When Should You Start Taking Social Security?

For affluent retirees, the decision is about much more than maximizing a monthly check. It involves investment risk, taxes, longevity, protecting a spouse, and sometimes even estate planning. Here is how to think about it—and why some popular advice on social media is dangerously incomplete.

If you've accumulated several million dollars in investments, Social Security may not seem particularly important to your financial future. A monthly benefit of $3,000 or $4,000 might represent a small fraction of your retirement income. That makes it tempting to treat the decision casually. Perhaps you claim at 62 because you've paid into the system for decades and want your money back. Perhaps you wait until 70 because your financial advisor says that's how to maximize benefits. Or perhaps you've seen online videos warning that Social Security is going bankrupt and you should collect whatever you can before the money disappears.

All three approaches can miss the larger picture. 

For financially secure retirees, Social Security is less about paying the bills today and more about protecting against financial risks decades from now. It provides something even a substantial investment portfolio cannot easily replicate: a predictable income stream that lasts for life, adjusts for inflation, and, under certain circumstances, continues to support a surviving spouse. But there is no universally correct claiming age. Someone who is single, has serious health problems, and wants to leave the largest possible inheritance may reach a very different conclusion from a healthy 68-year-old with a younger spouse.

To make the right decision, you have to understand not only how the benefit calculations work, but also how Social Security interacts with the rest of your financial life.

First, understand what you're actually choosing

You can generally begin collecting retirement benefits at age 62. But the earlier you start, the smaller your monthly check. Your full retirement age is the age at which you're entitled to 100% of your calculated retirement benefit. For people born in 1960 or later, that's 67. For earlier birth years, it is somewhat younger.

If you wait beyond full retirement age, your benefit increases until age 70. For people born in 1943 or later, Social Security provides an additional 8% per year for delaying after full retirement age.

Consider someone whose full retirement benefit at age 67 is $3,000 a month.

Illustrative amounts for someone whose full retirement age is 67. Figures exclude future cost-of-living adjustments and changes in earnings history. Source: Social Security Administration.

That's a substantial difference. Waiting until 70 produces a monthly benefit approximately 77% higher than claiming at 62. And these adjustments generally last for the rest of your life. The larger benefit also receives future Social Security cost-of-living adjustments.

There is, however, a catch: someone waiting until 70 receives nothing during the years when someone claiming at 62 is already collecting checks.

That brings us to the familiar break-even question.

The break-even age: Useful, but often misleading

Let's return to our hypothetical retiree. If she begins Social Security at 62, she collects $2,100 a month for eight years before someone who waits until 70 receives a first payment. That's approximately $201,600 in benefits collected by age 70.

But the person who waited receives $3,720 a month instead of $2,100—a difference of $1,620. At that rate, the person who waited catches up in cumulative benefits at approximately age 80 years and four months.

This is the basic calculation behind the frequently repeated advice that you should claim early if you don't expect to live beyond 80 or 82. The arithmetic is reasonable. The conclusion is less certain.

First, this simplified break-even calculation ignores taxes, inflation adjustments, investment returns, and the different timing of cash flows. Each can change the answer. Second, none of us knows our date of death. Planning around a single expected lifespan is especially problematic when there's a reasonable chance of living well into one's 90s. Third—and most importantly for married couples—your own life expectancy may not be the only one that matters.

A Social Security decision isn't always about how much you'll collect while you're alive. It may also determine how much your spouse receives after you're gone.

That distinction can dramatically change the calculation.

Social media claim #1: "Take Social Security at 62 before it runs out of money"

This is perhaps the most widespread argument for claiming early, and it deserves a serious response. Social Security's financial problems are real. They are not an invention of alarmist commentators.

According to the 2026 Social Security Trustees Report, the trust fund dedicated to retirement and survivor benefits is projected to exhaust its reserves in the fourth quarter of 2032. If that happens without legislative changes, continuing program income would be sufficient to pay approximately 78% of scheduled benefits at that time.

A separate projection that assumes the retirement, survivor, and disability trust funds could be combined puts reserve depletion in 2034, with approximately 83% of scheduled benefits payable. Under existing law, those funds are legally separate. These are serious shortfalls, and pretending otherwise would be irresponsible.

But trust-fund depletion does not mean Social Security stops paying benefits.

