About this episode
Chris’s Summary Jim and I examine a recent Social Security claiming strategies debate prompted by articles from Derek Tharp and Laurence Kotlikoff. The episode highlights how opposing valuation frameworks—economic modeling versus purpose-driven income planning—can lead to drastically different conclusions. We explain why assigning Social Security a clear job, such as covering your Minimum Dignity Floor , provides a more reliable foundation for deciding when to claim. Jim’s “Pithy” Summary Chris and I walk through the disagreement between Professor Tharp and Professor Kotlikoff on Social Security claiming strategies. These are incredibly smart guys, and I respect what they’ve accomplished—but I think they’ve both missed the boat. They’re focusing on who’s right from an academic standpoint instead of what actually matters to real people: how Social Security fits into a retirement plan. I go back to the woman I bought strawberries for—the one who thanked me and told me she lives on just Social Security. That moment changed my life. It’s why I became a retirement planner. Retirement is a seesaw between the younger you and the older you. And you have to make an explicit promise that the older you will be okay. I’ve never liked making that promise with volatile assets. For core expenses—food, utilities, transportation, housing, and health care—you need income that lasts as long as you do. So no, I don’t think everyone should delay to 70. And I don’t think everyone should claim early. It depends on what Social Security needs to do in your plan. If you don’t need it, fine. But if you do, and you claim early just because “you might die,” what happens if you don’t? That older you could have had 76% more—and they’re the one who’ll feel the difference. Show Notes: Tharp Article Kotlikoff Article The post Social Security Claiming Strategies, Part 1: EDU #2543 appeared first on The Retirement and IRA Show .