SS File and Suspend to End?

[rodi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYEXPAT +1 Priceless, I turn 62 next month!

Talk about squeaking in under the wire:

Quote:

22 (3) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made 23 by this subsection shall apply with respect to individ- 24 uals who attain age 62 in any calendar year after 25 2015

(page 73 of the doc I linked above)

Unfortunately for many here - the file and suspend section becomes effective 180 days after the law passes. (page 76 of the doc)

Quote:

24 (3) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made 25 by this subsection shall apply with respect to bene- 1 fits payable for months beginning at least 180 days 2 after the date of the enactment of this Act.

[ziggy29]

Generation X never gets any of the good stuff.

[Big_Hitter]

so two grandfathers? one for the deemed filing (age 62) and the other for retroactive payments (180 days). Hopefully he sold a bunch of his $40 software.

[ivinsfan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rodi Talk about squeaking in under the wire: (page 73 of the doc I linked above) Unfortunately for many here - the file and suspend section becomes effective 180 days after the law passes. (page 76 of the doc)

When it says at least 180 days after, doesn't that mean that is the soonest it can be effective..

[rodi]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big_Hitter so two grandfathers? one for the deemed filing (age 62) and the other for retroactive payments (180 days). Hopefully he sold a bunch of his $40 software.

The age 62 in/before 2015 is for the child's insurance or spouse/caretaker of child's insurance.

The 180 days is for the spouse insurance (no kids involved) - so the part used in file and suspend strategies.

[jdmorton]

Mike Piper (ObliviousInvestor) has joined the Bogleheads.org discussion on this subject (thread title "Changes to SS regulations in new funding bill"). Here is a quote regarding his reading of the proposed bill: "It essentially makes the restricted application strategy dead in the water (for some people), via changes to deemed filing. Specifically, deemed currently only applies prior to full retirement age. If this bill passes, it would apply regardless of age."

[ziggy29]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdmorton ... has joined the Bogleheads.org discussion on this subject (thread title "Changes to SS regulations in new funding bill"). Here is a quote regarding his reading of the proposed bill: "It essentially makes the restricted application strategy dead in the water (for some people), via changes to deemed filing. Specifically, deemed currently only applies prior to full retirement age. If this bill passes, it would apply regardless of age."

I'm surprised they are even allowing this discussion on Bogleheads, especially since it isn't even law yet.

[Big_Hitter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ziggy29 I'm surprised they are even allowing this discussion on Bogleheads, especially since it isn't even law yet.

Boehner submitted an amended version of the bill - this thing is evolving

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big_Hitter Boehner submitted an amended version of the bill - this thing is evolving

Oh good. Maybe this is a good time to just wait (and not worry) until the bill passes and we know what is going to happen.

Often I find that bills that are not passed, are a source of needless worry.

[Bestwifeever]

This paragraph from the link in the OP, while it is my strategy and was outlined by the nice person in the local SS office, always did seem like a generous loophole to me:

Quote:

Finally, there is egregious inequality in the treatment of those born a few years apart. Someone who is now 70 and who has collected a full spousal benefit since 1966 and waited until this year to collect her retirement benefit will have received as much as $50,000 more from the system than someone in the same circumstances but who just turned 66.

My date to implement this strategy is August 1, 2016--about 280 days from now. If the legislation as first proposed passes, I will now have to choose between taking spousal on 8/1 or delaying claiming until 70, rather than doing both. Kotlikoff can now create all new software to show the numbers involved in these new decisions so it's still a win situation for him.

[athena53]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big_Hitter then I'm sure when you studied for course 200 (or course 5) you remembered the mnemonic PRINCIPLES for principles of social insurance programs? The N is need is presumed Pay as you go Relationship between benefits and earnings Individual equity versus social adequacy Need is presumed etc

Ah, the acronyms! I had piles of index cards for each exam, loaded with them. I took the Casualty exams and I don't remember that acronym, but Myers' entire book ("Social Security") was on the syllabus. In one memorable year they based an exam question on one of the footnotes.

[Big_Hitter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by athena53 In one memorable year they based an exam question on one of the footnotes.

I remember on one that was part of the old part 3 they asked a question about the Bernoulli polynomial, which was in a question in one of the chapters.

This new GAO report on the future of SS has a bit at the beginning of the philosophy of SS.

www.gao.gov/assets/680/673385.pdf

[marko]

Wondering how many miles of spreadsheet analysis by the members of this forum could suddenly have been a big waste of time.

[Sunset]

Quote:

Originally Posted by W2R Oh good. Maybe this is a good time to just wait (and not worry) until the bill passes and we know what is going to happen. Often I find that bills that are not passed, are a source of needless worry.

I hope so, as I'm not yet 62, but have certainly considered the retirement opportunities of SS, so any changes impact my retirement plans.

Reality is by the time politicians get done with it, it will be very different.

I'm so surprised they have not yet removed the SS 50% and 85% taxation and just made SS fully taxable (since anyone in the SS 50% tax rate, is paying low taxes anyhow).

[ejman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marko Wondering how many miles of spreadsheet analysis by the members of this forum could suddenly have been a big waste of time.

But just think of all the fun that was had arguing endlessly whether this or that approach resulted in a few bucks this way or that 30 years from now (If everything stays the same)

[athena53]

Da*n. I didn't think this affected me till I re-read W2R's post. DH is 77 and filed and started collecting long ago, so the file-and-suspend wasn't a tactic we could use. I'm 62 and my plan was to file for Spousal benefits at 66 (FRA) and my own at 70.


If the proposed changes go through I stand to lose about $50K over 4 years between 66 and 70.

[2017ish]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Big_Hitter Boehner submitted an amended version of the bill - this thing is evolving

Do you have a link? (I didn't find it on a quick search, but there's an unholy amount of noise from the main bill and Boehner!)

P.S.--the discussion at Bogleheads is proceeding under a yellow caution flag; it is, however, going forward because (like here) there is a ton of interest.

[M Paquette]

I strongly suggest not taking action on family SS accounts based on a preliminary document. Please wait until the bill is finalized in both the House and Senate and completed reconciliation. There are lots of ways this could still change.

You might want to consider contacting your representatives with suggestions.

[thefinancebuff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by athena53 Da*n. I didn't think this affected me till I re-read W2R's post. DH is 77 and filed and started collecting long ago, so the file-and-suspend wasn't a tactic we could use. I'm 62 and my plan was to file for Spousal benefits at 66 (FRA) and my own at 70. If the proposed changes go through I stand to lose about $50K over 4 years between 66 and 70.

You don't. Because you are already 62 you can still file for spousal [at FRA] while deferring your own. Because your husband's benefit isn't suspended, you will still get the spousal.

[Big_Hitter]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2017ish Do you have a link? (I didn't find it on a quick search, but there's an unholy amount of noise from the main bill and Boehner!)

doesn't look like the amendments changed section 831