Facts on SS spousal benefits

[MissMolly]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound I found out what "RIB-LIM" is, right from the horse mouth. Here's an excerpt paragraph: Start with the RIB MBA to which the NH was entitled for the month before the month of death with the ARF and any recomputations that would have been due had the NH remained alive. Convert this forward to the WIB MOET. Read https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0300615320, and weep.

UGH! Too many acronyms and too late at night for me. I'm going to bed

[NW-Bound]

Please explain it to us once you figure that out.

I think I will try to hold off death so that my wife will not have to deal with this special case. It's worth hanging on so that you do not have to deal with this special "RIB-LIM" thing. No, please, not the "RIB-LIM" thing. ARGHHH!

[Chuckanut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound No, you cannot get spousal benefit until you are 62. And then, as you file early before FRA, your own benefit will be permanently reduced. From a Web site: If you file for a spousal benefit before your FRA, you will end up with a smaller amount. You can file as early as age 62 but if you do, you will be hit with benefit reductions. Retirement benefits will rise each month they are deferred between FRA and age 70. Spousal benefits peak at FRA, so there is no reason to defer claiming them past that point. An early filing will also trigger a Social Security provision called deeming—this means the agency considers you to be filing both for your individual retirement benefit and you spousal benefit. You will be paid an amount roughly equal to the greater of the two benefits. But you lose the opportunity to get increases for delayed claiming on your individual benefits. This is a bad deal. See: Social Security: 3 Secrets to Maxing out Spousal Benefits

Bingo!!!!

That part about permanently reduced benefits if a person files for spousal benefits before FRA is often overlooked.

Also overlooked is what happens if the spouse has worked for years in a job where no SS was paid. Presumably one has invested the dollars not paid into SS. If not, they may be in for a world of hurt.

[Bestwifeever]

Quote:

Originally Posted by NW-Bound If jpjr's plan does not work, it is not for the same reason. Jpjr does not talk about "file and suspend" at all. It is not the same case as discussed in that Forbes article. The one thing questionable where jpjr's plan may not work as he, and the Black Rock article, thought was whether his wife will get 50% of his higher delayed-till-70 own benefit, or a derated amount because she started collecting before her FRA. This was pointed out by MissMolly and Never2L8 in their posts. However, that could still be higher than his DW's own early benefit. Darn it! I said I hated SS benefit formulations.

No, my point was that the flexibility of file and suspend (and to choose which record to file against and when) will never be available to her if she files pre-FRA, and if she waits til FRA and chooses to use file and suspend to accomplish their plan, then he cannot use it, and the Forbes article seemed to address their pre and post FRA situation. But, never mind.

[Rothman]

Thanks NW-Bound the strategy is called hybrid, my wife file at 62 for reduced benefits, I file and suspend at FRA, she gets increased to reduced spousal benefit, I file for increased benefit at 70. This is a good scenario.
Also thanks homebound for the calculator link, it's a very professional looking website, and generates 9 scenarios. But looking at result as I describe above it calculates my wife benefit as the spousal benefit at age 62 even though I won't file and suspend for 5 more years. This difference is $1,000 per month which is significant for someone trying to plan ER with a SWR.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

[jpjr]

To all: My scenario's major flaw was the assumption that DW would get 50% of my delayed benefit if I filed at age 70 and she concurrently filed for spousal benefits (50% plus a reduction % for her early filing). I feel really "stupid" as I have more damn articles in my SS claiming manifesto that clearly state that she is only eligible for 50% of my FRA benefit (reduced again by her early filing %).

After recalculating the numbers; if she were collecting SS now, and I filed for spousal benefits at 66, followed by my filing for benefits at 70 and she refiling for spousal benefits at same time, it would take 8.7 years to capture the income "lost" by delaying her filing until I was 66. Oh, my head hurts.

One other thing to clarify. Upon my demise (well after 70 I hope) she would get survivor benefits based upon the delayed amount I would receive at age 70, not the figure associated with my FRA.

Thanks to all for your input. This is sort of fun if it weren't so important!

