Social Security Questions

[Pea-n-Me]

As I said, she got frequent mailings throughout the years from SS itself - which I reviewed - that explained WHY her SS checks were lower than other peoples'. She was not outside the Notch, she was right inside it (1925). I disagree that the article posted is a "good explanation" since it argues the Notch doesn't exist.

But really, my post was more about most seniors living just on SS finding it difficult to subsist living without some sort of help and support.

 

[lifesavacation]

This is a good explanation of the whole SS notch issue and how it was fixed back in the 70's.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/quinn/columns/030299.htm

I learned something new today. Thank you

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I learned something new today. Thank you

If you believe it.

 

[lifesavacation]

If you believe it.

Oh no. Was I duped by fake news?

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Oh no. Was I duped by fake news?

Glad you can laugh about it.

 

[John VN]

If you are collecting, at what age did you start?
If you started early (after 62 but before full retirement age), were your reasons based on advice or just wanting to get started as soon as possible?
How did you apply? In person? By phone? On line?

Started at 62 in 2012. Take less and enjoy since future is not guaranteed and besides it would take some time to equal out.

2015 diagnosed with Aggressive Prostate Cancer, the deadly PCa that metastasizes and kills. Chose an unproven experimental treatment, have had 1 minor recurrence, treated again, bicycled 164 miles across Florida on Sunday just for fun, going to bicycle to drug store right now to pick-up one of my drugs and HOPE I DON'T GET HIT.

 

[gwynne]

If you believe it.

I understand there may be some differing opinions on this.

That said, I believe Jane Bryant Quinn is a trustworthy, as well as readable source. She explains the fix. There is lots of good information on this readily available on the net these days.
It's always good to check sourcing. (And in relation to the notch issue-look to see if the source may be financially benefiting from spreading false or half information.) I think an awful lot of the confusion about this issue was encouraged by folks that were soliciting "donations" from seniors. Not nice.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I understand there may be some differing opinions on this.

That said, I believe Jane Bryant Quinn is a trustworthy, as well as readable source. She explains the fix. There is lots of good information on this readily available on the net these days.
It's always good to check and think through sourcing. (And in relation to the notch issue-check to see if the source may be financially benefiting from spreading false or half information.) I think an awful lot of the confusion about this issue was encouraged by folks that were soliciting "donations" from seniors. Not nice.

I have been dealing with this issue for over 30 years. Many of the people who were affected by it are gone and can not argue it anymore, so it is a dying issue; almost dead, in fact. Their experiences seem to no longer matter to the crowd who today want to say it was all fixed. It wasn’t. But whatever. I know what our experiences have been, what explanations were given to us about it, and how it affected my own mother.

 

[snappy]

Yes, you can do this. It's a little known thing.

If one spouse is still working and the other is retired, the working spouse (if old enough) can file to collect 50% of the retired spouses SS.

If you were born on or before January 1, 1954, are currently married, or are divorced and eligible for a benefit on an ex-spouse's record, once you reach full retirement age (assuming you have NOT yet claimed your benefits) you can use a restricted application to claim a spousal benefit, while letting your own benefit continue to grow. You could then switch to your own higher benefit amount when you reach age 70.


I will be doing this starting later in the year. It’s called a restricted benefit application or restricting your benefit to spousal benefit. You have to be careful to specify this when applying for benefits. Social security doesn’t automatically do it.

 

[barbaraann]

My husband and I made an appointment at our local Social Security Office when we were ready to take benefits. We wanted to make sure everything was done correctly. My husband had reached it full retirement age, and I was entitled only to benefits on his record, since I did not have enough credits on my own. My husband did not collect benefits right away since he was still working. He was deferring them. We also did not need the Medicare Insurance since he was still covered by his employer. Not a standard application, and we wanted to get it right. The lady that took his application was a gem, and everything went quite smoothly. I got my spousal benefit on time, and when he turned 70, we went back, and lifted the deferment. We not both get benefits, and both get the insurance. The 2nd visit was a whole lot shorter, and less complicated than the first. We were both afraid, if we tried to do that online, it would have been a disaster. In the end, our experience was a good one.

 

[Dakota731]

[QUOTEI got my spousal benefit on time, and when he turned 70, we went back, and lifted the deferment][/QUOTE] What is the deferment? I thought husband had to collect for wife to get spousal benefits? The government has to make everything so complicated!!

 

[barbaraann]

[QUOTEI got my spousal benefit on time, and when he turned 70, we went back, and lifted the deferment]

What is the deferment? I thought husband had to collect for wife to get spousal benefits? The government has to make everything so complicated!![/QUOTE]

My husband had to apply first in order for me to collect my spousal benefit. Deferment -It's like putting a hold on his money, until he decided to go back. He could have returned at any time between age 66 and 70. He waited until 70. By doing that, he got a larger amount. In the meantime I had my benefit for 4 years. My benefit was a certain percentage of his 66 amount. Had I waited till he was 70, my benefit would have been larger. We gained much more on his amount than we lost on mine. In the meantime, I paid off lots of bills.

