Dave Ramsey has been very clear on when you should claim Social Security. Both on his podcasts and on the Ramsey Solutions blog, the personal finance personality has staked out a consistent position on the single claiming age he believes is right for almost everyone.
The problem is that the research points strongly in the opposite direction. Ramsey is recommending the age that most studies identify as one of the worst choices for maximizing lifetime income. For anyone who can afford to wait, following his advice could leave a substantial amount of money on the table. It is worth comparing what he actually says against what independent data shows.
What Ramsey says to do about claiming Social Security
Ramsey advises readers and listeners to claim Social Security at 62, the earliest age allowed. His case rests on three related arguments. First, he believes you should claim early and, if you do not immediately need the cash, invest it, because market returns could outpace the benefit increase the government awards for waiting. He specifically cites expected annual returns of 10% to 12% from diversified mutual funds as his justification. Second, he points out that checks stop when you die, so grabbing them early hedges against dying before collecting much. Third, he argues that most people’s life expectancy means they will come out ahead financially by starting at 62 rather than delaying. His advice has been consistent across multiple platforms: as he has put it, “Your retirement payments die when you die, so you might as well take the money and make the most of it while you can.”
The “invest the difference” argument falls apart under scrutiny
Ramsey’s “invest the difference” strategy sounds disciplined on the surface, but the math is hard to pull off in practice. Delaying Social Security past your full retirement age (FRA) earns a guaranteed 8% annual increase in your monthly benefit for every year you wait, up to age 70. To beat that guaranteed return, a retiree would need to consistently achieve comparable risk-adjusted gains in the market while drawing down a portfolio during retirement, a period when sequence-of-returns risk is at its highest. A guaranteed government check sidesteps that risk entirely.
There is also a practical barrier that Ramsey’s podcasts rarely address. In 2026, anyone who claims at 62 while still working loses $1 in benefits for every $2 earned above $24,480. That earnings test makes the “claim early and invest it” plan impractical for most people who have not yet fully retired. The withheld benefits are eventually recalculated at FRA, but in the meantime the strategy simply cannot be executed as described.
Claiming at 62 also triggers the maximum early-filing penalty. For anyone whose FRA is 67, which now applies to everyone born in 1960 or later, claiming at 62 permanently reduces the monthly benefit by 30%. That reduction is locked in for life. According to AARP, the break-even point for someone who claims at 62 versus waiting until FRA does not arrive until age 78 and 8 months. For those willing to wait all the way to 70, the break-even versus FRA is 82 and a half years, an age the majority of today’s 65-year-olds are statistically likely to reach.
The data shows Ramsey is wrong about the best claiming age
Ramsey’s core argument is that most people will end up with more total money if they start receiving checks at 62. Two major independent research efforts directly contradict that claim.
A 2019 United Income study examined the Social Security claiming decisions of roughly 20,000 retired workers and asked a pointed question: at what age would each person have maximized their lifetime income? Only 6.5% of retirees would have come out ahead by claiming before age 64. By contrast, 57% would have generated the most lifetime wealth by waiting until age 70. Retirees who claimed at a suboptimal age left an average of $111,000 per household unrealized, adding up to roughly $3.4 trillion in foregone benefits across the entire retiree population.
A 2022 paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research reached a similar conclusion using a life-cycle consumption-smoothing model applied to Survey of Consumer Finance data. The researchers found that more than 90% of Americans aged 45 to 62 should wait until age 70 to collect, yet only about 10% actually do so. The median loss in present-value household lifetime discretionary spending from not optimizing the claiming decision came to $182,370.
The looming trust fund shortfall adds another layer of risk
The case against early claiming has grown more complicated in 2026. The Social Security Board of Trustees released its annual report on June 9, 2026, projecting that the OASI Trust Fund reserves will be depleted in the fourth quarter of 2032, one quarter earlier than last year’s forecast. At that point, ongoing payroll tax revenue would cover only 78% of scheduled benefits unless Congress acts. Two pieces of legislation accelerated the timeline: the Social Security Fairness Act, signed in January 2025, increased program outlays by eliminating benefit reductions for certain public-sector workers, while the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted on July 4, 2025, reduced the income-tax revenue flowing into the trust fund by expanding deductions for seniors. The program’s 75-year unfunded obligation now stands at an estimated $30 trillion, up sharply from $26 trillion in the prior year’s report.
For someone who claims at 62, that timeline creates a compounding risk. They would lock in a permanent 30% benefit reduction today, then potentially absorb an additional automatic cut of roughly 22% in 2032 if Congress fails to act. The two reductions would not simply add; the 22% cut would apply to the already-reduced amount. The average retired worker received $2,071 per month at the start of 2026, according to the Social Security Administration. A person who claimed early and took a 30% haircut on that baseline, and then faced an additional 22% automatic cut, could be left with a check well below what a delayed claimant would receive even after the same trust fund shortfall. For retirees already living on tight margins, that combination could be genuinely damaging.
The “tax torpedo” and provisional income
One cost of early claiming that rarely surfaces in the “claim early” conversation is what retirement planners call the tax torpedo. When you claim at 62 and keep working or drawing from tax-deferred accounts, that combined income can push a larger share of your Social Security benefits into taxable territory. Conversely, delaying Social Security to 70 creates a window between ages 62 and 70 when income is often lower, allowing for strategic Roth conversions at reduced tax rates. That can permanently lower the tax bite on both Social Security and retirement withdrawals later, when required minimum distributions from traditional IRAs and 401(k)s begin.
Provisional income thresholds make the math concrete. For single filers, once combined income exceeds $34,000, up to 85% of Social Security benefits become subject to federal income tax. For married couples the threshold is $44,000. Investing early Social Security payments in a taxable brokerage account, as Ramsey recommends, adds capital gains and dividends on top of those income streams, raising the odds of crossing those lines. On top of the federal tax issue, retirees who cross Medicare’s Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount thresholds face steep surcharges on Part B and Part D premiums, a stealth cost that further erodes the return on the “invest early” strategy.
The survivor benefit the math usually ignores
For married couples, the claiming calculus extends well beyond one person’s break-even point. When the higher-earning spouse claims at 62, the permanently reduced benefit becomes the survivor benefit the other spouse will receive after the first spouse dies. Delaying the higher earner’s claim to 70 functions as longevity insurance for the household: the surviving spouse inherits the larger check for the rest of their life, regardless of how long that turns out to be. For couples where the higher earner is also the older spouse, this dynamic can easily dominate the entire retirement income picture.
The research is consistent: for most people who can bridge the gap financially, waiting to claim produces meaningfully higher lifetime income, stronger survivor protections, and better tax outcomes. Ramsey’s advice to claim at 62 runs counter to all of it. That does not mean early claiming is always wrong. Poor health, limited savings, or an urgent need for income can all make earlier filing the right call for an individual. But as a blanket recommendation for nearly everyone, the data shows the case simply does not hold up.
Editor’s note: This revision adds the Social Security Fairness Act as a second legislative factor that accelerated the OASI Trust Fund depletion timeline alongside the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, incorporates the program’s updated 75-year unfunded obligation of $30 trillion (up from $26 trillion), includes the SSA-reported average monthly retirement benefit of $2,071 for 2026 to illustrate the dollar impact of compounding benefit cuts, and adds context on Medicare IRMAA surcharges as an additional cost of the early-claim-and-invest strategy.
Contact [email protected] for any questions or corrections.
Top Gaining Stocks
Top Losing Stocks