[Rothman]

Thanks NW-Bound the strategy is called hybrid, my wife file at 62 for reduced benefits, I file and suspend at FRA, she gets increased to reduced spousal benefit, I file for increased benefit at 70. This is a good scenario.
Also thanks homebound for the calculator link, it's a very professional looking website, and generates 9 scenarios. But looking at result as I describe above it calculates my wife benefit as the spousal benefit at age 62 even though I won't file and suspend for 5 more years. This difference is $1,000 per month which is significant for someone trying to plan ER with a SWR.


Attachment 21954


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

[NW-Bound]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpjr To all: My scenario's major flaw was the assumption that DW would get 50% of my delayed benefit if I filed at age 70 and she concurrently filed for spousal benefits (50% plus a reduction % for her early filing). I feel really "stupid" as I have more damn articles in my SS claiming manifesto that clearly state that she is only eligible for 50% of my FRA benefit (reduced again by her early filing %)...

Same as you, I had the same misconception, despite reading about it. It takes a while before you can keep all these rules straight in your mind.

I still have a few years to think about this. Hopefully, they will not change the rules on us, making us learn new tricks. My financial situation will change between now and then too, depending on how the market moves. That may also drive how we claim SS. Time will tell.

[NW-Bound]

As of now, my basic plan is the same as jpjr's. That is, having a higher SS benefit, I will delay mine till 70. My wife will claim hers earlier. But as her early SS is still higher than 50% of mine, I will not have to do file-and-suspend. At my full FRA, I will claim spousal benefit on hers. When I claim mine at 70, my wife still stays on her own SS and will not switch to spousal because the latter is lower.

So, in our situation my wife will be continuously on her own benefits until I croak, then she will get mine. The only variable now is how soon before FRA she should take hers. That depends on how long I (and she) plan to live. One can run spreadsheets all day long, but the unknowns are still those ends of life.

[Rothman]

NW-Bound you may want to reconsider file and suspend. In doing my research I came across references that even for single filers it has the advantage for potential lump sum payment if you change your mind. As I understand you file and suspend but can elect to collect retroactive to that date or any date between that date and the present. This gives you access to the money if your health situation or other need makes that choice desired. Of course you'll likely not exercise the option but the strategy gives you the choice.


Sent from my iPad using Early Retirement Forum

[NW-Bound]

For single persons, it seems to me file-and-suspend is a you-can't-lose move, because you can change your mind and retroactively claim the benefit.

However, as a couple, I do not think I can file-and-suspend my own benefits, while claiming spousal benefit off my wife. Or can I?

[pb4uski]

This whole thread is why when we are 61 we will pay the $25-$75 to have socialsecuritysolutions.com or some other service evaluate our options for us. I'll also DIY and have my own view but will pay for a pro to assess our best choices as well.

The numbers and cost of a poor decision are too significant to cheap-out on something like this.

[athena53]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ed_The_Gypsy Hi, Rothman, We did discover that her Medicare cost more because I was making too much money at the time and will continue to be so until after we file taxes next time even though my income is greatly reduced this year. Her Medicare payments are being deducted from her SS payments, so she has been getting less than she was hoping for net.

In some cases you can appeal the Medicare premium surcharge (IRMAA, or Income-Related Monthly Adjustment). When I retired last year at 61, DH was 75 and filed for Medicare. (He'd been on my employer's policy till then.) They hit him with an IRMAA based on our 2012 income which was a peak earning year for me. Since I'd quit my job, it constituted a change in circumstances so we got the IRMAA reduced after filing the appropriate papers.

[Ed_The_Gypsy]

Wow! Thanks, athena! We will do that first thing Monday morning!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Early Retirement Forum mobile app

[rayvt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski This whole thread is why when we are 61 we will pay the $25-$75 to have socialsecuritysolutions.com or some other service evaluate our options for us.

Keep in mind that the government can change the SS rules at any time. So the deal you decided upon at 62 may not still be the same deal when you hit 70.

Quote:

The numbers and cost of a poor decision are too significant to cheap-out on something like this.

Actually, no. On net, the difference between the best and poorest decision is a trivial amount of dollars. The SSA went to a great deal of trouble to set things up to be actuarially neutral. The optimal decision depends on your age when you die --- and that's the great unknown.
All that changes between the different decisions is the shape of the income stream, not the net amount. More money per month, later, for fewer years, or less money per month, earlier, for more years.

