6 Ways to Maximize Your Social Security Payout

Reader Comments
Back to article

When to start makes little difference for a single person with average life expectancy. However for a married man with a wife a few years younger, it makes a world of difference. She'll life long enough to benefit from a delayed start. I'll start early, withdraw and re-start at 70 ..... for her benefit.

Ken of KS 4:52PM December 07, 2009

Divorced couples were not addressed. My husband was married for 20 years. We have been married 15 years. Can his ex-wife claim benifits based on his income. If so, what about me? I am 62 and still working but my husband has a much higher income.

Bonnie of VA 8:37AM December 02, 2009

I TOTALLY AGREE THAT ONE SHOULD START SS AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE AGE THAT IS 62 BECAUSE NO ONE KNOWS HOW LONG YOU ARE GOING TO LIVE.ENJOY THE FRUITS OF YOUR HARD WORK SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

D.K.GUPTA M.D of NY 10:17AM December 01, 2009

No one addresses the fact that the break-even point, (the time when delayed withdrawals begin to surpass the early(62) withdrawals) for most people is about 78 years of age. Only from that point on do you begin to benefit from waiting for the maximum withdrawal. And that's not taking into account the following scenario.
By taking the early withdrawal, I can now cut back on the monthly withdrawals that I am now taking out of my 401K. Since the size of the fund is reduced less, I make more interest on that pot of money over time. That added interest offsets the gains of SS maximum withdrawal even more. My break-even point is somewhere in my mid-80s.
With that in mind, I'm taking the money at 62. No guarantees on how long you will live or how long the SS fund will exist.

p of FL 9:04AM December 01, 2009

Take the money as soon as you can then you can live for today!

Keevin Shultz of AZ 1:44PM November 24, 2009

I would say draw day one if you are not working any more and can use the extra dollars to supplement your investment income - for those who have not prepared for retirement you'll be working to the grave.
This is what this government wants - delay your social security or die young.

MM of OK 4:24PM November 13, 2009

I will be 62 in March 2010. I plan to start collecting and my wife, only 58, will continue to work and earn until until she reaches 66. We both qualify for pensions from previous employment and will wait until full retirement to collect those. Also we have 401Ks of about $200000 between us and currently have a mortgage balance of $70000 with no other debt. The point?
We didn't live a high lifestyle on credit. No new car every 3 years or so. No dinners out a couple of nights a week and Caribbean cruises on plastic. For sure there are some 60 somethings out there in a rough spot through no fault or bad choices of their own, but for many of us, perhaps most, the position we find ourselves in has evolved out of choices we made earlier in life and many of those choices were not wise.
Griping will not help. First SS is a tax, not a pension plan and never was. You are entitled to collect based on whatever the rules are when you retire. It is not a contract with guaranteed benefits. Perhaps it should be, but the fact is it isn't. Second, it would be nice if Congress included all of us in the nice deal they have for themselves, but they won't, and, frankly, couldn't if they wanted to. There wouldn't be the means to fund it. Finally, it's tough to come to see the smart advice most of us knew of when we were young was correct, but the time to choose to follow it was then. It is all water over the dam now.
Hopefully, we can all help each other out since most of us will be in the boat together.

Steve M of NH 7:53AM November 11, 2009

I was born 12/1946 and began drawing Soc.Sec benefits at age 62 which, by the way is the first FULL month you turn 62 which meant I missed any Dec. payment and received payment in Feb for the January I was 62 years old ALL MONTH!
So I will receive payments for four years before I am 66 years old.
HERE IS THE MATH: 48 X$1000 per month equals $48,000 dollars. If I had waited until I was 66 years old I would get $1,250 per month. NOW THIS IS $250 or 25% more per month, However I collected $48,000 so $48,000/$250 equals 192. This is the number of months until "break even" happpens. 192/12 equals 16. This is the number of years until break even, or put another way ANYONE WHO TELLS YOU TO WAIT UNTIL FULL RETIREMENT IS ON THE SIDE OF OUR US TREASURY BECAUSE 66 years plus 16 years equals 82 f'in years old. YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO REALLY ENJOY THE EXTRA $250/MONTH YOU WAITED 16 YEARS TO CATCH UP TO ME HAVING $48,000 to use for 16 years which could be at THE END OF MY OR YOUR LIFE !!!!

John Coble of WA 11:16PM November 10, 2009

Since when did the boomer generation start in 1943?

Earl Griffith of MT 10:18PM November 10, 2009

I spoke to several accountants and they all said that retiring at 62 made sense if you can live on Social Security alone. The difference between 62 & 66 (unless you are earning in the 6 figures) is not worth it. Furthermore, unless you plan on living forever, you may not get to enjoy much of your retirement if you retire later. Also, after 70 1/2, you have to start taking money out of your IRAs & 401ks, leaving you with less monetary assets.
Bottom line, enjoy your retirement while you can.

Barry of AZ 11:59AM November 04, 2009