• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 30 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 30th Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $21,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $21 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    60,000+ subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

Social Security question

taterhed

TUG Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
4,536
Reaction score
1,901
Points
399
Location
Virginia
Resorts Owned
Westin WKORV OFD
Marriott's Grande Vista
Worldmark x2
SVV Bella 81k
Just an editorial comment:

Since a timeshare is a discretionary purchase, I tend to think that TUGgers are probably better off financially than the average American.

So it's interesting to read how many of us have taken our SS benefit at 62 rather than delay until FRA or later. I would have guessed that it would have been the other way. If you have some assets, and don't need the SS money for current living expenses, the financial press often tends to encourage delaying the benefit so that it increases.

I suppose that a lot of us are concerned about what the government is going to do to shore up SS in the future. Also, the GOP tax bill reduced income tax rates (probably temporarily), so a bit less of the benefit is taken out of your pocket.

So yes, my wife and I are in this camp too. We are financially secure enough that we don't need the money now. But we're "hedging our bets." She took her benefit at 62. I'm 64, but have not yet taken my benefit and am hoping to delay so that it grows. (My benefit is the larger of the two.)

No politics here.

Here's a point:

If you don't 'Need' the money, consider starting the withdrawals early(er) and depositing them in an investment account.
The money can grow until you do need it.

If you put this scenario together (collect and invest vs don't collect and wait) you'll find the early(er) withdrawal might make even more sense...especially when considering the possible sunset of the TCJA.
 

bogey21

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
9,455
Reaction score
4,662
Points
649
Location
Fort Worth, Texas
How about this for buttressing the Social Security Fund. Let those of us who have earned our benefit but really don't need it be allowed to do the following: We agree to forego receiving one or more (our choice) of our monthly payments. In exchange for this we would be allowed to deduct the amount foregone when filing our Federal Income Tax much as one can deduct a charitable contribution...

Thinking this through a little more I think a deduction from Gross Income would be more attractive than a tax deduction...

George
 

easyrider

TUG Review Crew: Elite
TUG Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
15,057
Reaction score
8,004
Points
948
Location
Palm Springs of Washinton
Resorts Owned
Worldmark * * Villa Del Palmar UVCI * * Vacation Internationale*
This retirement by birth year from the Social Security website shows the percentages that are paid when taken early. I have been playing with the numbers and I still think that taking the money early is better because it only really increases after a person ages to the break even point which is near 79 for me. From 62 years to 79 years is 17 years down the road.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/1957.html

For those of you over 79, how has your age affected your travel ? Does it cost more ?

Bill
 

rapmarks

TUG Review Crew: Elite
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
9,636
Reaction score
4,768
Points
649
This retirement by birth year from the Social Security website shows the percentages that are paid when taken early. I have been playing with the numbers and I still think that taking the money early is better because it only really increases after a person ages to the break even point which is near 79 for me. From 62 years to 79 years is 17 years down the road.

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/1957.html

For those of you over 79, how has your age affected your travel ? Does it cost more ?

Bill
I am 75 but my husband has Alzheimer’s and of course it has affected our travel. There are so many places we have never been and we can’t do it now. He doesn’t understand what a key card is. Right now he is on the daily search for his wallet. I have the tile ap, but it is hard to get him to leave the tile in his wallet. We spend hours a day looking for lost items. I have to drive everywhere and he can’t help at all by looking at a map. So do everything while you can.
On the other hand my father had a stroke at 72 and that was the end of travel, but my mother took a lot of trips after he died, between the ages of 84 and 94.
 

TravelTime

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
8,092
Reaction score
6,460
Points
499
Location
California
Resorts Owned
All Resale: MVC DPs, Marriott Ko Olina, Marriott Marbella, WKOVR-N, Four Seasons Aviara
Remember, Even if the congressional spendthrifts do nothing, and the SS Trustfund runs dry, monthly payouts come largely from current revenue. This means that even after that happens (unlikely) checks will continue at about 75% of current amounts. Not great, but better than nothing.

I expect congress to do one or some combination of the following: Eliminate the exclusion of high income contributions. Increase the payments by the Treasury into the SS Trust fund- money they 'borrowed'. Increase the age of FRA. Means test recipients so wealthy people get less and poorer people get more. Increase taxed on SS payments.

