# Social Security



## cmdmfr (Jul 7, 2014)

I hope that some one can help me wit this. My wife has retired from work at 60. She said that she is going to wait till she is 65 to collect but is not working. She claims that she will collect more at 65 even though she is not working and putting into Social security for 5 Years. can some one tell me if she will collect higher benefits by not working but waiting for the 5 extra years.

Also she has told me that she can claim on my benefits since I have made more than her. Can some one explain that to me


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 7, 2014)

The longer you wait to collect, the more you get - you can go to the Social Security website and use the calculator and it will spell it all out.


----------



## tompalm (Jul 7, 2014)

She will collect more at age 65 than at age 62.  Not working from 60-65 should not have an impact on her retirement.  The best thing to do is call SS and ask questions and go to their website and get an estimate.  I did some research and sent this info below to a friend of mine.

 I talked to someone at their office and got the info below.  The bottom line is that everyone has a different situation, so what is right for one person is probably not the best plan for another person.  I recommend that you call them if you have any questions;

800-772-1213, here is what I learned:
-          The max benefit for someone right now at age 66 is $2533.  The cost of living went up 1.5% this year, so it is not really keeping up with the cost of living or inflation.

-          You can't apply for SS until three months prior of age 62.  Benefits would start a couple months after the age that you apply for.

-          If you have a block on your credit agency (Experian, or the other two), you can’t create an account online.  If you unblock that and create an account, you can apply online and access your account any time after that.  However, if you start the block on the credit reporting agency, you will not be able to access your social security account.

-          Example of what early benefit would look like if someone got $2227 at age 66, they would get $1679 at age 62.  If they waited until age 70, they would get $2939.

-          Spouse benefits are the most complicated, but can be a good deal for some couples.  If two married people are the same age, they can start SS at 66 years old and one of them can take the spouse benefit.  At age 70, they can take the higher benefit.  So, if the amount is $2600 next year, the spouse benefit would be $1300 a month and at age 70, the person getting the spouse benefit can get the increased amount that would be over $3000.

-          Spouse benefit rules are complicated and someone doing that really needs to check into their situation.  It will not work very well if the older person in the marriage is a low income earner.  However, it can work well if the older person is the high income earner and the max a spouse can get is half of the benefit of the other person at age 66.  So, it is not worth waiting until age 70 to get benefits using the spouse card.  One example is if the husband is 66 and gets $2600 per month, but if the wife is 62, she only gets 37% of his amount and 50%.  So, she would get $962 and could take that until she turned age 66 or 70 and get her full benefit at a higher amount.  One catch is if her retirement benefit at age 62 was greater than $962, she would be required to take her own benefit.

Of course there is a lot more to consider than the above, life longevity, budget, still working, etc….  One big consideration is if our government changes the rules and cuts it back, or inflation gets out of control and SS doesn’t keep up.  For us, the spouse benefit thing will not work.  We will both take early benefits at age 62. 

That is about all I learned, but now I have a plan about when to take it and how to manage my IRA.  I hope the info above helps.


----------



## glypnirsgirl (Jul 7, 2014)

The above information is great. 

Kiplinger's covers different strategies for maximizing social security. I have seen several of their articles --- still that is just general information. If you play with the IRS calculator, you will have a better idea of what will happen.

Best of luck!

elaine


----------



## artringwald (Jul 7, 2014)

The SS calculators help you maximize the money you will get based on how long you think you'll live. I think that approach is flawed. I want to make sure we will have enough if one of us does happen to live past 90. DW didn't work long enough to qualify for SS, so when I'm 66, I'll do a "file and suspend" so she can start taking the spousal benefit. I'll wait until I'm 70 to start taking my benefit. That's the best way for us to maximize what we'd get if one of us should live a long time.

We went to a financial planner and they suggested that we both file right away and give the money to them to invest (in a fee based investment of course). We don't go to that planner anymore.


----------



## pedro47 (Jul 7, 2014)

DeniseM said:


> The longer you wait to collect, the more you get - you can go to the Social Security website and use the calculator and it will spell it all out.



Suggestion only if you can afford to wait. Wait until age 66, you are looking at an approximate 8% increase in your SS Check each year. Each year until you turn 66 years old. An 8% return is not a bad return in today's market.

Each person budget and health conditions are different. Take your time and study your options.

Good luck.


