Clearly the answer is maybe. It is a personal decision and I certainly am in no position to advise others or to push one decision or another.
I am more of the “bird in the hand is worth two in the bush” philosophy. We took our SS at FRA and invested it for several years and we now have a pile of cash in municipal bonds and monthly income (tax-free) to access when necessary. After over fifteen years reinvesting, that income exceeds my wife’s monthly SS benefit.
Unless essential, I would not begin benefits before FRA, but beyond that the picture gets foggy seems to me.
On the other hand, the most common advice seems to be delaying for maximum monthly benefits in later years. The following reasons are often given.
• Increased Monthly Benefits: For each month benefits are delayed beyond the full retirement age (FRA), the monthly benefit increases. This results in a higher monthly payment at age 70.
• Higher Lifetime Benefits: Individuals who live beyond the average life expectancy can substantially increase their overall lifetime benefits by delaying Social Security.
• Potential Tax Benefits: Social Security benefits may be subject to income tax. Delaying benefits can reduce taxable income in retirement, potentially lowering the overall tax burden.
• Enhanced Spousal Benefits: For married individuals, delaying benefits can result in a higher survivor benefit for the surviving spouse
Given the payment amounts are actuarially determined, I don’t buy it. Yes, the monthly benefit will be higher at age 70 – if you reach that age, but for how long? Have more accumulated assets than necessary been used for needed income before age 70?
I see concern about the overall lifetime benefits collected as completely irrelevant.
Given the income levels where SS becomes taxable $25,000 single and $32,000 married, Is delaying SS benefits a practical concern for most retirees?
A higher spousal benefit may be desirable, but at what cost? There are other ways to provide for a survivor like paid up life insurance and accumulated assets that generated investment income.
So, am I alone in the woods again on this one?
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 
I think it is more justifiable to retire at 65 if you’ve led a physically demanding life, such as construction work or lumberjacking, rather than if you’ve just pushed papers at a desk job. Most jobs in today’s world can be extended safely to 70 with no deleterious effects on the worker or his employer. Frankly, people used to work until death in many cultures, and retirement is often not all it’s cracked up to be …
Come visit my blog, and leave some comments, if you like
http://www.dark.sport.blog
LikeLike
everyone has a different situation so one does what they think works best–I waited until the age eligible for full benefit–invested the monthly payment–markets had some rough periods that allowed us to buy shares at a discount then the last number of years has shown strong returns–
feel bad for a single person as a lot of money dies with them if they wait or even if they are too young to collect–a TSP program would be best for younger people like my grandchildren joining the workforce–politicians are reluctant to change so don’t hold your breath.
LikeLike
It sure would help reduce the withdrawals from my 401K during the early years after retirement, but then after 70 would be more than had I waited until 70 to draw SS. Those huge withdrawals in the early years certainly require a mental switch from the accumulation years. But then if I am using the SS benefits from 62 for cash flow needs I am not saving them as you have Dick.
LikeLike
The spousal benefits may not be as much of a consideration where you have 2 earner households and that is more common today and earnings may be more equal than in the past. Otherwise, everything you talked about is food for thought by those nearing 62.
LikeLike