Dumb Social security questions

[Breedlove]

Ok I am retired , not yet drawing social security DW will not be old enough till December this year . Our plans are to both file at the same time.

1. last night an already retired lady was telling us that both spouses cannot draw social security at the same time . I said Baaaaa but kept my mouth shut . Learned that since I retired!

2. This is my question DW will retire April 1st which means we use her insurance to get our doctor visits out of the way .
But by retiring at the end of the 1'st quarter past our birthdays does this increase our monthly social security benefit for example if at 62 you would get 1600 , and at 63 get 1700, by working this one quarter to you get the 25.00 bump on the month ? .........

 

[Texas Proud]

Not an expert but I have read many times here that it increases each month you delay...

 

[Breedlove]

This is what I think , we might bumble along as long as we can after even April .

 

[Sunset]

But remember when you apply to be clear that you want it to start on X date.
Otherwise sometimes they "helpfully" set your application date 6 months earlier so you get a lump sum and less per month for the rest of your life, which defeats the purpose of waiting a bit.

 

[Breedlove]

Thanks , I didn't know that . We will probably wait till the 11th hour to both apply for benefits . And request a date in the future !

 

[Walt34]

Thanks , I didn't know that . We will probably wait till the 11th hour to both apply for benefits . And request a date in the future !

Of course you can both receive SS benefits. The longer you wait (until age 70 for each) the higher the monthly benefit will be. After age 70 there's no further increase so there's no point in waiting after that.

And as Sunset correctly pointed out if you apply in person at a SS office often they will move the date of receiving benefits six months back so you get a bit of a lump sum and lower benefits. I applied online and the online form specifically asks about that so the benefits started on the correct date.

 

[Breedlove]

We will apply on line and set a start date into the future , I don't want a lump sum and receive less monthly .

Thanks for the tips !

 

[Texas Proud]

Of course you can both receive SS benefits. The longer you wait (until age 70 for each) the higher the monthly benefit will be. After age 70 there's no further increase so there's no point in waiting after that.

And as Sunset correctly pointed out if you apply in person at a SS office often they will move the date of receiving benefits six months back so you get a bit of a lump sum and lower benefits. I applied online and the online form specifically asks about that so the benefits started on the correct date.

Thanks... good to know....

But, I would bet that the online sign up will be better in 10 years... at least I hope!!

 

[donheff]

So is the retired lady who advised you forgoing her SS because her husband is taking his?

 

[Ready]

So is the retired lady who advised you forgoing her SS because her husband is taking his?

I was wondering the same thing. If she doesn't want her SS paycheck, I'll be happy to collect it for her!

 

[Sunset]

...
1. last night an already retired lady was telling us that both spouses cannot draw social security at the same time . I said Baaaaa but kept my mouth shut . Learned that since I retired!

.....

If this was someone you know and not a random person on the street, I think you should be kind and tell her to phone SS as they are missing out a lot !!

 

[Koolau]

I applied in person for SS to begin at 70. They tried to talk me into the 6 month "Look-back". Sounded too good to be true the way the lady explained it. I finally got her to admit that it would reduce benefits for the remainder of my life. "Actuarily" it should still eventually turn out the same and I can see why some folks might like a chunk of money. I just don't understand why they are pushing this option so hard. Oh, and yes, both husband and wife can (and often do) receive benefits from SS at the same time. YMMV

 

[pb4uski]

Broadly speaking, for each year from 62 to your FRA (full retirement age), your SS increases roughly 5.0% to 7.5% a year depending on your year of birth. For people born between 1943 and 1955, it is 6.255 a year. For each year after your FRA until age 70, it increases 8% a year.

See https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/agereduction.html and https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/1943-delay.html

So if your FRA is 66 and your benefit at your FRA is $1,000, your age 62 benefits will be $750 or if you wait until you are 70 you would get $1,320.

In addition to the above, you also would get any declared COLA increases from when you primary insurance amount was calculated until when you start receiving benefits.

SSAnalyze is a free tool to look at various SS claiming strategies and the impact of alternatives.

And of course, both husband and wife and receive benefits at the same time. In fact, a spouse can receive benefits even if they have never paid a dime into SS during their lifetime.

 

[SecondCor521]

They tried to talk me into the 6 month "Look-back". Sounded too good to be true the way the lady explained it. I finally got her to admit that it would reduce benefits for the remainder of my life. "Actuarily" it should still eventually turn out the same and I can see why some folks might like a chunk of money. I just don't understand why they are pushing this option so hard.

According to the Kotlikoff et al. book that I read recently, SS rules require SS employees to choose the 6-month retroactive payment option unless you specifically reject it. I think Kotlikoff even recommends putting one's rejection in writing on your paper application.

I suspect that of the two types of errors - paying a 6 month retroactive payment when it isn't wanted vs. not paying a 6 month retroactive payment when it is wanted - the latter person would be more upset and likely to complain.

There was another nugget in that book about the "actuarially neutral" idea that people inevitably bring up on these SS threads. In the book it claims that the reductions and delayed credits were roughly actuarially neutral when they were instituted decades ago, but with increasing longevity now they are no longer actuarially neutral and it nearly always pays, actuarially speaking, to delay whenever possible.

Personally I have never bought into the actuarially neutral thing completely, because the reductions are (a) straight line, whereas risk of death seems to increase at more than a linear rate, especially around FRA, and (b) the straight line decrease before FRA is significantly different from the straight line increases after FRA.

 

[sanfanciscotreat]

The six month retro SS payment was not mentioned to me when I applied in person last year at age 70.

 

[Lawrencewendall]

Just saw this today.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4075953-social-security-falls-short-needs?ifp=0