Is it appropriate to pay flexible employment social security at the age of 50?

Hello, the question of whether it is cost-effective, because everyone's standards are different, so we won't draw a conclusion for the time being. Paying flexible employment social security at the age of 50 is not cost-effective when you are young, but it is more cost-effective than people who don't pay social security. At the age of 50, you have to pay flexible employment social security. At the legal retirement age, I can't retire on time because I haven't paid 15 years. I need to continue to pay the fees and postpone my retirement, which seems uneconomical. Moreover, the social security payment standard will gradually increase with the increase of the average social wage, so it is relatively more expensive to pay social security when you are old, so it is even more uneconomical in terms of cost and price. If you start to pay social security when you are young and insist on paying it, you will be able to pay 15 years by the statutory retirement age, and you can retire on time, which is relatively cost-effective. And because the social security payment standard will increase year by year with the increase of the average social wage. Therefore, if you pay 15 years earlier, the payment cost will be relatively lower, which is definitely more cost-effective. But if you don't pay social security before the age of 50, and you are still going back at the age of 50, then once you reach the legal retirement age, you will lose the opportunity to pay social security and receive a pension. You will lose big because of small things, and you will lose big because of small things. Take the lesser of the two evils and the heavier of the two benefits. At the age of 50, there is a certain price to pay for flexible employment and social security. Although it is not as cost-effective as when I was young, it is still more cost-effective than not paying.