Why Wealthy Retirees May Have the Most to Gain by Waiting Until 70 for Social Security

A retiree with several million dollars invested might seem like the last person who needs to worry about optimizing Social Security. When a portfolio can easily cover living expenses, the difference between claiming a benefit at 62, 67 or 70 may appear trivial compared with market returns and investment balances. In reality, substantial wealth can make delaying Social Security easier and potentially more useful.

The reason is not that Social Security magically produces a superior investment return. Delaying converts foregone payments today into a larger government-backed monthly benefit later, and that benefit continues for life. For retirees who can comfortably finance the waiting period from other assets, Social Security can function less like emergency income and more like longevity insurance.

That distinction becomes particularly important for couples retiring in their early 60s with multimillion-dollar portfolios. Their investment assets provide the bridge, while Social Security can be allowed to grow until the larger benefit becomes more valuable later in life. The result can be a stronger guaranteed-income floor, additional inflation protection and improved security for the surviving spouse.

Waiting From 67 to 70 Adds 24% for Today’s Younger Retirees

For people born in 1960 or later, Social Security full retirement age is 67. Claiming at that age produces 100% of the worker’s primary insurance amount, while delaying until age 70 produces 124% of that amount.

The increase is generated through delayed retirement credits of approximately 8% annually after full retirement age. Those credits stop at 70, so waiting beyond that age does not continue increasing the retirement benefit.

A worker entitled to $4,000 a month at 67 would therefore receive roughly $4,960 at 70 before future cost-of-living adjustments, using the 24% increase for someone born in 1960 or later. That additional $960 arrives every month for the rest of the worker’s life.

The tradeoff is giving up three years of $4,000 payments. That is why the decision cannot be evaluated from the larger monthly check alone. Health, longevity, investment resources and the needs of a spouse all determine whether waiting is worthwhile.

Claiming at 62 Creates a Much Larger Permanent Reduction

The difference becomes more dramatic when age 62 is the alternative. For someone born in 1960 or later, claiming a worker’s retirement benefit at 62 reduces it to 70% of the full-retirement-age amount.

Using the same $4,000 full-retirement-age benefit, claiming at 62 would produce roughly $2,800 before future COLAs, while waiting until 70 would produce approximately $4,960. That is more than a $2,000 monthly difference in the initial benefit, although the early claimant receives payments for eight additional years.

Neither choice is automatically correct. Someone with poor health, limited savings or an immediate need for income may have excellent reasons to claim early. The mistake is treating 62 as the default simply because Social Security becomes available then.

Affluent retirees have an advantage because their portfolios can remove the cash-flow pressure that forces many people to claim. They can make the decision primarily around longevity, taxes and survivor protection rather than whether next month’s bills require the check.

Social Security Is Different From a Bond Portfolio

Delaying Social Security is sometimes compared with investing the missed payments and earning a return. That comparison can be useful, but it overlooks characteristics that are difficult to reproduce in a private portfolio.

Social Security retirement benefits last for life. They receive annual cost-of-living adjustments when the inflation formula produces an increase, and there is no need to manage investments or decide how much can safely be withdrawn. Market declines do not reduce the scheduled monthly retirement benefit.

That gives Social Security a role similar to longevity insurance. The longer the retiree survives, the more valuable a larger lifelong payment becomes. A person who dies relatively young may have been financially better off claiming earlier, while someone living into the 90s can collect the higher delayed benefit for decades.

This uncertainty is precisely what makes the decision difficult. Nobody knows their date of death when choosing a claiming strategy, so the objective is not to predict an exact break-even age. It is to decide how much guaranteed lifetime income is valuable if retirement lasts much longer than expected.

Wealth Can Make Longevity Risk More Important, Not Less

A multimillion-dollar portfolio reduces the immediate risk of running out of money, but wealthy retirees frequently plan for long lifespans because they have the resources to fund them. Someone retiring at 62 may need assets to support 30 or even 35 years of retirement.

