Social Security experts

[jlf58]

I have done some reading but wanted a quick answer for this. I am 56 and so is my wife. I plan on retiring at full retirement age, basically 66 2/3. My wife hasn't worked much so I know she can get 1/2 of mine which is like $2700 so that's $1350. I assume she can't get that until we are both full retirement age ?
Can she take her lower at 62 (like $600)then switch to my 1/2 at 67 ( wishful thinking ).

Thanks in advance for any details or suggestions

 

[Passepartout]

I think you have to at least apply for your benefits for your wife to collect half at 62. So that would be significantly less than the FRA number. If I understand correctly, you could 'apply and suspend' collecting, she could get an amount tied to what your benefit increases to each year.

Either way, you have between 6- and 10 years to get the straight scoop, make the decision, or for SS to change the rules.

Jim

 

[ronparise]

If they have an office in your town or someplace nearby, (they do in sleepy Ft Myers, so I assume they have these offices everywhere) you can make an appointment and see them. I found them to be knowledgeable and helpful>

You could just drop in but when I did that I waited hours, The next time I made an appointment on line... and they were right on time, no waiting.

By the way you dont want a quick answer, you want the right answer. Take your time, (you have it) get it right

 

[WinniWoman]

There are some really good books on this subject- the best and most comprehensive being "Social Security: The Inside Story, 2014." I highly recommend this book! There are lots of books on Amazon, some free in the Lending Library for Prime members.
I am 59 and have read a bunch of them already (although I can only absorb so much of this complicated topic) and will continue to try to learn. You have to be very careful not to make a mistake-it affects your income for the rest of your lives.

I for one am going to get a financial planner/advisor (fee only) in a few years to assist. I am a "do-it-yourselfer" but I think I will need an objective and knowledgeable person to help with this one. I hope to be able to find someone who specializes in Social Security, estate planning, etc. I intend to use one of those strategies as you mentioned in your example when the time comes.

I look at Social Security as an annuity so hope to delay to at least age 70, but not sure if we could pull it off. We certainly don't want to work to age 70- that's for damn sure!! My husband's already small pension was cut off at the knees and we will probably take a lump sum if we are able to and if he even still has a pension when he does retire at 66 (again- assuming he will still have his job) because I do not trust insurance companies (and he works for one! LOL!) and I will just consider the SS incomes our annuities and 2 are enough, thank you very much! LOL!

 

[Conan]

Your wife should not file for early retirement on her own earnings record. A spouse who applies for her own benefits before full retirement age (66 2/3 for someone born in 1958) will be permanently cut back from what she's allowed to receive as a spouse.

If she doesn't file for early retirement on her own earnings record, she can start collecting 50% of your age 66 2/3 benefit when she attains at 66 2/3 in year 2024.

If she does file for early retirement on her own earnings record, her ability to claim 50% of your benefit is cut back to about 35%. The calculator is here:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/quickcalc/spouse.html#calculator

When you attain age 66 2/3, you can either start collecting your own 100% benefit at that point, or you can file and suspend your own benefits. File and suspend means she can start getting 50% (if she didn't file early) of your age 66 2/3 benefit, while you allow your own benefit to grow until you reach age 70.

Waiting to age 70 increases your monthly check by about 30% compared to what you could have gotten at age 66 2/3 (but of course you'll have missed out on 3 1/3 years of monthly checks).

 

[jlf58]

Conan,

So ballpark, she waits until 66 2/3 she gets $1325, she does it at 62 so gets 33.54% or $888.
She however would have collected $49,728 by the time 66 2/3 gets here, correct ?
So its simple math. The correct answer can only be determined by when she dies to see if she gains or loses, right ?

Would I have to declare and suspend for her to get the $888 I assume ?

Your wife should not file for early retirement on her own earnings record. A spouse who applies for her own benefits before full retirement age (66 2/3 for someone born in 1958) will be permanently cut back from what she's allowed to receive as a spouse.

