What is the age 75 rule for annuities (and why does it matter)?
Annuities can play a key role in retirement planning by offering guaranteed payments that supplement Social Security benefits and other income sources. But deciding when to buy an annuity — and how (or whether) it fits into your overall plan — isn't always a straightforward process. Part of the issue is that there's a lot of advice circulating about retirement preparation, and that includes the so-called "age 75 rule," which offers guidance on when to purchase an annuity to maximize payouts.
But what exactly is this rule, and is it grounded in financial wisdom, or is it just another retirement planning myth? Here's what the age of 75 rule really means — and what you should know about it.
.
What is the age 75 rule for annuities?
The "age 75 rule" isn't a formal regulation or even a financial industry standard. Rather, it's a commonly shared belief that annuity buyers should wait until age 75 to purchase, since payouts are typically higher at that age. Here's why people think this way:
Annuity payouts are tied to life expectancy. Insurance companies calculate how much income you'll receive based on your age and projected lifespan. Someone buying an annuity at 75 is likely to receive larger monthly payments than someone who buys at 65, simply because the insurer expects to make payments over a shorter period.
Bigger payments seem more appealing. On paper, waiting until you're older to buy an annuity can seem like the smarter move. After all, why would you not want to lock in those higher numbers later?
But while there's truth in the idea that annuity payouts increase with age, that's not the full picture.
Find out how high your monthly annuity payments could be today.
Why waiting until 75 might not be the best move
The "age 75 rule" oversimplifies how annuities work and doesn't account for other important factors in retirement planning. Here's what to keep in mind before adhering to this rule:
You may need income earlier.
Many retirees use annuities as a way to secure predictable income to cover essential expenses like housing, healthcare and groceries. If you wait until 75 to buy one, you might spend years drawing down other assets, which could expose you to market risk or force you to sell investments during downturns. Buying earlier, on the other hand, could provide peace of mind and protect against outliving your savings.
Longevity risk matters.
While a 75-year-old gets higher monthly payments from an annuity, they also have fewer years left to collect those payments. If you purchase earlier, you lock in guaranteed income for life, no matter how long you live. That can be especially valuable if you end up living well into your 90s or beyond.
Your health and insurability could change.
Waiting too long could also mean missing your window to buy certain types of annuities. While some annuities don't require medical underwriting, others do. So, buying one after you have a significant health issue in your 70s could limit your options or make certain products more expensive.
When is the right time to buy an annuity?
The truth is, there's no particular annuity purchasing age that works for everyone. The best time to purchase an annuity depends on your unique circumstances, including:
Your retirement goals: Are you looking for income now, or do you want to cover expenses later in life? Determining when you need access to the monthly payments will help you decide the right time to buy.
Your other income sources: Any Social Security benefits, pensions and investment income you have may also influence how much additional guaranteed income you need.
Your risk tolerance: If market volatility keeps you up at night, locking in an income stream earlier may be worth it. But if you can tolerate the fluctuations, it could pay off to wait.
Your health and longevity expectations: If your family tends to live into their 90s, buying an annuity sooner rather than later could provide more lifetime value.
The bottom line
The so-called age 75 rule for annuities is more myth than hard-and-fast advice. While it's true that older annuity buyers often get higher monthly payments, waiting to purchase one isn't always the optimal choice. For many retirees, purchasing earlier can provide valuable peace of mind and ensure income when it's needed most. So, instead of focusing on an arbitrary age, consider your overall retirement plan, income needs and health when deciding if and when an annuity makes sense for you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
14 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
How to Evaluate the Efficacy of ESG Investing
James Mackintosh suggests that a surge of environmental, social and governance data hasn't improved portfolio performance ('Streetwise: ESG Investing Data Isn't as Helpful as Advertised,' Business & Finance, July 9). But he is pointing to a chicken-or-egg question. The research he mentions relies on multiple dimensions generally understood as 'good governance,' ESG or non-ESG. From cybersecurity and privacy to health and safety in the workplace and risk management, these are standard fare for executive teams and board oversight. Governance experts would expect most public companies to have implemented some form of risk oversight using some of these tools. Companies recognize that business risks include some social risks, and they're building governance frameworks to address them directly. As a result, because the adoption of these tools was arguably ubiquitous, one wouldn't expect large differentiation in performance. But if companies with these governance tools also show better financial performance, what's the point of looking at governance separately? The answer is simple: Investors' job is to monitor management, to push one team to do what works in other companies. The goal is to make sure that no company is left behind, exposed to risks that they would have readily addressed.