The program continues receiving payroll taxes from people who work. Those revenues can still finance a substantial portion of benefits even if accumulated reserves are exhausted. Congress could address the shortfall through some combination of additional revenue, changes to benefits, retirement-age adjustments, or other measures. Whether lawmakers will act, what they will enact, and whom they might protect are genuinely uncertain.

So does that mean you should start collecting immediately? Not necessarily.

Imagine you're 62 in 2026 and decide to claim early because you're worried about the 2032 deadline. By the time the projected shortfall arrives, you'll be approximately 68. You will have received several years of benefits, but your remaining retirement could last another 20 or 30 years. Claiming early does not automatically exempt you from future benefit reductions. Depending on how the law changes, current retirees could also be affected.

Meanwhile, you've locked in a lower starting benefit under today's rules.

There are legitimate reasons to incorporate potential Social Security reductions into your retirement projections. For affluent households, it's particularly reasonable to consider the possibility that future reforms might affect higher-income retirees differently. But that uncertainty works both ways: Congress could enact changes that preserve most or all scheduled benefits, particularly for people already retired or close to retirement.

Social Security's finances warrant prudent planning, not panic. Stress-test your retirement using reduced benefits, but don't claim at 62 solely because someone online says the program will disappear.

Social media claim #2: "Take it early, invest the checks, and you'll make more money"

This argument is more sophisticated—and, in some circumstances, entirely legitimate. 

The thinking goes like this: Why wait until 70 for a larger check when you could collect at 62, invest the payments in the stock market, and potentially earn 7%, 8%, or 10% annually?

For a wealthy retiree who doesn't need Social Security for living expenses, investing the checks may seem especially attractive. And there is some merit to the argument. Money received at 62 can be invested, spent, gifted, or left to heirs. Money you never collect because you die before claiming Social Security cannot be recovered by your estate. If you die relatively young and have no spouse or other eligible survivors, claiming early may produce a better financial outcome. If investments perform exceptionally well, the early-claiming strategy may also come out ahead.

But there's a major problem with the comparison.

The 8% annual increase in Social Security benefits after full retirement age is not the same thing as an 8% investment return. You give up years of payments to obtain that higher monthly amount. The financial return from waiting depends on how long you live, what you would otherwise do with the money, and other factors. And unlike stock market returns, the benefit increase for delaying is determined by Social Security's rules. It doesn't depend on whether the S&P 500 has a good decade.

Consider two retirees with identical portfolios. One claims early and invests every Social Security payment in stocks. The other waits until 70, using cash and investments to support spending during the intervening years. If markets rise substantially, the first retiree may build a larger investment account.

But suppose the stock market suffers a prolonged downturn early in retirement, followed by disappointing returns. The investments funded by early Social Security checks may be worth far less than projected. The person who waited still receives the higher Social Security benefit for life, under the applicable program rules. That larger benefit can reduce the amount that must be withdrawn from investments in later retirement—when market declines, healthcare expenses, and longevity become more consequential.

There is an important counterargument: waiting requires you to finance those early retirement years somehow. If delaying Social Security forces you to sell stocks during a severe market decline, it can actually worsen your portfolio's position. A sensible delay strategy therefore needs a plan for funding the intervening years, potentially through cash reserves or shorter-term bonds.

The issue is not that investing Social Security payments is foolish. It's that investment projections often assume attractive average returns while overlooking volatility, taxes, the cost of waiting, and longevity risk. 

For someone with a $5 million or $10 million portfolio, there's another consideration: you already have substantial exposure to investment markets. Do you really need to convert more of your retirement income into market-dependent wealth? Or might the more valuable addition to your financial plan be a larger, inflation-adjusted income stream that does not fluctuate with the market?

For many affluent retirees, the latter seems more reasonable.

Social Security can function as a form of longevity insurance. You accept less income early in retirement in exchange for more income if you live a very long time. That can be particularly attractive to people in good health, with substantial investment assets and family histories of longevity.

Research has also found that higher-income Americans tend, on average, to have longer lifespans, making delayed claiming more valuable for many affluent households. A 2024 analysis from Boston College's Center for Retirement Research discusses this advantage.

None of this means that claiming early and investing is necessarily wrong. It means the strategy should be evaluated against realistic market outcomes and actual family circumstances—not a spreadsheet that assumes stocks reliably return 8% every year.

The most important rule for married couples: Think about the second death, not just first

For married couples, Social Security planning becomes substantially more complicated because there are two people, two benefit histories, and two potential lifespans. 