If she doesn't file for early retirement on her own earnings record, she can start collecting 50% of your age 66 2/3 benefit when she attains at 66 2/3 in year 2024.

If she does file for early retirement on her own earnings record, her ability to claim 50% of your benefit is cut back to about 35%. The calculator is here:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/quickcalc/spouse.html#calculator

When you attain age 66 2/3, you can either start collecting your own 100% benefit at that point, or you can file and suspend your own benefits. File and suspend means she can start getting 50% (if she didn't file early) of your age 66 2/3 benefit, while you allow your own benefit to grow until you reach age 70.

Waiting to age 70 increases your monthly check by about 30% compared to what you could have gotten at age 66 2/3 (but of course you'll have missed out on 3 1/3 years of monthly checks).

 

[jlf58]

Of the top of my head, putting her $888 to the mortgage would pay it off by the time I get to 66 2/3 which is why I was kicking it around

Conan,

So ballpark, she waits until 66 2/3 she gets $1325, she does it at 62 so gets 33.54% or $888.
She however would have collected $49,728 by the time 66 2/3 gets here, correct ?
So its simple math. The correct answer can only be determined by when she dies to see if she gains or loses, right ?

Would I have to declare and suspend for her to get the $888 I assume ?

 

[VacationForever]

Conan, now I am confused. In an earlier thread someone pointed out that the spouse should not collect spousal's portion (at whatever 50% and discounted for early withdrawal) at 62 since it will also suspend her own SS benefits. It said that the spouse should collect SS benefits based on her own earnings at 62 so that the spousal benefits will continue to grow and the spouse can switch to the full 50 percent spousal benefit at 67 (full retirement) age.

 

[vacationtime1]

There are some really good books on this subject- the best and most comprehensive being "Social Security: The Inside Story, 2014." I highly recommend this book! There are lots of books on Amazon, some free in the Lending Library for Prime members.
I am 59 and have read a bunch of them already (although I can only absorb so much of this complicated topic) and will continue to try to learn. You have to be very careful not to make a mistake-it affects your income for the rest of your lives.

I for one am going to get a financial planner/advisor (fee only) in a few years to assist. I am a "do-it-yourselfer" but I think I will need an objective and knowledgeable person to help with this one. I hope to be able to find someone who specializes in Social Security, estate planning, etc. I intend to use one of those strategies as you mentioned in your example when the time comes.

I look at Social Security as an annuity so hope to delay to at least age 70, but not sure if we could pull it off. We certainly don't want to work to age 70- that's for damn sure!! My husband's already small pension was cut off at the knees and we will probably take a lump sum if we are able to and if he even still has a pension when he does retire at 66 (again- assuming he will still have his job) because I do not trust insurance companies (and he works for one! LOL!) and I will just consider the SS incomes our annuities and 2 are enough, thank you very much! LOL!

There are people who specialize in advising on maximizing the combined benefit and the amount of money involved can be huge (if either of you plans on living until age 80). I intend to consult a couple of these people and hope for consistent advice.

 

[artringwald]

SocialSecurityChoices.com

This site provides a free calculator or for $40 will provide a detailed report with an explanation of the options:

http://www.socialsecuritychoices.com/married/married.php

Using a fee only adviser is also a good suggestion, but you have to be careful. The one I went to advised me to start taking benefits at 62 and use the money to buy into their investments, which were not no-load funds. Really bad advice since I don't even need the benefits yet. I plan to wait until I'm 70.

 

[WinniWoman]

Here is something out of this month's MONEY Magazine:

For a spouse to collect FULL spousal benefits (50% of your monthly payment), she must also be full retirement age. At age 64, she would only get 46% and at age 65 =46%. She gets so much less by filing earlier.

You do have the option to file at your full retirement age, of course - so your wife can start getting spousal benefits- but suspend receiving your benefit checks until 70 to maximize SS benefits. (8% each year you defer filing)

 

[bogey21]

....of mine which is like $2700....