Jim

I suspect the last thing would happen: Means test recipients so wealthy people get less and poorer people get more.
 

TravelTime

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
8,092
Reaction score
6,460
Points
499
Location
California
Resorts Owned
All Resale: MVC DPs, Marriott Ko Olina, Marriott Marbella, WKOVR-N, Four Seasons Aviara
I am in the same boat as you with an older spouse that filed at age 62. I started getting my SS payments last month and went through all the questions a few months ago. The way the administration explains it is like you said. She gets her normal reduced benefit and a part of yours. But, when you do the math, it boils down to half of yours minus 27 percent because she filed early. The way they explain it makes it sound like the spouse is still getting their Benifit. That is the only reason I can think of for making it seem so complicated. The bad news is after they reduce it by 27 percent, they still take $134 more out for Medicare and if she needs to purchase a supplemental insurance plan for part C and D, she will not have much left.

I said earlier that I thought married people got penalized and everyone said that is not true. I do not totally understand your scenario but it sounds like her getting early payments and you buying married to her is hurting you in an unfair way.
 

TravelTime

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
8,092
Reaction score
6,460
Points
499
Location
California
Resorts Owned
All Resale: MVC DPs, Marriott Ko Olina, Marriott Marbella, WKOVR-N, Four Seasons Aviara
This thread is doomed. Social Security is POLITICAL. Any solution to extend it's life and viability is, and must be- POLITICAL. To say otherwise is to take the 'ostrich' approach. Bury one's head in the sand and take what happens as fate.

We are left with what our duly elected sheep are famous for. Hopes and Prayers.

Jim

This is not any more political than discussing taxes in the various states, housing prices and any other similar topic. I think political means that we bring in partisan views or names of political parties and politicians. If we stay away from that, I do not think this falls into the political definition that TUG intended. If it does, then almost any topic could be accused of being political.
 

TravelTime

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
8,092
Reaction score
6,460
Points
499
Location
California
Resorts Owned
All Resale: MVC DPs, Marriott Ko Olina, Marriott Marbella, WKOVR-N, Four Seasons Aviara
I wasn't going to wait to age 70 although on paper, if you're a married couple, that may be the best choice for the higher earner. But I did hold out until FRA (full retirement age--age 66 for me).

Don't forget if you file before FRA and have more than a little income from a current job, your benefits will be reduced by the Retirement Test.

The main inducement to filing at 62 is the bird-in-the-hand--an extra four-plus years of (reduced) benefits. That's also why 70, or at least FRA, is best if you're a married couple. They have two horses in the race, since even if the higher earner dies young, 100% of that benefit will be paid to the surviving spouse for life.

That is what I thought when I did some reading. I saw that as a married person, I would lose something like half my SS benefits. Others said this was not true but I was under the scenario that I would take benefit at 62 and by the time my spouse asks for benefits he would be 65 or older. When I look into our scenario, one of us would lose what we would eligible for if we were not married. Under this scenario, it is probably better for both of us to wait until 70. It felt like a marriage penalty to me. I need to research this more because I may not file at 62.
 

TravelTime

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
8,092
Reaction score
6,460
Points
499
Location
California
Resorts Owned
All Resale: MVC DPs, Marriott Ko Olina, Marriott Marbella, WKOVR-N, Four Seasons Aviara
We did that too! :cool:

With us, it was never an issue about drawing on the other's SS since we had both had similar jobs throughout our careers and made pretty much the same amount of money each year. Some years I made more and some years he did, but never more than $1000 difference. So, our SS checks are very similar. His is $50 per month more than mine. Probably because I did take off 3 years to have 2 kids and stay home until the youngest was 1. It took me a couple of years to catch back up to the same salary as his.

We decided to take SS at 62 and scale back our IRA withdrawal at the same time. It has worked well.

Do you both get the same retirement benefit if you retired at the same age at 62?
 

TravelTime

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
8,092
Reaction score
6,460
Points
499
Location
California
Resorts Owned
All Resale: MVC DPs, Marriott Ko Olina, Marriott Marbella, WKOVR-N, Four Seasons Aviara
Just an editorial comment:

Since a timeshare is a discretionary purchase, I tend to think that TUGgers are probably better off financially than the average American.