Start with an often-misunderstood distinction between spousal benefits and survivor benefits. While both spouses are alive, an eligible spouse can sometimes receive a benefit based on the other spouse's earnings record. At full retirement age, the maximum regular spousal benefit is generally 50% of the working spouse's full-retirement-age benefit—not 50% of the larger amount the worker might receive by delaying until 70.

If the spouse has their own retirement benefit, Social Security generally pays that first and adds a spousal supplement only if one is due. You don't simply collect both full amounts. And ordinarily, the higher-earning spouse must have started receiving retirement or disability benefits before the other spouse can collect a regular spousal benefit on that record. Divorced spouses have an important exception, discussed below.

Survivor benefits work differently. When one spouse dies, the survivor may be eligible to receive the deceased spouse's benefit, including delayed retirement credits that the deceased spouse earned.

This is where delaying Social Security can become extraordinarily valuable.

Consider a husband who is 69 and a wife who is 61

Assume the husband's benefit at full retirement age was $3,500 a month. If he waits until age 70, his benefit would be approximately $4,340 a month before future inflation adjustments. His wife has a much smaller benefit from her own work history, perhaps $1,500 a month at her full retirement age.

Suppose the husband dies at 82, when his wife is 74. If she is eligible for the full survivor amount, her Social Security income can increase to approximately the benefit her husband had been receiving, including his delayed retirement credits and intervening cost-of-living adjustments. She does not collect both her own $1,500 and his $4,340. She generally receives the larger benefit. But that larger survivor benefit could continue for another 15 or 20 years.

If the husband had instead claimed at 62, his own monthly benefit would have been substantially smaller, and that earlier decision could also reduce the future survivor benefit. Special survivor-benefit minimum rules can affect the exact amount. The difference over the wife's remaining lifetime could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The husband might not personally live long enough to recover the benefits he sacrificed by waiting. Yet delaying could still be an excellent financial decision for the household.

That's why analyzing only the husband's individual break-even age could be a serious mistake. For a married couple with unequal earnings, particularly when the lower-earning spouse is younger, delaying the higher earner's benefit until 70 is often one of the strongest strategies available. The lower-earning spouse may reasonably claim their own benefit earlier. The correct timing depends on both spouses' ages, benefits, health, and other income.

What if both spouses are high earners?

Consider a couple receiving $3,600 and $2,900 per month. While both are alive, their combined Social Security income is $6,500 monthly. When one dies, the survivor does not continue receiving $6,500. Generally, the smaller of the two benefits disappears, and the survivor receives the higher applicable amount. Suddenly the household has only $3,600 of Social Security income, although household expenses may decline far less than proportionately. The survivor may still have substantial mortgage costs, property taxes, insurance, maintenance, or lifestyle expenses. Meanwhile, the household may move from married tax brackets to generally less favorable single brackets.

This is a common financial surprise after the death of a spouse. The fact that both partners have substantial assets doesn't eliminate the value of increasing the larger benefit. It may also change which person should delay. In couples with similar earnings, the age difference and the likely length of the survivor period can become more important than simply labeling one spouse the "higher earner."

Large age differences can change everything

A 70-year-old married to a 68-year-old has a different Social Security planning problem from a 70-year-old married to a 53-year-old. When the age difference is substantial, the younger spouse may be collecting a survivor benefit many years after the older partner dies. That makes the older, higher earner's claiming decision particularly consequential.

For example, imagine a wealthy retired executive who is 68 and has a 52-year-old spouse. The executive has a sizable retirement benefit. The younger spouse worked intermittently and will qualify for a much smaller benefit. Claiming at 68 provides immediate income to the household. Waiting until 70 increases the executive's future benefit—and potentially the spouse's eventual survivor benefit—for a retirement period that could extend decades into the future. That future survivor benefit is an asset in everything but its legal form: it cannot be sold or passed through a will, but it may provide substantial ongoing financial protection.

The younger spouse generally cannot begin ordinary survivor benefits until age 60, unless disability or eligible child-care provisions apply. Claiming survivor benefits before the survivor's full retirement age can reduce them. Consequently, a large age difference calls for more than simply choosing the larger check. The couple should examine when the older spouse might die, when survivor benefits would become available, the younger spouse's other income, and how the estate would finance any gap.

Windows and widowers have options most married couples don't

The death of a spouse creates both emotional and financial disruption. Unfortunately, many surviving spouses make Social Security decisions without realizing that survivor benefits follow different rules from ordinary retirement benefits. A surviving spouse can generally begin receiving survivor benefits at age 60, or as early as 50 in certain disability situations. Benefits may also be available at younger ages when caring for an eligible child.

