I Used to Think Claiming Social Security at 62 Was a Disastrous Move. I Was Clearly Misinformed.

Claiming Social Security at 62 could mean reducing your monthly benefits by 30% compared to waiting until full retirement age.

If health and longevity aren't on your side, it's a decision that could pay off nicely.

There are also perks to getting that money at a younger age versus waiting.

Even though I'm not close to ending my career, as someone who writes about retirement all the time, I like to contemplate different financial scenarios. I've spent hours thinking about what investing strategy I want to uphold in retirement, what withdrawal rate I might use for my savings, and when to claim Social Security .

I've actually flip-flopped on the latter quite a lot. I used to think that claiming Social Security at the earliest possible age of 62 was a terrible idea. For a while, I was convinced that filing for benefits at 70 made the most sense, since that's when you can lock in the largest monthly benefit possible.

Will AI create the world's first trillionaire? Our team just released a report on the one little-known company, called an "Indispensable Monopoly" providing the critical technology Nvidia and Intel both need. Continue »

But these days, I'm more inclined to consider filing for benefits at 62 than at 70. I also think it's a move that could make sense for a lot of people.

To understand the potential issue of claiming Social Security at 62, we'll need to do some math. You're eligible for your monthly Social Security checks without a reduction at full retirement age , which is 67 if you were born in or after 1960.