Here’s Why Dave Ramsey Thinks Claiming Social Security at 70 Is a Bad Move

There’s a reason older Americans are often advised to wait until age 70 to claim Social Security. Benefits can start as early as age 62, but waiting until 70 locks in the largest possible monthly check for life. For 2026, the maximum benefit at 62 is $2,969 per month, compared to $5,181 per month for someone who waits until 70. That gap of more than $2,200 a month is hard to ignore.

Given that many Americans fall well short on retirement savings, Social Security often ends up as the primary income source in later life. The average Social Security monthly check for retired workers reached $2,081.16 in April 2026, according to the SSA’s Monthly Statistical Snapshot. For millions of retirees, squeezing every dollar out of that benefit matters enormously.

But while the math behind claiming at 70 is straightforward, financial commentator Dave Ramsey disagrees with that conventional wisdom entirely. His position: claim at 62. Here’s the reasoning behind it, and why it may or may not apply to your situation.

It’s a matter of longevity and risk

Ramsey is known for championing financial independence and building long-term wealth. On the surface, that mindset seems perfectly aligned with waiting for the biggest possible Social Security check. In practice, though, he has consistently argued the opposite.

His core concern is longevity risk. Ramsey doesn’t believe you should simply grab your Social Security check at the youngest possible age and coast on it. Instead, he believes the best course of action is to start payments as soon as you’re eligible and invest the money into a good mutual fund. The underlying logic: filing at 70 only pays off financially if you live long enough to recoup eight years of uncollected benefits, and there is no guarantee that happens.

When comparing claiming at 62 versus 70, the cumulative advantage of claiming early disappears between age 80 and 81. In other words, a retiree who claims at 62 but dies before reaching their early 80s will have collected more total lifetime dollars than one who waited. That uncertainty is at the heart of Ramsey’s skepticism about delaying.

There’s the opportunity cost, too

Ramsey’s approach centers on the idea that consistent and disciplined investing can very likely outperform the guaranteed increases that come with waiting. However, this strategy isn’t without risks and trade-offs, especially when market performance comes into play.

There is also a practical constraint that Ramsey acknowledges. Waiting until 70 to collect Social Security typically requires another source of income to cover living expenses in the meantime. For people who tap retirement accounts during their 60s to bridge that gap, the calculus changes: drawing down savings early means those accounts stop compounding, which can reduce total retirement wealth just as much as accepting a smaller Social Security check would.

Critics of Ramsey’s position point out a meaningful counterargument. The 8% annual increase from delaying is a guaranteed, government-backed return on a payment stream that lasts your entire life and partially adjusts for inflation. Historical stock returns of 7% to 10% annually are an average across decades, not a guarantee in any given year. From a risk-adjusted standpoint, that guaranteed 8% is difficult to replicate in markets.

For married couples, there is an additional dimension Ramsey’s argument tends to skip. Delaying a claim to age 70 not only increases your own monthly benefit but also increases the survivor benefit your spouse would receive. For married couples, this makes delaying especially valuable as a form of longevity insurance: even if the higher earner dies early, the surviving spouse benefits from the larger monthly payment for the rest of their life.

It’s a personal choice

Ramsey’s position is internally consistent, but it is not a universal prescription. The right filing age depends heavily on individual circumstances.

If you are in good health and your family has a history of longevity, filing at 70 may well produce more total lifetime income. For those born after 1960, taking Social Security at 62 reduces the benefit by 30% compared to waiting until full retirement age. That permanent reduction follows you for the rest of your life, so a long-lived retiree pays a steep price for filing early.

On the other hand, consider someone nearing retirement with little or no personal savings. The average retirement age in the United States is currently 62, and nearly half of Social Security recipients start taking benefits at 62, more than at any other age. For many in that group, claiming early isn’t really a strategic choice. It’s a financial necessity.

Ramsey’s invest-the-check strategy also requires real discipline. If you claim at 62 without the savings or income to actually invest those checks, you aren’t executing his plan; you’re just locking in a reduced benefit permanently. The strategy only works if the money truly goes into a diversified portfolio rather than covering routine expenses.

Rather than adopting any single expert’s framework wholesale, the smarter path is to think carefully about your own situation. How dependent will you be on Social Security in retirement? Do you have other income to bridge a delay? What does your health history suggest about your likely lifespan? Those answers, far more than any pundit’s rule of thumb, should drive your filing decision.

Editor’s note: This article was updated to include current 2026 Social Security benefit figures, including the maximum monthly benefit of $5,181 at age 70 and $2,969 at age 62, the April 2026 average retired-worker benefit of $2,081.16, the break-even age of roughly 80 to 81 when comparing filing at 62 versus 70, and context on survivor benefit implications for married couples.