Delaying Social Security benefits until age 70.. Now I intend to start benefits next

[JJNL]

While the age to claim SS is complex and controversial by itself, I like the reasoning that you used to consider ALL of your income streams (i.e. IRA, 401k, RMDs at age 70, spousal SS effects).
I believe that one must consider all of these income streams to make the most informed decision.
Good luck & great profits!

[DoubleDown]

Totally agree with you if you and your wife are in close proximity in age. But if wife/spouse is considerable younger (mine is 8 years younger) she would benefit greatly by me waiting until 70.

[norabird]

I reached the same conclusion using similar methodology some 13 years ago when I reached 62.  My father, a high school graduate road construction foreman, had told me the same thing; take it as soon as you can.  He figured that it would break even at 84; he died at 73.  As I never counted on SS as part of my retirement, what I get is just some return on a "bad debt".

[Fishindude]

Except you are giving up tens of thousands of dollars to get that extra return. And you are accepting fewer lifetime payments,

[Dicey]

I am really leaning toward 62 on mine now. (66 + 8 months is full, so I will be 60 in July 2018). $801/mo delta 62 v. 66.66 yo. I was going to pick some point in between.

Now I am waffling!!! I think investing the money....

[waltworks]

YES! Just do the math and look at your overall income streams/cashflow. I suspect "sooner" works for more people than not. Great post, Thanks!

[MoneyMatrix]

One factor It appears you didn't consider is survivor benefit. It is my understanding that, while you are alive, your wife's benefit is half of yours; however, if you predecease her, she can file as surviving spouse and get your full benefit (at the rate you filed for, e.g. the benefit at 66 or the benefit at 70).

[lhamo]

Started at FRA/66 and am encouraging everyone who is not sick or ill from a family lacking longevity-- to do the same. If health challenged go for 62.

I believe you forgot to consider taxation of benefits and tax on investment income and regular earned income, bonuses and commissions. For people with multiple income streams, some of them significant, taking benefits at 62 is bad deal tax wise.

[arebelspy]

The best guide I have seen on Social security is: "Get What's Yours" by David Kotlikoff and Phillip Moeller at Amazon and BN. Get the current edition which features in the changes made last year on spousal strategies for file and suspend.
Moehler has a sister book on Medicare.
 
The detail on the OP's post is very good. One catch could be making above the 8% already 'guaranteed' increase in benefits per year between 66 and 70.

[rebel100]

I have come to the same conclusion and done a similar calculation that always puts my "zero return" breakeven age at 86. Investing the money in say Verizon as was suggested is a good way to gain additional income from the money. It does not take account of any reduction in "principal" due to stock price reduction, but that is not relevant if you are merely taking the dividend and not disposing of the stock.

Plus if you used just the one stock and bought some each year until age 70 with the SS (if you did it on a monthly basis), you would dollar cost average the stock and mitigate some of the risk.