Few debates in retirement planning get as heated as this one: should you claim Social Security early and pocket the cash now, or wait a few years and lock in a substantially bigger monthly check for life?

Dave Ramsey and Suze Orman have staked out opposing positions on this question, and their reasoning reveals two fundamentally different philosophies about money, risk, and longevity.

Ramsey's Case: Get Your Money Now

According to a blog post from Ramsey Solutions, Dave Ramsey believes it makes sense in most situations to claim Social Security as early as possible. The reasoning is straightforward: benefits stop when you die, so why leave money on the table? As the post puts it, "Social Security payments die when you die, so you might as well get all you can get as fast as you can get it."

If you don't need the income right away, Ramsey's team suggests investing those early payments in growth stock mutual funds to build wealth over time. The underlying message is blunt: if you delay and something happens to you, you get nothing. Take the guaranteed money while it's available.

The Numbers Behind Each Strategy

Ramsey Solutions breaks down how your benefit amount changes based on when you claim. Using data from CNBC News, they illustrate that claiming at age 62 gets you 70% of your full benefit, waiting until full retirement age at 67 gets you 100%, and holding out until 70 increases your benefit to 124% of the full amount. That's a 76% increase over the early claiming option.

In concrete terms, someone might receive $1,430 per month by claiming at 62, compared to $2,535 per month if they wait until 70.

Orman's Counterargument: Patience Pays

Suze Orman takes the opposite view. In a blog post on her website, she writes, "If you are in decent health, there is no better financial move to consider than waiting as long as possible to claim your Social Security benefit."

Her argument leans heavily on life expectancy data. A 65-year-old woman in average health has a 50% chance of living to 88, while a man has a 50% shot at reaching 85. Given those odds, Orman argues that the 76% boost in monthly payments from waiting until 70 is worth it. She also notes that the break-even point is around age 81, meaning if you live beyond that, you come out ahead financially by having waited.

Who's Actually Right?

The honest answer is that both strategies can be correct depending on your circumstances. If you need income earlier or have reason to believe you won't live into your 80s, Ramsey's approach makes practical sense. If you're healthy, have other income sources, and expect a long retirement, Orman's strategy could deliver significantly more lifetime income.

The decision is also permanent. Once you claim, you're locked into that choice for the rest of your life. That's why working with a financial adviser to model different scenarios based on your health, retirement goals, and expected longevity can be valuable.

When it comes to Social Security timing, there's no universally correct answer. The right choice depends entirely on your personal situation, and what works for your neighbor might be completely wrong for you.