Wow, $2700 sounds like a lot. Mine is only $2,096 but then I have been drawing benefits for about 14 years now. Actually I only get $1,887 after they deduct for Medicare B. I guess I shouldn't complain. It really adds up. It looks like I have received over $300,000 in benefits since I retired.

George

 

[jlf58]

A bird in hand... I am along way from collecting 300k so you are doing well LOL
If I wait until 70 it's $3422 but I don't want to wait that long.
My Dad died at 63 one year after he retired and didn't really get to enjoy it.

Wow, $2700 sounds like a lot. Mine is only $2,096 but then I have been drawing benefits for about 14 years now. Actually I only get $1,887 after they deduct for Medicare B. I guess I shouldn't complain. It really adds up. It looks like I have received over $300,000 in benefits since I retired.

George

 

[Conan]

Conan,

So ballpark, she waits until 66 2/3 she gets $1325, she does it at 62 so gets 33.54% or $888.
She however would have collected $49,728 by the time 66 2/3 gets here, correct ?
So its simple math. The correct answer can only be determined by when she dies to see if she gains or loses, right ?

Would I have to declare and suspend for her to get the $888 I assume ?

She can't start any sooner than age 62. Using your figures and ignoring inflation adjustments, starting at age 62 means she gets $888/month from age 62 until the earlier of her death (when it goes to zero) or your death (when it goes to 100% of your benefit).

Starting at age 66 2/3 means she gets zero from age 62 to age 66 2/3s and then $1,325/month, again until the earlier of her death (when it goes to zero) or your death (when it goes to 100% of your benefit).

4 and 2/3 years = 52 months at $888 puts her ahead by $46,156 at the start. So $1,325 - $888 = $437 and $46,156/437 = 105 months which is about 9 years starting at age 66 2/3. So if the two of you are alive at age 75 she'd have done better to wait to normal retirement age.

Either way, you have the choice of filing for 100% of your full benefit at age 66 2/3 or getting the premium benefit if you suspend to age 70. On that issue, don't forget wives almost always outlive husbands, so the premium benefit starting at age 70 isn't only for your lifetime, it's also for all the years she lives after your death.

 

[Conan]

Conan, now I am confused. In an earlier thread someone pointed out that the spouse should not collect spousal's portion (at whatever 50% and discounted for early withdrawal) at 62 since it will also suspend her own SS benefits. It said that the spouse should collect SS benefits based on her own earnings at 62 so that the spousal benefits will continue to grow and the spouse can switch to the full 50 percent spousal benefit at 67 (full retirement) age.

Here's what nolo.com says:
"You cannot claim your own early retirement benefits and then switch to full dependents benefits later based on your spouse’s earnings record, and you cannot claim early dependents benefits and then later switch to full retirement benefits on your own record. As soon as you claim a Social Security benefit early, the other one is also reduced by the same percentage."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...heir-social-security-retirement-benefits.html

Bankrate.com says:
"Among married couples, when one or both spouses file for benefits prior to their full retirement age, neither can opt for a particular benefit. Also, they can't switch to a different benefit at full retirement age."
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/retirement/spouses-social-security.aspx

Here's a numerical example, indicating that the full calculation is even more complicated than the way I presented it;
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=UwW3dBJUEixik_FzYzzAPw&bvm=bv.82001339,d.aWw

 

[VacationForever]

Here's what nolo.com says:
"You cannot claim your own early retirement benefits and then switch to full dependents benefits later based on your spouse’s earnings record, and you cannot claim early dependents benefits and then later switch to full retirement benefits on your own record. As soon as you claim a Social Security benefit early, the other one is also reduced by the same percentage."
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...heir-social-security-retirement-benefits.html

Bankrate.com says:
"Among married couples, when one or both spouses file for benefits prior to their full retirement age, neither can opt for a particular benefit. Also, they can't switch to a different benefit at full retirement age."
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/retirement/spouses-social-security.aspx

