(USA topic) The grim psychology of deciding on when to take social security benefits

[Jingthing]

Deciding when to start your Social Security isn't that difficult of a question. You simply take it when you desperately need the money. We certainly have no idea when we are going to drop dead. I was able to get along until I was old enough to get the maximum. I have no idea if I made the right decision but the extra money from waiting is great to have. I now have more discretionary spending cash than at anytime before in my life.

I thought pretty much that until I started the thread. Now I think it's going to be more complex for me. I hadn't really seriously considered the option of majorly depleting my nest egg in order to wait for full retirement age at 66. Having that higher start which also means a higher base when COLAs are applied would be a great benefit IF I live long enough. There it is, the life expectancy issue. I admit I'm not financially sophisticated enough to understand all the pros and cons of that for my specific situation. But the idea is on the my radar now ...

Did some more research and confirmed what I already knew.

Most Americans these days don't have pensions other than S.S.

Most older Americans have ridiculously small retirement accounts.

The rationale that I can work till I drop and the market will still be buying is unrealistic for more people than admit it.

The percentage of Americans that rely on S.S. as their only or major income source is quite high.

This link doesn't cover all of that, but it's interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/opinion/sunday/our-ridiculous-approach-to-retirement.html?_r=0

To maintain living standards into old age we need roughly 20 times our annual income in financial wealth. If you earn $100,000 at retirement, you need about $2 million beyond what you will receive from Social Security. If you have an income-producing partner and a paid-off house, you need less. This number is startling in light of the stone-cold fact that most people aged 50 to 64 have nothing or next to nothing in retirement accounts and thus will rely solely on Social Security.

Even for those who know their “number” and are prepared for retirement (it happens, rarely), these conversations aren’t easy. At dinner one night, a friend told me how much he has in retirement assets and said he didn’t think he had saved enough. I mentally calculated his mortality, figured he would die sooner than he predicted, and told him cheerfully that he shouldn’t worry. (“Congratulations!”) But dying early is not the basis of a retirement plan.

[Jingthing]

There was a book I read year's ago which suggested the smartest financial plan is that the last check you write, for your final expenses, BOUNCES.

Back when people wrote checks.

Anyway ... I forget how you're supposed to get that timing exactly right!

[wwest5829]

On the basis that I received 5 by-passes in 2005, I chose to retire in 2011 at age 64 1/2. I weighed out the genetic predisposition for heart issues (my Father, Grandfather, Greatgrandfather and all Uncles on my Father's side died of heart attacks). Figured I cheated death in 2005. Finances definitely played into the picture. Thus I am living in Thailand ... as I cannot afford to live on $2400 a month in the US. Half that amount is from SS, the other half from retirement savings and inheritance. Comfortable but no Mercedes. Happy camper thus far ... do promote the idea of extending Medicare coverage here as medical costs would be cheaper than returning to the US. Ha! That's right ... Why should they cover us here. They can save all the expense.

[bangkapi]

After a quick look at demographics and the current near revolutionary political environment in the USA, I would bet against SS being around much longer. If there is not some big national "emergency" before the end of this year, there definitely will be one before the end of Hillary or Donald's first term.

You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

There is definitely something wrong with the powers that be provoking Russia and China and paying for arming both sides of wars all over the middle east while trying to oust Assad.

All the taking on of debt for "security" to fight "terrorists" is sheer insanity.

Nope.. I don't plan on getting social security when I turn 62 in 2018. And even if I do, I wonder what currency it will be in.

Edited May 18, 2016 by bangkapi

[Jingthing]

On the basis that I received 5 by-passes in 2005, I chose to retire in 2011 at age 64 1/2. I weighed out the genetic predisposition for heart issues (my Father, Grandfather, Greatgrandfather and all Uncles on my Father's side died of heart attacks). Figured I cheated death in 2005. Finances definitely played into the picture. Thus I am living in Thailand ... as I cannot afford to live on $2400 a month in the US. Half that amount is from SS, the other half from retirement savings and inheritance. Comfortable but no Mercedes. Happy camper thus far ... do promote the idea of extending Medicare coverage here as medical costs would be cheaper than returning to the US. Ha! That's right ... Why should they cover us here. They can save all the expense.

