Why Ramsey financial expert says there's 'no magic age' to claim Social Security
George Kamel says the 2032 trust fund deadline is no reason to panic, predicting payroll tax and retirement age tweaks
Ramsey Show personality and co-host George Kamel breaks down fact from fiction about Social Security fund depletion with Fox News Digital.
As anxiety mounts over the projected 2032 depletion of the Social Security Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund, a viral online trend is urging Americans to claim their retirement benefits as early as age 62.
But personal finance expert and Ramsey Solutions personality George Kamel is pushing back on the internet hysteria, telling Fox News Digital that the panic mirrors the "toilet paper rush during COVID," and warning that filing early out of fear locks in a permanent "pay cut, not freedom."
"These headlines are classic fearmongering, and they are not based in reality. There's a lot of context left out," Kamel said. "When you see, ‘Depletion 2032 [for] Social Security,’ it's like the toilet paper rush during COVID. Everyone's like, ‘I gotta go to the store and let's clear the shelves, there's not gonna be any left for me.’"
"The truth is, that fund was surplus from pre-funding for the baby boomer generation and to smooth out bumps along the way. So this does not mean Social Security is going to go away. A worst-case scenario is a 22% cut in monthly benefits. So that's a far cry from it going to zero and bankrupting," he continued.
OPINION: AMERICAN'S RETIREMENT SYSTEM IS BROKEN. TRUMP MAY HAVE FOUND A BOLD FIX
After the Social Security Administration released its 2026 Trustees Report — which confirmed that the federal retirement safety net is less than seven years away from reserve depletion — financial advisor and author Suze Orman called early claiming "bad advice," warning that it will lock retirees into a permanent 30% reduction in monthly benefits that cannot be undone.
A woman holds a sign in support of Social Security Administration workers on Security Boulevard in front of the agency's headquarters in Woodlawn, Maryland. (Getty Images)
Kamel agreed with the emotional danger of claiming Social Security early, but he critiqued the rigid "always-wait" rule.
"She's right that there is a lot of emotion here, and fear is a bad reason to go grab it at 62. Now, where we might disagree is that you should always wait… There's a lot of factors that come into play of deciding when to take Social Security. And it really depends on your life, your health, your income, your family situation," he explained.
"You're better off talking to a doctor than looking at a government chart at average life expectancies to make this choice," he added. "So there is no magic age, it's not always 62, it's not always 70. That's a headline, not a plan."
Social Security Administration Commissioner Frank Bisignano discusses how President Donald Trump has plans to protect Social Security on ‘Maria Bartiromo’s Wall Street.’
Breaking down the math even further, Kamel argued that the government treats your full retirement age at 67 as the 100% baseline benefit. Claiming five years early, at 62, forces you to accept a permanent 30% pay cut for the rest of your life. However, if you delay claiming until age 70, the system rewards your patience with a permanent 24% increase in benefits.
"The truth is, if you need to take it at 62, you probably aren't doing great with your retirement overall. And if you can wait till 70, you likely didn't really need it in the first place. So it's kind of a catch-22 even making this decision, but it is personal," he said. "And the math assumes that $1 at 95 is the same as $1 at 65, and that you live long enough. And that's just not the case."
"I'm not a fan of relying on a government program to fund your life forever. That's a scary thought," Kamel added. "And so early claiming is not control. It's really just a 30% smaller check forever. So it's a pay cut, it's not freedom."
"You reap what you sow. That's the fact of the matter. So if you plant corn, you're gonna have some corn at the end of this road. And if you don't plant anything, don't be surprised when you're trying to make it off of a Social Security check."
As the 2032 insolvency deadline approaches, many Americans assume a worst-case scenario is inevitable if gridlock continues in Washington. But Kamel said the panic overlooks how the federal government has handled similar fiscal cliffs in the past. Rather than letting the system go bankrupt, he predicts Capitol Hill will pull from its old playbook.
"Seventy million Americans rely on a Social Security payment coming in. And so when you think about that... they're gonna vote with their wallet. So the chances of any politician deciding to cut this down is going to cost them big time," he said. "What will likely happen is what happened in 1983… The trust fund is running out and they made several small tweaks, not one sweeping change, in order to help this out."
"I think the same thing will be true – they might adjust the cost of living adjustment. They might change the full retirement age from 67 to 68 or 69. They might increase the payroll taxes from 6.2% to 6.5%. And so these incremental changes can help it. I don't see a world where, in 2032, we're all going, 'Where's our money? We're all gonna retire broke.'"
Ramsey Solutions financial expert George Kamel weighs in on Americans working past retirement age and provides advice for investors.
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE
Ultimately, Kamel emphasizes that true financial peace doesn't come from trying to outsmart a shifting government timeline. Instead of obsessing over what Washington will do to the safety net, he argued that the smartest move Americans can make is to shift their focus entirely to what they can control in their own households.
"You are your best shot at a great retirement. It's not the government's job, it's not Washington's job, it's not a headline, it's not a trust fund date. You control the controllables, and one of those things is creating your own nest egg… There is hope out there. But it's not in the hands of [the] White House, it's in yours."