So it's interesting to read how many of us have taken our SS benefit at 62 rather than delay until FRA or later. I would have guessed that it would have been the other way. If you have some assets, and don't need the SS money for current living expenses, the financial press often tends to encourage delaying the benefit so that it increases.

I suppose that a lot of us are concerned about what the government is going to do to shore up SS in the future. Also, the GOP tax bill reduced income tax rates (probably temporarily), so a bit less of the benefit is taken out of your pocket.

So yes, my wife and I are in this camp too. We are financially secure enough that we don't need the money now. But we're "hedging our bets." She took her benefit at 62. I'm 64, but have not yet taken my benefit and am hoping to delay so that it grows. (My benefit is the larger of the two.)

Since your wife took at at 62 and you have not taken it yet, what happens to her benefit and your benefit when you finally take it? Will it be the same as if you were not married? Will you get the full amount at 70 that you expected or will it be impacted by your wife's situation?
 

TravelTime

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
8,092
Reaction score
6,460
Points
499
Location
California
Resorts Owned
All Resale: MVC DPs, Marriott Ko Olina, Marriott Marbella, WKOVR-N, Four Seasons Aviara
After speaking to a few people at the Social Security department I was finally told the only one that can answer my question is a claim specialist, lol. The reason we went to their office and waited in line was because we wanted Social Security to give us an exact number on an exact scenario. Only a claims specialist can do this, not a customer service representative. Keep this in mind if you need a claims question answered.

We finally decided we were hitting the claims at 62 and defiantly know what we will get on our own claims. I thought that my wife's benefit would go up if she took half of my benefit but the reality is it isn't that much of an increase and the only way it looks good is if it isn't taken until full retirement age.

The bottom line is when I do the math the break even point is when we are almost 79 years old. After this time we would actually be making more if we went to fra.

Bill

After reading this thread, I am leaning toward not taking SS until 70 or I absolutely need it. I am not concerned about break even. I am more concerned about saving it and getting a bigger payout later in life when I probably really do need it. If I am still alive at 70, at least I will know I have another source of income to get me though the rest of my life. If not, then I lose all my savings anyway through dying early and never having needed the extra SS to live through 70. But if I do outlive my plan, I think I am safer to have something else in a nest egg. I realize the risk is at 70, there may be no SS funds to give me. But I suspect there will be and the government will figure out a way to tax the rich and to tax corporations in order to keep SS going.
 

easyrider

TUG Review Crew: Elite
TUG Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
15,057
Reaction score
8,004
Points
948
Location
Palm Springs of Washinton
Resorts Owned
Worldmark * * Villa Del Palmar UVCI * * Vacation Internationale*
After reading this thread, I am leaning toward not taking SS until 70 or I absolutely need it. I am not concerned about break even. I am more concerned about saving it and getting a bigger payout later in life when I probably really do need it. If I am still alive at 70, at least I will know I have another source of income to get me though the rest of my life. If not, then I lose all my savings anyway through dying early and never having needed the extra SS to live through 70. But if I do outlive my plan, I think I am safer to have something else in a nest egg. I realize the risk is at 70, there may be no SS funds to give me. But I suspect there will be and the government will figure out a way to tax the rich and to tax corporations in order to keep SS going.

Social security's website does have a life span calculator, lol.

https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/population/longevity.html

For a person born in 1959 it looks like you are doing good if you make it to 85. On my 60th birthday , one of my buddies said "welcome to the 4th quarter." I said "what". He explained that like football we play four quarters. I asked what happens when I turn 80. He told me we would be in over time having another beer. :D

Here is to over time !!! :D:D:D:D

Bill
 

TravelTime

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
8,092
Reaction score
6,460
Points
499
Location
California
Resorts Owned
All Resale: MVC DPs, Marriott Ko Olina, Marriott Marbella, WKOVR-N, Four Seasons Aviara
I wasn't going to wait to age 70 although on paper, if you're a married couple, that may be the best choice for the higher earner. But I did hold out until FRA (full retirement age--age 66 for me).

Don't forget if you file before FRA and have more than a little income from a current job, your benefits will be reduced by the Retirement Test.

The main inducement to filing at 62 is the bird-in-the-hand--an extra four-plus years of (reduced) benefits. That's also why 70, or at least FRA, is best if you're a married couple. They have two horses in the race, since even if the higher earner dies young, 100% of that benefit will be paid to the surviving spouse for life.

