Roughly one in four newly retired workers still claim Social Security at age 62, but the average claiming age has risen to about 65, and the share claiming in their late 60s and at age 70 has increased significantly over the past two decades, according to Bankrate and the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

But those averages don’t answer the question that’s most pressing to you and your household: When should you claim Social Security? 

Well, it’s not as easy an answer as you might think, since it depends on so many variables including your health, your life expectancy, the degree to which you can cover essential expenses with guaranteed sources of lifetime income, your surviving spouse’s income needs, and more.

It gets even more complicated when you add in the fact that benefits get reduced or increased depending on when you claim.

In a recent interview, Dana Anspach, CEO and founder of Sensible Money and co-host of the Making Retirement Make Sense podcast, weighed in on the topic.

What follows is an edited transcript of that conversation, revised for clarity and brevity.

Robert Powell: I think the number-one question most financial planners get from pre-retirees is, “When should I claim Social Security?” Joining me to discuss that is Dana Anspach.

Dana Anspach: Hi, Bob. Glad to be here. It’s a hot topic, and a timely one.

Robert Powell: It’s become even hotter since a recent New York Times article questioned the long-standing advice that many people should delay benefits until age 70. That sparked a lot of debate. Should people really wait, or not? I’m eager to hear your take.

Recency bias and market conditions

Dana Anspach: This is challenging because the advice ebbs and flows over time. I see it change as market conditions change, which is not really how it should work. One cognitive bias we all suffer from is recency bias. After almost a decade of near-zero interest rates, rates are higher. Equity markets have also been strong.

That leads people to think, “I can invest my money and earn more. I don’t need to delay Social Security. I’d rather have the cash flow now and let my portfolio grow.” Some of the media coverage reflects that bias. I would hate to see someone make a lifelong, permanent decision based only on the last few years. I don’t think everyone should delay, but people can be swayed by how the topic is presented.

Why delaying often starts as the default

Robert Powell: My default has long been to delay, if you can, until age 70. You get the highest possible benefit, the highest cost-of-living adjustment, and the highest possible survivor benefit for a lower-earning spouse. That’s usually the best financial outcome. But health, life expectancy, and other income sources matter, too.

Health, longevity, and self-assessment

Dana Anspach: Research has shown a correlation between claiming age and perceived health. People who believe they are less healthy tend to claim earlier. That makes sense. If you truly expect a shorter life span, delaying may not be right.

But there’s another cognitive bias. When people are asked whether they are above-average drivers, about 90% say yes. The same thing happens with longevity. If you think your life expectancy is below average, is that really true, or just a perception?

Some groups do tend to live longer – higher-income households, white-collar workers. People in physically demanding jobs or with known health issues may have shorter life expectancy. But I wouldn’t assume that without analysis.

Break-even analysis: useful but limited

Robert Powell: Many people still rely on break-even analysis. If their break-even age is 78 or 79, they conclude they should claim earlier. What do you think?

Dana Anspach: Break-even analysis can be useful for single filers. But once you add a spouse, survivor benefits, or a prior marriage that lasted at least 10 years, it falls short. It also ignores taxes and the inflation adjustment built into Social Security.

For a single person without survivor considerations, it can be a starting point – especially if paired with a longevity calculator. But there are many other factors.

Delaying does not mean delaying spending

Dana Anspach: When we talk about delaying Social Security, we are not talking about delaying spending or just working longer. I worked with a couple who had about $300,000 in assets. We intentionally spent down those assets so they could delay Social Security. They had annuities, and we coordinated when to turn income streams on.

Eventually, they had no assets left for me to manage, and we parted on good terms. Four years later, they contacted me to say they had more income than when they were working – largely because of large Social Security cost-of-living increases. That plan worked because it was customized.

Guaranteed income and the coverage ratio

Robert Powell: You often talk about coverage ratios – how much of essential expenses are covered by guaranteed income. Does delaying Social Security usually improve that ratio?

Dana Anspach: Often it does. When you fast-forward a retirement plan and look at someone in their mid-70s, delaying can significantly increase guaranteed, inflation-adjusted income. Some of that income may also be partially tax-free.

Later in life, people face cognitive decline, elder fraud, and financial scams. Higher guaranteed income provides an extra layer of security. I think of it like the evacuation plan posted on the back of a hotel room door. You hope you never need it, but it’s there if things go wrong.

Irreversibility and timing risk

Robert Powell: Social Security is largely irreversible. You have a one-year window to undo a claiming decision before full retirement age, and after full retirement age you can suspend benefits. But mistakes matter.

Dana Anspach: They do. People often don’t want to repay benefits once they’ve received them. Headlines about Social Security’s long-term funding also create fear, and that fear can push people into less-optimal decisions. Most experts are confident the system will continue, even if policymakers act at the last minute.

Emotion vs. analysis

Robert Powell: There’s no off-the-cuff answer to when to claim. It comes down to rows and columns – spreadsheets.

Dana Anspach: Exactly. You need to ask whether you’re making an emotional decision or a logical one. Fear can drive this choice without people realizing it. Because this is permanent and difficult to change, it’s worth being analytical.

A final caution

Dana Anspach: One last caution – be careful relying on AI tools for claiming advice. We see examples where rules from different years get mixed up. This is a permanent decision, and it deserves thoughtful, customized advice.

Related: First 2026 Social Security check reveals 7 budget-related surprises