[Mary]

Take SS at 62 and invest as much of it as you can OR use 401k/investments at 62 and delay SS until 70?

I’m currently planning for my retirement and would love to get some advice on the best financial strategy.

I’m faced with a decision about when to start taking Social Security benefits versus how to manage my 401(k) savings.

On one hand, I could begin receiving Social Security at age 62 and invest those funds to potentially grow my retirement income.

On the other hand, I could rely more on my 401(k) now and delay taking Social Security until I reach 70, which would increase my monthly benefits significantly.

I’m unsure which approach would be more advantageous in the long term, considering factors like investment growth, tax implications, and ensuring financial security throughout my retirement years.

I’m also curious about how these choices might impact my overall financial health and peace of mind.

Should I take Social Security at 62 and invest, or use my 401(k) and delay Social Security until 70?

Any insights, experiences, or advice would be greatly appreciated!

[Watson]

Mary Steffes I plan on taking Social Security at 62. I have various incomes and SS is what I call my “bingo” money. I don’t play bingo but I will.

Why are you investing? What other income will you have at 62?

I’m more worried about not spending all of my savings and investments the. Growing it at 62.

Have you considered this?

I admit this is a different view.

[Lindsey]

Take it early, the future is never guaranteed.

[Brian]

Take it….it takes over 13 years to catch up and you are not guaranteed tomorrow

[Ben]

The two options you describe seem incompatible. One has you investing social security implying you have other funds to pay the bills with.

In the other, you need the money to pay the bills and delaying means you have to cash out retirement.

[John]

I’m going with early. It takes too long to make up the difference, about 10 years (age 80) for the plain cash and then longer if you invest (or avoid cashing other investments in).

I was playing with a spreadsheet and only a 6% return added a significant number of years.

Either way I’ll still have plenty when I hit 90.

My father passed at 65, mother at 72, they would have lost out big by waiting.

[Alan]

Most people who say take it at 62 have other sources of income and don’t need the social security money to live off of.

My plan is to live off some special purpose savings, dividends, and our small pension until FRA.

If you are young enough, create special purpose investment accounts that you can draw on from the time you stop working until FRA.

I have a deferred compensation account and dividends which will provide income until FRA.

Once you get to FRA, then social security, dividends, interest, pension, and other income should cover your expenses.

At least try to make it your goal.

[Jianle]

Didn’t do the math, but SS is taxed more favorably vs. distribution from 401k (regular income tax) so money from SS is valued a bit more.

[Mack]

Retired at 54. Waiting 7 more years to take SS at 70. “We” don’t need it, but provides great buffer for my lower earner/higher life expectancy spouse if I die between now and my FRA+3 age.

[Rob]

If SS is still sround when I’m 62, I’ll take it and invest all of it. My hope is that it gets eliminated before then, as it’s a total ponzi scheme. The boomers bankrupted this country.

I say we bankrupt the boomers.

[Author]

Posts