I am so lost with the SS discussion. So if we are both high earners and we both retire at 70, will be then both get the maximum retirement benefit and not penalized by the other retiring early?

If I died before my spouse, then he would get his full benefit and my full benefit for life?

In what way are we penalized by one retiring at 62 and let's say the other retire at 66?

I need some real life scenarios to try to understand this.
 

Conan

TUG Review Crew: Elite
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,138
Reaction score
595
Points
498
Location
Connecticut
So if we are both high earners and we both retire at 70, will be then both get the maximum retirement benefit and not penalized by the other retiring early?

If I died before my spouse, then he would get his full benefit and my full benefit for life?

In what way are we penalized by one retiring at 62 and let's say the other retire at 66?

I need some real life scenarios to try to understand this.

Example A: A married couple--one was the breadwinner and the other for the most part stayed home, and the two of them are the same age. The breadwinner can file for benefits, typically at age 62, 66 (FRA), or 70. If his monthly benefit is say $1,500 at FRA, the 8%/year reduction/increase for early/late filing gives him the choice of 68%*$1,500=$1,020/month starting at 62, $1,500/month at 66, or 132%*$1,500=$1,980/month starting at 70. Apart from future cost of living increases that's what he'll get for life. At the same time, his spouse will receive 50% of his benefit ($750 at FRA--there are further cutbacks even below 50% if she collects at an earlier than FRA age, and apparently no increase to the $750 even if she collects at a later than FRA age) even though she paid no social security taxes. If he dies before her, at his death she steps up to his full ($1,020/$1,500/$1,980) benefit for the rest of her life.

Example B: A married couple--both of them had long working careers, and again the two of them are the same age. Both can file for benefits, typically at age 62, 66 (FRA), or 70. If the husband's monthly benefit is say $1,500 at FRA, the 8%/year reduction/increase for early/late filing gives him the choice of 68%*$1,500=$1,020/month starting at 62, $1,500/month at 66, or 132%*$1,500=$1,980/month starting at 70. Apart from future cost of living increases that's what he'll get for life. Suppose the wife's work record entitles her to say $1,200 at FRA, and she files at the same time that her husband files. Because her own benefit ($860/$1,200/$1,584) is greater than 50% of his benefit, that's what she'll get. If he dies before her, at his death she steps up to his full ($1,020/$1,500/$1,980) benefit for the rest of her life.

In neither case does the widow get a double benefit. But she does get the greater of what her husband was getting or what she was getting.

Example C: More complicated, courtesy of the Social Security Administration:
"Early retirement reduces benefits: A spouse can choose to retire as early as age 62, but doing so may result in a benefit as little as 32.5 percent of the worker's primary insurance amount. A spousal benefit is reduced 25/36 of one percent for each month before normal retirement age, up to 36 months. If the number of months exceeds 36, then the benefit is further reduced 5/12 of one percent per month.

For a spouse who is not entitled to benefits on his or her own earnings record, this reduction factor is applied to the base spousal benefit, which is 50 percent of the worker's primary insurance amount. For example, if the worker's primary insurance amount is $1,600 and the worker's spouse chooses to begin receiving benefits 36 months before his or her normal retirement age, we first take 50 percent of $1,600 to get an $800 base spousal benefit. Then we compute the reduction factor, which is 36 times 25/36 of one percent, or 25 percent. Applying a 25 percent reduction to the $800 amount gives a spousal benefit of $600. Thus, in this case, the final spousal benefit is 37.5 percent of the primary insurance amount."
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/quickcalc/spouse.html

Edited to add: Originally I awarded the spouse in Example A an 8%/year upgrade if she collects later than FRA. I believe PamMo below is correct in saying her 50% is fixed at 50% of the breadwinner's age 66 benefit even if he and she waited until age 70 to apply.
 