----------



## dougef (Jul 7, 2014)

Suggest checking out the Early Retirement forums - even if not retiring "early," lots of good info on investing and social security:

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/


----------



## Conan (Jul 7, 2014)

cmdmfr said:


> I hope that some one can help me wit this. My wife has retired from work at 60. She said that she is going to wait till she is 65 to collect but is not working. She claims that she will collect more at 65 even though she is not working and putting into Social security for 5 Years. can some one tell me if she will collect higher benefits by not working but waiting for the 5 extra years.
> 
> Also she has told me that she can claim on my benefits since I have made more than her. Can some one explain that to me



Her normal retirement benefit is calculated from her 30 best years of income, so a few extra years' work will probably increase her benefit since she's probably earning more now than she did in her lowest income years (even after the automatic inflation adjustment that they use to boost the value of her older year income). So putting some new "good" years into the 30-year average in place of some old, "bad" years will probably increase her normal retirement benefit by a few percent.

Whether she keeps working or not, she's allowed to start collecting her benefit any time between age 62 and age 70. And for every year she waits, the benefit she will get when she starts collecting goes up by 8%. (But people who keep working and also start collecting before age 66 can have their payments reduced if they earn too much.)

So the way for her to maximize her benefit is to make her 30-year average as high as possible, and also to not start collecting until age 70. But it's waiting to start collecting as long as possible that has the bigger effect.

Example:  Say the 30-year average she has now will give her $1,000/month at age 66.  

--If she quits now and starts collecting at 62 she'll get (100-4*8)=68%=$680/month. If she quits now and starts collecting at 65 she'll get (100-1*8)=92%=$920/month. 

--If she works for five more years, say she earns $15,000/year and those five years take the place of five bad years in her 30-year history. Then the benefit based on the new 30-year average will be maybe 2% bigger. That would give her $694 at age 62 or $938 at age 65. (If she's going to earn more than $15,480/year (in 2014) she'd be better off not taking any benefit until at least age 66 because the benefit checks she receives while working will be further reduced - - that penalty goes away starting at age 66.)

Of course, the 8%/year increase for putting off the benefit isn't all savings, since she'll be receiving social security checks for a smaller number of years. The break even point requires living to about age 75 (13 years of smaller checks from 62 to 75 vs. 9 years of bigger checks from 66 to 75). 

Because you have a social security record of your own, she has a third choice, sometimes called "file and suspend."  You can arrange it so that she gets half of your earned benefit starting at age 66, which allows her to keep those payments while putting off her own benefit to age 70 (meaning that her own benefit, if it's $1,000 at age 66, becomes (100+4*8)=132%=$1,320/month in addition to four years of getting half of your benefit).

[The preceding paragraph assumes that her $1,320/month benefit at age 70 is a bigger number than 50% of your benefit. If your earnings record is so much better than hers that it isn't, then she'll continue to get 50% of your benefit even after age 70 (and no benefit of her own). So in that situation the wife never collects on her own record, and all the social security tax she paid during her working years was paid for nothing!]  

Either way, because your social security benefit is better than hers (and if you turn out to be the usual case where the husband dies before the wife), at your death she'll start getting 100% of your benefit which will take the place of her benefit. So the calculation for her - - 13 years of smaller checks from 62 to 75 vs. 9 years of bigger checks from 66 to 75 -- is really a question of how old she'll be when you die, not how old she'll be when she dies.

[[That 2% increase I figured for her 30-year average was a rough estimate - - for the actual figures you need to put her earnings numbers into the benefit calculators that you'll find at
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/quickcalc/ (quick calculator) or, better, at
http://www.ssa.gov/retire2/AnypiaApplet.html (detailed calculator)]]


----------



## Roger830 (Jul 7, 2014)

Another consideration is income taxes. 

If one spouse is still working or there is other taxable income, then 85% of the SS benefit could be taxable which could be another reason to wait.


----------



## johnrsrq (Jul 7, 2014)

look up "File and Suspend".  Current health and estimated longevity are individual factors. You finances are individual as well.

Many times, if in good health and expected mortality about the US averages, it is best to "file and suspend". It really has to be run on a spreadsheet. You look at your full retirement benefits, confirm that you have start receiving benefits and she is entitled to claim on yours as spousal benefit. If her expected full retirement benefit if in a certain range, then she files for retirement benefits and suspends her receiving that. She then let her benefit compound whereby the monthly benefit will grow 8% more per year for the suspension. So, if she files and suspends at 62, receives spousal benefit at 62 (1/2 of your benefit), at her age  of 70 or 66 or 67 (she can stop the suspension at any time) she will have roughly 64%+, 32%+,24% more in a monthly benefit.  My numbers are rough but I am close.

