Social Security at 62 with minor children

[copyright1997reloaded]

Quote:

Originally Posted by OAG That is why I said why not call SSA. 1-800-772-1213 and ask! Lines are open M-F 7am to 7pm EST.

Yes, I agree, the OP should call SSA. In my case, my son is 6, and I am 50, so I think I have a bit of time before making that call.

[copyright1997reloaded]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buckeye Yes, I would apply for the benefits if I was eligible just like I will apply for SS even if I don't need it. Just seems like there is a bit of a double standard in discussions when "welfare queens" are collecting the benefits to which they are entitled versus a guy who is 62 who chooses to take additional government benefits because he is entitled.

Seems to me your being a bit brutal, especially when you yourself say you "will apply for SS even if I don't need it." I've paid over 425k in taxes in just the past 5 years (Federal & State, not counting Social Security, Medicare, Real Estate, Gasoline Taxes, ...). I shudder to think what my total tax bill "all in" has looked like over my 30+ working years. And I don't have a fancy car, a maid, or even someone to mow my yard or wipe my ...
So, yeah, if/when I turn 62 and if social security isn't "means tested" or some other mechanism to take away what wealth I've managed to keep, and if this rule still exists, your can bet I will apply for this.

[Buckeye]

I'm not picking on the OP. I'm commenting on the comments that usually appear if a thread touches on an able-bodied person receiving government benefits to which he/she is legally entitled, i.e. women with children who are not working and are receiving welfare benefits. Even though they are legally receiving benefits, the position here usually seems to be they are just taking advantage of the system and are losers and leeches for making the choice they did and they just need to pull it together and stop sponging off the government (i.e. us).

I just find it interesting the same standard does not apply to the OP who is making the choice to take additional SS benefits to help support his family when he could be supporting them by working more or spending more of his own savings instead of taking extra benefits for minor children (also assuming he is able-bodied and has the choice to make since he is not receiving SSI). Double-standard?

I personally am happy to have friends and family get whatever they legally can from the government because I also sends TONS of money to them every year. At least I know that some of my confiscated money is going to a good cause if it goes to them.

[samclem]

Buckeye,
I do see your point, and now that its clear that we are talking about two cases of qualifying recipients, the situation is a little more interesting.

Case 1: A young girl in poverty has a baby that she can't afford to raise. She has made herself legally eligible to receive increased government assistance (provided by taxpayers). We (including me) view her as having made an irresponsible decision.
Case 2: A 55 YO man or woman decides to have a child. The existence of this child increases SS payments to the person when he/she starts to draw social security.

Why does Case 2 not prompt the same reaction as Case 1? After all, in both cases the individual's decision to have a child increased costs to the taxpayer.

That's a good question, and I fully admit that the distinction is a bit finer than I'd like. I think it boils down to the purpose of the two government programs and the "contract" between payers and payees. In the case of welfare payments to the young girl, she is transferring costs to taxpayers that should be hers. I think most people in our society still believe that you shouldn't have children if you cannot afford them. Taxpayers (who provide the money to support these payments) are providing a safety net so that a young child born in bad circumstances has at least some support.

Regarding the SS recipient with a minor child, the situation s a little different. He has paid in to SS, and had to qualify for the benefits with these contributions. This program does not make any distinctions based on the need of a recipient--if you meet the age requirement, you get the checks. Same with spouses and kids.

[wolf]

Thanks AbbyNormal, for a current example. 2005. It amazes me how a simple question can upset some people.

I plan on visiting my local SS office next month. The reason I posted this question was to obtain other people's experiences. It nevers hurts to learn from other people.

I'm not sure why SS has these rules for minor children, Need to ask our Representative. There must have been a reason. Maybe, when people turn 62-65, the majority of people don't live much longer and young children suffer.

IN any case, according to the rules it's legal.

[copyright1997reloaded]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem Buckeye, Regarding the SS recipient with a minor child, the situation s a little different. He has paid in to SS, and had to qualify for the benefits with these contributions. This program does not make any distinctions based on the need of a recipient--if you meet the age requirement, you get the checks. Same with spouses and kids.

This is exactly the distinction that is important. SS isn't (at least in theory) a welfare program but closer to an annuity/insurance program, and under the "rules" of this program with your social security payments to the government, you get in return an income stream (when eligible) and you also get other "insurance" benefits such payments if you die to your surviving spouse/children, along with the benefit the op asked about.

