Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman Have Opposite Advice on Social Security. The Data Is Clear on Who Is Right

Few financial decisions carry as much long-term weight as choosing when to claim Social Security. The age you file locks in your monthly benefit for life, making this one of the most consequential retirement choices you will ever face.

Filing at your full retirement age (FRA), which is 67 for anyone born in 1960 or later, gives you the standard monthly benefit tied to your earnings history. File earlier or later, and that number shifts permanently in either direction.

The earliest eligible age is 62. Claiming then cuts your monthly benefit by about 30% compared to filing at FRA. Delaying past FRA earns you an 8% annual credit for each year you wait, up to age 70. With an FRA of 67, that maximum delay produces a 24% permanent increase in your monthly check.

To put those percentages in concrete terms, consider a worker whose baseline benefit at 67 is $2,000 per month. Filing at 62 permanently reduces that to $1,400. Waiting until 70 permanently raises it to $2,480. The spread between the earliest and latest claiming ages reaches 77% in guaranteed monthly income, a gap that compounds dramatically over a long retirement.

Two of America’s most prominent personal finance voices, Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman, land on opposite sides of this decision. The data, however, gives one of them a clear edge.

Dave Ramsey’s Advice on Social Security

Ramsey advocates claiming at 62. His core argument is straightforward: the earlier you start collecting, the more individual payments you receive over your lifetime. Beyond the raw payment count, he argues that retirees who invest early benefits, rather than spend them, can more than offset the reduction that comes with filing before FRA. In his view, putting that money to work in the market neutralizes the actuarial penalty built into early claiming.

The Case for Ramsey in a High-Yield Environment

Critics of Ramsey’s approach argue that it forces retirees to gamble their safety net on stock market returns. Current conditions do lend some credibility to his logic, though. The 10-year Treasury yield climbed to approximately 4.74% in late August 2026, driven by surging debt issuance from AI companies and higher federal deficit spending, meaning early claimers can access meaningful risk-free yields without touching volatile equities. Locking in that rate on early benefits reshapes the traditional break-even math, giving a conservative saver a legitimate way to hedge against the lower monthly payout without putting principal at risk.

The Working Retirement Trap: The Earnings Test Penalty

A significant flaw in the claim-early-and-invest strategy surfaces for anyone who keeps working after filing. Under the Social Security earnings test, if you are under full retirement age for the entire year, the SSA withholds $1 in benefits for every $2 you earn above the annual exempt amount, which is $24,480 in 2026. For a retiree counting on that monthly check to fund an investment strategy, this withholding can wipe out the surplus entirely. The investment thesis only holds if the cash flow actually materializes, and for many working retirees, it simply does not.

Suze Orman’s Advice on Social Security

Orman takes the opposite position: 70 is the right age to claim. Her reasoning centers on the lifetime value of a larger guaranteed check. A higher baseline benefit is especially powerful for retirees who reach retirement without substantial savings, a situation that describes a large and growing share of older Americans. Social Security is often the only truly guaranteed income stream in retirement, and the bigger that stream, the more financial resilience a retiree carries into the years ahead.

The Fixed-Cost Squeeze Supporting Orman

Rising fixed costs in retirement reinforce Orman’s argument. The standard monthly Medicare Part B premium reached $202.90 in 2026, a jump of $17.90 from $185 in 2025, representing roughly a 10% increase year over year. That increase arrived alongside a 2026 Social Security COLA of just 2.8%. Research from the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College confirmed that the Part B premium hike alone consumes more than a quarter of that COLA for the typical beneficiary, leaving the net purchasing-power gain far smaller than the headline number suggests. For retirees relying on a reduced early-claiming benefit, healthcare cost creep erodes real income faster and faster over time. Orman’s case for waiting until 70 is, in part, a structural hedge against that squeeze.

The Spousal Coordination and Tax Safety Nets

Viewing Social Security in isolation misses some of the most powerful optimization strategies available, particularly for married couples. In a dual-income household, having the lower-earning spouse file early provides immediate liquidity while the primary earner delays until 70. That approach permanently locks in the highest possible survivor benefit, protecting whichever spouse outlives the other. The gap between the two claiming ages also creates a useful income-sequencing window, letting the couple draw down taxable retirement accounts before the larger benefit kicks in.

A separate but related consideration is the so-called Tax Torpedo. This is the income threshold at which required minimum distributions and investment income combine to make up to 85% of Social Security benefits subject to federal income tax. Early filers who also hold large tax-deferred retirement accounts can find that additional bracket exposure quietly eroding the real value of their monthly benefit. Delaying Social Security, and strategically converting traditional IRA assets to Roth accounts in the meantime, is one proven way to reduce that exposure before benefits begin.

Ramsey vs. Orman: Who Is Right on Social Security?

There is no universally correct age to file. The right answer depends on your health, your savings, your spouse’s situation, and your plans for continued work. What looks optimal for one retiree can be a poor fit for another.

That said, the broad data tilts clearly toward Orman. A 2019 study by investment firm United Income, which analyzed the claiming decisions of roughly 20,000 retired workers, found that 57% would have come out ahead financially by waiting until age 70. A 2022 paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research went further, concluding that more than 90% of workers should wait until 70, yet only about 10.2% actually do. The same paper found that the typical household aged 45 to 62 loses a median of $182,370 in lifetime discretionary spending by claiming too early, a striking illustration of how costly the default toward early claiming can be.

Social Security and SSI benefits for 75 million Americans increased 2.8% in 2026, yet the fear of leaving money on the table by waiting continues to push retirees toward early claiming. According to Social Security Administration data, nearly a quarter of new retired-worker beneficiaries claimed at 62 last year, and nearly half filed before reaching their full retirement age. Cash-flow anxiety, health concerns, and the psychological pull of getting “something now” routinely override the long-term math.

From a pure wealth-accumulation standpoint, Orman’s advice holds for most people. But “most” carries real weight here. If your health is poor, if you have limited savings and pressing bills, or if you plan to keep working past 62 regardless, the calculus shifts. Filing at FRA or somewhere between 62 and 70 may fit your actual circumstances better than either extreme.

The most important takeaway is that this decision deserves genuine analysis, not a default. Run the numbers for your specific situation, and consider working with a fee-only financial planner before you file.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated to reflect the 10-year Treasury yield rising to approximately 4.74% in late August 2026, above the prior July 31 figure, driven by surging AI-sector debt issuance and higher federal deficit spending. It also incorporates the NBER paper’s precise finding that only 10.2% of eligible workers claim at 70 and that the median household loses $182,370 in lifetime discretionary spending by claiming too early, as well as SSA data showing that nearly a quarter of new retired-worker beneficiaries claimed at 62 last year.

Contact [email protected] for any questions or corrections.