Here’s what my readers say about taking Social Security at 62

My recent column about the surging advice from TikTok and YouTube “finfluencers” to take Social Security at 62 — the earliest age allowed — and then invest those payments each month in stocks resonated with readers.

Thousands of you weighed in about what you did or plan to do, including whether you’re slowly fading into retirement by claiming your Social Security while still earning income from a job.

A quick recap of the rules

You can take Social Security as early as age 62, but your benefit can be slashed as much as 30% from what it would have been at your full retirement age (FRA). For anyone born in 1960 or later, your full retirement age is 67.

If you delay benefits from your full retirement age until age 70, you earn delayed retirement credits. Those come to roughly an 8% increase for each year until you hit 70, when the credits stop accruing.

If you continue to work after claiming Social Security benefits after age 62 and before your full retirement age, the Social Security Administration (SSA) will temporarily withhold a portion of your benefits for earnings over a certain threshold, roughly $23,000.

Read on Yahoo Finance

In the year you reach full retirement age, that limit increases threefold; and in the month you hit full retirement age, the annual earnings test ends. From that point on, you can earn without limitations, and while you don’t get the amount you forfeited previously in a lump sum, your monthly benefit is adjusted upward so you will recoup all the benefits that were withheld. This calculator on the SSA website walks you through the calculation.

The do or don’t debate

Most financial advisers and retirement experts contend that for many people, delaying tapping into their benefit until age 70, if they can afford to, will deliver a larger monthly check for the rest of their lives.

The argument for taking it at 62 is that by investing your benefits in the market, your investment returns will make up for a reduced check.

The following is an edited sampler of some of those comments — and my take on them. Feel free to weigh in, of course, in the comments section at the end of this sequel.

Let’s get started:

It’s all a personal decision with no right or wrong answer. Why I took it when I did is irrelevant to the next person. Somebody’s justification and analysis on waiting to 70 or taking at 62 or somewhere in between is their reason. It doesn’t necessarily hold true for anybody else. So do what’s right for you.

Another reader chimed in:

Perhaps it’s best for these so-called experts to realize that there isn’t a one-size fits all approach. There are many factors to consider, including genetics, overall health, whether or not you’re working (and able to find work if not), how much you have saved, and I’m sure a few other factors that aren’t occurring to me right now. After you take all of the things in your own life into account, that’s when you should determine whether or not you need to take it earlier or later. Even then, there are no guarantees that you’ll be correct.

Kerry: I’m totally in agreement. This is precisely the way this subject needs to be framed. Choosing when to start Social Security doesn’t necessarily depend on when your monthly payments will be the biggest.

There are myriad factors to consider from the amount of money you have saved in retirement accounts and other assets, such as home equity and outside investment accounts, to your health and whether living to your 90s and beyond is common in your family history.

Importantly, if you lose your job and are approaching retirement, that can shift your decision to claim Social Security. Fewer job openings generally ups the ante on whether older workers will face age bias. Ageism is alive and well in the workplace for both younger and older workers.

I took mine at 62. I don’t need it to live on, so I invest it. Why wait when I can make it start earning money now. Who knows how long you have left? If you wait too long, you might not get to collect at all.

Kerry: You’re right, we don’t have a crystal ball on how long we have to live. The upside of delaying your Social Security until at least your full retirement age, if you don’t need money to live on right now, is that the larger benefit you get by waiting is guaranteed, risk-free from market drops, and it comes with an automatic annual inflation adjustment.

For many retirees, annual cost-of-living (COLA) adjustments protect against inflation, and for most retirees, this is their primary source of retirement income.

I split the difference and started my SS benefits at age 68 instead of age 66. Continued working full time (professor) until age 71. I invested every cent into a high yield savings account ($148,000.00 after taxes). 4% interest gave me a final yield of $500.00 a month passive interest income and a nice nest egg/emergency fund.

Kerry: Hats off to you. This sounds like a solid approach for your situation and well-thought-out.

