What Is the Maximum Social Security Benefit in 2024

Waiting until seventy years of age is highly recommended to all.

I retired at 65 with a widow's benefit (my deceased spouse's benefit was less than mine). My goal was to delay getting my own benefit until 70. However, every year I did a reality check. I'd consider changes in my health, the break-even age and the difference in benefits by delaying. I ultimately chose to switch from the widow's benefit to my own benefit at 68, primarily thanks to risks from Covid. I have no regrets. In addition to elevated pandemic health risks, I decided that I'd prefer to collect more Social Security than spend more of my own money. My spending is dropping due to impacts from the Covid epidemic and aging. I'm less likely to want to travel now that I hit my 70s, for example. As a warning though: I went into a Social Security office for the "monumental" moment in my life when I applied for Social Security. The representative initially just started filling out my forms on the assumption that I'd want the highest benefit. She didn't mention the widow's benefit option and deferral to me at all. I had to stop her and explain what I wanted to do. Same with Medicare - there was no warning about the fact that if you earned X in your last year of working that you could get charged a higher premium. There is actually a form to get your premium based on retirement anticipated income instead of prior year's wages in the first year of retirement. It pays to do a LOT of research before you retire.

The government is hoping must people wait until 70 as the chances of you dying prior or not even making break even point is better. People dying before taking any benefits helps SS. The choice should vary based on your family medical history and longevity. I did the break even points for 62, 67 (my full retirement age) and 70. I would have to live to 82 in order to break even if I started at 70 vs 67.

I’m 68-1/2, my wife is 62-1/2. We both had over 27 years of maximum earnings before retiring in 2022. We decided to start her benefit early at 62 (last July) at $2,400; and delay mine till 70, currently projected to be approx $4,600. Giving us a combined $7K monthly benefit starting in July 2025. Bridging the gap (3 years total of delay without any earned income) was the only downside (IMO). But at about halfway there and seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, even though our retirement withdrawals are about 7%/year until 2025. Once my benefit kicks in our IRA withdrawals should be minimal until RMDs start.

I'm 67.5 and waiting till 70 so younger spouse will have more when I'm gone. I feel though like we are whistling past the graveyard because SS is going to go bankrupt and politicians do nothing, just push the issue down the road. Somebody needs courage to rescue SS or really, none of this discussion matters.

I delayed my benefit until 70, as I worked until 71. Being healthy at 74 with some longevity in the family, I expect to pass my break even age of 82. In addition to the considerably higher benefit at 70, COLA increases are bigger, based on the larger base benefit.

To be perfectly honest, I don't understand much of this including the tax part which scares me. Why do they want to charge a tax on top of a tax you had to pay without choice anyway? Makes no sense. They do the same on unemployment. You get less than 25% of your monthly income, but they want to tax you 10%. No one takes the time to figure out SS. Every politician running lies stating they'll fix it or their opponent wants to gut it, just like they say about Obama Care. They're not that smart period. They play on heart strings for votes & unfortunately a lot of uninformed voters buy it. Traditionalists are just about gone & Boomers are headed in that direction. Gen X won't have much to retire on with SS because Gen Y & Z & Millennials don't want to work unless they're making $100K+ which they don't have the skills to earn. So without them paying into SS it will go bankrupt. The morons in DC have no understanding of finances & keep borrowing from it to pay for their pet projects. I don't care what this article says, when I turn 67 in 3 yrs. I'm taking my SS benefits. They won't hit $4K per mo. but will assist with my income needs. I may still be working FT & earning a huge pay check too. Whatever it takes to survive in this world I am going to do. I'm not going to retire from the working world, just when SS says I'm able to collect my full benefits & still collect a FT pay check above their $20K rule for those under 67. I want to get my fair share of what I paid into that program before it's gone. Otherwise I wasted 40+ yrs. of working to pay into something I never benefited from. That's throwing away good $$ after bad. That too makes no sense to me.

Yes there is a higher benefit to waiting until 70 - that is assuming we live that long! The Social Security Admin. has done all the actuarial research to have a fairly accurate idea where all of us stand in terms of life expectancy. In my own family I have had three first cousins to date who have collected little if any SS benefits because they died too young unfortunately. My point being do not assume you are going to live to a ripe old age and therefore you can wait to reap the max SS benefit. When deciding on when to turn on your benefits one should first take a hard look at your own health history and that of your spouse, as well as your family health histories. Then of course much will depend on your individual financial situation as well in terms of the best timing to tap SS. From my perspective there is no right answer - as everyone's situation can vary greatly and priorities may differ as well. If the projections are to be believed then SS is going to run out of funding in the not to distant future which might be another reason to take your SS benefit sooner rather than later. Or we may see SS decrease benefits across the the board should there be a lack of funding. There is much to consider - but the taking of SS benefits and when is an individual decision that should be based on your situation - there is no one size fits all answer!

My husband and I are only a few months apart in age and our parents all lived into their 90s.

After much research we decided to semi-retire at age 65, transitioning to consulting. We filed for my SS at 65 and let his build to age 70. During the first year we needed to draw some money from our retirement savings, but not after that. In fact, we've added all we withdrew plus some to our nest egg.

Hubby reached 70 last January, which is when we planned to fully retire. January came and went but we continued consulting because we enjoy it. We're committed through Dec 2024. In June we'll decide for 2025 based on our health, enjoyment of the work, and tax ramifications.

After Medicare our SS checks our combine to $5350/month. Had we both filed at 65 we'd be looking at $3725. More importantly, if one of us dropped dead tomorrow, the other would get $3530 in SS after Medicare rather than $2425. In the likely event at least one of us lives to our 90s, that extra money would be very meaningful.

