Claim Social Security at 62 or 70? Why Suze Orman’s wait-and-claim approach may be the better bet

Dave Ramsey prefers taking Social Security early and investing any benefits you do not immediately need. Suze Orman usually advises waiting until age 70. Both ideas have value, but for retirees in decent health who can manage the delay, Orman’s case is especially persuasive.

Delaying benefits can mean a higher monthly payment for life, without depending on investment returns to make up the gap. To see the difference, consider a retiree who qualifies for $2,000 a month at full retirement age. Claiming at 62 could lower that to $1,400, while waiting until 70 could raise it to $2,480. That is a monthly difference of $1,080. The trade-off, of course, is giving up several years of payments. Here is how the two approaches stack up, where each one fits, and what to weigh before deciding when to file.

Ramsey’s Approach Relies on Investing the Early Checks

Ramsey’s strategy begins with claiming Social Security sooner rather than later. If you do not need the income for day-to-day expenses, his idea is to invest the payments and let them grow. In theory, that could build an account that supports retirement income later or leaves money to heirs. But there is an important caveat: simply taking benefits early and spending them is not the same as following this strategy. The money has to be invested consistently, and the returns need to be strong enough after taxes and fees to offset the smaller lifetime benefit. Market swings also add risk that guaranteed Social Security benefits do not carry. Ramsey’s method can work in the right situation, but it requires discipline, spare cash flow, and comfort with investment risk.

Orman’s Case Centers on Long-Term Security

Orman generally encourages delaying Social Security until 70, especially for people who are healthy and can afford to wait. Her reasoning is simple: a larger monthly benefit can provide more reliable income later in retirement, when savings may be running lower and returning to work may not be realistic. Someone who lives into their late 80s or 90s could end up with substantially more lifetime income by waiting. That said, Orman does not argue that everyone should delay. Poor health, financial strain, or the need for immediate income can make an earlier claim sensible. The aim is not to maximize the monthly payment at any cost; it is to avoid creating financial stress during the waiting period.

What the Benefit Looks Like at 62, 67, and 70

The gap between claiming early and waiting can be significant. For workers born in 1960 or later, full retirement age is 67. Claiming at 62 cuts the benefit by 30%, while waiting until 70 boosts it by 24% over the full-retirement-age amount. Using the same $2,000 example, taking benefits at 62 would reduce the monthly payment to about $1,400. Waiting until 70 would raise it to $2,480. That is an extra $1,080 a month, or $12,960 a year, compared with claiming at 62. Put differently, the age-70 benefit is about 77% larger than the age-62 benefit. These numbers assume the same earnings record and do not include future cost-of-living increases, but they show why the claiming age matters so much.

The Rough Break-Even Point Falls Near Age 80

Waiting until 70 produces a larger check, but there is another side to the math. A person claiming $1,400 a month at 62 would collect about $134,400 before reaching 70. Someone who waits receives nothing during those eight years, but then starts getting $2,480 per month. With a monthly difference of $1,080, it takes roughly 124 months for the delayed claimant to catch up in total benefits. That places the simple break-even point at about age 80 and four months. By age 85, the person who waited would have received about $446,400, compared with roughly $386,400 for the person who started at 62. That is a $60,000 edge for waiting. These are simplified estimates that leave out cost-of-living adjustments, taxes, investment gains, the time value of money, and survivor benefits, so an individual break-even age can vary.

One of the strongest arguments for waiting comes from delayed retirement credits. Under current law, workers born in 1943 or later earn credits worth 8% of their full-retirement-age benefit for each year they delay beyond full retirement age, up to 70. For someone whose full retirement age is 67, postponing for three more years raises the benefit by 24%. That may sound like an appealing return, but it is not the same as earning 8% a year in an investment account. Those credits are not compounded investment gains, and waiting means giving up monthly payments in exchange for a higher future amount. Investment accounts do have advantages, including growth potential and the chance to leave assets to heirs, but they also involve market risk, fees, and possible losses.