Yes I consider the chances of Medicare being extended to expats as very, very remote. There are definitely advantages to living in Thailand or lower cost countries for lower wealth retired people, but there are also disadvantages. You hit the big one ... no Medicare.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

After a quick look at demographics and the current near revolutionary political environment in the USA, I would bet against SS being around much longer. If there is not some big national "emergency" before the end of this year, there definitely will be one before the end of Hillary or Donald's first term.

You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.

There is definitely something wrong with the powers that be provoking Russia and China and paying for arming both sides of wars all over the middle east while trying to oust Assad.

All the taking on of debt for "security" to fight "terrorists" is sheer insanity.

Nope.. I don't plan on getting social security when I turn 62 in 2018. And even if I do, I wonder what currency it will be in.

Fair enough, but really I consider such political doomsday speculations as really off topic.

The mainstream thinking is that at least for Americans over 50 or 55, the chances are very high their expected S.S. program will be intact for life.

Cheers.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Jingthing

[Kabula]

It may be too late to be asking the question. Don't ask why. Do your homework.

[Suradit69]

I started mine as soon as allowable. Didn't need the money, so I put the monthly payments in an investment account.

Using their estimates and allowing some return on the payments I invested, I found I would have to have reached some unlikely age before it would be to my advantage to have put off starting to receive them.

My father died before receiving a penny from SS and my mother got very little before her death. If your family tends to live well into their 90's, you might have a different view.

SS has not been overly generous (or in my opinion realistic) in its annual inflation adjusted increases. By and large my investment return on the money I've received and put away has made the early payments worthwhile. Now I use the monthly SS payment as a supplement to living expenses, which allows me to leave more of my IRA investments to do their untaxable thing unmolested.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Suradit69

[Jingthing]

It may be too late to be asking the question. Don't ask why. Do your homework.

Sorry, but I don't get your meaning.

Obviously retirement planning is best done when younger.

But Americans approaching age 62 that are eligible for social security all STILL need to make the important choice of taking it early or waiting, regardless of what actions they previously took.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

To add, I have read in a few places that the mainstream financial advice is that you SHOULD wait until at least full retirement age even if it means dipping into retirement savings. But I took that to mean dip into the savings to a small or moderate degree. I really haven't read anywhere that it's the best choice to SIGNIFICANTLY deplete retirement savings in order to make it to full retirement age. Which leads me to think that both choices are rather bad (if living "too long") -- so it might be a COIN FLIP type thing.

[fishbrando]

CaptHaddock is the voice of reason here.

If you can afford to draw down on your nest egg and wait, it will give you a very nice guaranteed return. If you leave this earth before your waiting period is up, well, you're one of the lucky ones who passed on with leftover funds.

If you can't afford to draw down on your nest egg and wait then there's no decision to be made, really.

You might be able to borrow against an asset at a low rate and pay the loan back with your increased payout later, and the advantage would be that if you kick the bucket early, you're off the hook. However this is a more complicated strategy.

[chicowoodduck]

I did the deed at age 55 with no chance to collect my SS.....for every dollar I would have gotten from SS would have been a dollar out of my early retirement fund. Since I had stock piled a large sum of cash in various other CD funds and the like, could make the move and never looked back. Was told that the average person will live about 7 years after they retire....pretty grim....I just keep sucking form my pension fund and hope to reach a ripe old age with a grin on my face.....just like my parents, grand parents and the like....all had long lives so just hope the genes are with me......in the meantime, just enjoy the moment and hope I don't meet my demise via some crazy motorbike taxi guy or nit wit driver here in LOS....?

[Jingthing]

CaptHaddock is the voice of reason here.

If you can afford to draw down on your nest egg and wait, it will give you a very nice guaranteed return. If you leave this earth before your waiting period is up, well, you're one of the lucky ones who passed on with leftover funds.

If you can't afford to draw down on your nest egg and wait then there's no decision to be made, really.

You might be able to borrow against an asset at a low rate and pay the loan back with your increased payout later, and the advantage would be that if you kick the bucket early, you're off the hook. However this is a more complicated strategy.

I get all that but given how significant the draw down would be in my case, I don't really know if I can really "afford" this draw down. It seems to me it's really a grey area. My gut says each choice would be similarly bad which would point to probably starting EARLY.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

I did one of those life expectancy calculator thingies.

There are lots of them but I think most of them demand your EMAIL and I don't want to give them that.

