'It's heartbreaking': My brother claimed Social Security at 70. He died from cancer after one payment. Why wait to claim?

By Quentin Fottrell

 'I've always been a little skeptical of the government's encouragement to delay claiming benefits' 

 "Many people either aren't healthy enough or simply don't live long enough to fully enjoy the larger monthly benefit." (Photo subject is a model.) 

 Dear Quentin, 

 My younger brother waited until he turned 70 to start collecting a larger monthly Social Security benefit. Sadly, he was diagnosed with brain cancer and passed away at 70. I don't think he received more than one payment. 

 It's heartbreaking, especially because he was in pretty good health throughout his 60s. Had he started collecting Social Security at 62, he would have had eight years to enjoy the benefits while he was still healthy and active. 

 'What are you going to do with the extra money - buy a faster walker?' 

 The Social Security rules have changed since I ran the numbers for myself, but at that time my break-even age came out to around 80. I used to joke with friends about waiting until 70: "What are you going to do with the extra money - buy a faster walker?" 

 I've always been a little skeptical of the government's encouragement to delay claiming benefits. It seems to me that because the longer people wait, the fewer years they will actually collect Social Security, the hope was that some would pass away before receiving much at all. 

 I know people are living longer on average, but many either aren't healthy enough or simply don't live long enough to fully enjoy the larger monthly benefit. What do you think? Has this changed how you think about collecting at 62, 67 or 70? 

 Regular Reader 

 Related: 'The numbers don't lie': If I had invested my Social Security in the S&P 500 I'd have $4 million. Is the system broken? 

 You can email The Moneyist with any financial and ethical questions at qfottrell@marketwatch.com. The Moneyist regrets he cannot reply to questions individually. 

 The Social Security Administration is not trying to manipulate anyone. 

 Dear Reader, 

 If life is a relay race, your brother passed on the Social Security baton. 

 Your argument is not an unconvincing one, I'll give you that. Looking at the data alone, there is logic to your "collect while you still have a spring in your step" approach. Or the "collect while you're still alive" approach. Few of us know what's around the corner, even if we keep up with those regular doctors' appointments. The average life expectancy at birth in the U.S. is 79 years, pretty close to the Social Security break-even age of most Americans, including yourself. Women have an average life expectancy of 81.4 years, while men have an average of 75.8 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 

 The more people who delay, the better it is for the program itself, in theory, 

 Social Security is a collective insurance program and, like all insurance programs, the aim is for you to claim it when you really need it. The more people who delay claiming until they reach 67 - or even 70, for that extra 8% a year - the better it is for the program itself, at least in theory, because some of those people may either pass away before they make their first claim or die after they receive just a few payments. It's not so much a trick as it is a calculated risk people take based on actuarial tables, anticipated life expectancy and their own health and financial circumstances. Crucially, the program is not trying to manipulate anyone. 

 The problem, of course, is that the law of averages works well for large populations, but no one lives an "average" life. Some people will live to be 100. Others will live into their 80s in good health, thankful that they waited to collect while drawing down their IRA or 401(k) in the meantime, or even continuing to work. And others will wait to claim, only to find that their health declines sooner than expected, limiting their ability to enjoy the larger benefit. For any individual, the "best" claiming age depends on their own health, family history and financial needs, and on whether they believe they'll get better use out of that income earlier or later. 

 Don't miss: 'I get $1,460 in Social Security': My millionaire ex-husband, 74, refuses to pay alimony. What can I do? 

 Individual choice 

 The Social Security Administration leaves it up to every person to make those decisions for themselves and, yes, it sweetens the pot if you claim later. Some people would love to wait and collect a higher monthly payment at 67 or 70, but they simply can't afford to stop working without collecting Social Security, so they accept a permanent reduction of 30% on what they would have received at their full retirement age of 67. Other people will split the difference and claim somewhere between 62 and 70. 

 The ongoing debate about this critical eight-year period is, I suspect, everlasting. 

 The ongoing debate about this critical eight-year period is, I suspect, everlasting. But the older you get, the less time you have, so those eight years start to matter. The money your brother did not collect goes back into the pot and will hopefully help keep the program afloat. The government does not invest contributions in the stock market; instead, it is required by law to invest Social Security surpluses in special-issue Treasury securities, and the cash from those surpluses has been used by successive administrations for federal spending. This requirement to invest surpluses in U.S. government obligations dates back to the 1935 Social Security Act. 

 There is now a question mark over Social Security and whether it will run low on funds. The Social Security Administration had an annual surplus - payroll-tax revenue exceeding the cost of benefits - every year from 1984 through 2020. Now, however, multiple reports suggest the government may have to cut Social Security benefits as early as 2033, paying just 77% of retirees' benefits at that time, unless Congress takes action. When Social Security came close to running out of money in the early 1980s, Congress acted - at the 11th hour. That may or may not happen this time. It's another bean to consider in those actuarial tables. 

 I salute your brother. I have a feeling he was quite a guy. 

 Don't miss: 'I'll happily wait': Does delaying Social Security make sense for high earners like me? 

 By emailing your questions to The Moneyist or posting your dilemmas on The Moneyist Facebook group, you agree to have them published anonymously on MarketWatch. 

 More columns from Quentin Fottrell: 

 'I've plenty of time on my hands': Advisers bombard me with offers of free steak dinners. Is it wrong to go for the food? 

 My insurance company said my roof lost a few tiles. Loss adjusters found $10,000 in storm damage. How could this happen? 

 'I was shoveling sidewalks at 8 years old': I'm a 73-year-old boomer dad with two kids. Here's what I teach them about finance 

 Check out The Moneyist's private Facebook group, where members help answer life's thorniest money issues. Post your questions, or weigh in on the latest Moneyist columns. 

 By submitting your story to Dow Jones & Co., the publisher of MarketWatch, you understand and agree that we may use your story, or versions of it, in all media and platforms, including via third parties. 

 -Quentin Fottrell 

 This content was created by MarketWatch, which is operated by Dow Jones & Co. MarketWatch is published independently from Dow Jones Newswires and The Wall Street Journal. 

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

07-11-26 1446ET

Copyright (c) 2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.