[biker1]

Thanks for those numbers. I am more interested in the full retirement age (66 and 4 months) vs. age 70 scenario. When I ran the numbers assuming 2% COLA but no investment return on the money, the benefits would be equal at age 81. Assuming 5% return on all benefits (as an annual rate applied monthly) pushed the age out to 87.

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

So being a financial modeler, the model only took 5 minutes to build, using today's social security answers, as I am 62, and just barely qualified for the max, assuming total income only:

and the answer is
Taking full retirement at 67, (estimated for modeling purposes for my age) equals the same total income as taking it a 62 at 85 years old

Taking full retirement at 70, equals the same total income as taking it a 62 at 84 years old.

Taking but not using between 62 and 69yrs, 11 months and 30 days, assumes a benefits savings of about $234K, assuming taking benefits on your birthday as month 1, using benefit inflation model of 2%, $242K at 3% and $250K at 4% annual benefit increase.

However, I think that the real issue is cost of life style, which isn't being taken into account, as at age 70, the annual income difference is 45.5K per year versus $37.2 per year at 4% inflation if taken at age 62. . . or 8,000+ more a year for a cushion, $16K for a max couple if delayed.

So enough with the financial planning, I have to get outside on a 50 degree new england december day