Here's one that doesn't:

http://www.lifeexpectancycalculator.co.uk/index.php

The result was pretty much what I expected based on my health history and parent's longevity.

Without saying the number, the indication is that I most likely do not have to worry about living a fantastically long time ... so less concern about running out of money.

But, yes, still, it is definitely grim to be OK with a retirement plan largely based on not great life expectancy projections.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Jingthing

[Acharn]

When I was approaching age 62 I read that the crossover point was 73 years old. If you believe you're going to die by age 73, you should start taking the social security at age 62. If you have reason to think you are going to live longer than 73 years, you should wait until age 65 (or 66?) to start. Unfortunately, at the time I needed the SS to meet the Immigration minimum income requirement, so regret having started too early.

[claynlr]

This is interesting reading.

https://www.kitces.com/blog/how-delaying-social-security-can-be-the-best-long-term-investment-or-annuity-money-can-buy/

[puyaidon]

I have read that you have to also look at the medical history of your parents and beyond. In my case, my father died at age 50 from a heart attack and have learned that it runs in the family. I elected to take the lower rate at age 62 along with many of my friends mainly as it is there and who knows what will happen if you wait until age 66.

Lots of guys getting in accidents and getting hit by buses so why take a chance? It is a complicated decision and each must decide depending on their circumstances.

[lovelomsak]

I started mine as soon as allowable. Didn't need the money, so I put the monthly payments in an investment account.

Using their estimates and allowing some return on the payments I invested, I found I would have to have reached some unlikely age before it would be to my advantage to have put off starting to receive them.

My father died before receiving a penny from SS and my mother got very little before her death. If your family tends to live well into their 90's, you might have a different view.

SS has not been overly generous (or in my opinion realistic) in its annual inflation adjusted increases. By and large my investment return on the money I've received and put away has made the early payments worthwhile. Now I use the monthly SS payment as a supplement to living expenses, which allows me to leave more of my IRA investments to do their untaxable thing unmolested.

You are exactly right. Take it early invest what you can build up easy to get at cash that has already been taxed. May never need the cash but it will grow every year till you do need it.And tax on the interest in retirement will be little.

I am Canadian we have Canada retirement plan can take any time from 60 to 65. I took at 60 between 60 and 65 I was able to invest $100,000 or $20,000 a year. Not a lot of money but accessable and already taxed to date. And still growing.Just one more way to have networth growth even in retirement,instead of networth decline.

Anyone with more than just SS can do this easy.

Edited May 18, 2016 by lovelomsak

[Jingthing]

This is interesting reading.

https://www.kitces.com/blog/how-delaying-social-security-can-be-the-best-long-term-investment-or-annuity-money-can-buy/

Yes, it definitely IS a great "investment" to delay IF you end of living much longer than you expect ... and there's the rub.

[Jingthing]

I want to bring up an apparent logic contradiction with three facts that I think I know:

Fact 1: The most popular choice is to take the lower benefit early at 62

Fact 2: The main reason people do that, by far, is simply because they feel they NEED the income NOW (can't afford to delay)

Fact 3: The majority of people who do take it at 62 end up REGRETTING that decision later in life!

I don't know exactly what to make about all that. Of course each individual has in real life personal factors that make the choice more complex. Do they own their home? Spouse with income? Live in an expensive area? Amount of savings? Etc., etc.

But the REGRET part. If it's really true and I believe it is that the strongest reason to take it early is NEED, then how is regretting that later at all logical? Except good old human nature, which isn't very logical

It would be logical to REGRET being in a position at age 62 of feeling you need to take it early (and wishing you had done things differently earlier in life so that wouldn't have happened) ... that I understand. But you can't turn back time.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Jingthing

[CaptHaddock]

To add, I have read in a few places that the mainstream financial advice is that you SHOULD wait until at least full retirement age even if it means dipping into retirement savings. But I took that to mean dip into the savings to a small or moderate degree. I really haven't read anywhere that it's the best choice to SIGNIFICANTLY deplete retirement savings in order to make it to full retirement age. Which leads me to think that both choices are rather bad (if living "too long") -- so it might be a COIN FLIP type thing.

