Social Security question for you.

[VanWinkle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivinsfan Where you say she gets paid more if you wait to FRA...do you mean her spousal benefits or her survivor benefit.

She will receive more if he waits until her FRA to claim his benefits. That will give her an 100% of spousal benefit(50% of his benefit) less the original amount she had her own benefit reduced by claiming early. She is not determined to have claimed spousal benefit until he applies for his benefit. This does seem confusing, but it is the way benefits are claimed. If he claims his benefit before she reaches FRA, she will be deemed to have applied for spousal at that time. It(the 50% of his benefit) will be reduced by about 6% for each year before her FRA.

VW

[MissMolly]

No, not correct. She will not be deemed to be filing for benefits until she files. And if she waits until she is FRA to file, she will receive 50% of his FRA benefits regardless of when he files.

[ivinsfan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissMolly No, not correct. She will not be deemed to be filing for benefits until she files. And if she waits until she is FRA to file, she will receive 50% of his FRA benefits regardless of when he files.

That's the way I understand it too.

[joeea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissMolly No, not correct. She will not be deemed to be filing for benefits until she files. And if she waits until she is FRA to file, she will receive 50% of his FRA benefits regardless of when he files.

... as long as he has already filed.

And of course this only applies to spousal benefits, not survivor benefits.

[VanWinkle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivinsfan That's the way I understand it too.

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



Under the new law deemed filing is extended to apply to those at full retirement age and beyond. In addition, deemed filing may occur in any month after becoming entitled to retirement benefits. For example, if you begin receiving your retirement benefit and only later become eligible for a spousal benefit (or vice versa), you will be “deemed” to have applied for the second benefit as soon as you are eligible for it. Your monthly payment will be the higher of the two benefit amounts.

This is why I would think she will be deemed as filing for spousal as soon as eligible(when he files for his benefit)

[VanWinkle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissMolly No, not correct. She will not be deemed to be filing for benefits until she files. And if she waits until she is FRA to file, she will receive 50% of his FRA benefits regardless of when he files.

See post 45 and let me know if that makes sense.

VW

[MissMolly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanWinkle See post 45 and let me know if that makes sense. VW

Yes, it does. I think my confusion stems from not understanding that you meant she had already filed and would then (possibly) be eligible for a bump up once her spouse filed if her spousal amount was greater than her own. That's not usually how I hear "deemed" being referred to in these types of discussions, but I think I now have a clearer understanding of the point you were making. My apologies for being so obtuse

Edited to add: However, the timing of when her husband files has absolutely nothing to do with what her spousal amount will be. That amount begins with 50% of the husband's amount and then is reduced based on when she originally filed (if before FRA), not when he files. So even if she is 66 when he files, it doesn't change the fact that she filed early and therefore her spousal amount will be forever reduced.

[VanWinkle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MissMolly Yes, it does. I think my confusion stems from not understanding that you meant she had already filed and would then (possibly) be eligible for a bump up once her spouse filed if her spousal amount was greater than her own. That's not usually how I hear "deemed" being referred to in these types of discussions, but I think I now have a clearer understanding of the point you were making. My apologies for being so obtuse

Likely my fault for not being clear enough.

Best to you,

VW

[ivinsfan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanWinkle Likely my fault for not being clear enough. Best to you, VW

Indeed the fault lies with the multitude of rules and regulations one must wade through to understand the intent of the law. Throw in the fact that due to age not all of us are operating under the same rules and it's a S#%tshow.

What applies to me may not apply to you and hence the confusion. We can both be right and confused at the same time.

[MissMolly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivinsfan Indeed the fault lies with the multitude of rules and regulations one must wade through to understand the intent of the law. Throw in the fact that due to age not all of us are operating under the same rules and it's a S#%tshow. What applies to me may not apply to you and hence the confusion. We can both be right and confused at the same time.

Indeed, it is

[VanWinkle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivinsfan Indeed the fault lies with the multitude of rules and regulations one must wade through to understand the intent of the law. Throw in the fact that due to age not all of us are operating under the same rules and it's a S#%tshow. What applies to me may not apply to you and hence the confusion. We can both be right and confused at the same time.

Agreed Ivinsfan!!

[Floridatennisplayer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivinsfan Indeed the fault lies with the multitude of rules and regulations one must wade through to understand the intent of the law. Throw in the fact that due to age not all of us are operating under the same rules and it's a S#%tshow. What applies to me may not apply to you and hence the confusion. We can both be right and confused at the same time.

Best post ever.

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ivinsfan Indeed the fault lies with the multitude of rules and regulations one must wade through to understand the intent of the law. Throw in the fact that due to age not all of us are operating under the same rules and it's a S#%tshow. What applies to me may not apply to you and hence the confusion. We can both be right and confused at the same time.

I have a different view. While the rules are complicated, that is the inevitable result of trying to fairly transition from FRA 65 to FRA 67. The bigger problem is the decline in the attention span and intellect of the citizenry.

[ivinsfan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski I have a different view. While the rules are complicated, that is the inevitable result of trying to fairly transition from FRA 65 to FRA 67. The bigger problem is the decline in the attention span and intellect of the citizenry.

It was tongue-in-cheek ya know...but the deemed filing and spousal rules don't have much to do with the age transition process. This was a recent change they hope will eliminate the so called loopholes in the system.

And you must know everyone reading here is "well above average" and has an exceptional attention span and intellect.

[pb4uski]

Of course I knew that. [emoji6]

[geerman]

How much do the statement assumptions change when primary and spouse don't work generally the last 8 to 10 years before taking?

[joeea]

Quote:

Originally Posted by geerman How much do the statement assumptions change when primary and spouse don't work generally the last 8 to 10 years before taking?

Could be quite a lot. The statements assume the claimant works for those years at the most recent salary rate.

That's a lot of zeros that aren't accounted for in the statement.

You could get a better approximation by using a more thorough estimator - one which allows you to enter zeros for future earnings.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by geerman How much do the statement assumptions change when primary and spouse don't work generally the last 8 to 10 years before taking?

The way SS benefits are structured you will likely find those last few 0 earnings years will have only a small impact. But as was mentioned, the way to confirm is to do some "what if" runs on the benefits calculator found on the SS website.

[2retireearly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecondCor521 If this is the case (I don't know either way), then the OP may still be able to get to 50% by having his wife cancel her original application, repay all of the benefits, and basically take a mulligan. There is a 12 month time limit on this, so OP may be out of luck or may need to act fast: https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/withdrawal.html

I don't think you can do this anymore. That is, you used to be able to take SS, and then a few years later, cancel that, repay what you got, and restart ss payouts at a future date. This is no longer allowed.

[VanWinkle]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2retireearly I don't think you can do this anymore. That is, you used to be able to take SS, and then a few years later, cancel that, repay what you got, and restart ss payouts at a future date. This is no longer allowed.

Has to be in the first 12 months of when you claimed benefits
to suspend, repay, and start later. You get one time only to do this.

VW