When calculating (comparing) this significantly higher monthly  amount over a number of years, your family ends up with a lot more money in benefits. Then, apply a potential investment rate of return on it and your have exponential. 

http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-2014/file-and-suspend-retirement-strategy.html


----------



## VacationForever (Jul 7, 2014)

Another scenario that has not been discussed here is for the one with longer longevity, say, wife, filing and collecting on her own benefit at 62.  When/if the husband passes away later on (whether she is 70/80/90), she then can switch to collect 100% of his benefit.  If she is collecting at 50% of his while he is alive, she cannot collect 100% of his benefit after he dies.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 7, 2014)

The Charles Schwab web site provides very clear advice and also provides some nice tables and graphs on the OP's questions.  

http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/When-Should-You-Take-Social-Security


----------



## johnrsrq (Jul 7, 2014)

sptung said:


> If she is collecting at 50% of his while he is alive, she cannot collect 100% of his benefit after he dies.




This statement is inaccurate. The opposite is true.



Social Security
Official Social Security Website   
Home
Numbers & Cards 
Benefits 
Survivors Planner: How Much Would Your Survivors Receive?

Benefits Planner


Calculators


Retirement
How much your family would receive in benefits depends on your average lifetime earnings. The higher your earnings were, the higher their benefits would be. We calculate a basic amount as if you had reached full retirement age at the time you die. 


Note: If you are already receiving reduced benefits when you die, survivor benefits are based on that amount. 

The maximum survivors benefit amount is limited to what you would receive if you were still alive.


----------



## johnrsrq (Jul 7, 2014)

*another article*

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/three-rules-for-how-to-get-the/


----------



## cotraveller (Jul 7, 2014)

I went with the _Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush_ approach, or _Life is uncertain, eat dessert first_.  We both took our SS benefits at age 62.  That gives you a reduced benefit over a longer period.  I calculated the break even point for us at about age 80.  We're still ticking along but haven't made it that far yet.

As several people have said, every persons needs and perceptions are different.  Explore all the options and go with what seems to be best for you.  If you want professional advice seek out a good financial planner, not us amateurs here on TUG.


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 7, 2014)

I was thinking of asking for some timeshare advice over at www.ssa.gov and they said to buy from the developer, then when I get too old to use it, to pay someone to take it off my hands. 

Isn't that what everybody does??

Jim


----------



## VacationForever (Jul 7, 2014)

johnrsrq said:


> This statement is inaccurate.



Will you please point me to this information?


----------



## csxjohn (Jul 7, 2014)

cotraveller said:


> I went with the _Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush_ approach, or _Life is uncertain, eat dessert first_.  We both took our SS benefits at age 62.  That gives you a reduced benefit over a longer period.  I calculated the break even point for us at about age 80.  We're still ticking along but haven't made it that far yet.
> 
> As several people have said, every persons needs and perceptions are different.  Explore all the options and go with what seems to be best for you.  If you want professional advice seek out a good financial planner, not us amateurs here on TUG.



We took a similar approach.  You can do all the calculating and spread sheets and what ever else you want but it doesn't consider that accident or health failure lurking around the corner.

I look at my life as a line with a beginning point and ending point.  I know where the beginning was but not the end, it could be my next breath, it could be 30 years away.

So I know the beginning point and I know where today is, almost 67 years past that start point.

What I also know it that every day I live I get one day closer to that end point, whenever it is.

Do I want to spend each of those days working or retired?  We  chose retired.

Sure you get less per month by going at 62 but you get those payments for a longer period of time.

Everyone's situation is different but for me and my wife, we took the money and ran.


----------



## artringwald (Jul 7, 2014)

sptung said:


> Will you please point me to this information?



If you and your spouse are both receiving benefits, are both over 66, and your spouse's benefits are higher than yours, when your spouse dies, you start receiving the amount your spouse was. For example, if you were getting $1000/month and your spouse was getting $2000/month, when your spouse dies, you will get $2000/month. Of course, your total income goes from $3000 to $2000.

This article might help: http://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2012/01/03/the-social-security-survivor-benefit-part-1/


----------



## Bourne (Jul 7, 2014)

Not that I am any close to getting my SS anytime(20+ yrs to go) but I ran a reverse calc based on my own earnings and my spouse's. Assuming that I did not need the money at 62 if I could wait till 70, here is another way to look at it. 

If you compare the two scenarios below, you would need approx *7.69%* growth rate in your IRA to maintain parity between both options. 

1. Start taking maximum benefit at 70
vs
2. Take reduced benefit at 62 and put the money in tax deferred IRA. And stop accumulating at 70 to start withdrawing and supplement SS. 