Here's a numerical example, indicating that the full calculation is even more complicated than the way I presented it;
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...=UwW3dBJUEixik_FzYzzAPw&bvm=bv.82001339,d.aWw

THANK YOU! This is consistent with what my MIL and FIL told us, which a TUGger said they were wrong. I am using this data to plan for my own SS benefits. My husband is quite a few years older than me and he is planning on drawing only when he turns 70, which will be about 3.5K per month. I do intend to draw at 62, and it should be higher using my own than half of his, all discounted... and then I don't have another option unless I outlive him and then my SS benefit gets replaced with his. Does that sound correct?

 

[Conan]

THANK YOU! This is consistent with what my MIL and FIL told us, which a TUGger said they were wrong. I am using this data to plan for my own SS benefits. My husband is quite a few years older than me and he is planning on drawing only when he turns 70, which will be about 3.5K per month. I do intend to draw at 62, and it should be higher using my own than half of his, all discounted... and then I don't have another option unless I outlive him and then my SS benefit gets replaced with his. Does that sound correct?

Starting your own benefit at 62 is probably a reasonable choice, unless you're still working beyond 62. If you have earnings above 16,000 or so between age 62 and normal retirement age, there's a penalty cutback to what you can be collecting during those years.

The alternative for you would be to do nothing until you're at normal retirement age (66 or so), and then start getting 50% of his benefit while your own (unclaimed) benefit can continue to grow. Then when you turn 70 you switch from getting 50% of his benefit and replace it with your own benefit which will then be the full premium benefit under your own earnings record.

Either way, as I said before, the men almost always die before the women, and if that happens, because he waited to apply at age 70, whichever benefit you were drawing on your own record or as a spouse will end and will be replaced by 100% of his age 70 premium benefit.

 

[VacationForever]

Thank you, Conan. We have changed our retirement plan and it looks like we will both be working in some capacity till I am 62, which means my husband will be working beyond 70 but will start drawing on his SS at 70 since there is no benefit to collect later. I am always terrified of dying broke so we will both continue to work. How much does one need to have saved and with what lifestyle is always the question.

 

[WinniWoman]

What I don't like is that women (or men) who never worked can collect half their working spouses SS! What the?! I thought you had to put into the system to get it out. I can understand if the working spouse dies and then the non-working spouse collects on that benefit. But, for ex. - My sister in law- who never worked because my brother did very well for himself- is going to collect half his SS (which is the max since he is a high earner (and believe me he deserves every penny of it))- almost equal to my Full SS- and I worked for 40+ years full-time day in and day out(highest I ever earned was $50,000 and I am still working at 58 years old)-while I was getting up at 4am and rushing off to day care with my son, stressed out, exhausted, hating every minute of it, - she got to stay in her pj's and wave to her daughter as she got on the school bus!!! More power to her (she's a lovely person), but should she be able to collect SS benefits? I would think not!

Somehow this does not seem right for workers/taxpayers to have to pay for...but I guess the government thinks so....

Now some people will argue that these non-working spouses sacrificed to stay home while others were out working on their careers, etc. Well- that does not fly with me- careers for most average people are just hell-hole, drudgery jobs and working women and men have to do it all- work BOTH on their jobs AND to raise their families and take care of their home, multitasking and juggling everything to fit in around their jobs. I sure would have liked to just stay home and work on the household chores and take care of my son rather then work and do everything else around it. So, should we have all just stayed home? Should households where neither spouse works then be entitled to SS benefits since they were both at home supposedly taking care of their homes and families? Who then would pay into the system? So this argument doesn't hold water...

Just a pet peeve of mine when it comes to SS benefits...