Last edited:

Panina

TUG Review Crew: Elite
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
6,781
Reaction score
9,968
Points
499
Location
Florida
Resorts Owned
Hgvc Anderson, Blue Ride Village Resort
Example A: A married couple--one was the breadwinner and the other for the most part stayed home, and the two of them are the same age. The breadwinner can file for benefits, typically at age 62, 66 (FRA), or 70. If his monthly benefit is say $1,500 at FRA, the 8%/year reduction/increase for early/late filing gives him the choice of 68%*$1,500=$1,020/month starting at 62, $1,500/month at 66, or 132%*$1,500=$1,980/month starting at 70. Apart from future cost of living increases that's what he'll get for life. At the same time, his spouse will receive 50% of his benefit ($510/$750/$990) even though she paid no social security taxes. If he dies before her, at his death she steps up to his full ($1,020/$1,500/$1,980) benefit for the rest of her life.

Example B: A married couple--both of them had long working careers, and again the two of them are the same age. Both can file for benefits, typically at age 62, 66 (FRA), or 70. If the husband's monthly benefit is say $1,500 at FRA, the 8%/year reduction/increase for early/late filing gives him the choice of 68%*$1,500=$1,020/month starting at 62, $1,500/month at 66, or $1,980/month starting at 70. Apart from future cost of living increases that's what he'll get for life. Suppose the wife's work record entitles her to say $1,200 at FRA, and she files at the same time that her husband files. Because her own benefit ($860/$1,200/$1,584) is greater than 50% of his benefit, that's what she'll get. If he dies before her, at his death she steps up to his full ($1,020/$1,500/$1,980) benefit for the rest of her life.

In neither case does the widow get a double benefit. But she does get the greater of what her husband was getting or what she was getting.
Great explanation
 

PamMo

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
5,197
Reaction score
3,024
Points
648
Location
Missouri
Just one more data point for those who insist on running the numbers. The spousal benefit does NOT increase after full retirement age (FRA). If the wife has been the primary breadwinner and the husband would do better with 50% of his wife's benefit vs his own PIA, that 50% is limited to what his wife would have received at FRA. If his wife waits until 70 to collect social security, he will not get 50% of her PIA. He will get 50% of what his wife would have received at full retirement age.
 

GetawaysRus

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
1,587
Reaction score
1,085
Points
523
Location
Southern California
Resorts Owned
Marriott Desert Springs Villas 2
Marriott Grand Chateau
1. Since your wife took at at 62 and you have not taken it yet, what happens to her benefit and your benefit when you finally take it? Will it be the same as if you were not married? Will you get the full amount at 70 that you expected or will it be impacted by your wife's situation?

2. I am so lost with the SS discussion. So if we are both high earners and we both retire at 70, will be then both get the maximum retirement benefit and not penalized by the other retiring early?

3. If I died before my spouse, then he would get his full benefit and my full benefit for life?

4. In what way are we penalized by one retiring at 62 and let's say the other retire at 66?

I need some real life scenarios to try to understand this.

Don't feel badly. Social Security is COMPLICATED and what's being discussed in this thread are complex decisions. There are a number of big unknowns. How long will you/your spouse live and what will be your health and financial needs in retirement? The SS Trust fund might run out of money in the future unless Congress enacts changes, but no one knows what those changes might be. Also, what will happen to income tax rates in the future and the taxability of your SS benefit?

Here is how I understand things. If I'm wrong, hopefully others will jump in and correct me. I've added numbers to your questions so that I can reply to them one by one.

1. Assuming that we are both alive, my wife's benefit will be unaffected when I later take my own benefit. (And I'm definitely hoping to be alive so that I can take that benefit.) Yes, both of our benefits will be the same as if we were not married - that is, there is no SS "marriage penalty" like there can be for income taxes.

2. Correct. The only way that early retirement penalizes you is that you will have fewer working years of earnings that go into the SS calculation of your benefit. SS uses your highest 35 years of earnings (and also adjusts your early years of work for inflation) to calculate your benefit. So let's say you were in school for many years preparing for a career and finally started work at age 30. If you retire at 62, you've got 32 years of earnings. The other 3 years will be credited as zero earnings, and this will drag down your benefit a bit. Remember, however, that if you delay taking your benefit until 70, it will be a larger monthly amount but you will receive it for fewer years. This is part of the argument that some are making for taking the benefit at age 62.

3. If one spouse dies, the surviving spouse can only receive one benefit, either their own or their spouse's. In my own case, since my benefit is the larger, my wife would want to switch over to my benefit if I predecease her. I'll stop here and not say more because when a widow/widower should switch to their spouse's benefit can get quite complicated depending on the age of both parties when one spouse dies.