Getting near 62 myself and planning on retiring at that time. Don’t need the money but will file at 62. Will use the money to give great gifts to the kids friends charity and buy nice things for people and family and use the remainder to pay bills. Why would I give up years of joy just to get a few more dollars later. The future is not guaranteed once you get older, especially when life expectancy in my family is short.

Kerry: Hard to argue with this viewpoint. If you won’t need your future Social Security income to cover your cost of living for the rest of your life, this is a wonderful mindset and plan. Live your life, enjoy the money, and give back with the funds. You’re fortunate to be in this position. Many Americans simply aren’t.

Social Security monthly payments account for at least half the income of close to 24 million older adults — more than 4 in 10 of Social Security recipients age 65 and over— according to the Social Security Administration. The average monthly benefit is around $2,000 a month, about $24,000 a year. For roughly 12% of men and 15% of women 65 or older, nearly all their living expenses, including housing costs, are paid from their Social Security.

I’m so fortunate that my dad held off on starting until he had to. He has passed, but he left mom in a much better situation. Her SS went goodbye, per the rules, but dad’s SS is higher. I realize everyone’s experience and circumstances are different. Just saying what my dad did, waiting, was a good thing for my mom’s sake.

Another reader weighed in:

At age 66, I will continue working for 6 more years, health permitting. I will start collecting SS at 67 and use the extra dough to pay off any and all debt, mortgage, etc. I want to leave my wife and daughter in the best possible financial position when I leave forever.

This reader added:

So there is a 4% difference between the annual 8% increase each year for SSA and the annual 12% yearly average return on the stock market. I will hold off as long as I can (70) because in 2034 I will get an estimated 4300 monthly. That’s without COLA added over the next 9 years. The 4% difference isn’t enough for me. You’re going to pay that and more in capital gains. And with losing 30% off the top at 62. The math is against you. If you need it then that’s a different story. I’m also going to leave my spouse with better monthly income if I wait and she outlives me.

Another chimed in:

Why doesn’t anyone ever discuss how Social Security survivor benefits factor in for women, given that we live longer and are often younger than our husbands? Also, what’s the right thing to do if you’re fortunate enough to not need the money to live on at the age of 62 or FRA?

Kerry: I was glad to see the discussion around the case of male-female marriages and Social Security. Women generally live almost six years longer than men — a life expectancy gap that has widened from a low of 4.8 years in 2010. Meanwhile, 85% of centenarians are women.

So women have to fund longer retirements on lower lifetime earnings due to factors such as gender pay disparities and breaks from their careers for caregiving.

If you are a widow in your 80s and 90s, the biggest Social Security benefit you can receive with inflation protection is critical.

Here’s how it works: When a Social Security beneficiary dies, their surviving spouse is eligible for survivor benefits. More than 3.8 million widows and widowers, including some divorced from late beneficiaries, were receiving survivor benefits as of September 2025.

A surviving spouse can collect 100% of the late spouse’s benefit if the survivor has reached full retirement age, but the amount will be lower if the deceased spouse claimed earlier.

Math is not everyone’s top subject. I am 69 and still working, love my job and am in my highest earning years. Had I started collecting at 62, the amount would have been $1,700 a month, by waiting to 70 the amount rises to $4,700 a month, which also gives me larger yearly COLA increases since they are based on percentage of your monthly. there are 8 years between 62 and 70, each year you wait you get an additional 8%, making the 8 year total, 64% rise in benefits. I am in good health and expect to live at least another 20 years, my father lived to 99. But if you have millions in 401(k) you are probably better off taking it at 62 and investing it. I only have 300k in a 403(b.)

Have a question about retirement? Personal finances? Anything career-related? Click here to drop Kerry Hannon a note.

Kerry: Thanks. Yay for loving your job. That is truly the best scenario — and a perfect example (for those who fit this category of worker) that illustrates the payback from not starting to take Social Security at 62.

To round off this trip through your thoughtful comments, I can’t resist this one:

What am I missing here? If money is the motive, then keep working until you can’t. Nothing can beat a good job with purpose. What are we retiring to anyway? If we can do what we plan to do when we retire while working then keep working and be happy.