> I’m interested in two things. One is why people make this choice when it is so often a mistake. One possibility: If one 'runs' the numbers, then the "break

> I’m interested in two things. One is why people make this choice when it is so often a mistake. One possibility: If one 'runs' the numbers, then the "break even" point [1] turns out to be around 82 years old. Unless one is absolutely certain one will indeed live beyond 82 years, there is little potential for a ROI from delaying until 70, and a larger potential for actually receiving less total money if one does not make it past the break even point. [1] The point where the sum-total of the higher per-check amounts from delaying until 70yrs exceeds the sum-total received from the smaller checks by starting at 62yrs