Forbes
15 minutes ago
- Forbes
Monday, July 14. Russia's War On Ukraine: News And Information From Ukraine
TOPSHOT - US President Donald Trump meets with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte (L) in the Oval ... More Office of the White House in Washington, DC on July 14, 2025. Photo by ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty Images Dispatches from Ukraine. Day 1,237. Trump Unveils New Aid for Ukraine and Issues Ultimatum to Moscow On July 14 U.S. President Donald Trump announced a significant shift in U.S. policy toward ending the war in Ukraine, unveiling a new plan to boost military support for Kyiv while increasing pressure on Moscow. Speaking in the Oval Office alongside NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Trump said the U.S. will provide Ukraine with as many as 17 Patriot missile defense systems. 'We're going to have some come very soon, within days,' Trump told reporters. Some of the systems will be transferred from European NATO allies' stockpiles, with the allies ordering replacements from the U.S. The new aid is valued at billions of dollars. The more aggressive posture comes with a clear warning to Moscow. Trump gave the Kremlin a 50-day deadline to reach a peace agreement with Kyiv. Otherwise, the U.S. will impose what President Trump called 'very severe' tariffs. 'If we don't have a deal in 50 days, it's very simple, and they'll be at 100%.' A White House official later clarified that these tariffs would target Russian goods, as well as extend to countries that continue purchasing Russian exports, including oil. Donald Trump's decision appears to be driven by growing frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin. 'My conversations with him are very pleasant, and then the missiles go off at night,' Trump said, even as he denied being taken in by Putin and attempted to cast his predecessors as having done so: 'He fooled Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden — he didn't fool me.' President Trump's decision, nonetheless, may not represent as abrupt a shift against the Kremlin as it might initially appear, thanks to the grace period Russia received to devise a resolution to the conflict before the measures take effect. The 50-day grace period was met with cautious relief by investors in Russia, where the ruble rebounded from earlier losses against the dollar and the stock market posted modest gains of 2.7%. Reacting to Trump's new pledges of military aid for Ukraine, European Union foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas, welcomed his firmer tone toward Russia, but not the 50-day grace period. 'It is very positive that President Trump is taking on a strong stance on Russia,' she said. 'On the other hand, 50 days is a very long time if we see that they [Russia]Meanwhile, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy met in his country's capital, Kyiv, with Keith Kellogg, President Trump's special envoy to Ukraine and Russia. Zelenskyy said they had 'a productive conversation' about strengthening Ukrainian air defenses, joint arms production, purchasing U.S. weapons in conjunction with European allies, and the possibility of tightening international sanctions on Russia. 'We hope for the leadership of the United States, because it is clear that Moscow will not stop unless its unwarranted ambitions are stopped by force,' Zelenskyy wrote in his post on Telegram following the meeting. Russian Attacks on Ukraine Russian forces rained 597 drones down on Ukraine, along with 26 cruise missiles, overnight into July 12, marking the second largest aerial attack of the war. Ukraine's Air Force reported intercepting 319 drones and 25 missiles, as well as electronically jamming 258 drones. The barrage was directed at western Ukraine, with impacts recorded at five locations. Officials in Chernivtsi, previously considered one of Ukraine's safest cities, reported two residents killed, its first wartime casualties. In Lviv, a city widely regarded as the nation's cultural capital, at least 12 people were injured amid damage to the city's historic center. In total, the Kremlin fired more than 1,800 drones, 1,200 glide bombs, and 83 missiles at its neighbor last week. In addition to the massive overnight assault on July 12, Russian daytime attacks between July 10-13 killed at least 29 civilians across Ukraine. In the blood soaked eastern province of Donetsk, sustained Russian shelling killed at least 14 non-combatants and injured 26 others. In northeastern Kharkiv oblast, or province, four residents were killed, with 21 others wounded; in southern Kherson region, Russian drone strikes left four civilians dead and 32 others injured, while in southeastern Zaporizhzhia oblast, Russian attacks killed at least two residents and injured three others. In northern Sumy oblast, where Russia has renewed its on-the-ground offensive, five residents were reported dead and 19 others suffered injuries. June marked the deadliest month for Ukrainian civilians in the war's more than three-year history. According to a recent report from the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine, 232 were civilians killed and 1,343 injured in June, nearly three times the losses a year earlier. The UN attributed the spike to a tenfold increase in Russian long-range missile and loitering munition attacks, which use drones that can hover over an area to allow precision targeting. These weapons were in use across at least 16 regions, including Kyiv. Civilian casualties across Ukraine in the first half of 2025 surged to 6,754, a 54% year-over-year increase, where civilian deaths and injuries from Russian strikes rose by 17% and 64%, respectively. President Volodymyr Zelensky announced a government reshuffle and proposed First Deputy Prime Minister Yulia Svyrydenko as the next Prime Minister of Ukraine on July 14. After the resignation of the current Prime Minister, Denys Shmyhal, Ukrainian lawmakers have 30 days to vote on the next Prime Minister. By Danylo Nosov, Karina L. Tahiliani
