Planning for What You Can’t Predict: Solvency, Health, and Peace of Mind

Building a Social Security Strategy That Adapts to Life

We’ve arrived at the final post in this series. Over the last three posts, we’ve explored the mechanics of Social Security, the portfolio implications of claiming early versus late, and the coordination strategies that can protect married couples for decades. Through this series a theme has emerged: every dimension of this decision connects to something else in your financial life.

But even the most rigorous analysis bumps up against two things we can’t control: what the government does with Social Security in the future, and what happens with our own health. These are the two great unknowns—and they’re the reason I believe the most important quality in a Social Security strategy isn’t optimization. It’s resilience.

In this final post, I want to address the solvency question head-on, talk about the deeply personal side of this decision, and share how I help clients build plans that hold up—not just in ideal conditions, but in the unpredictable reality of life.

The Solvency Question: Should You Worry?

Headlines about Social Security “going broke” generate a lot of anxiety—and understandably so. According to recent Gallup polling, roughly 70% of non-retirees worry the system will not be able to pay them a benefit when they retire. Furthermore, according to the 2025 Trustees Report, the trust funds are projected to face a shortfall around 2033 to 2034. If Congress does nothing, benefits could be reduced to about 81 percent of scheduled levels. That’s a real concern, and it’s worth taking seriously.

However, historically, policymakers have taken action to preserve Social Security benefits. The most likely path forward involves some combination of gradual payroll tax increases, raising the cap on taxable wages, adjustments to benefit formulas for higher earners, and potentially modest increases to the full retirement age. These are changes that have been made before, and they’re already being discussed.

One reaction I see fairly often is the impulse to claim early to “get what you can” before the system changes. I understand the instinct, but it’s worth stepping back and looking at the math. Even if benefits were eventually reduced by 20 percent, 80 percent of a larger benefit (from delaying) is still more than 80 percent of a smaller one (from claiming early). The proportional reduction affects both strategies equally.

The more productive approach, in my experience, is to stress-test your plan. If a client is concerned about benefit reductions, I run scenarios that model reductions of 10, 15, or 20 percent at various future dates. If your plan still works under those conditions—if you can still fund your lifestyle, protect your spouse, and maintain your portfolio—then the solvency question becomes something you’ve planned for rather than something you’re anxious about. That’s a very different feeling.

Health Span, Life Span, and the Utility of Money

Beyond the policy landscape, there’s a more personal dimension to this decision that financial models don’t always capture well: the relationship between your health and the value of money at different stages of life.

Most financial models solve for longevity—making sure you don’t run out of money before you die. That’s important. But it’s equally important to think about what I’d call your “health span”—the years during which you’re active, mobile, and able to do the things you’ve been looking forward to. Consider that while average U.S. life expectancy is around 79 years, the World Health Organization notes that "Healthy Life Expectancy"—years lived in full health—is only about 64 years.

The reality for most people is that spending patterns shift over time. You’re likely to travel more, entertain more, and be more active in your 60s and early 70s than in your late 80s. An extra $1,000 a month at 63—when you’re hiking, visiting grandchildren, and exploring new interests—may bring more joy and fulfillment than the same amount at 88.

That’s not an argument for always claiming early. It’s a recognition that the “right” answer isn’t purely mathematical. It involves thinking honestly about what you want your early retirement years to look like and how Social Security income fits into that picture.

Two-Sided Risk and the Psychology of Spending

Social Security timing is fundamentally a two-sided risk. Delaying protects you against longevity risk—the possibility of living much longer than expected and needing that higher guaranteed income. Claiming early protects against mortality or utility risk—the possibility of not being able to enjoy the benefits you waited for, or of depleting your portfolio during a market downturn while you wait.

There’s also a psychological dimension. Many retirees struggle to spend money from their portfolio. After decades of saving, seeing that balance decline can feel deeply uncomfortable. Social Security, on the other hand, feels like income. It arrives automatically. It doesn’t require selling shares or watching a balance shrink.

For some clients, having Social Security income flowing in earlier gives them what I’d describe as permission to spend. It makes the transition from accumulation to distribution more palatable. And if that psychological comfort allows someone to actually enjoy their retirement rather than hoarding resources out of fear, that’s a meaningful outcome.

Building a Resilient Plan

The thread that runs through this entire series is that Social Security decisions don’t live in a silo. They interact with your portfolio, your taxes, your spouse’s future, and your own sense of security. The best plans account for all of those dimensions—and they’re built to adapt.

That means running multiple scenarios, not just one. It means stress-testing against market downturns, benefit reductions, and unexpected health events. It means revisiting assumptions as circumstances change—because the plan you make at 62 may need adjusting by 65 or 68 as new information comes in.

The most confident clients I work with aren’t the ones who found the mathematically perfect answer. They’re the ones who know their plan can handle a range of outcomes—and who understand the tradeoffs they’ve made and why.

If this series has prompted you to think more carefully about your own Social Security strategy—or if it’s raised questions about how your claiming decision fits into your broader retirement plan—I’d welcome the conversation. This is one of those decisions where personalized modeling makes a real difference, and where taking the time to look at the full picture can add meaningful clarity and confidence.

Tad Jakes, CFP®, EA, ECA

Disclaimer: The Social Security rules, projections, and strategies referenced in this series reflect current law and publicly available data, all of which are subject to change. Social Security claiming decisions are highly individual and depend on a wide range of personal, financial, and health-related factors. This series is intended to be educational and does not constitute personalized financial, tax, or legal advice. Please consult a qualified financial advisor and tax professional regarding your specific situation.