimated 37.3% without the program to 10.1% with Social Security income (as of 2023), based on an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Despite the foundational role Social Security plays in the financial well-being of retired workers, this program is on anything but stable ground. Let's examine how America's leading retirement program got into this mess and lay out the updated timeline for when benefit cuts are expected to take place. Every year since the first Social Security benefit check was mailed out in 1940, the Social Security Board of Trustees has published a report that intricately details the financial health of the program. This report tracks every dollar collected in income during the previous year and documents where every dollar is spent. But what tends to garner the most attention is the Trustees' long-term forecast, which is defined as the 75 years following the publishing of a report. The Trustees take into account an assortment of fiscal and monetary policy changes, as well as demographic shifts, to estimate how financially sound Social Security will be over the long run. Shortly after the bipartisan Social Security Amendments of 1983 were signed into law, the Trustees Report pointed to long-term trouble. Every report since 1985 has cautioned of a long-term funding shortfall. In simple terms, the estimated income to be collected over the 75 years following the release of a report is projected to be insufficient to cover program outlays, which include benefits (plus annual cost-of-living adjustments, or COLAs) and, to a far lesser extent, the administrative costs to oversee Social Security. The 2025 Social Security Board of Trustees Report was issued less than two weeks ago, and it estimates the long-term unfunded obligation has ballooned to $25.1 trillion through 2099. While this is a daunting figure, it's not the most pressing problem for Social Security or the program's beneficiaries. The glaring issue is the forecast for the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) trust fund, which is responsible for dishing out monthly benefits to retired workers and survivors of deceased workers. In 2020, the OASI's asset reserves expanded by $7.4 billion to $2.812 trillion, which is just shy of its all-time high of $2.82 trillion (set in 2017). Every year since then, the OASI has outlaid more in capital than it's collected in income. The latest Trustees Report points to this outflow accelerating in the coming years, from a documented $103.2 billion outflow in 2024 to an estimated $441.9 billion outflow from the OASI in 2032. By 2033, the OASI's asset reserves are expected to be completely exhausted. The silver lining here is that the OASI isn't required to have a cent in its asset reserves to continue doling out benefits to eligible retired workers and survivors of deceased workers. The 12.4% payroll tax on earned income generates the bulk of income collected by Social Security, which means payments will continue as long as Americans keep working and paying their taxes. In short, there's no danger of bankruptcy or insolvency for current or future generations of retirees. But the 2025 Social Security Board of Trustees Report does indicate that the existing payout schedule, inclusive of COLAs, is unsustainable beyond 2033. If nothing is done to reform Social Security, OASI benefits may need to be cut by 23% in just eight years, which is a steeper reduction than was forecast in the previous Trustees Report. Here's the prevailing question on the minds of current and future beneficiaries: How did Social Security get into this mess? What can be said with concrete certainty is that the notions of Congress "stealing" funds and undocumented migrants receiving traditional Social Security benefits are both completely false and nothing more than internet myths. Every cent of Social Security's trust funds is accounted for and updated monthly online, and both legal and undocumented migrants are a financial benefit to the Social Security program. Rather, Social Security's shaky foundation can be boiled down to seven variables, some of which are more apparent than others: Baby boomers retiring: As baby boomers leave the workforce in greater numbers, there simply aren't enough new workers to replace them. This has led to a steady decline in the worker-to-beneficiary ratio. Increased longevity: When the first Social Security retired-worker benefit was mailed in January 1940, the average life expectancy in this country was about 63 years. In 2023, the average life expectancy stood at 78.4 years, according to mortality data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Social Security wasn't designed to pay benefits to the average retiree for close to two decades. Rising income inequality: In 1983, approximately 90% of all earned income (wages and salaries, but not investment income) was subject to Social Security's 12.4% payroll tax. But as of 2023, only 83% of earned income was applicable to the payroll tax. This shows that wages and salaries for high earners are increasing at a faster pace than the National Average Wage Index, which is what controls the upper bound of the taxable earnings cap associated with the payroll tax. A record-low fertility rate: According to the CDC, the U.S. fertility rate (projected births per woman over their lifetime) hit a record low in 2023. Couples are waiting longer to get married and have children, with some clearly concerned about the economics of bringing a child into the world. If low birth rates persist, it'll further weigh on an already challenged worker-to-beneficiary ratio. A sizable decline in legal net migration into the U.S.: Another culprit has been the sizable drop-off in legal net migration into the U.S. since 1997. Social Security counts on younger workers migrating to the U.S. and contributing via the payroll tax for decades before one day earning a retirement benefit of their own. Fewer legal migrants equate to less payroll tax being collected. Fed monetary policy: The nation's central bank deserves a piece of the blame, as well. A period of historically low interest rates throughout the 2010s sent Treasury bond yields plummeting. Social Security's asset reserves are required by law to be invested in special-issue, interest-bearing, government bonds. When yields plunged, so did Social Security's ability to generate meaningful interest income. Congressional inaction: Lawmakers are to blame for Social Security's woes, but not for the mythical belief that they've stolen funds. Rather, the inability of Republicans and Democrats to find common ground is kicking the can on an important issue, widening the long-term funding deficit, and making an eventual fix even costlier for working Americans. Make no mistake about it, there are solutions from both sides of the political aisle that would strengthen Social Security. But with 60 votes needed in the Senate to amend the Social Security Act, there's no chance of fortifying this all-important social program until lawmakers from both parties find common ground. All the while, benefit cuts are now just an estimated eight years away. If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. Join Stock Advisor to learn more about these Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Social Security Benefit Cuts Are Coming: Here's the Timeline of How We Got Here and the Latest Forecast of When These Cuts Can Take Place was originally published by The Motley Fool