4. As I said above, if you retire early then you may have fewer than 35 years of high earnings go into the calculation of your benefit. In my own case, my education was long, and my earnings in my late 20s were quite low compared to my subsequent earnings once I got my career going. So if I retire early, I may have less than 35 years of high earnings going into the SS benefit calculation because some of those low earning years in my late 20s might count among the 35.

My opinion: if you want to understand Social Security, there are no shortcuts. Buy a book and don't just read it. Study it (just like you would have studied a college textbook). There are a number of popular books at Amazon. I have the book titled "Get What's Yours" by Kotlikoff, Moeller, and Solman. I'm a little reluctant to recommend it, but it did help me a lot. It's an easy read written in a folksy style. But after I read it, I had to read it again (and again), and write notes in the margins, and cross reference comments that appeared in different parts of the book that were pertinent to my situation. I've also got a Word file in our computer with instructions for my wife telling her what to do in the event of my death, and at what age she should switch over to my SS benefit.
 

pittle

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
4,034
Reaction score
2,146
Points
599
Location
Goodyear, AZ
Resorts Owned
Vidanta Grand Luxxe
Buganvilias Sky Suites
Pueblo Bonito Em Bay
Do you both get the same retirement benefit if you retired at the same age at 62?
We both worked at the same company and were in management at the same level. the Profit Sharing Plan was great and we were able to roll that money over into an IRA. If we had worked until we were 62, we would have had more money in the Profit Sharing, but after 29 years, we were ready to retire. We had also worked elsewhere before joining this company.

Had we worked longer there would have been more money in SS, but our reduced benefits are higher than many people get at the full retirement age of 65/66.
 
Last edited:

TravelTime

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
8,092
Reaction score
6,460
Points
499
Location
California
Resorts Owned
All Resale: MVC DPs, Marriott Ko Olina, Marriott Marbella, WKOVR-N, Four Seasons Aviara
Don't feel badly. Social Security is COMPLICATED and what's being discussed in this thread are complex decisions. There are a number of big unknowns. How long will you/your spouse live and what will be your health and financial needs in retirement? The SS Trust fund might run out of money in the future unless Congress enacts changes, but no one knows what those changes might be. Also, what will happen to income tax rates in the future and the taxability of your SS benefit?

Here is how I understand things. If I'm wrong, hopefully others will jump in and correct me. I've added numbers to your questions so that I can reply to them one by one.

1. Assuming that we are both alive, my wife's benefit will be unaffected when I later take my own benefit. (And I'm definitely hoping to be alive so that I can take that benefit.) Yes, both of our benefits will be the same as if we were not married - that is, there is no SS "marriage penalty" like there can be for income taxes.

2. Correct. The only way that early retirement penalizes you is that you will have fewer working years of earnings that go into the SS calculation of your benefit. SS uses your highest 35 years of earnings (and also adjusts your early years of work for inflation) to calculate your benefit. So let's say you were in school for many years preparing for a career and finally started work at age 30. If you retire at 62, you've got 32 years of earnings. The other 3 years will be credited as zero earnings, and this will drag down your benefit a bit. Remember, however, that if you delay taking your benefit until 70, it will be a larger monthly amount but you will receive it for fewer years. This is part of the argument that some are making for taking the benefit at age 62.

3. If one spouse dies, the surviving spouse can only receive one benefit, either their own or their spouse's. In my own case, since my benefit is the larger, my wife would want to switch over to my benefit if I predecease her. I'll stop here and not say more because when a widow/widower should switch to their spouse's benefit can get quite complicated depending on the age of both parties when one spouse dies.

4. As I said above, if you retire early then you may have fewer than 35 years of high earnings go into the calculation of your benefit. In my own case, my education was long, and my earnings in my late 20s were quite low compared to my subsequent earnings once I got my career going. So if I retire early, I may have less than 35 years of high earnings going into the SS benefit calculation because some of those low earning years in my late 20s might count among the 35.