My husband at age 72 is still working, and plans to do so as long as he can. He works from home. So he still pays into the system, and both of our benefits are adjusted upwards a small amount each year. Every bit helps.

 

[georgina]

As noted above in snappy's post, that deferment strategy (file & suspend) and the other one called restrictive application have gone away for those of us currently under 65.

 

[DebbieB]

I'm 59 and my big problem is health insurance. I'm single and despite working for a large well known company, we have no retiree health care. That will likely push me to 65 in order to get Medicare.

 

[georgina]

Yeah that is a big issue and the only reason DH could retire at 63. Newer employees at his company will not get bridge health care like we were able to.

 

[MrsPete]

... The first 10 years of retirement they lived like they always had plus more - traveling, socializing, eating out, etc. (ages 65 - 75)

Then they had a period of about 10 years where they weren't as inclined to do those things ... Their savings grew dramatically during those years. (75 - 85)

Then they moved into senior residential and spent their monthly income of SS + minimum distributions ...

DH and I anticipate our spending will be the same - higher at first, then lower as we slow down, then higher as our needs increase ...

I suspect your parents are very typical (for people who are financially prepared) in their retirement spending.

LTC insurance works well for some people, but it's not something "everyone" should get. Everyone should consider it, for sure. We plan to self-insure, and are blessed with the means to do so.

Yes, I've seen statistics about who "needs" LTC ... and although I can't remember the exact numbers, it was something like this:

- The poor don't need LTC because they're going to be leaning on the government if they need to go into a nursing home (and they couldn't afford the premiums anyway).
- The middle class need LTC because they're too rich for the government to pay for nursing home care /too poor to pay for it out of pocket.
- The upper-middle class /wealthy don't need LTC because they are able to pay for the care they'll need.

True or false? I dunno, but I read it somewhere.

I'm 59 and my big problem is health insurance. I'm single and despite working for a large well known company, we have no retiree health care. That will likely push me to 65 in order to get Medicare.

I think health care is everyone's biggest retirement concern.

 

[longboard55]

I hear a lot of people say, what if I do not live past 70. But on the other hand, what if you live to 100, that is a lot of money to lose. Most people do not smoke anymore, I would not assume an early death

 

[vacationer1954]

I turn that logic around a bit (though this makes it a bit more morbid) - If we die younger, then our own resources are more than enough. If we live longer, the added boost to income from a higher social security benefit would be needed.

 

[mnrose]

I hear a lot of people say, what if I do not live past 70. But on the other hand, what if you live to 100, that is a lot of money to lose. Most people do not smoke anymore, I would not assume an early death

Yes the longevity statistics are skewed lower because a LOT of people die before the are 65 (accidents, over doses, cancer, etc). So, "the average" life expectancy statistics are pretty meaningless. If you live to be 65, odds are very good that you live AT LEAST till 80, and probably a lot longer. Will some die before then? Of COURSE. That's how statistics work. But, most (and that's the important thing), MOST will live to be quite elderly. You've got to play the odds, unless there is something in YOUR personal health history that dictates otherwise. The "average" 65 year old will live another 18.4 years (more for women, slightly less for men). Taking benefits at the earliest age you can (62) has a break even point of age 75.5 (about). If you think you'll live LONGER than age 75.5 (and MOST people will), you'll get more by waiting till your full retirement age.

Heck, even my chain smoking dad beat those odds....he died just before his 84th birthday. And, his sister, my aunt, still going strong at age 92.5! All her marbles intact, and walks a mile a day. She could easily go to 100. LOL Both of them would have come out on the "you lose" side of taking benefits at age 62. Since my Dad worked till he was 70, that was a non-factor. He took them as late as he could and STILL ended up on the winning side....despite being a smoker!

 

[Wood Nymph]

Not old enough to collect but when I am, I will collect at 62.
I should be retired by then, getting health insurance through my retirement and then transitioning to Medicare at 65.

I look at it this way, nice round numbers.
I can collect $1000 a month at 62 or $1500 a month at 67.

So for 5 years, I've collected $60,000.
But if I wait to 67 for the extra $500, it will take me 120 months or 10 years to make up that extra $60,000.

*note: these are not my actual numbers but it's easier to explain with round numbers.*

Obviously if your benefit doubles between 62 & 67, maybe it'll be worth it to wait but it doesn't seem to.

Let's take your longevity to age 85 and you come up with these numbers:

collect $1,000 at age 62 - by the time you reach age 85 you will have collected: $276,000
collect $1,500 at age 67 - by the time you reach age 85 you will have collected: $324,000

Now these are simple numbers and don't account for cost of living increases and other factors.

If you wait until full retirement age before collecting benefits than you can continue working and still get your full social security. People who start collecting their SS benefits before reaching full retirement age will have to pay a penalty on any income earned above $18.000.

If you wait until full retirement age before collecting benefits and continue to work while collecting benefits, then social security will recalculate your income and increase your benefits every year to reflect your increased earnings. I think it all maxes out at 70 years old.