Finance creator Tyler Gardner says he plans to claim Social Security as soon as he becomes eligible at age 62, even though waiting until 70 would give him a much larger monthly check.
Gardner, a former financial adviser and portfolio manager, laid out his reasoning in a recent video, arguing that the popular advice to delay Social Security as long as possible leaves out several major personal factors.
His conclusion is not that everyone should claim benefits early. In fact, Gardner says there are cases where waiting makes more sense. But for his own health outlook, retirement plans, and investment assumptions, he says taking the money at 62 is the better deal.
“I double dog dare you to find a flaw in this logic,” Gardner said as he introduced his argument.
The claim is deliberately provocative, but the larger point is reasonable: Social Security is not a one-size-fits-all decision. The best age to claim depends on a person’s health, income, marriage status, savings, work plans, and what they need the money for.
His Numbers Start With A Simple Comparison
Gardner said he created a free account on the Social Security Administration website and checked his projected benefit amounts.
According to his estimate, claiming at 62 would provide him with about $2,500 per month. Waiting until age 70 would raise that to roughly $3,700 per month.
That is a difference of $1,200 each month, or $14,400 per year.
At first glance, waiting sounds like the obvious move. A person who waits until 70 gets a much larger monthly benefit for the rest of their life.
But Gardner said that comparison is incomplete because it ignores the eight years of payments someone gives up by waiting.
If he starts receiving $2,500 per month at 62, he collects money from Social Security for eight full years before a person claiming at 70 receives their first check.
That early income is the foundation of his argument.
The Break-Even Age Is The First Big Question
Gardner said his personal break-even age is 79.
That is the point where the larger checks from waiting until 70 would finally catch up with the money he would have received by claiming at 62.
Before age 79, Gardner says claiming early would leave him with more total Social Security income. After age 79, the person who waited until 70 would pull ahead because of the higher monthly payment.
“For my numbers,” Gardner said, “I would need to live until 79 years old for the wait-until-70 strategy to be worth it.”
The math is basic, but it can feel uncomfortable because it forces people to think about how long they may live.
Gardner said he used an actuarial life-expectancy calculator and estimated that he could live until about 83. That would leave only a four-year window, from age 79 through age 83, where delaying benefits would give him more total money.
That does not make waiting wrong. A person who lives into their late 80s or 90s could benefit greatly from larger monthly checks.
But it does show why the choice cannot be made using only one rule repeated to everyone.
Gardner Says A Dollar At 62 Is Different From A Dollar At 85
Gardner’s strongest point was not really about Social Security math. It was about time.
He argued that money received at 62 may have more value than money received much later in life, even if the later payments are bigger.
At 62, he said, many people are still healthy enough to travel, help family members, take on projects, and enjoy retirement in ways that may not be as easy at 79 or 85.
Gardner described the early retirement period as the “go-go years,” when people may be more mobile, energetic, and willing to spend on experiences.
By contrast, he said later retirement can become a period when spending naturally declines because people have fewer opportunities, less energy, or more health limits.
“A dollar at 62 is worth a heck of a lot more than a dollar at 85,” Gardner said.
That idea will not apply equally to every retiree. Some people remain active and healthy well into their 80s, while others may need more money later because of health-care costs, housing needs, or long-term care.
Still, Gardner’s argument gets at something that is often missed in retirement planning. The goal is not always to end life with the highest possible account balance. Sometimes the goal is to use money when it can make the biggest difference.
Investing Early Changes The Math Again
Gardner then added another factor: investment returns.
He said that if he claims $2,500 per month from age 62 through 70, he would receive about $240,000 in Social Security income during those eight years.
Instead of spending all of it, he said he could invest some or all of that money.
Gardner argued that even a conservative investment return would push the break-even age much farther out. In his example, it could move from age 79 to around age 86 or 87.
He went further and said that if the money were invested in a basic S&P 500 index fund earning a long-term average real return of 7%, he believes there may never be a true break-even point because the early payments would have years to compound.
This is where the argument becomes more complicated.
The investment idea makes sense in theory, but markets do not provide steady returns every year, and retirees may not be comfortable putting Social Security checks into stocks. A person who needs the money for rent, food, prescriptions, or debt payments cannot treat those checks like spare investment capital.
Still, Gardner is right that the standard break-even calculation often assumes early Social Security payments are simply spent. For people who can save or invest them, the decision may look different.
He Admits Waiting Can Be Better For Married Couples
Gardner said there are two major situations where his claim-at-62 strategy may not be the best choice.
The first is marriage.
He explained that Social Security decisions become more important for couples because a lower-earning spouse may be able to receive benefits based on the higher earner’s record.
More importantly, the surviving spouse generally receives the higher of the two monthly benefits after one spouse dies.
That means a higher-earning spouse who waits until 70 could leave behind a larger survivor benefit for their husband or wife.
Gardner said this can change the calculation significantly.
If a married couple depends heavily on the higher earner’s benefit, delaying may offer more protection for the surviving spouse, especially if one partner is likely to live much longer than the other.
This is one of the most important parts of his video because it moves beyond individual math. A person may be willing to accept a smaller benefit for themselves, but the decision can look very different when a spouse may rely on that benefit after they are gone.
The Earnings Test Can Punish Early Claiming
The second major exception Gardner discussed is the Social Security earnings test.
He said that people who claim Social Security before full retirement age while still earning wages above a certain threshold can have part of their benefits withheld.
Gardner cited a 2026 threshold of $24,480. He said Social Security withholds $1 in benefits for every $2 earned above that amount.
Using his example, a 63-year-old earning $64,480 could have $20,000 in annual Social Security benefits withheld.
Gardner noted that the withheld benefits are not permanently lost. They are adjusted later once the person reaches full retirement age.
But he said the process is complicated, and early claiming may make little sense for someone still earning a strong full-time income.
That is a useful warning. Claiming early can be attractive, but it may not work the same way for a person who has not truly retired yet.
Gardner’s Final Argument: Run Your Own Numbers
Gardner said he plans to claim at 62 because he does not expect to keep working after that age.
If he does not need the money immediately, he said he would invest it in an index fund rather than wait until 70 for a higher monthly payment.
His advice to viewers was straightforward: create an account at the Social Security Administration website, compare projected benefits at 62, full retirement age, and 70, then calculate a personal break-even point.
He also urged people to consider their health, expected lifespan, family situation, work income, and how they would actually use the money.
That may be the most sensible takeaway from the entire debate.
Gardner’s decision may not be right for everyone, and no one should treat one online video as a replacement for personal retirement planning. But his challenge to the automatic “wait until 70” advice is worth considering.
The best Social Security decision is not always the one that creates the largest monthly check. Sometimes it is the one that gives a person the most useful money at the time they are healthiest, most active, and most able to enjoy it.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.