--------------------

The SSA rules for spouse and survivor are very complex. I recently started to incorporate these details into my spreadsheet. It's still a work in progress, but you can take a look at it, the "SSA deferral table" and "srvr rules" tabs. All the rules and reductions are there. And some initial examples of a few scenarios.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/gebanzrbr3...0calc.xls?dl=0

For spousal, in a nutshell she will get somewhere between 50% of his benefit and 100% of her own benefit. Never less than half of his, and never more than 100% of her own. No double dipping! Much of the confusion about this is due to the very complicated way they state it.

For survivor, basically she steps into his shoes and takes over his benefit. But she doesn't get both his and hers--only the larger of the two.

[pb4uski]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayvt Keep in mind that the government can change the SS rules at any time. So the deal you decided upon at 62 may not still be the same deal when you hit 70. .........

Perhaps they can but they never have changed SS for those near to FRA. If you think they have, please cite one or two instances where they have changed benefits that impacted people 60 or older. I would love to learn of them but I believe it is urban legend.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by pb4uski Perhaps they can but they never have changed SS for those near to FRA. If you think they have, please cite one or two instances where they have changed benefits that impacted people 60 or older. I would love to learn of them but I believe it is urban legend.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32552.pdf

Quote:

Social Security provides monthly cash benefits to retired or disabled workers and their family members, and to the family members of deceased workers. Those benefits were exempt from federal income tax, but in 1983, Congress approved recommendations from the National Commission on Social Security Reform (also known as the Greenspan Commission) to tax the benefits of some higher-income Social Security beneficiaries. Beginning in 1984, up to 50% of Social Security and Railroad Retirement Tier I benefits were taxable for individuals whose provisional income exceeds $25,000. The threshold is $32,000 for married couples. In 1993, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) increased the share of some Social Security and Railroad Retirement Tier I benefits that are taxable. That law taxes up to 85% of benefits for individuals whose provisional income exceeds $34,000 and for married couples whose provisional income exceeds $44,000. ...

I'm pretty sure that applied to everyone receiving SS. Taxing is just an indirect way to reduce the benefits.

-ERD50

[pb4uski]

rayvt said that they could change the "SS rules" at anytime. I said that they have never changed SS for those near to FRA. Changing the amount of SS benefits that are included in taxable income doesn't change SS, but it does change taxes. Essentially, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Interestingly, if a married couple had the maximum possible SS retirement benefits of $84,000 and no other income, their tax return income would only be $5,000, their taxable income would be zero and their tax would be zero.

[Running_Man]

Plenty of countries and even US states have changed government benefits over time, the idea that Social Security will not be changed is most likely wishful thinking, there is too many payouts and not enough paid in to not have changes in the future. As millennial power continues to grow social security will be affected I believe, part of the entire Greek issue is cutting of Greek Government pensions. Trying to predict what that will be is hopeless however so I just continue to plan on taking SS at 70 in my case.

[samclem]

Again?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayvt The optimal decision depends on your age when you die --- .

Absolutely not. The "retrospective optimized amount of payed benefit" depends on when the person dies, and can only be known in retrospect. The "claiming strategy that is likely to result in optimum utility to the claimant in the future" is something entirely different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rayvt All that changes between the different decisions is the shape of the income stream, not the net amount.

Sure, if I happen to be 10,000 randomly selected people. But if I am just one person (or a couple) and I've got spending of an unknown duration to fund--maybe "averages" are of limited relevance to my decisionmaking. "Honey, I've got great news! I used this FIRECalc program, and we can spend 11.5% of our savings the first year of retirement and adjust that up for inflation every year! I thought it would be smaller, but when I put in our average lifespan and set it for an historic success rate of 51% (average!), it gave me this result. Average is good enough, right?"

And even if (for some unfathomable reason), we wanted to only consider the simplistic "break even" calculation rather than the more important utility question: Does SS consider the gender of the applicant when computing the difference between the age 62 benefit and the age 70 benefit (men should get a higher differential for delaying than women do)? Do they adjust the delayed benefit every few months for changes in available real interest rates? Because (as mentioned before), there's no way that SS is truly "actuarilly neutral" for an individual if SS doesn't adjust for these things (and they don't).