Liz Weston

Dear Liz: My question is on when to take Social Security. My financial advisor recommends that I file for my benefit at age 66 but suspend the application so my benefit can continue to grow until it maxes out at age 70. At 66, I would receive $2,614 per month. At age 70 I would receive $3,451 per month. In those 48 months I would have received $125,472. I calculate that it would take me 12.49 years to make up the difference of $837 a month. So why should I postpone until age 70? What am I missing?

Answer: There’s a big difference between postponing Social Security until your full retirement age of 66 and postponing again until age 70.

Postponing until full retirement age is pretty much a slam-dunk, if you can afford to do so. That’s because most people will live beyond the break-even point, which is typically somewhere between ages 77 and 78.

The break-even point for postponing until age 70 is between age 83 and 84, which is cutting it closer in terms of average life expectancy. A man who reaches age 65 is expected to live on average until age 84. Women reaching 65 are expected to live until 86.

But focusing just on break-even points ignores other, more important factors.

One is that waiting offers an 8% annual return between age 66 and 70. No other investment offers a built-in, guaranteed return that high.

Another has to do with survivors. If your spouse earned less than you, she would end up depending on your check alone should you die first. (Survivors get the larger of their own benefit or their spouse’s, but not both.) The larger the check, the better off she’ll be.

You can think of Social Security as a kind of longevity insurance that protects you against poverty in old age. The longer you or your spouse live, the greater the chance that your assets will be exhausted and that one or both of you will end up depending on Social Security for the greatest part of your income.