That's right. In other words, because you (in this case, the wife) have a valuable earnings record of your own, you can't start taking 50% of your husband's benefit until you are age 66. If you did, you wouldn't be able to switch to your own benefit later on.
Actually we were advised that I could start taking spousal (50%) benefit at my FRA which would be less than on my own at 62, and then take my own benefit at 70. I would not do that as it means I forgo taking benefits between 62 to 67 and then continue to take reduced benefits between 67 to 70.
Your adviser and I are saying the same thing. FRA=Full Retirement Age, which is what I mean when I say age 66. If you're born in 1960 or later your FRA is 67 and you should read my example as referring to 67. (FRA for people born from 1955 to 1959 is 66 and some months.) As you say, FRA is the age at which you can start taking the spousal (50%) benefit and still be allowed to switch to your own benefit at 70.
It's true that means no benefits for you from age 62 to 67, but I don't think it's fair to say it also means "reduced benefits" between 67 to 70. Since your own unclaimed social security is continuing to build during those years, what you call reduced benefits I call found money.
Separate from that is deciding whether your husband should start taking his benefit at age 62, 66, 70 or any age in between. If he starts taking at age 62, that's the benefit that you'll start getting 50% of when you reach age 66. Alternatively, you could start taking your own benefit when you reach age 62 or any later year but that means never getting 50% of his benefit.
Again, this makes no sense in our case. Basically I will never take 50% of his benefits. Because he is "carrying two lives", it makes sense in our case for him to take at 70.
No, because you can get 50% of his benefit during those years and he can still put off collecting his own benefit to his age 70. That's what "file and suspend" means. So yes, it makes sense in your case for him to take at 70, but you can still take the 50% spousal benefit while waiting to file for your own benefit at your age 70.
Wouldn't it be best for your husband to start collecting at age 66 (if he wanted to wait even longer, he could file and suspend at age 66 and defer his own benefit to age 70). Meanwhile you would start getting 50% of his benefit starting when you reach age 66, and you would switch to your own full benefit when you reach age 70.
Again, my benefit at 62 is higher than half of his at my 67. I am not allowed to start taking on my own account at 62 if I ever want to take half of his benefit at 67.
Your benefit at 62 may be higher than half of his at your 67, but if your benefit at 62 is, say $1,000/month and you defer taking your benefit to age 70, it will then be something like $1,700/month. Plus you get 50% of his benefit from 67 to 70--the found money I was referring to.
So eventually the two of you will be collecting two full benefits - - 100% of his benefit (calculated from whatever age he started collecting) and 100% of your age 70 benefit.
The breakeven of taking early vs. late is 85 years old. Unlikely that my husband will still be alive when I turn 85 - although I would like to lose in my gamble, which means I should be taking on my account at 62.
Married couples have two horses in the race. If your husband is alive when you turn 85, you'll each still be collecting your own age 70 benefits. If he is not alive when you turn 85, you'll get his age 70 benefit for the rest of your life.
When one of you dies, the survivor will continue to get the greater of 100% of his benefit (calculated from whatever age he started collecting) or 100% of the benefit you started taking at age 70.
If you collect sooner, and one of you lives a very long time, you may not have enough money to live on.
That's what scares me.
