Social Security at 62 with minor children

[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.

 

[Helena]

Info here:

Benefits for your children


~

 

[OAG]

But the amount is limited and actually will total no more than 50% of your benefit - shared. Since your benefit is 75% (reduced for early payment) of your FULL benefit (age 66-67) they will share 37.5% of that reduced benefit. You may want to consider waiting.

 

[wolf]

Thanks for the info. Not sure what you mean by "shared". I just figured if I'm elgible for $1200 at 62, EACH child would be elgible for $600. Two children would total $1200 plus my SS $1200 for a total of $2400. (or less if I'm over the family max).

Anyone have "real life experience". Thanks again

 

[OAG]

In your example the "share" is the $600 or $200 each as per your example. Why do you not call the SSA?

 

[copyright1997reloaded]

But the amount is limited and actually will total no more than 50% of your benefit - shared. Since your benefit is 75% (reduced for early payment) of your FULL benefit (age 66-67) they will share 37.5% of that reduced benefit. You may want to consider waiting.

Are you sure about this? I read it to be limited to 50% of your benefit for each child, limited to about 150% of your benefit.

"Within your family, each qualified child may receive a monthly payment up to one-half of your full retirement benefit amount, but there is a limit to the amount that can be paid to the family as a whole. This total depends on the amount of your benefit and the number of family members who also qualify on your record. The total varies, but it is generally equal to about 150 to 180 percent of your retirement benefit."

So, in the OP's case, drawing at age 62 with two qualifying children would be 37.5%*2 = 75% of their own draw.

I am interested in this as my child will be about 17 1/2 when I reach 62 (obviously waiting isn't such a hot idea as he will reach eighteen). Of course, he will be about 15 1/2 when his mom (my ex) reaches 62...

 

[AbbyNormal]

Not sure if the rules have changed, but in 2005 when I FIREd (at 62) I recieved 75% and my son got 50% of full share. Came to around $1200 for me and $800 for the boy. When he reaches 18 I guess I'll have to have another one to replace the lost income!

Abby

 

[lazygood4nothinbum]

pardon the threadjack but couldn't resist...

cool idea abby, thanx.

so if the kid gets 50% and the total for kids is about 150% then i can adopt 3 kids say, between ages 62 & 80 and three more between ages 80 & 98 (if the kids are lucky enough for me to live so long). that's 6 kids in underdeveloped worlds i can send free u.s. government money to? cool. now all i have to do is give up my florida domicile so i can legally adopt and then i can save the world, three kids at a time.

according to Global Rich List , sending my newly adopted kids even just $200/month puts them in the top 15% of the richest people in the world.

 

[thaidyed]

according to Global Rich List , sending my newly adopted kids even just $200/month puts

awesome website that. and yes $200 is a bucket load. I have skilled staff who are computer literate, speak a little English and work 50 hrs weeks who make $200/month. And that's not *take home pay* mind you!

 

[OAG]

Are you sure about this? I read it to be limited to 50% of your benefit for each child, limited to about 150% of your benefit.

"Within your family, each qualified child may receive a monthly payment up to one-half of your full retirement benefit amount, but there is a limit to the amount that can be paid to the family as a whole. This total depends on the amount of your benefit and the number of family members who also qualify on your record. The total varies, but it is generally equal to about 150 to 180 percent of your retirement benefit."

So, in the OP's case, drawing at age 62 with two qualifying children would be 37.5%*2 = 75% of their own draw.

I am interested in this as my child will be about 17 1/2 when I reach 62 (obviously waiting isn't such a hot idea as he will reach eighteen). Of course, he will be about 15 1/2 when his mom (my ex) reaches 62...

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

 

[HFWR]

RE: SS at 62 with monor children children...

All I can say is...

 

[PauperStrategy]

Social Security Family Maximum Issues

The simple answer is that two children would give you the family maximum at age 62. So would one child and a non-working spouse. But, . . ., the amount you get after the children grow up would be reduced.

Choosing the right answer requires knowing your age, your spouse's age, and your children's age plus both your and your spouse's earning history.

The family maximum is typically 175% of a single full retirement. You get 75% at age 62. A non-working spouse gets 50%, irreguardless of age, when a child is present. Each child gets 50%. This can exceed the family maximum.

If the spouse is also 62 or older and has 40 quarters of social security earnings, their earning history can contribute to the family maximum.

If it is you and the children, you would basically reach the family maximum with two children but be reduced to 75% of maximum when the children became adults.

