Why Social Security is Your Best Investment

September 20, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (14)

Traditional retirement planning often advises holding on to your market investments as long as you can. But a close look at the Social Security rules makes a strong case that you'd be better off cashing in those 401(k)s if doing so will delay your need to begin taking Social Security benefits.

[Bookmark the U.S. News Retirement site for more planning ideas and advice.]

Looking differently at Social Security makes special sense these days. With interest rates near zero, bonds and other so-called "safe" investments are producing very low yields. The stock market has produced no real gains for the past 10 years. And its volatility makes it a risky place to entrust retirement funds.

Social Security, by contrast, has very little risk. You may begin receiving benefits at the age of 62. But if you do, you will be leaving a lot of money on the table. For people nearing retirement age today, taking benefits at the age of 62 will pay them only 75 percent as much money as if they wait until they turn 66, which is their legal "full retirement age" under Social Security rules. And each additional year benefits are delayed, their payments will rise another 8 percent.

The annual increases end when a person turns 70. Claiming Social Security at that time produces a benefit that is 132 percent of its level if the person began taking benefits when they turned 66. Even better, Social Security has an annual cost of living adjustment (COLA) that adjusts benefits upward to reflect rising consumer prices. So, that guaranteed annual increase is protected from most of the impact of inflation. Rising medical costs have so consistently outstripped overall inflation that some advocates say the COLA needs to be sweetened.

[See Social Security COLA Doesn't Match Inflation.]

Further, if you take Social Security benefits between the ages of 62 and 66, any outside income you earn may reduce your Social Security payments.

Longevity, of course, is the big wild card in this decision. Anyone who delays benefits and then dies at a young age will not come close to "breaking even" on Social Security. And if they've cashed in retirement accounts so they can afford to delay taking Social Security, their heirs won't be too happy, either. You can convey the holdings of retirement accounts in your will. You can't pass on unused Social Security benefits (although your spouse may benefit by claiming part of your benefits in the form of survivorship payments).

Increasingly, however, the longevity odds favor longer, not shorter, lives. Use the Social Security longevity calculator to see for yourself. The average man turning 65 will live another 18 years; an average 65-year-old woman will live another 20 years. And these are averages. If you don't have a family history of health problems or a chronic condition yourself, you will probably live longer than these averages. If you are not seriously overweight and get regular exercise, you will live longer still.

The continuing recession drove record numbers of 62-year-olds last year to claim Social Security as soon as they could. There is no way to know how many of them made this decision while keeping other retirement assets salted away.

But if you're faced with this choice, don't ignore the appeal of viewing Social Security as perhaps your most valuable asset. Would you rather have $750 a month today, or $1,000 a month in four years (adjusted upward for inflation), or $1,320 a month when you turn 70?

[See 10 Trends in Longevity.]

Tags:
social security,
retirement

Reader Comments Read all comments (14)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

The Government has continually raided our social security accounts for years.

Bad management and uncontrolled spending has put Social Security in trouble.

If a bank or company did what the Government does they would be prosecuted.

Why do we, the people, allow our representatives to keep stealing our future and our retirement?

allan day of WI 9:20AM December 29, 2010

These are actual numbers (rounded down) from a printout from SSA:

$1200 at age 62

$1600 at age 66

$2100 at age 70

If you collect at age 62 as opposed to 66, you will receive 1200 a month for 48 months prior to your choosing to collect at age 66.

So: 48 months X 1200 +$57,600. The difference per month for waiting is $400, so $400 divided into $57600(the amount you collected for not waiting) is 144. 144 is the number of months it will take you to break even. 144 months is 12 years, so, you'll be 74 years old when you break even collecting it at 66 as opposed to 62.

If you wait until you are 70 as opposed to 62 (by using same formula as above) you will be 80 years 8 months when you break even. With the uncertainty of our whole economic situation in America, my wife and I intend to collect as soon as we can.

RR of IL 5:23PM December 10, 2010

What a joke. This article was written before all the recent changes.

Talk about foresight. Geez.

My mother is on a meager pension and SS. She got an icrease less than 2 years ago, and now the Feds have reclaimed it. Starting in November, she get's $67 less a month. How is someone with limited income supposed to adjust to that kind of hit?

kjonjit of CA 2:52PM December 10, 2010

The Best Life

Philip Moeller, contributing editor for U.S. News Money, writes about achieving success and happiness in older age.

advertisement

Our retirement readiness calculator will provide a rough idea of how long your retirement savings and income will last.


Latest Video

advertisement