He has a point. Although retirement-age workers can get their future Social Security benefits boosted substantially through something called "delayed retirement credits," you give up a lot of income today for this future benefit.

Congress in 2000 eliminated one of the barriers to collecting early retirement by doing away with the Social Security retirement earnings test for 65-to-69-year-olds. These seniors once lost $1 in Social Security for each $3 they earned over $17,000 annually.

But those who choose to delay collecting Social Security after they hit normal retirement age benefit from a substantial boost in the eventual monthly benefits check. So working seniors have to make a choice: some money now or more money later.

For each year that today's 65-year-olds delay receiving Social Security, they'll receive a 6% boost in future benefits. In other words, a 65-year-old who delays taking a $1,000 monthly benefit today will collect $1,300 a month by waiting until age 70 to begin receiving benefits.

The question, of course, is: Will those higher future benefits make up for the amount you lose in payments in the meantime? The answer depends on how long you live, said J. Robert Treanor, manager of Social Security information services at William M. Mercer Inc., a national benefit consulting firm, and co-author of the "Mercer Guide to Social Security and Medicare" (William M. Mercer, 2000).

Given the current delayed retirement credit rates and average life spans, today's retirees are probably better off taking benefits now, he said. They'd have to live much longer than the average American to enjoy an economic benefit from the higher future payments.

Each year, this question becomes trickier because delayed retirement credit rates are gradually rising, as are average life spans, Treanor noted. At that point, someone who lives just modestly longer than average might be better off delaying retirement benefits.

To illustrate the point, consider a hypothetical example.

John Smith turned 65 in January, 2000. His so-called primary insurance amount, meaning his monthly Social Security benefit if he retires at normal retirement age, 2as $1,000. But Smith has a full-time job he expects to keep for at least five more years. He must decide whether to take the $1,000 monthly now or wait.

If he puts off claiming Social Security until he is 70, he'll get 30% more, or $1,300 monthly, Treanor said. (That's the 6-percentage-point annual delayed retirement credit multiplied by the five years Smith delays his retirement, or 30%.)

In exchange, he would be giving up the $1,000-a-month benefit available to him at age 65, or $60,000 over the 60 months till he's 70. In simple terms--not accounting for taxes, which would reduce that figure, or investment income, which would increase it--that means that if Smith delays, he would break even 200 months after his 70th birthday, age 86.6. The catch: The average American 65-year-old man can expect to live to be 81.

Women live a few years longer on average. The typical 65-year-old woman will live to be 84, but that's still two years shy of her break-even point, based on this example.

Generally, if you have a spouse who would be claiming Social Security on your work record, rather than his or her own, the break-even point for you as a couple is even later.

Also, if Smith happens to be in a high tax bracket now while he's still working, the value of the current Social Security income would be pared by the tax bite. He may get more after-tax if he delays Social Security until he stops working and drops into a lower tax bracket. If you think this scenario applies to you, it makes sense to crunch all the numbers with your tax advisor because of the complexity of the rules used to determine how much of your Social Security income is taxable.

Still another consideration is that if Smith began collecting a Social Security check now and didn't need the money, he could invest it. Depending on his skills as an investor and the whims of the market, this could earn him considerably more--or nothing at all.

Another issue: Some retirees may be more concerned about having enough money when they are very old than they are worried about the nearer future. If they have IRAs or other income that can be used to fund an active retirement in their 70s and early 80s, they might prefer to have a larger Social Security payment available after that money runs out.

The mathematical advantages of taking the money now will begin to erode in the future, Treanor said. That's because delayed retirement credit rates gradually rise until they reach 8 percentage points annually for those who hit normal retirement age in 2009. (People born in 1943 hit "normal" retirement age at 66, based on Social Security's gradual pushing up of the age requirement. Those born in 1960 and later won't reach normal retirement age for Social Security purposes until age 67.) At that point, the additional future amount you get for delaying retirement versus the current amount you lose become "actuarially equivalent," Treanor said.