Why I personally like this option is that the growth rate is not extreme. Once you or your spouse dies, the SS ends. In this case, a decent chunk of change can be pass along as inheritance.


----------



## geekette (Jul 7, 2014)

Bourne said:


> Not that I am any close to getting my SS anytime(20+ yrs to go) but I ran a reverse calc based on my own earnings and my spouse's. Assuming that I did not need the money at 62 if I could wait till 70, here is another way to look at it.
> 
> If you compare the two scenarios below, you would need approx *7.69%* growth rate in your IRA to maintain parity between both options.
> 
> ...



Step 2 does require that you have earned income so you can't be unemployed at age 62 AND contribute to an IRA.  Just making sure people understand that you can't quit working at 62 and shovel the SS money into an IRA.


----------



## pedro47 (Jul 7, 2014)

geekette said:


> Step 2 does require that you have earned income so you can't be unemployed at age 62 AND contribute to an IRA.  Just making sure people understand that you can't quit working at 62 and shovel the SS money into an IRA.



Suggest put your money in a ROTH IRA account to avoid pay taxes.


----------



## Bourne (Jul 7, 2014)

geekette said:


> Step 2 does require that you have earned income so you can't be unemployed at age 62 AND contribute to an IRA.  Just making sure people understand that you can't quit working at 62 and shovel the SS money into an IRA.



Point taken. If you do not have earned income, any other tax deferred account would do. Cheapest ones out there are Fidelity & Vanguard's Non Qualified Variable Annuity that do not have earned income requirements.


----------



## Fern Modena (Jul 7, 2014)

ROTFL!


Fern



Passepartout said:


> I was thinking of asking for some timeshare advice over at www.ssa.gov and they said to buy from the developer, then when I get too old to use it, to pay someone to take it off my hands.
> 
> Isn't that what everybody does??
> 
> Jim


----------



## SMHarman (Jul 7, 2014)

pedro47 said:


> Suggest put your money in a ROTH IRA account to avoid pay taxes.



We had this conversation a while back. 1) Assume tax rates and Bands will be less favourable in retirement than now
2) Roth IRA benefit a small subset of Americans who will earn more in retirement than they do when they work. 
3) You are IMHO better taking a reduction in AGI now than working on the long bet that when you retire you will save tax. 

Anyone who thinks otherwise is forgetting the math of the reduction in tax due and Or increase in refund from the IRS. 

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk


----------



## geekette (Jul 7, 2014)

SMHarman said:


> We had this conversation a while back. 1) Assume tax rates and Bands will be less favourable in retirement than now
> 2) Roth IRA benefit a small subset of Americans who will earn more in retirement than they do when they work.
> 3) You are IMHO better taking a reduction in AGI now than working on the long bet that when you retire you will save tax.
> 
> ...



Yes, everyone needs to run their own numbers.  Do not base your decisions on what someone else is doing.

Right now, 401k deferral is what keeps my taxes down, which I need Right Now, and I also fund a Roth.   

When I retire ("some day"), I will have a mix of taxable and non-taxable funds from which to draw.   I want as many options as I can have.  

And don't forget that how things work today is not guaranteed to be The Deal when YOU retire.


----------



## geekette (Jul 7, 2014)

pedro47 said:


> Suggest put your money in a ROTH IRA account to avoid pay taxes.



You don't avoid taxes, you pay them up front.


----------



## VacationForever (Jul 7, 2014)

artringwald said:


> If you and your spouse are both receiving benefits, are both over 66, and your spouse's benefits are higher than yours, when your spouse dies, you start receiving the amount your spouse was.



Yes, I know that.  But if you are collecting spousal benefits, can you then switch to survivor benefits when spouse passes away?  My FIL and MIL told me that you could only pick one hence she was on her own benefits all the way till his death even though spousal benefits would have gotten her more if she had elected that when he was alive.  They were both savvy accountants.


----------



## johnrsrq (Jul 7, 2014)

artringwald said:


> If you and your spouse are both receiving benefits, are both over 66, and your spouse's benefits are higher than yours, when your spouse dies, you start receiving the amount your spouse was. For example, if you were getting $1000/month and your spouse was getting $2000/month, when your spouse dies, you will get $2000/month. Of course, your total income goes from $3000 to $2000.
> 
> This article might help: http://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2012/01/03/the-social-security-survivor-benefit-part-1/



thank-you. this is correct.