Below is a link from Jim Otar, a Canadian who has written some books on retirement planning and has a consultancy practice on the subject. His books will appeal to those of an engineering bent, because he does a lot of calculation. He classifies clients who come to him for retirement planning and investment advice as in the green zone, they have enough assets to fund their retirement, or in the red zone, they do not have enough assets for retirement. Here is his advice for those in the red zone:

The Red Zone:

Not all clients have abundant savings. Many will have to manage with less. If your client

has insufficient savings then the most effective way of eliminating longevity, market and

inflation risks is to buy a single premium immediate life annuity with payments that are

indexed to CPI. For the same age of retirement, a life annuity pays more than the

sustainable withdrawal rate from an investment portfolio.

http://www.retirementoptimizer.com/articles/Article105.pdf

I don't know if he says so explicitly in this article, but elsewhere he makes it clear that he means that the red zone client should annuitize all of his assets. So, this is the example you called for.

Social Security is by far the best annuity available to Americans. Private annuities are not comparable, because they are not actuarially fair and offer inadequate inflation protection in the few cases where that they offer any at all.

Here's another way to look at it. Your nest egg is apparently not enough to last your lifetime. (We're ignoring the die-young scenario since your financial problems disappear definitively at that point.) So, it is going to run out. When it runs out from that point on, you are going to have to find a way to survive exclusively on your SS benefits, like millions of other Americans manage to do. Now that day could come sooner in which case your monthly SS for the rest of your life would be higher or it could be later in which case your SS benefits will be less for the remainder of your life. While I don't know the details of your nest egg or plans to spend it, I would guess that it is reasonable to expect that, ether way, most of the rest of your life will be without benefit of the nest egg.

That's why, if I were in your shoes, I would optimize the longer period of my remaining life, not the shorter.

Edited May 18, 2016 by CaptHaddock

[Jingthing]

That's very good stuff and food for thought. But on your assumption that my nest egg would necessarily run out if I take S.S. early and based on actually more optimistic life expectancy calculations than I think my health history justifies, I don't really agree. I think the risk would be there, for sure, but not certain.

However, I think that's an important part to consider. Risk of savings running out. We can't know for sure, of course. You're so right, if the money ran out, and s.s. was the only income, the level of that check would be everything. Huge! (Not the check.)

I think that way of thinking may help a lot of people make a more rational decision. I'm not there yet ... but think there is more than enough to chew on.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Jingthing

[timendres]

All the arguments for waiting as long as possible are absolutely valid.

CH's annuity explanation is the best I have heard in a long time.

When a friend went through this decision making process, and was worrying about the prospect of "living too long", I reminded him that we actually do have control over how long we live. We just may not like exercising that control. When I was a kid, people who lived to be 60 years old were considered extraordinary. Modern medicine and our understanding of healthy living has surely changed the world.

Western citizens, and US citizens specifically, amaze me by their determination to plan and control every aspect of their lives and their futures. This is one of the things I actually like about Thais (that many here look down on) - they live today and don't worry about 20 years from now. Of course, the Thais should plan more for their future, and US citizens should live more in Today.

The simple truth is that you will manage to live on the resources that you have, until you cannot.

My personal plan is to increase the number of cigarettes I smoke, increase my use of motocys, mini-vans, and buses captained by sleep deprived drivers, hurl slanderous barbs at every mafia wanna-be I run across, and taunt every angry ladyboy I see wearing lethal high heels. :-)

On-topic:

I think there is one important item that you mentioned, JT, that you want to keep in mind. Your nest egg is a "lump sum" resource that you can access in a time of emergency, whereas your SS income is a fixed monthly payment. If I hear you correctly, I think it would be a mistake to draw down a limited nest egg to increase the monthly payment. Access to that lump sum could be critical in a time of need.

[CaptHaddock]

That's very good stuff and food for thought. But on your assumption that my nest egg would necessarily run out if I take S.S. early and based on actually more optimistic life expectancy calculations than I think my health history justifies, I don't really agree. I think the risk would be there, for sure, but not certain.

However, I think that's an important part to consider. Risk of savings running out. We can't know for sure, of course. You're so right, if the money ran out, and s.s. was the only income, the level of that check would be everything. Huge! (Not the check.)

I think that way of thinking may help a lot of people make a more rational decision. I'm not there yet ... but think there is more than enough to chew on.