But claiming early usually reduces the survivor payment. A full survivor benefit can be available at the survivor's applicable full retirement age, which may differ from their retirement-benefit full retirement age. Importantly, delaying survivor benefits beyond survivor full retirement age does not produce additional delayed retirement credits.

There is another possibility that can be particularly valuable. Suppose a widow is 62. She is eligible for a survivor benefit based on her late husband's work history, but she also earned a substantial retirement benefit on her own record. Her own benefit could continue increasing if she delays claiming it until 70. Depending on the amounts involved, she might collect survivor benefits first, then switch to her own larger retirement benefit at 70.

Alternatively, if the deceased spouse's survivor benefit would ultimately be higher, she might collect her own retirement benefit earlier and later switch to the larger survivor payment. Unlike ordinary retirement and spousal benefit combinations, these survivor situations can permit genuine sequencing strategies.

The correct choice depends on each benefit's amount and applicable claiming age, whether the survivor is still working, and whether benefit reductions apply. The Social Security Administration specifically recognizes these switching options.

A newly widowed person should evaluate them before filing. Survivor applications generally require contacting Social Security rather than simply completing the ordinary online retirement application.

Windows and widowers have options most married couples don't

Divorce ends a marriage. It doesn't necessarily eliminate Social Security rights arising from that marriage. If you were married to someone for at least 10 years, you may qualify for divorced-spouse benefits based on that former spouse's earnings record.

For ordinary divorced-spouse retirement benefits, you generally must be at least 62, unmarried, and eligible for a benefit greater than what you receive solely on your own record. At your full retirement age, the maximum divorced-spouse benefit is generally 50% of your former spouse's full-retirement-age benefit. Claiming earlier can reduce it.

Your former spouse does not need to give permission. Your claim does not reduce their own benefit, and the fact that they have remarried does not by itself prevent your entitlement. 

If your ex-spouse has not claimed benefits, you may still be able to collect on their record provided the divorce has been final for at least two years and both of you meet the applicable age and eligibility requirements. That two-year condition is generally unnecessary if your ex is already receiving qualifying benefits.

A surprisingly important divorce anniversary

Imagine a couple who divorce after nine years and 11 months of marriage. The lower-earning spouse may lose eligibility for divorced-spouse benefits that could have been available had the marriage lasted at least 10 years. 

For someone who stepped away from a career to raise children, that difference can be financially meaningful. It does not mean anyone should remain in a harmful marriage for Social Security purposes. But when divorce timing is already under discussion, approaching the 10-year threshold deserves attention alongside retirement accounts, real estate, and other marital assets.

What happens when an ex-spouse dies?

A surviving divorced spouse who was married for at least 10 years may qualify for survivor benefits based on the deceased former spouse's earnings record. Those benefits can potentially be larger than ordinary divorced-spouse retirement benefits.

Remarriage rules are particularly important. Generally, remarriage prevents collection of ordinary divorced-spouse benefits on a living former spouse's record while the new marriage remains in effect, subject to certain exceptions. But remarriage at age 60 or later generally does not prevent entitlement to survivor benefits from a deceased former spouse.

Certain disability-related exceptions also exist. That means the age at which a widow, widower, or surviving divorced spouse remarries can have real financial consequences.

In blended families and second marriages, Social Security planning should be part of the broader financial discussion before remarriage—not an afterthought.

Unmarried couples: Your estate plan cannot replace Social Security's marriage rules

Here's a situation that catches sophisticated households off guard.

Imagine two financially successful people who have lived together for 25 years. They own a house together, have carefully drafted wills and trusts, and have named each other as beneficiaries of investment and retirement accounts. They have never married. One partner dies.

The survivor may inherit millions of dollars under the estate plan, yet have no automatic right to Social Security survivor benefits based on the deceased partner's record. Social Security generally ties spousal and survivor entitlements to a legally recognized marital relationship. Some common-law marriages, civil unions, domestic partnerships, and other legally recognized non-marital relationships may qualify under applicable rules. But simply living together for decades does not guarantee eligibility.

The Social Security Administration acknowledges that some non-marital legal relationships qualify; the outcome depends on the specific legal relationship and applicable law. 