And regarding what some have you have already done, it matters not to the question of the OP. You're done and enjoying your dessert. Terrific. If others chose a different route, they're not receiving benefits (other than spousal) however, their filed and suspended benefits in just a few years will be 75% greater than yours monthly. It's a healthy sum.
 As I have said: Current health and estimated longevity are individual factors. You finances are individual factors as well.  If your finances "require" you to take SS early or at full retirement- then that's it. If you're in good health, then maybe an insurance for the 8 years or so. BUT, please do not mistake the point of Filing and Suspending AND then simultaneously taking a spousal benefit as doing without benefits.  That's the difference which will shorten the breakeven point and for you to appreciate this public program which growing without risk. Sometimes, it even better to use other assets ie: retirement assets to buffer the suspension period. However, this is not a suggestion, as advice must be given with facts and individual consideration and no-one, even a planner, should not do it in this forum. 
And if you're wealthy, even other considerations- maybe file and suspending the larger wage earner's PIA. 
As far as what others as said regarding the certainty of things currently or around the corner-cover risks.
Roth's are great but not totally applicable in this discussion as there more variables and we are talking about guaranteed benefits.

So, I wish all the best. I had a simile to timesharing and getting the benefits or short term goodies upfront and then paying over the long run for those goodies but it's too long.   over and out.


----------



## SMHarman (Jul 7, 2014)

geekette said:


> And don't forget that how things work today is not guaranteed to be The Deal when YOU retire.


Which is why I'll take a 401k AGI reduction now over the promise my ROTH will still be tax free in 30 years time 
I can guarantee my 401k will still be taxed in 30 years time. 


Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk


----------



## johnrsrq (Jul 7, 2014)

sptung said:


> Yes, I know that.  But if you are collecting spousal benefits, can you then switch to survivor benefits when spouse passes away?  ]
> 
> Yes, that is the way it currently works.
> 
> ...


----------



## simpsontruckdriver (Jul 8, 2014)

Another consideration. In my post about Medicare, it says that - unless you have creditable coverage at 65, you must sign up for Parts A & B. Medicare Part-B is $104.90/month (2014), deducted from your Social Security check. So, if you figure at age 62 is x per month, remember at 65, that amount will go down to pay for Part-B.

If you choose to take a Medicare Supplement Part-F (no out-of-pocket expenses at all) + Medicare Part-D (drugs), that is under $300 per month PLUS individual drug copays.
If you choose to take a Medicare Advantage with Rx, that is $104.90/month for Part-B + copays/coinsurance.
FYI, the prices above are for 2014. Every November, the Part-B costs either stay the same or rise. Also, MAPD plans are directly tied to the US Budget, so if Congress decides to cut funding, copays and/or premiums will go up. 

My point is, if you're set to have $2500 per month, you won't get all of it, because money has to go towards Medicare. If you choose NOT to take Medicare, you will be charged a Late Enrollment Penalty (like a tax) when you do take it.

TS


----------



## artringwald (Jul 8, 2014)

simpsontruckdriver said:


> Another consideration. In my post about Medicare, it says that - unless you have creditable coverage at 65, you must sign up for Parts A & B. Medicare Part-B is $104.90/month (2014), deducted from your Social Security check. So, if you figure at age 62 is x per month, remember at 65, that amount will go down to pay for Part-B.
> 
> If you choose to take a Medicare Supplement Part-F (no out-of-pocket expenses at all) + Medicare Part-D (drugs), that is under $300 per month PLUS individual drug copays.
> If you choose to take a Medicare Advantage with Rx, that is $104.90/month for Part-B + copays/coinsurance.
> ...


For most people that are paying for medical insurance, the total cost of medical care will go down once they turn 65 and sign up for Medicare.


----------



## tompalm (Jul 11, 2014)

Good info from Schwab

http://perspective.schwab.com/mobil...wab/resource_center/expert_insight&cmp=em-QYB


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 11, 2014)

ace2000 said:


> The Charles Schwab web site provides very clear advice and also provides some nice tables and graphs on the OP's questions.
> 
> http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/When-Should-You-Take-Social-Security





tompalm said:


> Good info from Schwab
> 
> http://perspective.schwab.com/mobil...wab/resource_center/expert_insight&cmp=em-QYB



If both of us liked it, it must be really good!


----------



## simpsontruckdriver (Jul 11, 2014)

artringwald said:


> For most people that are paying for medical insurance, the total cost of medical care will go down once they turn 65 and sign up for Medicare.