Your comment brings to mind still another way of thinking about this kind of decision. In many decisions we are trying to get the best result. Maybe in our investing or when we hire an employee, we are hoping to get the best possible return or the best possible candidate. Other decisions, though, are not like that. Medical decisions, for example. Often we may be faced with a choice of surgery with its pain and risks against possibly fatal outcomes if we forego treatment. In the language of game theorists, the strategy behind this kind of a decision is called "minimaxing" or minimizing the maximum loss. In these cases, we are not trying to get the best possible outcome; we are trying to avoid the worst one because it is so horrendous.

Medical treatment choices are similar in this respect to the decision when to take SS benefits.

Edited May 18, 2016 by CaptHaddock

[Thaidream]

The decision to take SS early is based upon many different situations in one's personal life. I took mine at Age 62 and continued to work for another 5 years and gained back all that I lost because while I was working I still had SS deducted from my salary. Once one reaches the full retirement age- your SS is readjusted yearly to take into account all the years you continued working. Only downside is it is all taxable . I live in Thailand and my sole income is SS and a small private pension. The sad part is that those of us overseas permanently paid into Medicare for many years and they won't let us use it overseas. To me, this is a violation of trust and I wonder about the true legality of it. The fact is that medical treatment in most countries overseas is much less than in the US and the use of Medicare overseas would save money for the US Government. In addition, overseas expats have no real representation in Congress. We exist in the millions but always seem to be the odd ones out.

Social Security will be available for anyone over the age of 55 at the current rate regardless of how they try and tinker with it. It really is not that hard to put it on a viable track and increase everyone's benefit. The payroll tax ceases at around $120K for employed Americans. Any income over that is not taxed for SS or Medicare. In addition, the Federal Government has 'borrowed' from the SS trust fund and this money needs to be replaced. A portion was also used for the Obamination called the Affordable Care Act which is neither affordable or provides adequate care. The politicians could solve the SS funding issue easily; provide Medicare for everyone no matter where they are; and increase current benefits by 10% without any problems. All they have to do is tax the wealthy; redirect money away from the Pentagon and Intelligence agencies and start to actually treat senior citizens with the respect they deserve. SS and Medicare are not handouts. We paid for it and deserve better than we are getting. In fact, America needs to get rid of the current health plan and expand Medicare to all Americans paid for by a percentage out of one's salary and free for those retired. Japan is able to do it, why can't the US?

Edited May 18, 2016 by Thaidream

[Thaidream]

Just add more fuel to the fire- when one reaches Age 62 and still wants to work- SS should be completely exempt from taxes of any kind. One has already paid taxes on their income and also the payroll tax. Further taxation is simply unfair and an example of why the US tax code needs revision. In addition, senior citizens should be eligible for tax credits for using medicare overseas as it saves money for the US government. The simple fact is that our representatives simply do not care about us- they only care about protecting the healthcare industry and Big pharma as well as making deals with business and bankers. If I sound like I am irritated with this system- I am. I don't know what the next Presidential election will bring- but I will be surprised if anything changes for the better under a Trump or Clinton regime. And this is the problem- Americans at all age levels are losing hope.

[Jingthing]

I will do more research but the choice of waiting till 66 is making a lot more sense to me now. I will need to look at spending estimates closely but I can now see that spending a significant part of my nest egg is an excellent investment also considering my life expectancy. Waiting till 70 I think not. Instead of pure spending it's also buying an excellent annuity. Another thing to consider is if you become disabled and need long term care aren't you forced to spend down to nothing anyway?

[fittobethaied]

Obviously, everyone's situation is different and there are so many variables to consider, but in my case....I was just darn sick and tired of working. I don't think I could have gotten up one more morning past age 62 and gone into my high stress management position, so I was ready and happy to get out when I did; otherwise, the stress would have put me in an early grave. One's quality of life, health wise, can change over night; so why would anyone want to wait until 66 or 70, get the extra money and then not be able to enjoy his life and do the things that a 62 year old man could do?

I moved to Thailand in 2010, paid cash for a house and car out of savings and my total monthly budget is only $850. My wife and I live very comfortably and want for nothing, and every year things have gotten easier since the US Dollar has gotten stronger and I get more Baht each month. I lived comfortably when the exchange rate was 28+ to 1, and I have more liberties now that it's 35 to 1. I manage to sock back over $700 per month in SS savings, and in the past 5 years I have noticed very little inflation in the cost of living here in Thailand. I simply can't imagine that changing very much in the next 5, 10 or 15 years, and if it does I still have my excess SS to live off of without touching my other resources.