Forbes
15 minutes ago
- Forbes
How To Become An Energy Superpower
Canada wants to become an energy superpower. But what does that mean and how do you achieve that ... More goal? (Photo by DAVE CHAN/AFP via Getty Images) In his first remarks as Canada's Prime Minister, Mark Carney pledged to make the country a '…superpower in both conventional and clean energy.' But what does it really mean to be an 'energy superpower'? Let's define it: an energy superpower is a country that wields influence over global energy markets through its substantial resources, production capabilities, infrastructure, trading capabilities, strategic policies and innovation capabilities. It can influence global prices, supply security and geopolitical alignments while maximizing the value of its domestic resources. Energy hegemony matters because the world's future economy demands vastly more energy. If all 8 billion people on Earth consumed as much energy per capita as the average North American, we would need five times today's energy supply. That doesn't even account for the impact of the artificial intelligence (AI) revolution. In April, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt testified to the US Congress that energy demand from datacenters could triple by 2030, rising from 3% of demand now to 9%. By 2050, AI may account for more than half of total energy consumption in advanced economies. The rising global need for air conditioning amid record-breaking heat adds even more pressure, as does the mining of cryptocurrencies. If we supplied all that energy using fossil fuels, we would ensure that our climate crisis becomes a catastrophe. Today's energy superpowers are losing their grip. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Middle Eastern countries influence prices through OPEC and 'swing' capacity, but they lack clear energy transition strategies. The same is true for the United States, which leads in oil and gas production but has bungled its position in clean energy thanks to political dysfunction. The recently signed 'Big Beautiful Bill' ends various clean energy tax credits passed under President Biden, promising yet more uncertainty for energy innovators. In addition, the US and Canada have driven up the supply of LNG, dreaming that it will replace coal, but that may never happen. Cheap solar and wind have pushed LNG demand and prices downward, causing many projects to be cancelled. The outlook for the next five years is simply not good for LNG, as analysts continue to warn. And then there is Russia, which is rapidly losing influence over European energy markets. Meanwhile, China—with few fossil fuel resources—is emerging as the next dominant force in global energy, as I discussed in a previous post. Why? China controls critical minerals and their processing, dominates solar, wind, EVs and battery production, and is investing in advanced fission and fusion energy. As The New York Times put it, 'There's a race to power the future. China is pulling away.' If China becomes an energy superpower, it probably will use that position as a geopolitical cudgel. But it is not too late for the West. What our business and political leaders lack is a focused plan and the will and tenacity to achieve it. China has a strategic vision, crisply defined in five-year plans. The West has, well, elaborate permitting processes defined in legalese. We spend time determining who can't build what where, while China funds deliberate innovations and builds whatever, wherever it chooses. The next battlegrounds for energy superpowers are small modular reactors (SMRs), geothermal and, most importantly, fusion energy. Often called the 'holy grail' of clean energy, fusion promises reliable, abundant and safe baseload anywhere, anytime, with limited need for additional infrastructure. The country that cracks fusion first will almost certainly dominate global energy markets. Becoming an energy superpower requires long-term commitment, and China is investing accordingly. If countries in the West are serious about competing, they will need four things: Let's not forget that rising demand for energy is only part of this story. The growing frequency and cost of extreme floods, storms, wildfires and heatwaves, fueled by climate change, started this race to replace fossil fuels with cleaner and more scalable sources of energy. This is, indeed, a race. The first countries to become clean energy superpowers will be able to attract valuable industries, create high-paying jobs and wield geopolitical power for decades. The question isn't whether there will be a new energy superpower—it's whether the West has the will to outcompete China and the guts to challenge shortsighted business leaders and politicians at home who are committed to a status quo that is economically and ecologically untenable.