 

[csxjohn]

What I don't like is that women (or men) who never worked can collect half their working spouses SS! What the?! I thought you had to put into the system to get it out. I can understand if the working spouse dies and then the non-working spouse collects on that benefit. But, for ex. - My sister in law- who never worked because my brother did very well for himself- is going to collect half his SS (which is the max since he is a high earner (and believe me he deserves every penny of it))- almost equal to my Full SS- and I worked for 40+ years full-time day in and day out(highest I ever earned was $50,000 and I am still working at 58 years old)-while I was getting up at 4am and rushing off to day care with my son, stressed out, exhausted, hating every minute of it, - she got to stay in her pj's and wave to her daughter as she got on the school bus!!! More power to her (she's a lovely person), but should she be able to collect SS benefits? I would think not!

Somehow this does not seem right for workers/taxpayers to have to pay for...but I guess the government thinks so....

Now some people will argue that these non-working spouses sacrificed to stay home while others were out working on their careers, etc. Well- that does not fly with me- careers for most average people are just hell-hole, drudgery jobs and working women and men have to do it all- work BOTH on their jobs AND to raise their families and take care of their home, multitasking and juggling everything to fit in around their jobs. I sure would have liked to just stay home and work on the household chores and take care of my son rather then work and do everything else around it. So, should we have all just stayed home? Should households where neither spouse works then be entitled to SS benefits since they were both at home supposedly taking care of their homes and families? Who then would pay into the system? So this argument doesn't hold water...

Just a pet peeve of mine when it comes to SS benefits...

That was a choice you made. You wanted a nicer house, a couple nice cars and what ever else you decided you needed.

Other people make the choice to stay at home knowing ahead of time they will get SS benefits. They sacrifice some of the material things that come with extra income and decided not to work.

The rates for paying in are done so with this and other benefits in mind. If you really don't like it you might me able to find some sympathy on Capitol Hill but we all are "the govenment" and I don't think your idea will fly.

 

[VacationForever]

What I don't like is that women (or men) who never worked can collect half their working spouses SS! What the?! I thought you had to put into the system to get it out. I can understand if the working spouse dies and then the non-working spouse collects on that benefit. But, for ex. - My sister in law- who never worked because my brother did very well for himself- is going to collect half his SS (which is the max since he is a high earner (and believe me he deserves every penny of it))- almost equal to my Full SS- and I worked for 40+ years full-time day in and day out(highest I ever earned was $50,000 and I am still working at 58 years old)-while I was getting up at 4am and rushing off to day care with my son, stressed out, exhausted, hating every minute of it, - she got to stay in her pj's and wave to her daughter as she got on the school bus!!! More power to her (she's a lovely person), but should she be able to collect SS benefits? I would think not!

Somehow this does not seem right for workers/taxpayers to have to pay for...but I guess the government thinks so....

Now some people will argue that these non-working spouses sacrificed to stay home while others were out working on their careers, etc. Well- that does not fly with me- careers for most average people are just hell-hole, drudgery jobs and working women and men have to do it all- work BOTH on their jobs AND to raise their families and take care of their home, multitasking and juggling everything to fit in around their jobs. I sure would have liked to just stay home and work on the household chores and take care of my son rather then work and do everything else around it. So, should we have all just stayed home? Should households where neither spouse works then be entitled to SS benefits since they were both at home supposedly taking care of their homes and families? Who then would pay into the system? So this argument doesn't hold water...

Just a pet peeve of mine when it comes to SS benefits...

I understand your frustration but someone who came up with how SS works decided it was a good idea to give a non-working or lower income spouse half the SS amount. I don't agree with it either. My biggest pet peeve is that a divorcee, after 10 years of marriage, gets the full (100 percent) of the ex-spouse SS income. Really?! I have been working for every single day since I graduated and have not gone through an unpaid day todate, thank god and touch wood. My SS contribution is on par with my spouse so I don't get his 50 percent when I can start collecting SS. Now if I quit working now (I am in my 50s) and divorce him after 10 years of marriage, I get to collect 100 % of his at 67.