A larger Social Security benefit can gradually reduce the portfolio’s responsibility during those later decades. If guaranteed income covers housing, food, insurance and other essential expenses at 85, investment assets can be used more freely for discretionary spending and legacy goals.

This creates an interesting inversion. People with fewer assets may need to claim Social Security earlier even though they would benefit from a larger guaranteed payment later. Wealthier retirees can afford to wait, making the delayed benefit easier to capture.

The strategy is particularly attractive when the retiree values certainty. A portfolio can produce far higher returns than delayed Social Security during some periods, but those returns are not guaranteed and can arrive in an unfavorable sequence.

The Higher Earner’s Decision Can Protect the Surviving Spouse

Social Security claiming should rarely be analyzed one spouse at a time. For married couples, the higher earner’s decision can influence the income available after the first spouse dies.

A surviving spouse can generally receive a survivor benefit based on the deceased worker’s record, subject to Social Security’s rules and the survivor’s claiming age. Delaying the higher earner’s retirement benefit can therefore help establish a larger benefit foundation for the surviving spouse.

This matters because household expenses do not fall by half when one spouse dies. Property taxes, housing costs, utilities and many insurance expenses continue, while one Social Security payment disappears. Taxes can also become less favorable when the survivor moves from married filing jointly to single status.

The higher earner’s Social Security benefit can consequently act as a form of survivor-income protection. A couple with substantial assets may reasonably accept more portfolio withdrawals in their 60s to strengthen the payment that could support whichever spouse lives longest.

Delaying Can Create Better Tax-Planning Years

There is another advantage for households with large traditional retirement accounts. Waiting to claim Social Security can leave taxable income lower during the first retirement years, potentially creating room for strategic IRA withdrawals and Roth conversions.

Imagine a couple retires at 63 with several million dollars in traditional accounts. If Social Security begins immediately, those benefits become another component in the household’s tax calculation. If benefits are delayed, the couple may instead use taxable savings for living expenses while deliberately converting traditional IRA money into Roth accounts.

The opportunity can be especially valuable before RMDs begin. Current law places the applicable RMD age at 73 for people reaching 73 before 2033 and at 75 for those reaching the later applicable age after 2032. A retiree in the mid-60s can therefore have several years in which salary is gone, Social Security is delayed and mandatory distributions have not arrived.

Those low-income years can be extremely valuable. The Social Security strategy and Roth strategy should therefore be modeled together rather than treating one as an investment decision and the other as a tax decision.

Delaying Social Security Does Increase Portfolio Withdrawals First

Waiting is not free. If a household spends $120,000 annually and could have received $50,000 of Social Security, delaying means the portfolio has to produce roughly $50,000 more cash that year.

Over several years, those withdrawals can become substantial. If markets perform poorly during the waiting period, the household could be forced to sell investments after a decline, introducing sequence-of-returns risk. Someone with barely enough assets to support retirement should therefore be cautious about weakening the portfolio merely to maximize a future Social Security check.

This is where larger portfolios provide another advantage. A household with several million dollars and multiple years of expenses available in cash, bonds or taxable investments may be able to fund the delay without selling depressed equities. The portfolio effectively purchases the larger future income stream.

The decision should still be stress-tested against difficult markets. A claiming strategy that only works if stocks produce strong returns during the first retirement years is much less attractive than one supported by adequate reserves.

The 8% Increase Is Not the Same as an 8% Investment Return

One of the most common arguments for delaying Social Security is that earning roughly 8% per year through delayed retirement credits is impossible to match safely in the market. That description captures part of the appeal but is not technically an apples-to-apples investment comparison.

A worker who delays Social Security is giving up current payments in exchange for a permanently larger future payment. The economic return depends partly on how long the person lives. Someone who dies shortly after 70 does not experience the same outcome as someone who collects the larger payment until 98.

Stocks and bonds also produce assets that can potentially be left to heirs, while Social Security generally does not create an inheritable account balance. A delayed benefit can strengthen survivor income for a spouse, but children do not inherit the remaining economic value the way they might inherit an investment portfolio.