Correct, medical costs drop when a person gets SS/Medicare. For instance, most people pay under $110/week for a group (business) plan with high deductibles + drugs. For less than that, a Turning-65 (T65) person can have $0 coinsurance & copays and NO networks.

TS


----------



## isisdave (Jul 11, 2014)

I read an interesting article linked from Yahoo today that contained a point I had never before heard or thought of.

Often, when intending to delay collecting SS until 70, the higher earner will file and suspend at FRA or later so that spouse can get spousal benefits.

This article says that single people should also file and suspend at FRA. Why? In case you change your mind. Were you to have some kind of financial calamity, or become terminally ill, for example, you could ask that those suspended funds be paid to you "right then."  (You don't need a reason, but those are things that might happen in those four years). If you hadn't filed-and-suspended, you could start receiving payments, but you couldn't get the ones you hadn't filed for.


----------



## Laurie (Jul 12, 2014)

isisdave said:


> I read an interesting article linked from Yahoo today that contained a point I had never before heard or thought of.
> 
> Often, when intending to delay collecting SS until 70, the higher earner will file and suspend at FRA or later so that spouse can get spousal benefits.
> 
> This article says that single people should also file and suspend at FRA. Why? In case you change your mind. Were you to have some kind of financial calamity, or become terminally ill, for example, you could ask that those suspended funds be paid to you "right then."  (You don't need a reason, but those are things that might happen in those four years). If you hadn't filed-and-suspended, you could start receiving payments, but you couldn't get the ones you hadn't filed for.


Interesting! I'm trying to wrap my mind around this, and have questions ... here's something I just read at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/delayret.htm

"If you've already reached full retirement age, you can choose to start receiving benefits before the month you apply. However, we cannot pay retroactive benefits for any month before you reached full retirement age or more than 6 months in the past."

What does the sentence about not more than 6 months in the past mean exactly?

and at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/suspend.htm

"If you apply for benefits and we have not yet made a determination that you are entitled, you may voluntarily suspend benefits for any month for which you have not received a payment. Your request to suspend benefits may include any retroactive benefits that might be due."

Thinking about what is best for a single person who is exactly 66 1/2, and whose full retirement age was 66 but didn't start taking benefits.


----------



## johnrsrq (Jul 12, 2014)

Laurie said:


> Interesting! I'm trying to wrap my mind around this, and have questions ... here's something I just read at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/retire2/delayret.htm
> 
> "If you've already reached full retirement age, you can choose to start receiving benefits before the month you apply. However, we cannot pay retroactive benefits for any month before you reached full retirement age or more than 6 months in the past."
> 
> ...



So one has to apply to start the file and suspend. SSA has to determine you are eligible and the PIA. If you applied and voluntarily suspended, then you would be entitle to request the back payments for those months after application and when  and IF you decide to receive them. On this scenario, you monthly benefit would not receive a credit for monthly suspension because you received it. However, of you chose not to receive any of those back benefits, your deferred credit would apply to your initiated benefit going forward according to the schedules. 

I believe the ladder scenario, other than giving one more flexibility and potential short term liquidity, is no different than not filing for benefits at all. If you do not file and wait, then you have no liquidity (back payments possibility) but your eventual monthly benefit will be the same as long as you take it by age 70.

One major caveat is Medicare. Addressing this, whether taking it or your circumstances should be addressed beginning at age 64 1/2 or special enrollment windows. Careful consideration to potential fines and coverage. Your individual/ family coverage's and work place coverage can possible intertwine here, but if one does nothing to apply for social security to increase monthly benefits, they still must address Medicare/their benefit structure.

Schwab probably has it written in a finer way, but I'll say it is best for the above question ( single age 66 1/2) to file for Social Security and suspend it. Then you have more flexibility without it costing a dime.  I hope that helped.


----------



## simpsontruckdriver (Jul 13, 2014)

johnrsrq said:


> One major caveat is Medicare. Addressing this, whether taking it or your circumstances should be addressed beginning at age 64 1/2 or special enrollment windows. Careful consideration to potential fines and coverage. Your individual/ family coverage's and work place coverage can possible intertwine here, but if one does nothing to apply for social security to increase monthly benefits, they still must address Medicare/their benefit structure.



Like I said, I posted a lot on Medicare, which should answer those questions (feel free to ask me more). The only thing I know about Social Security is how it deals with - and will assist - Medicare.

TS


----------



## Conan (Jul 13, 2014)

Laurie said:


> What does the sentence about not more than 6 months in the past mean exactly?
> 
> ....
> 
> Thinking about what is best for a single person who is exactly 66 1/2, and whose full retirement age was 66 but didn't start taking benefits.