 

[SMHarman]

What I don't like is that women (or men) who never worked can collect half their working spouses SS! What the?! I thought you had to put into the system to get it out. I can understand if the working spouse dies and then the non-working spouse collects on that benefit. But, for ex. - My sister in law- who never worked because my brother did very well for himself- is going to collect half his SS (which is the max since he is a high earner (and believe me he deserves every penny of it))- almost equal to my Full SS- and I worked for 40+ years full-time day in and day out(highest I ever earned was $50,000 and I am still working at 58 years old)-while I was getting up at 4am and rushing off to day care with my son, stressed out, exhausted, hating every minute of it, - she got to stay in her pj's and wave to her daughter as she got on the school bus!!! More power to her (she's a lovely person), but should she be able to collect SS benefits? I would think not!

Somehow this does not seem right for workers/taxpayers to have to pay for...but I guess the government thinks so....

Now some people will argue that these non-working spouses sacrificed to stay home while others were out working on their careers, etc. Well- that does not fly with me- careers for most average people are just hell-hole, drudgery jobs and working women and men have to do it all- work BOTH on their jobs AND to raise their families and take care of their home, multitasking and juggling everything to fit in around their jobs. I sure would have liked to just stay home and work on the household chores and take care of my son rather then work and do everything else around it. So, should we have all just stayed home? Should households where neither spouse works then be entitled to SS benefits since they were both at home supposedly taking care of their homes and families? Who then would pay into the system? So this argument doesn't hold water...

Just a pet peeve of mine when it comes to SS benefits...

See the spin on this in the UK is while you are collecting child benefit (yes the government pays a small stipend to help raise children) you also have the government make SS (or NI as they call it) payments on your behalf as part of that stipend.
So you earn retirement on your own account. This stops at age 18.

 

[bogey21]

Deciding what to do is a real crap shoot. When I retired almost 15 years ago I had a choice with my Pension, a large lump sum or payments for life. I took payments for life with a 50% survivor annuity to protect my ex-wife who is 20 years younger than me. One of the kickers to the annuity is a 3% compounded Cost of Living Payment made every January 1st. In two days this payment will be about 45% of my base Pension. In hindsight I made the right decision. Had I died within a year or two of retiring it would have been the wrong decision. Pure dumb luck.

George

 

[WinniWoman]

That was a choice you made. You wanted a nicer house, a couple nice cars and what ever else you decided you needed.

Other people make the choice to stay at home knowing ahead of time they will get SS benefits. They sacrifice some of the material things that come with extra income and decided not to work.

The rates for paying in are done so with this and other benefits in mind. If you really don't like it you might me able to find some sympathy on Capitol Hill but we all are "the government" and I don't think your idea will fly.

I know. Life is about choices-I agree. FYI- I had to work to have a home- period- and eat and live a middle class lifestyle- how terrible am I? But why do I have to pay for other people's choices not to work? People like my sister in law who sacrificed zero- zilch- and have it better than people like me and my husband and I think that is great. She married right financially speaking. Good for her and others like her. But why do I and other taxpayers have to pay for her to have social security? That;s my beef.

 

[WinniWoman]

I understand your frustration but someone who came up with how SS works decided it was a good idea to give a non-working or lower income spouse half the SS amount. I don't agree with it either. My biggest pet peeve is that a divorcee, after 10 years of marriage, gets the full (100 percent) of the ex-spouse SS income. Really?! I have been working for every single day since I graduated and have not gone through an unpaid day todate, thank god and touch wood. My SS contribution is on par with my spouse so I don't get his 50 percent when I can start collecting SS. Now if I quit working now (I am in my 50s) and divorce him after 10 years of marriage, I get to collect 100 % of his at 67.

Exactly! I just don't get some of this stuff! We're on the same page. Maybe we ought to quit work and look into this divorce thing? I could use a break myself! LOL!:hysterical::hysterical: