Dear Liz: Every time someone asks a question about when to start taking Social Security, all you financial advisers make your calculations based on the 7% to 8% annual increase you get by delaying between ages 62 and 70. What you never mention is that once you start getting Social Security, you also start getting the cost of living annual adjustments. I started at 63 and my monthly check has already gone up 5% and it’s compounded. In this era of higher inflation, that pushes out the break-even point into an age in the late eighties. You need to add that into your advice.

Answer: Surveys have shown that most people are happy with their decision to start Social Security, even when they started it early. Perhaps they don’t know what they’re missing.

The researchers who have studied Social Security claiming strategies have factored inflation into the mix, as well as longevity, investment returns and taxes (there’s something known as the “tax torpedo,” which can jack up marginal tax rates for middle-income Social Security recipients). The assumptions can differ, but the results don’t: The majority of people benefit from delaying. In today’s low-interest-rate environment, many researchers say the vast majority are better off.

Another factor the researchers consider — and that many early starters don’t — is what happens to the surviving spouse. When one member of a married couple dies, one of their two Social Security checks goes away and the survivor has to get by on a single check, which will be the larger of the two. That’s why it’s so important that the higher earner in a couple try to delay as long as possible, because it will boost the check for the person left behind.

That doesn’t mean single people should start early, however. Single people tend to have less savings and wealth than married people; they’re more likely to be poor than married couples, and single women have a higher poverty rate than single men. If you wind up getting most if not all your income from Social Security, you’ll want that check to be as large as possible.

As for your phrase, “this era of higher inflation” — yes, the 2.8% cost-of-living boost was higher than the 2% increase of the prior year. The year before that, the inflation adjustment was close to zero, and it was actually zero in 2010, 2011 and 2016. Annual adjustments over the last 20 years have averaged just a little over 2%. That’s not a lot to get excited about.

Dear Liz: I encourage you to educate your readers about the real intention of Social Security, as well as the real problem facing it. Social Security was designed as a safety net to keep the elderly, disabled and orphaned from abject poverty. It was not intended to provide decades of benefits to individuals who are not at risk of living in poverty. It does no good to further the inaccurate notion that everyone is entitled to “their share” from a social safety net meant for the poor.

Answer: You’ve misunderstood Social Security’s structure and its history.

Social Security was deliberately created as a social insurance program, not as welfare assistance. Workers fund the system themselves through payroll taxes. They have to pay into the system a certain number of years to qualify for benefits. In return, they receive inflation-adjusted income that they can’t outlive and that isn’t vulnerable to market downturns.

Social Security benefits are progressive, which means they’re designed to replace more income for a lower-paid worker than a higher-paid one. But people who pay more into the system get larger benefits than those who pay less, and benefits are not means-tested.

Programs for the poor tend to be easy targets for politicians, but Social Security’s universal nature contributes to its widespread support. More than 1 out of every 6 U.S. residents, or about 62 million people, collected Social Security benefits in June 2018.

Dear Liz: I read your column about the disabled woman who was asking about survivor benefits. I am 60 and my husband died when he was 65, but he was not receiving Social Security. We both paid into Social Security for our entire working careers and maxed out every year. I have been told that I can receive his benefits when I am 65. I wonder why I cannot collect his benefits now.

Answer: You can, but you may not want to if you’re still working and earning the kind of six-figure income needed to “max out” your Social Security taxes.

People who start Social Security benefits early are subject to an earnings test that withholds $1 in benefits for every $2 they earn above a certain amount, which in 2019 is $17,640. Social Security has a calculator to help you determine the effect on your benefit at https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/RTeffect.html. Your survivor’s benefit also will be reduced if you start it before your own full retirement age, which in your case is either 66 years and 8 months (if you were born in 1958) or 66 years and 10 months (if you were born in 1959).

Once you’ve reached full retirement age, however, the earnings test goes away, as does the reduction for starting benefits early. At that point, you could apply for full survivor benefits and leave your own retirement benefit alone to grow 8% each year until it maxes out at age 70. You can continue to work and receive benefits without facing any reductions.

Social Security can be astoundingly complex, and claiming decisions can be affected by a number of factors. AARP has a free Social Security claiming calculator, but it can’t deal with some situations such as survivor’s benefits, child benefits (for retirement-age people who have minor children) or the offsets associated with pensions that don’t pay into Social Security. For those, you would need to pay about $40 to use a more sophisticated calculator such as the one at MaximizeMySocialSecurity.com, or to consult a fee-only financial planner with experience in this area.