The best description is therefore that delaying purchases additional inflation-adjusted lifetime income. Whether that is more attractive than keeping additional money invested depends on the retiree’s objectives, longevity and need for legacy assets.

Waiting Until 70 Is Not Automatically Better

The strongest case for delay exists when the retiree is healthy, has adequate assets, expects a long retirement and values greater guaranteed income. A married higher earner with a younger or healthier spouse may have an additional reason because survivor protection becomes important.

The case weakens when health is poor or family longevity is short. Someone who needs the income to avoid unsustainable portfolio withdrawals may also reasonably claim sooner. There is little value in maximizing a benefit at 70 if the strategy creates serious financial stress between 62 and 69.

Program risk belongs in the discussion as well. Social Security faces well-documented long-term financing challenges, and future Congresses may modify taxes or benefits. That uncertainty should be acknowledged without assuming benefits will simply disappear.

Claiming should ultimately be based on the plan that exists today while maintaining enough flexibility to adapt if the law changes. It should not be based on slogans telling every retiree to claim at 62 or every retiree to wait until 70.

A Larger Guaranteed Income Floor Can Change How the Portfolio Is Invested

Social Security affects more than retirement cash flow. It can influence how much investment risk a household needs to take.

A retiree with $80,000 of guaranteed annual income and $120,000 of expenses requires only $40,000 from investments. Another retiree with $50,000 of guaranteed income needs $70,000 from the same portfolio. The second household is more dependent on market performance even if both have identical investment balances.

Delaying Social Security can eventually strengthen that income floor. Once the larger benefit begins, fewer investment dollars may be required for essential expenses, allowing the household to tolerate market volatility more comfortably or preserve more assets for discretionary spending and heirs.

This can simplify late retirement as well. A surviving spouse in their late 80s may value dependable monthly deposits more than managing a complicated withdrawal system across multiple investment accounts.

The value of delay therefore extends beyond the cumulative dollar amount received from Social Security. It can change the portfolio’s job.

The Wealthiest Retirees Should Not Ignore Social Security

It is easy for someone with $4 million or $5 million invested to dismiss Social Security as relatively insignificant. Compared with the portfolio, a few thousand dollars per month can seem small. Over a retirement lasting several decades, however, an inflation-adjusted lifetime income stream can represent substantial economic value.

More importantly, wealthy households are frequently in the best position to optimize it. They can finance the delay without sacrificing basic needs, coordinate low-income years with Roth conversions and use the higher benefit to strengthen survivor income later.

That does not mean delaying to 70 is always correct. It means Social Security should be analyzed as part of the overall retirement balance sheet rather than treated as spending money that should be collected at the first opportunity.

Financial independence creates choices, and one of those choices is the ability to postpone income today in exchange for greater certainty later. For households with enough assets to make work optional, Social Security can be optimized for longevity rather than necessity.

The paradox is that the people who need Social Security least may have the greatest freedom to use it strategically. They can afford to wait, and that waiting can make the rest of retirement easier precisely when age makes financial flexibility more valuable.

Intended for educational purposes only. Opinions expressed are not intended as investment advice or to predict future performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Neither the information presented, nor any opinion expressed constitutes a solicitation for the purchase or sale of any security. Consult your financial professional before making any investment decisions. Opinions expressed are subject to change without notice.

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES:

• Investment Advisory and Financial Planning Services are offered through Pure Financial Advisors, LLC. A Registered Investment Advisor.

• Pure Financial Advisors, LLC. does not offer tax or legal advice. Consult with a tax advisor or attorney regarding specific situations.

• Opinions expressed are subject to change without notice and are not intended as investment advice or to predict future performance.

• Investing involves risk including the potential loss of principal. No investment strategy can guarantee a profit or protect against loss in periods of declining values.

• All information is believed to be from reliable sources; however, we make no representation as to its completeness or accuracy.

• Intended for educational purposes only and are not intended as individualized advice or a guarantee that you will achieve a desired result. Before implementing any strategies discussed you should consult your tax and financial advisors.