The month you start taking benefits determines what percentage of your normal retirement benefit (NRB) you get.  Eight percent per year (2/3% per month) LESS for years (months) before NRD, or eight percent per year (2/3%/month) MORE for years (months) after NRD.

So if they're allowing you file at 66 1/2 retroactively to 66, you'll get six (five?) checks in arrears and your pension number will be 100% of your NRB.  If you file at 66 1/2 and don't ask for retroactivity, your NRB starting at 66 1/2 will be 104% of your NRB for life. (Plus in all cases future cost of living increases.)


----------



## johnrsrq (Jul 13, 2014)

Conan said:


> The month you start taking benefits determines what percentage of your normal retirement benefit (NRB) you get.  Eight percent per year (2/3% per month) LESS for years (months) before NRD, or eight percent per year (2/3%/month) MORE for years (months) after NRD.
> 
> So if they're allowing you file at 66 1/2 retroactively to 66, you'll get six (five?) checks in arrears and your pension number will be 100% of your NRB.  If you file at 66 1/2 and don't ask for retroactivity, your NRB starting at 66 1/2 will be 104% of your NRB for life. (Plus in all cases future cost of living increases.)



written very well. Correct me, if you will, She doesn't get to "ask" for retroactivity if she did not apply for and suspend. They won't to my knowledge just send back payments in piles like that unless there was an effort by the receipient to   suspend her benefits.  

let me correct myself, or I guess, and will find out. It appears on the surface that if one applies after NRD, then SSA will possible pay up to 6 months of payments (which is not limited by suspending) prior to application and as far back as the NRD.


----------



## johnrsrq (Jul 21, 2014)

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/will-social-security-tell-im-leaving-benefits-table/


----------



## Rene McDaniel (Jul 22, 2014)

cotraveller said:


> I went with the _Bird in the hand is worth two in the bush_ approach, or _Life is uncertain, eat dessert first_.  We both took our SS benefits at age 62.  That gives you a reduced benefit over a longer period.  I calculated the break even point for us at about age 80.  We're still ticking along but haven't made it that far yet.



Cotraveller,
We are just a couple of years away from 60, and I'm totally with you on this. We also plan to take our SS benefits the very minute we are eligible.  Who knows what crazy things Congress might do to SS in the next few years, and I want to make sure I am already "grandfathered in" as a current SS recipient.  You keep hearing how they want to up the retirement age.  Both my parents waited to file for their SS benefits, as my Dad had a decent pension. They both died (in the 1990's) at the exact of age 67, and my Mom only received SS for 3 months before she caught a bad cold and died of pneumonia.  They should have filed at 62, because they really could have used the extra money during those 5 years.

Suze Orman drives me crazy every time she says "wait until age 70 to collect Social Security".  Yes, some lucky people are going to make it to 90.  But I wish they would quote what percentage of people will, it certainly is not 50%.  My husband's Dad is 93, and all of his friends are long gone.  Maybe 10% or 15% will reach age 90?  It would be interesting to know the real numbers.

-- Rene


----------



## Blues (Jul 22, 2014)

Rene McDaniel said:


> Suze Orman drives me crazy every time she says "wait until age 70 to collect Social Security".  Yes, some lucky people are going to make it to 90.  But I wish they would quote what percentage of people will, it certainly is not 50%.  My husband's Dad is 93, and all of his friends are long gone.  Maybe 10% or 15% will reach age 90?  It would be interesting to know the real numbers.



From the link that both ace2000 and tompalm posted:

"odds of at least one spouse living to age 90 is over 60% for couples who reach age 65 together."


As noted many times, the age at which you should file for SS is very dependent on individual circumstances.  There is no one size fits all.  But for many, if not most, people, the best strategy is for at least one spouse to wait until age 70.  If you can.

-Bob


----------



## Patri (Jul 22, 2014)

We are not even thinking about this yet, but our finances are in good order, and no matter when we collect, we expect SS to be grocery money. Grateful even for that.


----------



## Conan (Jul 22, 2014)

Patri said:


> We are not even thinking about this yet, but our finances are in good order, and no matter when we collect, we expect SS to be grocery money. Grateful even for that.



That's a lot of groceries!
If you've earned enough to maximize your earnings record, then if you retire at age 66 (using 2014 figures as an example), you will receive $2,642/month, and if you're married your spouse can additionally collect $1,341/month or his/her own earned benefit, whichever is greater.

That's nearly $48,000/year starting at age 66.

