This question comes up all the time, especially for high earners who are still working into their mid to late 60s and are not relying on Social Security to fund retirement. If you are earning around $1 million per year, plan to keep working until at least 65, and already have strong retirement savings, it is natural to question whether waiting until age 70 really makes sense.
The conventional advice is to delay Social Security as long as possible. But some people argue that you would be better off claiming early and investing the benefits yourself, particularly given concerns about future benefit cuts, means testing, or Social Security “running out of money.”
It is a fair question. But once you unpack how Social Security actually works, the case for delaying is usually stronger than it first appears.
The Fear Around Social Security Cuts Is Often Misunderstood
Every few years, we hear a new projection about when Social Security will run out of money. One report says 2025. Another says 2035. Another pushes it out even further. These projections are not new, and they do not mean that checks suddenly stop.
What often gets lost is that these projections assume no changes are made. Historically, when Social Security has faced funding challenges, changes were made well before any crisis point. And those changes did not happen overnight.
There are several levers policymakers can pull:
- They could cut benefits across the board.
- They could reduce benefits only for certain people, which is where concerns about means testing come from.
- They could increase the payroll tax rate.
- They could raise or remove the income cap on wages subject to Social Security taxes.
- They could adjust the full retirement age gradually.
From a political standpoint, cutting benefits outright is the hardest option. Increasing taxes on future workers or adjusting income caps is much easier to sell. Raising the income cap, in particular, has an outsized impact because Social Security benefits do not increase proportionally at higher income levels. In effect, there is already a form of built-in means testing.
We also have clear precedent here. When the full retirement age was raised from 65 to 67, it was phased in slowly over many years. People close to retirement were not suddenly forced to wait longer. Any future changes are almost certain to follow a similar pattern.
Claiming Early to Invest Sounds Logical, but the Math Is Tough
The core argument for claiming early is simple. Take the benefit now, invest it, and let the market do the work.
The problem is that delaying Social Security comes with a guaranteed increase in benefits of about 8 percent per year, plus inflation adjustments. That is a real increase in your future income, not just a paper return.
To beat that strategy by investing early benefits, you would need to consistently earn returns that exceed the guaranteed increase, after accounting for market volatility and inflation. That is a very high bar.
An all-equity portfolio might have an expected long-term return around 8 percent. But that is an average, not a guarantee. To match the value of delaying Social Security, you would effectively need higher nominal returns with no sequence risk and no bad timing. That is not realistic, especially later in life when market risk matters more.
In other words, you are comparing a guaranteed, inflation-adjusted increase in lifetime income to an uncertain investment outcome. From a purely financial standpoint, that guarantee is extremely valuable.
The Government Guarantee Matters More Than People Admit
It is common to hear skepticism about anything being “guaranteed” by the government. But there is an important distinction here.
Any meaningful change to Social Security would be highly visible, heavily debated, and phased in over time. You would not wake up one morning to find that your benefits were suddenly cut with no warning.
Compare that to the market. There is no warning before a downturn. No phase-in period. No protection against bad timing.
If you are choosing between trusting the government to maintain a delayed benefit structure versus trusting the market to reliably outperform it, the guaranteed Social Security increase is usually the safer bet.
Spousal Benefits Often Tip the Scale Further Toward Waiting
Another factor that often gets overlooked is spousal benefits.
If you are the higher earner in your household, your claiming decision affects not just your own benefit, but also your spouse’s. A spouse can receive up to 50 percent of your benefit, or their own benefit if higher.
Delaying until age 70 increases the base benefit that spousal calculations are based on. That can materially improve lifetime income for both of you, particularly if there is a large earnings gap between spouses.
The Bottom Line on Claiming Early Versus Waiting
For high earners who are still working and do not need Social Security income right away, delaying benefits is usually the better decision. The guaranteed increase, inflation protection, and spousal benefits are very difficult to replicate through investing.
Concerns about future cuts or means testing are understandable, but historically, those risks have been overstated. There are many policy tools available that do not involve reducing benefits for people already near or in retirement.
Taking Social Security early and investing it yourself can work in very specific circumstances. But for most people in this situation, waiting until 70 remains one of the most effective ways to increase long-term, reliable income in retirement.
This post is adapted from a recent episode of the Scholar Wealth Podcast. For more perspective on Social Security claiming strategies and retirement income planning, listen to the full podcast episode here.