My opinion: if you want to understand Social Security, there are no shortcuts. Buy a book and don't just read it. Study it (just like you would have studied a college textbook). There are a number of popular books at Amazon. I have the book titled "Get What's Yours" by Kotlikoff, Moeller, and Solman. I'm a little reluctant to recommend it, but it did help me a lot. It's an easy read written in a folksy style. But after I read it, I had to read it again (and again), and write notes in the margins, and cross reference comments that appeared in different parts of the book that were pertinent to my situation. I've also got a Word file in our computer with instructions for my wife telling her what to do in the event of my death, and at what age she should switch over to my SS benefit.

Thank you got the great examples. I am still confused but this is sarting to make sense. I am guessing this is our scenario now:

1) I take SS at age 62 and get reduced benefits since I elected early. I am three years older than my spouse so he will not elect yet. I will get the benefit I am entitled to at age 62 less the reduction for early election based on the previous 35 years of work history. I made about the same as my spouse in these years so I will get close to what he gets.

2) My spouse like to work so he delays retirement until 65. At 65 he gets whatever benefits he should get at age 65 because on his past 35 years of work history. It will be higher than me for 2 reasons: he made more money in the years before retirement and he will not be penalized for early retirement.

3) He will get 100% of his benefits at FRA of 65. I will get less than 100% for retiring early at 62. So let's say I am getting $1200
for retirement at age 62, I will be able to keep that until I die plus inflation adjustment. Let's he gets $2000 at age 65 because he retired later and his last 35 years of earning were higher. Then I am now assuming we would both keep what we get regardless of what the other party selects. I will get $1200 a month until I die and he will get $2000 a month until he dies. So we will have a combined SS benefit of $3200 per month.

4) If he dies before me, then I could elect his benefit of $2000 for the rest of my life since his is higher than mine. If I die before him, he loses my benefit and remains at $2000.

Is the above true? Am I making any errors now?
 

Passepartout

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2007
Messages
28,463
Reaction score
17,214
Points
1,299
Location
Twin Falls, Eye-Duh-Hoe
Thank you got the great examples. I am still confused but this is sarting to make sense. I am guessing this is our scenario now:

1) I take SS at age 62 and get reduced benefits since I elected early. I am three years older than my spouse so he will not elect yet. I will get the benefit I am entitled to at age 62 less the reduction for early election based on the previous 35 years of work history. I made about the same as my spouse in these years so I will get close to what he gets.

2) My spouse like to work so he delays retirement until 65. At 65 he gets whatever benefits he should get at age 65 because on his past 35 years of work history. It will be higher than me for 2 reasons: he made more money in the years before retirement and he will not be penalized for early retirement.

3) He will get 100% of his benefits at FRA of 65. I will get less than 100% for retiring early at 62. So let's say I am getting $1200
for retirement at age 62, I will be able to keep that until I die plus inflation adjustment. Let's he gets $2000 at age 65 because he retired later and his last 35 years of earning were higher. Then I am now assuming we would both keep what we get regardless of what the other party selects. I will get $1200 a year until I die and he will get $2000 a year until he dies. So we will have a combined SS benefit of $3200 per month.

4) If he dies before me, then I could elect his benefit of $2000 for the rest of my life since his is higher than mine. If I die before him, he loses my benefit and remains at $2000.

Is the above true? Am I making any errors now?
That's pretty much it, except, unless you're older than I surmise, your (and hubby's) FRA will be age 67 and a fraction, not 65. But your other assumptions are at least a good ballpark figure.
 

PamMo

TUG Review Crew: Veteran
TUG Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2006
Messages
5,197
Reaction score
3,024
Points
648
Location
Missouri
By Jove, I think you've got it, TravelTime! :clap:

It's a complicated system, and even going into the Social Security office doesn't mean you'll get the correct answers. I know people who have been given contradictory advice/numbers from different "advisors" at the local office.
 

bogey21

TUG Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
9,455
Reaction score
4,662
Points
649
Location
Fort Worth, Texas
For a person born in 1959 it looks like you are doing good if you make it to 85. On my 60th birthday , one of my buddies said "welcome to the 4th quarter." I said "what". He explained that like football we play four quarters.

When I turned 65 and retired I told myself if someone would guarantee me 75, I would take it. When I turned 75 I raised it to 80. At 80 I then raised it to 85. I will be 85 next April. If I make that, I think I will go year by year...

By the way I started taking my Social Security at age 65 with no analysis and have never regretted it...