Generally speaking, SS breakeven for those born during out time will come at roughly 78-1/2. However, my husband claimed half spousal against my earnings record from the time he turned 66 until 70, so we will break even earlier than that.

There is much to consider when it comes to the age for taking SS benefits. I know a number of people in their 70s and beyond who regret filing early but not a single one who regrets delaying.

Hope I outlive our current PM & GC. Our GC spent $71m on Taxi's in Iceland. $71m on Taxi's in Iceland; definitely a "Head Scratcher!!"

Determine if delaying SS is a good idea for you.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/retirement/planning-to-delay-social-security-benefits-until-70-here-s-why-that-might-not-be-the-best-bet/ar-BB1gZOdK?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=95b9c708bfdc48cd80fc31edeebe3796&ei=21

Any articles or calculators that take Social Security's looming insolvency into consideration about what age to claim?

Great question Mike. If you search online for your exact question you will find articles from the Washington Post and Barrons that attempt to answer it. But, they are behind the paywall so you either have to subscribe or go to a library to read them. There is an excellent article from the Committee for a Responsible Budget that is very helpful. https://www.crfb.org/papers/analysis-2023-social-security-trustees-report

To me the question is how do you want to bet on the possibility that our inept elected officials will do anything to solve the problem, or will they just let it happen. My personal feeling is that after the crisis happens in 2033, they will act. Otherwise, everyone gets a 23% cut in their benefits. If you are close to getting your maximum benefit, I suggest you wait to get that extra 8% a year in benefits. Even if it does get cut in 2033, at least you will have a higher base. But, if are age 54 now and turn 62 in 2032, you might consider claiming then to get at least a year of a higher benefit. It is a complicated math problem, and a calculator would definitely help weighing the 8% bump you get every year for waiting vs. getting the promised benefit for a few years and then taking a 23% cut.

The tragedy of this is that this is a problem that our politicians could solve by increasing the payroll tax now and eliminate the cap on earnings subject to FICA.

The solution stated in Admin’s last sentence would solve the problem of SS insolvency immediately. Is there the political will to do that in Congress?

I'll be a Devil's Advocate for a moment. Yes, increasing the payroll tax and eliminating the cap on earnings subject to the tax would be one way to solve the problem. However, there is a matter of fairness to consider. Without increasing the maximum SS benefit it would be unfair to those who have to pay above the current cap on earnings subject to the tax. For example, the current SS maximum monthly payment of $4873 would apply equally to earners under the current benefit formula and to a corporate CEO earning a salary of $10 million a year. The FICA tax of 6.2% on $10 million is $620,000. That is a huge tax for a maximum monthly payment of $4873.

LS, that is certainly the other side of the argument, probably persuasive to those who make the most money. Another way to look at it is that is an additional tax for the super-wealthy to help out millions of Americans who aren't so fortunate. Maybe there could be some kind of adjustment. But the important thing is - something needs to be done. Cutting benefits won't help the millions who already don't have enough. Delaying benefits could help, but will cause pain. Social Security is supposed to be self-funded, but it is not anymore because there too many people collecting vs. those paying in. So, how about dramatically increasing the cap, and upping the percentages paid in. Who will be the brave politicians to take this on before we have a catastrophe?

I believe that in the long run there will be some kind of means testing for SS as there is for Medicare. I would be affected by this but believe that people who never seemed to be able to make enough money in their lifetime to save a decent amount for retirement need to have some support.

I know supporting this type of thing is not popular but I'm grateful for the way my life has gone and I'm willing to share some of my SS payments with the less fortunate. And no I'm not a bleeding heart Liberal, I tend to lean to the right.

There are plenty of ways to extend the income cap on Social Securities without taxing all income above the current limits. The 2024 cap is $168,600. That could be increased to $250,000, then not be assessed until income reaches $500,000. It would then kick in again up to $1,000,000 with no Social Security tax above that. That way those with huge incomes would get back a larger portion of their contributions. However, Social Security was never designed to particularly benefit the very wealthy. I’m not going to cry too many tears for millionaires who might have to pay more in SS tax. They’ll survive.

If you take early retirement at 62 at $2710/mth by age 80 you will have received a total of $585,360. If you wait until age 70 at $4873/mth by age 80, you will receive a total of $584,760. A $600 difference. My wife died at age 71 and took her benefits at 66. I'm 72 and took my benefits at 64. Life expectancy is now 79.11. I rather have the money now than gamble I'll live to 80+.

I took mine at 62, and I'm happy about it. With my SS and company retirement and my investments, I'm doing good. As my financial investor said once you turn 62 you have about 10 to 15 good yrs to travel and enjoy your life. You might be able to still do all the things, but health and being able to do it or wanting to do it makes
all the biggest things for you.

This thread is having some wonderful comments. Tom’s post is very thoughtful and seems pretty accurate. It shows that everyone’s situation is different and yiu have to make the decision that makes sense for you. I am sorry about the loss of Tom’s wife, that has to be hard. It does make his decision on when. To claim clearer though, because he doesn’t have to worry about delaying to protect a higher benefit for her for the rest of her life. When he dies , the benefit stops. One other consideration that tips the scales toward waiting- COLAs. After 10 years the COLA amounts on a higher base will add up to a lot .

Rather than guessing and hoping or listening to friends about when it is appropriate for you to claim Social Security, it’s best to see a tax professional about your particular situation. Also, an excellent book on the subject is “Get What Yours - The Secrets of Maxing Out Your Social Security” by Lawrence J. Kotlikoff, an economics professor at Boston University, with a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard.

A calculator showing effective tax rate, amount of tax paid and last date tax is paid into Social Security. The calculator is for 2023 with income cap of $160,200. Cap in 2024 is $168,600.
https://cepr.net/wage-cap-allows-millionaires-to-stop-contributing-to-social-security-on-february-28-2023/