[DanJ]

Another example:
My husband and I adopted 5 children through the state. They were almost all infants at the time. The oldest is now 24 and out on his own. The younger children are 13, 12 , 9 and 10. My husband has always worked and I have also worked except when our children were very young. At 63 years of age, his job is ending after 28 years. If it were not for us being able to collect on social security and the kids collecting, we would probably not make it. Jobs are very hard to find at his age. I will however be able to keep working as a contract employee. I do want my children to go on to college.. Without them being able to collect on my husbands social security, we would probably have to use their college funds.

[73ss454]

I think it's very nice you guys like children and want to take care of them. Having children in your 50's or 60's is a choice. If you choose to have children I don't know why SS would have to take care of them. I can see it if a parent dies or is on disability but not for any other reason. But since it is the law I guess I'm good with it.

[wolf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanJ Another example: My husband and I adopted 5 children through the state. They were almost all infants at the time. The oldest is now 24 and out on his own. The younger children are 13, 12 , 9 and 10. My husband has always worked and I have also worked except when our children were very young. At 63 years of age, his job is ending after 28 years. If it were not for us being able to collect on social security and the kids collecting, we would probably not make it. Jobs are very hard to find at his age. I will however be able to keep working as a contract employee. I do want my children to go on to college.. Without them being able to collect on my husbands social security, we would probably have to use their college funds.

Just my 2 cents. When My wife and I adopted, 18 and 14 years ago. Two infants, We had no idea when I turned 62, and took early SS, how the extra
money would help.

Someone, somewhere, must have know, the big "secret". When adopted children are older. Many, many, have emotional and behavioral issues.

Therapy, Psychiatrist, bills are huge. The range of emotional and behavioral
problems runs all over the place. Private placements, attorneys fees, etc...

Only, adoptive parents, can understand what I'm talking about...if not you
are one of the lucky ones.....

Again, just my 2 cents.....the extra money.....is a life saver.

[NYEXPAT]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf Just my 2 cents. When My wife and I adopted, 18 and 14 years ago. Two infants, We had no idea when I turned 62, and took early SS, how the extra money would help. Someone, somewhere, must have know, the big "secret". When adopted children are older. Many, many, have emotional and behavioral issues. Therapy, Psychiatrist, bills are huge. The range of emotional and behavioral problems runs all over the place. Private placements, attorneys fees, etc... Only, adoptive parents, can understand what I'm talking about...if not you are one of the lucky ones..... Again, just my 2 cents.....the extra money.....is a life saver.

Glad it worked out for you! One question. Am I correct in assuming that if you take your benefit at 62, your children's benefit is based on the full retirement benefit 66/67? In my case as we do not live in the USA my spouse is unable to receive a benefit! The rules are a bit strange because if we moved from Peru across the border to Chile, she would qualify.

[old woman]

Many retired people are raising grandchildren some they adopted. My boyfriend's mom took her daughters infant when she was about 50 and adopted him with her third husband. Her husband was 70 when the child was 6. She had mostly been a housewife with 3 husbands and was cleaning motel rooms a few hours a week in her 60s. Getting SS for the child was a major help. She was widowed about the time the boy finished high school. She didn't want to be a older widowed mother to a teen but her daughter was unfit to be a mother. She was 14 and on drugs when she had the baby and her mother felt the need to adopt him.

[thefinancebuff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by samclem Regarding the SS recipient with a minor child, the situation s a little different. He has paid in to SS, and had to qualify for the benefits with these contributions. This program does not make any distinctions based on the need of a recipient--if you meet the age requirement, you get the checks. Same with spouses and kids.

The problem is that benefits for spouse and minor children come for "free" as in there is no reduction to the retiree's benefits. If both person A and person B had identical earnings and paid identical taxes, but person A has minor children and person B does not, person A and person B get identical benefits for themselves but person A's children just free ride. Same for spousal benefits. If person A married three times, each time more than ten years, all three qualify for benefits under person A's earnings records, whereas person B has been single and does not get any extra benefits.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thefinancebuff If person A married three times, each time more than ten years, all three qualify for benefits under person A's earnings records, whereas person B has been single and does not get any extra benefits.

Some of us might consider not being divorced three times a priceless extra benefit...

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo Some of us might consider not being divorced three times a priceless extra benefit...

I don't think I want to qualify for any of the benefits under this system...

[bbbamI]

Oh my...a three year old thread brought back to life is about social security.

Who woulda thunk it?

[wolf]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYEXPAT Glad it worked out for you! One question. Am I correct in assuming that if you take your benefit at 62, your children's benefit is based on the full retirement benefit 66/67? In my case as we do not live in the USA my spouse is unable to receive a benefit! The rules are a bit strange because if we moved from Peru across the border to Chile, she would qualify.