Working While Claiming Early Can Reduce What You Receive

Claiming Social Security at 62 while continuing to work can complicate the plan to invest those early checks. In 2026, someone who remains below full retirement age for the entire year generally has $1 in benefits withheld for every $2 earned above $24,480. Different thresholds apply in the year a person reaches full retirement age, and special rules may help people who retire partway through the year. That matters because someone planning to claim early and invest the payments may not actually receive every dollar expected. Fortunately, withheld benefits are not necessarily lost forever. Once full retirement age is reached, Social Security recalculates the benefit to account for months affected by the earnings test. The income limit also disappears at full retirement age.

Married Couples Face Additional Factors

Choosing when to file becomes more complicated for married couples, especially when one spouse earned much more than the other. If the higher earner waits, delayed retirement credits can increase the survivor benefit available to the remaining spouse later on. That can be valuable if the surviving spouse lives many years after the higher earner dies. It is also important to distinguish survivor benefits from regular spousal benefits. A standard spousal benefit can generally be as much as 50% of the worker’s full-retirement-age benefit, but it does not include delayed retirement credits, and claiming early can reduce it. In many cases, the lower-earning spouse cannot receive a spousal benefit until the higher earner files. For some couples, a mixed strategy may work best, with the smaller retirement benefit claimed earlier and the larger one delayed.

Taxes Can Alter the Best Choice

The biggest Social Security payment is not always the one that leaves the most money after taxes. Depending on your filing status and other income, as much as 85% of benefits can be included in federal taxable income. That is not an 85% tax rate, but it can still affect a retirement budget. Traditional IRA withdrawals, pensions, investment income, and other sources can all influence how much of Social Security becomes taxable. Delaying benefits may create an opening to manage retirement account withdrawals or consider Roth conversions before payments begin. But Roth conversions can also trigger taxes, so they are not automatically the best option. The key is to compare projected income and taxes under each claiming strategy rather than focusing only on the monthly benefit amount.

Research Suggests Many Retirees May Gain From Waiting

The argument for delaying Social Security is not limited to financial experts like Orman. A 2022 working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research by David Altig, Laurence Kotlikoff, and Victor Yifan Ye found that more than 90% of the American workers ages 45 to 62 in their model would do better by waiting until 70 to claim. The researchers also estimated a median loss of $182,370 in present value household discretionary spending from failing to optimize claiming decisions. That is a large number, but it needs context: it is a modeled result, not a guaranteed Social Security payment or a sure gain for every retiree. Health, savings, family circumstances, and longevity still matter. Even so, the research offers a strong reason to think carefully before filing automatically at 62.

Early Claiming Can Still Make Sense

Despite the financial upside of waiting, filing early is not automatically wrong. Someone with serious health problems or a shorter life expectancy may have a legitimate reason to begin benefits sooner. The same is true for retirees who need the money to cover essentials such as housing, food, utilities, or other basic costs. Waiting until 70 is not useful if doing so requires taking on costly debt or depleting savings too quickly. There are also reasonable middle-ground choices. Claiming at full retirement age, or sometime between 62 and 70, may better balance current income with larger future payments. Ultimately, the right decision depends on whether the extra income from waiting justifies the cost of reaching that age.

Which Strategy Looks Stronger?

For retirees in reasonably good health who can comfortably make it to 70, Orman’s case for waiting is especially compelling. A larger monthly payment can help protect against outliving savings, particularly for households worried about income in their 80s and 90s. Ramsey’s early-claiming strategy also has merit, especially when Social Security income is truly extra money, investment risk is manageable, and building an inheritance matters. Neither approach should be treated as a universal rule. The best first step is to review personalized Social Security estimates at 62, full retirement age, and 70, then factor in taxes, spending needs, other income, health, and possible survivor benefits. There is no added advantage to delaying past 70 just to earn more credits, since those credits stop then. And remember that Medicare is a separate decision; delaying Social Security does not mean you should delay Medicare coverage too.