 

[Buckeye]

So why is Uncle Sam paying benefits to support an able-bodied retiree's children? If you have younger children who need financial support, keep working or use your retirement funds to support them. Why are "we" paying for their support? Where are the posters who rant about the low-lifes that sponge off the government to collect welfare? What else could this be called?

 

[samclem]

So why is Uncle Sam paying benefits to support an able-bodied retiree's children? If you have younger children who need financial support, keep working or use your retirement funds to support them. Why are "we" paying for their support? Where are the posters who rant about the low-lifes that sponge off the government to collect welfare? What else could this be called?

It is a benefit that he is entitled to (according to the rules). This isn't means-tested assistance for the poor. Not taking the benefit is the same as not taking a tax deduction or a tax credit on your individual tax return--would you urge that?

Uncle Sam isn't paying him anything--you and I are. Make you mad? Write to your Congressman.

I used to look askance at folks who filed for unemployment when they had enough personal savings to see them through, or who took advantage of other government programs. Now I don't. If the benefit rules are stupid (and they often are) I want the most outrageous cases to take the money and sing from the rooftops of how they are living large. It's the only way that Joe Taxpayer might get fed up and demand change.

Abusing private charity is an entirely different thing. Anyone taking a nickel who doesn't absolutely need it should be dealt with harshly.

 

[Buckeye]

So you also support the able-bodied who manage to score welfare benefits and subsidized housing as just using the benefits that are available as long as they follow the rules required to get them?

 

[samclem]

So you also support the able-bodied who manage to score welfare benefits and subsidized housing as just using the benefits that are available as long as they follow the rules required to get them?

I don't think the rules should allow able-bodied people to get these benefits. Shouldn't the rules be written to prevent these people from qualifying?

If the rules are poorly written, fix them.

But, I'm not sure that this applies to Social Security. It's not needs-based. Spouses (who don't qualify for SS benefits of their own) get benefits by virtue of being married to someone who qualifies. I guess it is the same for kids. That's the way the rules are written, and the more people who take full advantage of them (and let the world know) the sooner the rules will be fixed--if they need fixing.

Do you take every legal tax break you can get? Those who do are denying the government tax revenues. Are these people wrong?

 

[Nords]

So you also support the able-bodied who manage to score welfare benefits and subsidized housing as just using the benefits that are available as long as they follow the rules required to get them?

Hey, SamClem's not flying solo here.

I support giving benefits to whoever is legally qualified to receive them. Goodness knows that many who've been more than eligible for benefits have been denied them, and I'd rather err on the side of taking care of them before their situation becomes totally unrecoverable. Try getting SS disability for one of your loved ones. Or ask Martha about her stories of advocating for those who were denied their rightful entitlements.

The number of people who "score" welfare benefits & subsidized housing without actually meeting the eligibility requirements is a much smaller fraction of the total than may be apparent from the media. The money spent on them is far less than that paid by our beneficial government for other dubious purposes. And if it helps people get straightened out earlier rather than later (when they really rate the subsidy), then so much the better.

It's been a long time since we've had the discussion, but a years-earlier thread on scamming Social Security disability showed that having to deal with the bureaucracy was guaranteed to drive away the scamsters. Scary anecdotes aside, it's actually easier to earn an "honest" living than it is to "score".

 

[mews]

I was a minor child - I'm a late (but oh so cute) baby.

It got me back into college. The rules then were that a minor full-time student could receive benefits through the term in which s/he turned 22.

I hadn't taken accounting, but I sure could count!

So, off to community college, and then on to my 4-year accounting degree, with honors. My 22nd birthday was 2 days into the start of a term

Thank you, Uncka Sam!

Ta,
mew

 

[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.

 

[samclem]

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.

I believe is the commonly understood definition of "welfare queen" implies that the recipient is obtaining benefits fraudulently. Here's what Wikipedia says:

"A welfare queen is a pejorative neologism used to describe woman who are presumed to collect welfare cheques, or excess amounts, through fraud or manipulation. Sensational reporting on (what would become known as) welfare queens began during the early-1960s, appearing in general interest magazines such as Readers Digest. The term entered the American lexicon during Ronald Reagan's 1976 presidential campaign when he described a "welfare queen" from Chicago's South Side.[1] "

So, yes, I'm against "welfare queens" or any other defrauding of the system. That's not what the OP was about.

 

[copyright1997reloaded]

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]

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.