For affluent unmarried couples, this is a strong reason to integrate Social Security into estate and relationship planning. A trust can transfer assets. A life insurance policy can pay the surviving partner. Beneficiary designations can govern investment accounts. None of those arrangements automatically creates the federal survivor benefit associated with a qualifying marriage.

Conversely, marrying can affect taxes, inheritance rights, support obligations, and other financial matters. The Social Security benefit alone should not dictate the decision.

For couples considering marriage later in life, timing also matters. Ordinary spousal benefits generally require at least one year of marriage, and survivor benefits generally require at least nine months, although exceptions exist.

These are issues worth reviewing before a late-life marriage, especially when the partners have a substantial age gap.

One overlooked exception: Older parents with young children

Not every claiming decision is about the retiree and spouse.

Consider a 67-year-old business owner with a 14-year-old child from a second marriage. The parent may reasonably plan to wait until 70 to maximize retirement benefits. But if the parent begins receiving Social Security, the child may also become eligible for dependent benefits on that parent's earnings record. Eligible children can generally receive benefits until age 18, sometimes longer if they remain qualifying students or have a qualifying disability. A spouse caring for an eligible young child may also be entitled to benefits even if the spouse is younger than 62. 

These family benefits can change the arithmetic substantially, although Social Security's family maximum and earnings-test rules may limit actual payments. If the older parent waits until 70, some years of potential dependent-child benefits may disappear permanently.

This is an example where a household-level analysis may support earlier claiming even for a wealthy person with excellent health. Families supporting an adult child whose disability began before age 22 should also investigate the special benefit rules that may apply.

Social media claim #3: "There is no tax on Social Security anymore"

This is another claim that requires careful interpretation. Under current federal law, Social Security benefits can still be taxable. Depending on your other income, up to 85% of your Social Security benefits can be included in federal taxable income. That does not mean an 85% tax rate. It means up to 85 cents of each dollar of benefits may be counted as taxable income and taxed at the applicable income-tax rates.

For affluent retirees with substantial pensions, taxable investments, IRA distributions, or other income, the maximum inclusion is  common. Legislation enacted in 2025 introduced an additional deduction for people age 65 or older for tax years 2025 through 2028. The deduction can be up to $6,000 per eligible person, or $12,000 for married couples when both spouses qualify. It phases out when modified adjusted gross income exceeds $75,000 for individual filers or $150,000 for joint filers.

As the IRS explains, this is a deduction with income limitations, not a blanket elimination of taxes on Social Security. For high-income retirees, it may provide little or no benefit. But the larger point is that taxation should be part of the claiming decision from the start.

Why delaying can create a tax-planning opportunity

Consider a couple retiring at 64 with substantial taxable investments, traditional IRAs, and Roth accounts. If they delay Social Security, they may have several years with little or no wage income and no Social Security benefits. That period can present opportunities to make carefully planned withdrawals from traditional retirement accounts or convert portions of an IRA to a Roth IRA.

The idea is to manage taxable income while the household has more flexibility, potentially reducing future required distributions and improving the after-tax position of surviving spouses or heirs. There is no guarantee that delaying Social Security makes such conversions attractive. The results depend on the tax brackets involved, investment gains, future tax rates, and other income. Large Roth conversions can also trigger higher Medicare premiums.

Nevertheless, for households with significant tax-deferred retirement assets, the interaction between claiming age and tax planning can easily be more important than a simple break-even calculation.

Don't forget Medicare

You generally become eligible for Medicare at 65 whether or not you've started Social Security. Delaying Social Security does not automatically mean you should delay Medicare enrollment. Depending on your existing employer health coverage, late enrollment can create penalties or coverage gaps.

Higher-income retirees also face Medicare income-related premium adjustments, commonly called IRMAA. Medicare generally looks at income from two years earlier. A major Roth conversion, large capital gain, or other increase in income can raise Part B and prescription drug premiums. And after the death of a spouse, the surviving partner may encounter less favorable single-filer income thresholds.

These are not reasons to avoid sensible claiming or tax strategies. They are reasons to evaluate the full after-tax household result rather than focusing only on Social Security's gross monthly payment.

What if you're still working?

For executives, business owners, physicians, and professionals who continue working into their 60s, claiming early can be especially unattractive. 

Before full retirement age, Social Security applies an earnings test. In 2026, if you're below full retirement age for the entire year, the general earnings limit is $24,480. Social Security withholds $1 in benefits for every $2 of covered earnings above that amount. For someone reaching full retirement age during 2026, a higher $65,160 limit applies to earnings in the months before reaching that age, with $1 withheld for every $3 above the limit. Once you reach full retirement age, the earnings test no longer applies.

