What is the break-even age for Social Security when comparing claiming at 70 vs 66?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Waiting from full retirement age (FRA) to 70 typically raises your monthly benefit by roughly 24–32% compared with FRA and by more versus claiming at 66; break-even analyses commonly find the crossover where waiting to 70 pays off comes in the low‑to‑mid‑80s (around age ~82–83) if comparing 70 vs. claiming at ~66–67 [1] [2] [3]. Exact break‑even age depends on your birth year (which sets FRA) and on the percent increase you receive by delaying to 70 — the SSA cites a 132% figure for some cohorts while consumer sites use 124% — and individual benefit amounts matter [4] [3] [1].
1. Why “break‑even” matters: simple math, big assumptions
Break‑even is the age at which cumulative dollars received from waiting equal cumulative dollars received from claiming earlier; calculators compare streams of monthly payments and find a crossover point years after retirement. Experts stress this is a cash‑flow comparison that ignores taxes, spousal or survivor rules, health, and how you’d spend or invest benefits while waiting — limitations Mercer Advisors and Social Security planners emphasize when they illustrate individual examples [2] [5].
2. What the government numbers say about the 66 vs. 70 comparison
The SSA explains that benefits stop accruing delayed credits at 70 and that delaying from FRA to 70 increases your monthly benefit; for some birth cohorts that increase is about 32% over the FRA amount (132% at age 70 for the 1943–1954 reference cohort) [4] [6]. However, the precise FRA varies by birth year — for people born 1959 FRA is 66 years, 10 months; for those born 1960+ it’s 67 — so a “66 vs. 70” comparison must be adjusted to your actual FRA [7] [3].
3. Typical break‑even ages found in published calculators and analyses
Financial outlets and calculators commonly place the break‑even for waiting to 70 versus claiming at FRA in the early‑to‑mid‑80s. Britannica’s write‑up gives an example break‑even of about 82 years, 6 months for waiting until 70 versus claiming at FRA, and similar sources show a mid‑80s crossover when comparing earlier claims [1]. Mercer Advisors’ example finds a specific individual’s break‑even at about age 82 in one scenario [2].
4. Why published percentages differ (124% vs. 132% etc.)
Different sources use different cohort rules or rounded assumptions. Some consumer education pieces cite a 124% boost at 70 relative to FRA; others (including SSA pages for certain birth ranges) use a 132% figure because delayed credits accumulate monthly up to 8 years and the exact percent depends on your year of birth and the calculation period [1] [4] [3]. That divergence alters break‑even outputs meaningfully.
5. Individual factors that move your personal break‑even earlier or later
Your personal break‑even shifts if you have lower expected life expectancy, need income earlier, plan to spend or invest benefits, or if your spouse’s survivor benefit would be affected; conversely, good health and family longevity push the crossover later so waiting to 70 looks better. Advisors warn the “purchase price” of delaying — the retirement savings you must spend to bridge to 70 — can be large and materially changes the analysis [5] [8].
6. Practical takeaways and next steps
Use an individualized break‑even calculator and your SSA statement estimates (which show projected benefits at 62, FRA and 70) to nail down the exact crossover for you; NerdWallet, SSA and private planners recommend comparing personalized numbers rather than relying on headline break‑evens [9] [6] [2]. If you need income now or have limited life expectancy, earlier claiming can be the rational choice; if you expect long life and can fund early years without draining retirement savings, waiting to 70 often wins by your 80s [10] [11].
Limitations: available sources do not mention your personal birth year, earnings history, marital/survivor details, tax situation, or how you’d invest interim payments — all of which materially affect the break‑even outcome (not found in current reporting).