George
 

Conan

TUG Review Crew: Elite
TUG Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2005
Messages
3,138
Reaction score
595
Points
498
Location
Connecticut
The wives of Johnny Carson
"What happens if your ex happens to have 2 (or 3) other exes and also a current spouse? Are you eligible for any benefits when they die?

"This was the case with former late-night TV talk show host Johnny Carson, who was married 4 times. His first marriage lasted about 15 years; the second, 9 years; and the third, 13 years. The fourth marriage was intact when he died in 2005 and lasted 18 years. Assuming the ex-spouse rules were the same as today, his first and third wives were eligible to claim as ex-spouses on Johnny's PIA (each could collect half if she claimed at her Full Retirement Age ). Because the second marriage lasted only 9 years, she unfortunately could not file for spousal benefits.

"When Johnny died, his fourth and current wife would "step in his shoes" and receive the same monthly amount that Johnny had been receiving (once they reached their own FRAs); the 2 qualifying ex-spouses were also eligible to step in his shoes as surviving ex-spouses who met the qualifications. In this case, it is likely that all 3 women were receiving the same survivor benefit amount."

https://www.fidelity.com/viewpoints/retirement/social-security-for-divorced-spouses-ns?s_tnt=117721:1:0&adobe_mc_ref=https://www.google.com/
 

GetawaysRus

TUG Review Crew
TUG Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Messages
1,587
Reaction score
1,085
Points
523
Location
Southern California
Resorts Owned
Marriott Desert Springs Villas 2
Marriott Grand Chateau
Thank you got the great examples. I am still confused but this is sarting to make sense. I am guessing this is our scenario now:

4) If he dies before me, then I could elect his benefit of $2000 for the rest of my life since his is higher than mine. If I die before him, he loses my benefit and remains at $2000.

Is the above true? Am I making any errors now?

You're doing fine on 1-3.

Death (#4) is more complicated. Now you are eligible for a survivor (widow) benefit. This is not the same as a spousal benefit.

I need to pull out my book....

In your example, you have already taken your benefit at age 62 PRIOR to his death. (My answer could be different if you have not yet elected your benefit.)

A) if you are at or older than your Survivor Full Retirement Age (FRA) at the time of his death, you would switch to his benefit if it is larger than yours.

B) if you are younger than your Survivor FRA at the time of his death, your widow benefit might be reduced if you immediately switch to his benefit. (Caveat: I'm not 100% sure if this applies if he has already elected his benefit, but I'm pretty sure it does apply if he has not yet elected his benefit.) You might decide to continue to receive your own benefit until FRA, then switch to his. That would allow your widow benefit to grow until you made the switch. But you would not delay switching beyond your FRA because your survivor benefit would not increase any further.

This information comes from the revised edition of "Get What's Yours" and is found on pages 51, 62, 99-103, 180-183, and 242. (I have the whole darn book marked up and annotated.)

Tell your husband not to die young. In addition to all the other reasons, it makes SS more complicated for you.

One more thing to muddy the waters. Your Survivor FRA may be different than your Retirement FRA!! Look at https://www.ssa.gov/planners/survivors/survivorchartred.html and also
https://www.thebalance.com/social-security-survivor-benefits-for-a-spouse-2388918

My wife was born in 1956. Her Retirement FRA was 66 and 4 months. But according to the website I just gave you, her Survivor FRA is age 66.

So, since I have not yet elected my benefit, but my wife elected at 62, my instructions to her are that if I die before she reaches age 66 (and I hope that doesn't happen), she should continue to take her own benefit but then switch to mine when she reaches 66. If I die after she reaches age 66, she can immediately switch to my benefit.

Whoa!! It's complicated! Read and study a book. I think I have given you accurate information, but look it up yourself! Don't trust jokers on the Internet who think they know what they are talking about.
 
Last edited:

TravelTime

TUG Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2018
Messages
8,092
Reaction score
6,460
Points
499
Location
California
Resorts Owned
All Resale: MVC DPs, Marriott Ko Olina, Marriott Marbella, WKOVR-N, Four Seasons Aviara
That's pretty much it, except, unless you're older than I surmise, your (and hubby's) FRA will be age 67 and a fraction, not 65. But your other assumptions are at least a good ballpark figure.

When does it change to 67 or has it already changed?
 
Top