What it costs
If your full retirement age is 67, claiming the month you turn 62 permanently reduces your benefit by 30%. A $2,400 statement benefit becomes $1,680. Compared with waiting to 70, where the same person would receive $2,976, the gap is $1,296 a month for life.
That reduction does not reverse at full retirement age. Cost-of-living increases still apply, but they compound on the smaller number, so the gap widens in dollar terms every year.
When claiming at 62 is the right call
Your health is poor
Break-even between claiming at 62 and 70 usually lands around age 80. If a serious diagnosis makes reaching your early eighties unlikely, waiting means collecting less in total and leaving money on the table. Family history matters here too, though less than people assume.
You are the lower earner in a marriage
When one spouse dies, the survivor keeps only the larger of the two benefits. If yours is the smaller, it will probably disappear from the household eventually no matter what you do. Delaying it buys very little. The standard efficient pattern is the lower earner claims early for cash flow while the higher earner delays to protect the survivor.
The alternative is debt or selling investments in a downturn
Delaying only works if you can fund the gap years from somewhere. Running credit card balances at 22% to avoid claiming a benefit is a straightforward loss. So is liquidating a retirement portfolio during a market decline to preserve a claiming strategy.
You physically cannot keep working
Much of the "just wait until 70" advice quietly assumes a desk job. If your work is physical and your body is finished, the choice isn't between claiming at 62 and claiming at 70. It's between claiming at 62 and eight more years you can't actually do.
You want the money while you can enjoy it
Spending capacity is not flat across retirement. Most people travel and do more in their sixties than their eighties. Optimising the total dollars collected is not the same as optimising the life, and it's reasonable to weight the earlier years more heavily.
One protection worth knowing. Within 12 months of claiming you can withdraw the application, repay everything you received, and start over as if you never claimed. This is allowed once in your lifetime. If you claim at 62 and your situation changes within a year, the decision isn't final.
When it's usually wrong
- You're the higher earner and married. Your benefit is the survivor's floor. Cutting it 30% cuts their income too, possibly for decades.
- You're still working full time. Earn over $24,480 in 2026 and benefits get withheld anyway, so you take the permanent reduction and don't receive much of the money.
- You're single with good health and adequate savings. This is the clearest case for delaying. There's no survivor to consider, and a larger inflation-adjusted benefit is strong protection against living a long time.
- You're claiming because you think the program will collapse. Trust fund shortfalls are real, but proposals overwhelmingly protect people already at or near claiming age. Claiming early to beat a cut that may not reach you guarantees a 30% cut right now.
The honest summary
Claiming at 62 is the best financial choice for a minority of people and a defensible choice for many more. What makes it a mistake is not the age — it's claiming without knowing what the reduction costs, or claiming early as the higher earner in a couple without realising it follows your spouse for the rest of their life.