Investment income generally does not count for this earnings test. Wages and net self-employment income do. Benefits withheld under the earnings test aren't necessarily lost forever. Social Security adjusts benefits at full retirement age to account for months in which benefits were withheld. But the rules still complicate cash flow and can reduce the advantage of claiming while earning a substantial salary.

Someone collecting a $2,100 monthly benefit at 62 while earning $100,000 annually might have their entire year's benefit withheld, apart from situations where special first-year rules apply.

For high-income individuals still working, starting Social Security at 62 often accomplishes very little.

Social media claim #4: "Use the secret Social Security loophole to double your benefit"

Some social media advice recycles claiming strategies that were available years ago. 

Two common examples involve collecting spousal benefits while allowing your own retirement benefit to grow, or having one spouse file and suspend benefits so the other spouse could receive spousal payments.

Changes enacted in 2015 eliminated most of the advantages of these techniques for today's prospective retirees. Under current rules, people subject to the newer deemed filing provisions generally cannot choose to receive only a regular spousal benefit while separately accumulating delayed retirement credits on their own eligible retirement benefit.

And when a worker voluntarily suspends retirement benefits, regular benefits to family members on that record are generally suspended as well, with exceptions such as qualifying divorced-spouse benefits.

Survivor benefits are different, as discussed earlier.

In short, be skeptical of videos promising a little-known strategy that allows married couples to collect two full benefits simultaneously while both continue growing. There are legitimate nuances in the rules, but much of the supposedly secret information online is outdated.

Can you change your mind after claiming?

Sometimes.

If you recently started retirement benefits, Social Security may allow you to withdraw your application within the applicable 12-month period. This is generally permitted only once and requires repayment of benefits received, including certain payments and withholdings connected to the claim.

If you've reached full retirement age but are not yet 70, you may also be able to suspend your own retirement benefits and earn delayed retirement credits during the suspension. But the resulting benefit is not necessarily identical to what it would have been had you never claimed early, and suspension can affect benefits paid to eligible family members.

These are useful corrective tools—not reasons to make the original decision casually.

When claiming early actually makes sense

There are circumstances where claiming at 62, or before 70, is a sound decision.

The clearest case involves serious health concerns and no significant survivor-benefit considerations. If you're single, have a materially shortened life expectancy, and have no spouse or other eligible dependents who might benefit from your record, waiting for a larger lifetime payment may not be worthwhile. Early benefits can improve your current quality of life, preserve investments, fund experiences, or support family members while you're alive.

Even affluent people sometimes face liquidity constraints. Someone may own valuable real estate or an interest in a closely held business but have limited readily available cash. Receiving Social Security could reduce pressure to sell assets at an unfavorable time.

Another legitimate motivation is estate preservation. Because Social Security retirement benefits generally stop at death and cannot be bequeathed like stocks or an IRA, collecting earlier may allow someone to retain or invest more assets that can ultimately pass to heirs. That matters particularly to people with strong bequest goals and shorter expected lifespans.

There are also circumstances where collecting one spouse's smaller benefit early while allowing the larger benefit to grow is a sensible household strategy.

The mistake is not claiming early. The mistake is claiming early because of a simplistic rule, without comparing the realistic alternatives.

What Social Security has to do with estate planning

At first glance, Social Security seems separate from estate planning. You can't name your trust as the beneficiary of your monthly retirement check. Your children generally cannot inherit the right to collect your remaining retirement benefits simply because money was paid into the system during your career.

Your retirement benefit ends when you die. No retirement benefit is payable for the month of death, even if death occurs near the end of that month. Eligible survivors may have their own separate entitlements.

But those features are exactly why Social Security belongs in estate planning discussions.

1.  A larger survivor benefit can protect the estate

Suppose a married couple has $6 million in investments. The higher-earning spouse delays Social Security until 70. Later, that spouse dies, leaving the survivor with a larger monthly benefit. Every additional dollar of Social Security income the survivor receives is potentially a dollar that doesn't have to be withdrawn from investments. Over 15 or 20 years, that can help preserve assets for children and grandchildren. In this sense, delaying Social Security may support an estate plan even though Social Security itself isn't inherited as property.

