By Scott Burns

Q. I've read your argument about deferring Social Security. I've also read and heard other arguments that advocate delaying Social Security benefits. But I remain unconvinced. It seems to me that there is a huge, gaping hole in your reasoning. It is not about the money, per se.

I have watched my parents' lives since their retirement at 65. There are things they would love to have been doing between 62 and 65. They would have enjoyed them immensely. But no, "they couldn't afford that." They believed they had to keep working. That part of the missed enjoyment of life (not deferred, but completely missed and never to be recovered) is due to their acceptance of the argument you are making. They remained, in my opinion, overly concerned about finances. They continued to defer a lot of things. I think this reflects an over-cautious financial philosophy.

They are now in their eighties. With their health in decline they live very sedentary lives. They have expressed regret that they waited until their options narrowed severely. Their current, very limited, lifestyle does not require the money that would have been better spent 20 years earlier.

I just don't see that reality being factored in. A sum like $1,000 a month, utilized between ages 62 and, say, 66 for travel, or another interest that isn’t realistic while working, cannot be compared with $1,000, increased by 8 percent a year for whatever number of years until deferred retirement. You cannot do at 75 or 85 what you could have at 62. How do you do that math? —T.P., from Seattle, WA

A. What you are talking about is something I call “the hedonic view” — the idea that experience today is worth more than experience tomorrow. It’s also a common fear. The last thing any of us want is to live our last years feeling remorse for what we might have done, but didn’t.

It can even involve when you choose to retire, if you are blessed with having a choice. Many people enjoy their work but become more and more keenly aware that every day at work is a day lost to doing something else — and you will never get that day back. As a personal finance columnist I can help map out the choices we have and discuss how to weigh them, but all of us need to make our own decisions and take our own risks. I think it is safe to say that the joy of not being broke is a more subtle pleasure than world travel.

One alternative that can help you have more experiences sooner is to set aside a portion of your savings and think of it as your “Bucket List Fund.” Spend that money over a designated period, such as age 65 to 74. Just be careful that you can live comfortably on your remaining savings and income sources. While much is written about having a youthful retirement, there is a reason people 65 to 74 are called “the young-old” and those 85 and over are called “the old-old.”

For more discussion of life, death and spending, see my column this Sunday.

Q. What are the best options for college investing for a new grandchild to be born in 2011? —E. C., by email

A. With a 17-year time horizon it would be reasonable to make a 100 percent equity “bet” and buy a low-cost index fund such as Vanguard Total Stock Market Index. While it owns no foreign equities directly, most major American companies earn a lot of their money overseas, so you can participate in growth all around the world. Think McDonald’s.

As the child gets older you can add funds that concentrate on other asset classes such as REITS, international equities, and fixed income investments. The closer you get to the need to redeem shares for a tuition payment, the larger the portion of the account that should be set aside for short-term fixed income investments.

Some advisors might believe that this is too risky a path. It is risky. But here’s the rub: College tuition and related expenses have been rising faster than inflation for decades. So the only way you have a fighting chance of paying the tuition bill is to invest aggressively.