My experience. Children's benefit is based on 62. Also, there is a "family
maximum" benefit. Also, when a child reaches 18, that child benefits ends.

However, due the "family maximum" benefit rule, younger children should
be able to collect, some of the "lost" benefit.

The SS web site is pretty accurate and explains everything.

[Brett_Cameron]

I am 55 and FIRE'd. DW is 32 and disabled, receiving SSDI. We have two minor children who receive a child's share each of SSDI. DW receives $910.50 per month, each child receives $190 per month. This total of $1,290.50 is the family maximum. I consulted with a rep at the local SS office about spouse's benefit for me and was told that I could but each child's share would decrease to maintain total family benefit at $1,290.50 per month. That was not unexpected but I had to ask.

When reach age 62 in a few years, I need to decide whether to start receiving retirement benefits. DW should be eligible for spousal benefit because we will have one child under age 16. The amount would be ½ of my “full retirement Primary Insurance Amount”. The minor child would also be eligible for ½ of my “full retirement Primary Insurance Amount”. I would be eligible to receive 70% of my “full retirement Primary Insurance Amount”. The sum of these would be under the family maximum ($4044.08/month, 2011 dollars) based on my study of the how they calculate family maximum here and my rough estimate: Social Security Handbook
DW would only be eligible for spousal benefit until the child turns 16 but the child would be eligible until he graduates high school at age 18. This adds some wrinkles to the answer to the question of whether to start receiving retirement benefits at age 62 or defer.

I intend to consult with SSA again to answer the following questions:

1) Do I have to actually receive retirement benefits for my family to receive benefits based on my work record starting when I am age 62 or can I apply for benefits and suspend payments until FRA or age 70 while family continues to receive benefits?

2) Assuming DW is still disabled (she has no stomach- long sad story) when child turns 16, will she be able to revert to her SSDI based on her record?

3) What would be better overall assuming I don’t die before age 86? ( I may have to crunch numbers for this and as someone’s signature says- numbers is hard).

Comments welcome!

[Katsmeow]

DH started taking SS between ages 62 and 63. We have children under 18. Their benefit is based upon 50% of his full benefit. With two children under 18 each receives now about 48% of his current benefit (this is due to reduction due to the family maximum). One of our children will turn 18 next year at which point our daughter's benefit will increase about $300 and will end up being a little over 60% of his current benefit. Theoretically I could have taken spousal benefits since our daughter is under 16 but I don't since I still work part time.

Quote:

DW would only be eligible for spousal benefit until the child turns 16 but the child would be eligible until he graduates high school at age 18

Close but not exact. If the child is under 18 the child receives benefits even if the child has graduated high school before 18. Between 18 and 19 the child receives benefits if the child is a full time student, no higher than grade 18. So my son who is in college at 17 will stop receiving benefits when he turns 18 even though it will be during the school year. If he was still in 12th grade and turned 18 during the year, he would continue receiving benefits until the end of the school year.

[tired]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf Has anyone collected SS at 62 or 65 with minor children. I read that each minor child is elgible to receive one-half the amount of the retiree's benefit. There is a family maximum so a person with many children would not receive a large amount. I plan on collecting SS at 62. I have two children, 12 and 14. Just wondering if anyone has done this. Also, What paperwork do I have to bring to SS for verification? Thanks in advance.

I know that my husband retired at 62 and we had two children under 18. They each received 55% of his benefit. Then I'm not sure why but when the oldest graduated from high school the younger ones payment went up to over 60% of his benefit.

[Katsmeow]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tired I know that my husband retired at 62 and we had two children under 18. They each received 55% of his benefit. Then I'm not sure why but when the oldest graduated from high school the younger ones payment went up to over 60% of his benefit.

This is because you met the family maximum before. There is a family maximum for SS benefits and so if you have two kids and each would receive say $1000 a month but you might bump into the family maximum so each might receive $850 a month. When one no longer receives due to age then the one remaining receives more.

We have 2 minor children receiving SS benefits. Our son will turn 18 in in late Spring. The time when one stops receiving is not exactly based upon graduating high school, it is based upon turning 18 unless the child hasn't turned 18 and then it runs through graduation (before 19 as I recall, not sure exactly).

So if our son turned 18 but was a senior in high school then benefits would run until he graduated. In his case, he graduated high school a couple of years ago so his benefits stop immediately on turning 18. Then our daughter will receive a "raise."