2.  Early claiming may preserve transferable investments

There is a genuine competing argument. If someone claims Social Security early and uses the payments to cover living expenses, that person might leave more money invested in accounts that can be passed to heirs. For someone with poor health and no eligible surviving spouse, this approach may be superior. But it is not automatically better. The answer depends on investment returns, taxes, lifespan, the types of accounts being preserved, and whether family members are eligible for survivor benefits. Traditional IRAs, Roth accounts, and taxable brokerage accounts can also produce very different consequences for heirs.

3.  Estate documents need to reflect real Social Security entitlements

A comprehensive estate plan should take account of whether the surviving partner is legally eligible for benefits, whether the deceased was previously married, whether dependent children might qualify, and whether there are documentation issues that could delay claims. A spouse or former spouse may need marriage certificates, divorce decrees, death certificates, or other records to establish eligibility. These are practical matters that are much easier to address before a death or incapacity.

4.  More money isn't always the only objective

Affluent families often evaluate strategies by the wealth remaining for their heirs. That's understandable, but it's only one measure of success. A surviving spouse who lives to 98 may place far greater value on another $1,500 of reliable monthly income than on a modestly larger inheritance for adult children who are already financially secure. The family should be explicit about what matters most: current consumption, survivor security, lifetime financial independence, or maximum inheritance. Different priorities can produce different claiming decisions.

A practice framework for making the decision

After reviewing the rules, a useful starting point is to separate households into a few broad categories:

• Healthy, financially secure single retiree: Delaying—often until 70—deserves serious consideration, especially where longevity protection matters more than maximizing an inheritance.
• Married couple with one substantially higher earner: Strongly consider delaying the higher earner's benefit, often until 70, particularly if the lower earner is younger or likely to outlive the higher earner.
• Both spouses have substantial benefits: Compare multiple combinations of claiming ages. The larger survivor benefit still matters, but the best strategy may depend heavily on ages and earnings differences.
• Single person in poor health, with no eligible survivors: Earlier claiming may be a rational and financially preferable choice.
• Widowed, divorced, remarried, or unmarried household: Verify eligibility and switching options before applying. Relationship history can materially change the answer.
• Business owner or professional still earning significant income: Evaluate the earnings test, continued earnings history, income taxes, and Medicare effects.
• Household with eligible children or a dependent adult child with a disability: Consider potential family benefits, which may justify claiming earlier than a simple retirement-only calculation suggests.

These are starting points, not automatic rules.

Before deciding, obtain current estimates from your personal Social Security account. Check the underlying earnings record and adjust projected future earnings if you plan to stop working before you begin benefits.

Then compare the options using realistic cash flows, taxes, investment scenarios, and both spouses' potential lifespans. A comparison that considers only the first 10 or 15 years of retirement is incomplete. For affluent households in particular, it is reasonable to stress-test scenarios extending into the late 90s.

Also revisit your estimates if you've worked in public employment covered by an alternative pension system. The Social Security Fairness Act, signed in January 2025, repealed the former Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset for benefits payable from January 2024 onward. Some earlier projections based on those reductions may now be outdated.

The bottom line: Don't confuse getting more checks with making a better decision

Social Security is unusual because taking less money now can produce more financial security later. That is the central tradeoff. The internet tends to frame the decision as a competition: claim at 62 and invest aggressively, or wait until 70 and maximize your government check.

Real financial planning is more subtle.

A wealthy single person in poor health may rationally claim at 62. A healthy married executive with a substantially younger spouse may have compelling reasons to wait until 70. A widowed professional may benefit from collecting survivor benefits first and switching to a larger personal benefit later. A divorced retiree may discover an entitlement they didn't know existed. An unmarried couple may discover that decades of shared financial life have not created the survivor protection they assumed.

For affluent retirees, a balanced approach is to treat Social Security as a source of long-term financial resilience rather than an investment to be maximized in isolation. If you have the financial resources to defer benefits, particularly on the higher earner's record in a marriage, the larger inflation-adjusted payment is frequently worth serious consideration.

But don't make the decision based on fear of insolvency, a rosy investment-return assumption, or the belief that everybody should wait until 70. The objective isn't to win a mathematical race against the Social Security Administration. It's to arrange your income, investments, taxes, and family protections so that you—and the people who depend on you—have the best financial position throughout retirement, however long it lasts.

And that is a much more worthwhile goal than simply collecting the first possible check.

This information is intended for educational purposes, and is not tax, legal, actuarial, or investment advice. It is not to be construed as an offer, solicitation, recommendation, or endorsement of any particular security, products, or services.