I have no regrets and am happy that I am out of the work force and living the dream. Wait until age 70 to take SS and you could be pushing up daisies the following day. It's all a big gamble since we're not promised tomorrow. Each has his own decision to make, but if you can afford to retire at age 62 and take SS, then find your financial balance in life and start living the dream while you still have your health.

[timendres]

Obviously, everyone's situation is different and there are so many variables to consider, but in my case....I was just darn sick and tired of working. I don't think I could have gotten up one more morning past age 62 and gone into my high stress management position, so I was ready and happy to get out when I did; otherwise, the stress would have put me in an early grave. One's quality of life, health wise, can change over night; so why would anyone want to wait until 66 or 70, get the extra money and then not be able to enjoy his life and do the things that a 62 year old man could do?

I moved to Thailand in 2010, paid cash for a house and car out of savings and my total monthly budget is only $850. My wife and I live very comfortably and want for nothing, and every year things have gotten easier since the US Dollar has gotten stronger and I get more Baht each month. I lived comfortably when the exchange rate was 28+ to 1, and I have more liberties now that it's 35 to 1. I manage to sock back over $700 per month in SS savings, and in the past 5 years I have noticed very little inflation in the cost of living here in Thailand. I simply can't imagine that changing very much in the next 5, 10 or 15 years, and if it does I still have my excess SS to live off of without touching my other resources.

I have no regrets and am happy that I am out of the work force and living the dream. Wait until age 70 to take SS and you could be pushing up daisies the following day. It's all a big gamble since we're not promised tomorrow. Each has his own decision to make, but if you can afford to retire at age 62 and take SS, then find your financial balance in life and start living the dream while you still have your health.

Indeed!

I look at my father - age 75 - and his days boil down to sleeping, watching TV, doing a crossword puzzle, and the occasional dinner out. One does not require much money to live that life. His major concern, of course, is the cost of healthcare.

I would much rather have the resources to enjoy my life at 62 with less money, than to wait until my 70's to attempt to enjoy my life with more money. To each his own.

[Suradit69]

I want to bring up an apparent logic contradiction with three facts that I think I know:

Fact 1: The most popular choice is to take the lower benefit early at 62

Fact 2: The main reason people do that, by far, is simply because they feel they NEED the income NOW (can't afford to delay)

Fact 3: The majority of people who do take it at 62 end up REGRETTING that decision later in life!

I don't know exactly what to make about all that. Of course each individual has in real life personal factors that make the choice more complex. Do they own their home? Spouse with income? Live in an expensive area? Amount of savings? Etc., etc.

But the REGRET part. If it's really true and I believe it is that the strongest reason to take it early is NEED, then how is regretting that later at all logical? Except good old human nature, which isn't very logical

It would be logical to REGRET being in a position at age 62 of feeling you need to take it early (and wishing you had done things differently earlier in life so that wouldn't have happened) ... that I understand. But you can't turn back time.

"It would be logical to REGRET being in a position at age 62 of feeling you need to take it early (and wishing you had done things differently earlier in life so that wouldn't have happened) ... that I understand. But you can't turn back time. "

Yes, if you need the money to survive now, then whatever you get each month will be immediately used and you've removed any possible cushion to rising expenses over time ... since the annual increase in monthly payments is never going to match actual cost of living increases.

But I still contend that if you have any possible reasonable investment vehicle into which it could be fully deposited each month with even a modest annual return, the effect of compounding returns over 5 to 10 years until the time when you might want to use your monthly check for living expenses as well as start drawing from the investment you accumulate with earlier SS payments will be a better result for most.

Just using round numbers, if you put an SS check of $1000 per month into something that compounds quarterly with a 5% annual rate of return, at the end of 10 years you'd have $160,000. At that point if you started using the monthly SS payment for living expenses AND started drawing down some monthly amount from the accumulated savings (which would still be earning interest on the balance), the total per month would exceed whatever slightly higher monthly SS payment would be if you had delayed starting payments.

Obviously there are potential investment risks and possible tax consequences. If your investing experience has been spotty in the past or if you would get a hefty income tax bump from the additional SS income this might be a less attractive scenario.