Dave Ramsey Has 2 Reasons Why You Should Claim Social Security at 62. They’re Both Wrong

When you turn 62, you become eligible to claim your Social Security benefits. Most financial experts strongly advise waiting, even though filing right away can be tempting. Finance personality Dave Ramsey has carved out a notably different position on the question.

On the Ramsey Solutions blog, two specific reasons are offered for why you should claim benefits at 62. Both of them are wrong. Here is a closer look at each argument and why the logic falls apart under scrutiny.

1. You should claim benefits early in case you die young

Ramsey’s first argument is simple: grab the money while you are still alive to collect it. The Ramsey Solutions blog puts it plainly, arguing that “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 central flaw is that the math does not support the fear. When Social Security was designed, early-filing reductions and delayed retirement credits were calibrated to make claiming at any age roughly equivalent in total lifetime value, based on then-current life expectancies. Those life expectancies have risen substantially since the system was put in place. A landmark study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that more than 90% of American workers ages 45 to 62 would generate greater lifetime income by waiting until age 70. The median loss from claiming early is estimated at $182,370 in forgone household discretionary spending.

So while Ramsey frames early claiming as a hedge against dying young, the odds strongly favor living past the break-even point. Research puts the break-even age at roughly 80 to 82, well within current life expectancy. Waiting to file also translates into hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional discretionary income over a full retirement.

There is a second, often overlooked problem with early claiming: it can leave a surviving spouse in a very difficult position. If you are the higher earner in a married couple and you claim at 62, your benefit is permanently reduced by as much as 30% compared to your full retirement age amount. That reduction carries over directly into the survivor benefit your spouse would receive after your death. For anyone whose partner depends on that income stream, locking in a shrunken check is a lasting financial risk, not a prudent hedge.

2. You should claim benefits early and invest

Ramsey’s second argument is that you should claim at 62 and invest the proceeds. This is arguably the shakier of the two positions, and it rests on several assumptions that often fail in practice.

The first problem is the Social Security earnings test. Most 62-year-olds who are still working will run directly into this rule. In 2026, if you are under full retirement age for the entire year and earn more than $24,480, the Social Security Administration withholds $1 in benefits for every $2 earned above that threshold. The early checks Ramsey wants you to invest may not arrive in a consistent or predictable way, making the invest-the-check strategy hard to execute as described.

The second problem is cash flow. The strategy requires enough other income to cover living expenses while your Social Security checks go straight into a brokerage account. For a worker who genuinely needs Social Security income to pay the bills, investing it is simply not a realistic option. Pulling additional money from retirement savings to cover the gap while routing Social Security into the market is circular logic: you are drawing down one account to feed another.

The third and most fundamental problem is the opportunity cost of not waiting. Delaying a Social Security claim delivers a guaranteed, government-backed return. Every year you wait past full retirement age (age 67 for anyone born in 1960 or later), your benefit grows by 8%, up to age 70. On a $2,000 monthly benefit at full retirement age, that works out to roughly $1,400 per month at 62 versus $2,480 per month at 70, a gap of more than $12,000 per year, for life. Ramsey’s invest-early argument requires beating that guaranteed return net of taxes and market risk, which is a high bar in any environment. If the market turns down in the years after you claim and you are forced to sell investments to cover expenses, the strategy locks in losses that compound over the remainder of retirement.

It is also worth considering the broader backdrop for Social Security’s long-term finances. The 2026 Social Security Trustees Report, released June 9, 2026, projects the OASI Trust Fund will be depleted in the fourth quarter of 2032, one quarter earlier than the prior year’s projection. The Trustees cited the 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” as a contributing factor: the law’s new senior tax deductions reduced federal income tax revenue flowing into the program. The program’s 75-year actuarial deficit grew from 3.82% to 4.42% of taxable payroll. At depletion, ongoing payroll tax revenue would cover just 78% of scheduled benefits unless Congress acts. For anyone weighing long-term income security, a larger guaranteed benefit check provides a stronger buffer against any future shortfall than a smaller check invested in the market.

Neither of Ramsey’s arguments holds up against the underlying data. Waiting as long as possible to claim Social Security, ideally until 70, gives the overwhelming majority of retirees the best shot at maximizing lifetime income and protecting a surviving spouse’s financial security.

Editor’s note: This update adds context from the 2026 Social Security Trustees Report on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s role in accelerating trust fund depletion, and includes the updated 75-year actuarial deficit figure of 4.42% of taxable payroll.

Contact [email protected] for any questions or corrections.