As I approached 62 I ran my own numbers and if I delayed until "full retirement" at age 67 it would then take ten years to break even, given the differential monthly benefit compared to the five years not taken at the lower amount, and that did not include any annual increases. For me I would have been 77 before I was actually getting anything "extra" - in essence by delaying I would be betting SS that I was going to live well past 77, and they would be banking on the fact that I probably would not. Sure, there are some special cases that one can run for couples, survivor benefits, etc, etc, but if people don't die in the order of the analysis then the analysis is moot. All I know is what made sense to me.