Survey: Baby Boomers Will Claim Social Security at Age 62

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I definitely plan to retire at 62. My check from social security will be the same as my current paycheck, so I will not have a reduction in income.
In fact, after I am no longer working, my expenses go way down, so it it better than an increase in income.
I am REALLY looking forward to age 62!

Fred Hoekstra of FL 1:12PM November 06, 2008

I had to drastically cut back on my self employment to care for aging parents. I found that since Social Security is based on the average of your recent years' income, my monthly payment was going down.
The information by a previous writer is correct to wait - but only if you are maintaining or increasing your yearly income. Otherwise waiting works against you.
http://www.babyboomeragingparents.com

Rosemarie Zera of TX 12:39PM November 04, 2008

I planned on filing for my benefits at 62. I have worked from the time I was 17. I planned on working p/t in the future. Most employers will not hire older person. It just makes sense to do.

Cheryl of CA 2:34PM October 30, 2008

My full retirement age is 66 but I plan on taking it at 65 at the same time as I am elegible for medi care. My health insurance is a bigger worry than retirement. If we get national health or the trust is in legislative danger I will retire at 62.

Loren of CA 11:54AM October 30, 2008

I am presently 61 and had thought that I would delay collecting SS as long as possible. Now with the uncertain economy and fear of a unAmerican president who will give my money to people who have not contributed one penny to the fund, I now want to collect as soon as possible

Vicki of FL 8:17AM October 30, 2008

We took our social security early...as we needed the extra income at the time..and that is just fine...Have it and enjoy it..why not..

carol stanley of OR 8:57AM October 29, 2008

One comment above was an expressed fear of funding war expenses with Social Security funds.
Regardless of a person's location on a scale of political beliefs, it is a mistake to think there is any money sitting in a fund that has been untouched by the hands of Congress. The money is already spent--whether for a war, Medicare benefits, or a government bailout program. The money for benefits is appropriated by Congress each year. It is not invested in the stock market or any other financial instrument; it is spent each year as part of our appropriations process.
The big issue for many is whether the benefits will actually be there. If we are going to "redistribute" income, a Democratic Congress and a President Obama may decide that those with assets of some random amount don't need the Social Security benefits already paid into the system--and just take it away with the stroke of a legislative pen. That concern will drive many into taking whatever money we can get back at 62 which would be better than getting nothing at a later age.

Skip Smith of FL 8:40AM October 29, 2008

Unless one needs the money to survive, taking Social Security at 62 is a mistake. Why?
Reason 1: As the article says, waiting until the age of 70 gives a better, pay attention!, "inflation adjusted" return. Unless you have a family history of dying very, very young, the odds are you'll live long enough to enjoy the extra money. How many elderly widows out there curse their dead husbands for taking Social Security at 62 and leave them with less money to live on when they are in their 80s?
Reason 2: Those who say SS will be eliminated are deluded. No politician will touch this, except to make minor changes in its stability. The SS administration says it will only be able to pay out 75% of what it promises by 2041 unless changes are made. I'd rather have 75% of the greater amount at age 70 if this comes to pass.
Reason 3: I'm willing make a sort of "Pascal's Wager" about SS. If I live a long time, I'll appreciate the extra money to keep me comfortable in my old age. If I die before the age of 70 and never get to spend a dime of SS.....who cares!!! I'll be dead and dead people don't miss spending money!

Dave of CA 12:05AM October 29, 2008

Perhaps we best take Social Security before some president decides to "privatize" it by placing it in the stock market. Or, even worse, before some president decides to invade a country and fund the war expenses with our Social Security money.
Gee, I can't imagine why anyone would want to withdraw it early?

Bill Grote of CA 10:53PM October 28, 2008