Or the spouse can start getting the $1,341/month at age 66, and you can put off your own benefit to age 70 and then get $3,540/month, totaling $58,572/year.


----------



## VacationForever (Jul 22, 2014)

A question on file and suspend.  If I intend to only start drawing at 70, is there any downside to doing a file and suspend when I reach full retirement at 66 or 67 (depending on year of birth)?


----------



## johnrsrq (Jul 22, 2014)

Rene McDaniel said:


> Cotraveller,
> We are just a couple of years away from 60, and I'm totally with you on this. *We also plan to take our SS benefits the very minute we are eligible.  Who knows what crazy things Congress might do to SS in the next few years, and I want to make sure I am already "grandfathered in" as a current SS recipient.  You keep hearing how they want to up the retirement age.*  Both my parents waited to file for their SS benefits, as my Dad had a decent pension. They both died (in the 1990's) at the exact of age 67, and my Mom only received SS for 3 months before she caught a bad cold and died of pneumonia.  They should have filed at 62, because they really could have used the extra money during those 5 years.
> 
> Suze Orman drives me crazy every time she says "wait until age 70 to collect Social Security".  Yes, some lucky people are going to make it to 90.  But I wish they would quote what percentage of people will, it certainly is not 50%.  My husband's Dad is 93, and all of his friends are long gone.  Maybe 10% or 15% will reach age 90?  It would be interesting to know the real numbers.
> ...



well, attached  pdf. on social security just last September (2013). It will be around and who knows what inflation will be. That is why maximizing it if your circumstances allow is wise - in my opinion.


----------



## johnrsrq (Jul 22, 2014)

sptung said:


> A question on file and suspend.  If I intend to only start drawing at 70, is there any downside to doing a file and suspend when I reach full retirement at 66 or 67 (depending on year of birth)?



No, nothing that comes to my mind other than if a spouse's benefits are involved. Basically No but ...  
Note: Only one member of a couple can apply for retirement benefits and have payments suspended so his or her current spouse can collect benefits.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jul 22, 2014)

I need a high earning, never married spouse.

Okay, I will settle for a VERY RICH, never married spouse.

Okay ... last offer, I will accept a million dollar cash gift -- who needs a spouse?

:ignore:


----------



## johnrsrq (Jul 22, 2014)

vacationhopeful said:


> I need a high earning,* never married spouse.*
> Okay, I will settle for a VERY RICH, *never married spouse*.
> 
> Okay ... last offer, I will accept a million dollar cash gift -- who needs a spouse?
> ...



what's this thing about never married?   still can collect full benefits after a while. And maybe the person has be humbled as a result. 

not me btw (never married)


----------



## VacationForever (Jul 22, 2014)

johnrsrq said:


> No, nothing that comes to my mind other than if a spouse's benefits are involved. Basically No but ...
> Note: Only one member of a couple can apply for retirement benefits and have payments suspended so his or her current spouse can collect benefits.



Thanks.  I was thinking more around the line of at age 70, I then have 2 options: 
a) Start SS benefits at 70 using age 70 amount 
b) Collect lump sum benefit from age 66/67 to 70 and benefit based on age 66/67 moving forward.  
(b) option is an insurance against the unforeseen need for money or if I become terminally ill.  Am I right with my understanding on use of file and suspend?


----------



## johnrsrq (Jul 22, 2014)

sptung said:


> Thanks.  I was thinking more around the line of at age 70, I then have 2 options:
> a) Start SS benefits at 70 using age 70 amount
> b) Collect lump sum benefit from age 66/67 to 70 and benefit based on age 66/67 moving forward.
> (b) option is an insurance against the unforeseen need for money or if I become terminally ill.  Am I right with my understanding on use of file and suspend?



emphatically Yes.


----------



## Patri (Jul 22, 2014)

Conan said:


> That's a lot of groceries!
> If you've earned enough to maximize your earnings record, then if you retire at age 66 (using 2014 figures as an example), you will receive $2,642/month, and if you're married your spouse can additionally collect $1,341/month or his/her own earned benefit, whichever is greater.
> 
> That's nearly $48,000/year starting at age 66.
> ...



Ha! Well OK then. We can eat like kings. I guess if benefits get cut, as some people fear, we will survive (barring a devastation of our savings/investments). As for everyone, health is the key. To enjoy retirement, travel, volunteer, do the things we want to do.


----------



## pacodemountainside (Jul 27, 2014)

Five(5) calculators! One is rated 5  "hearts".

http://online.wsj.com/articles/free-tools-for-optimizing-social-security-benefits-1406419908


----------

