For anyone born in 1960 or later, full retirement age is 67. That makes "62 vs 67" the foundational claiming comparison for the largest living cohort of future retirees, and the math behind it is unforgiving: claiming at 62 locks in a reduction of about 30% for life.
The rest of this guide covers where that reduction comes from, the exact 62 vs 67 break-even age, and the scenarios where each choice is defensible. The numbers mirror the SSA rules in our break-even calculator exactly.
The permanent reduction at 62 (FRA 67)
With an FRA of 67, claiming at 62 means starting 60 months early. SSA reduces the benefit by 5/9 of 1% for the first 36 months and 5/12 of 1% for the remaining 24, a total reduction of 30%.
| Claim age (FRA 67, PIA $2,000) | Monthly benefit | vs. FRA benefit |
|---|---|---|
| 62 | $1,400 | −30% |
| 67 | $2,000 | 100% |
| 70 | $2,480 | +24% |
That $600/mo gap (62 vs 67) is permanent. Once you claim, your benefit is set (it only grows with COLAs); it never "resets" at FRA. This permanence is the core of the decision.
The 62 vs 67 break-even age
Claiming at 62 gives you a head start: five years of $1,400/mo before the FRA claimer's first check. But the FRA claimer then receives $600/mo more, every month, forever.
| Scenario (PIA $2,000 at FRA 67) | Claim at 62 | Claim at 67 |
|---|---|---|
| Monthly benefit | $1,400 | $2,000 |
| Head start at 67 | $84,000 | $0 |
| Cumulative crossover | Equal total around age 78–79 | |
With these figures the break-even lands at about 78 years 8 months: it takes roughly 140 months of the $600 edge to erase the $84,000 head start. Live past ~78¾ and the wait to 67 wins; don't, and 62 pays more overall. Your personal crossover depends on your own PIA and birth date; run it here.
Why the actuarial math usually favors waiting
SSA's life tables put life expectancy at age 62 around 82 for men and 85 for women, comfortably past the ~78½ break-even. On average, someone who waits to 67 collects more total dollars than someone who claims at 62, and they have a bigger, inflation-adjusted benefit from then on.
When claiming at 62 makes sense
- Health issues or family history suggest you may not reach ~79.
- You need the income now and waiting would mean debt or spending down emergency savings.
- You're optimizing a couple's combined plan (e.g., the lower earner starts early while the higher earner waits).
When waiting to 67 (or 70) makes sense
- You expect average or better longevity and can cover five more years from savings.
- You're the higher earner; a larger benefit also means a larger survivor benefit.
- You want the strongest guaranteed inflation-adjusted income stream.
Going further: 67 vs 70
Once you've decided to wait to 67, the next question is whether to keep delaying. The same break-even logic applies: from 67 to 70 you earn 8% per year (24% total), with a break-even around 82½ for a $2,000 PIA. See the delay-credit math (the pattern is identical for FRA 67), or compare all three ages in the calculator. Prefer a step-by-step formula you can do by hand? Read how to calculate your break-even age.