Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let me understand this scenario; an older husband has a younger wife and he collects full-retirement benefits. She is eligible for her own in a few years when she turns 62. She collects her benefits, he collects his and all is well. When the older husband passes away, if she is 65 can she file to continue his full benefits, which they were already receiving? She would, of course, have to drop her own.
Also, what if she opts not to collect her benefits at 62. If her spouse is still alive, may she file at age 66 to collect half his benefits if he is still living? So the couple gets his full benefit and her half of that same benefit?
Sounds right. They both are entitled to payments on their own records . If she waits until fra and her husband filed at fra then they get a full benefit and a half benefit if his half is more than her full
My plan is to draw my $1700 a month at age 62 (assuming politician's don't steal it), and my spouse is 23 months my junior. So if I pass after she turns 60 will she get my $1700?
Just want my ducks in a row!
The answer to everyone is different and personal to everyone.
It depends on how much you will need the money when you do retire. If I had enough saved to withdraw $3,000 per month for life (I don't) then I would take it at 62 but what if you live to 85 and need the money?
If you would receive $1,700 @ 62 then you can expect $2,266 at age 66 which is a very significant increase.
My plan is to work until I am 70 (I have five more years) and draw then. If I were entitled to collect $2,266 at age 66 by waiting just four more years the amount would increase to $2,991 and it is that extra $1,291/month that goes a long way for my sin of not saving as much as I should have.
"Whoever the higher earner is should plan to delay taking Social Security, because the higher benefit will always live on," says James Mahaney,
where she started collecting social security on her account (her account and not mine) which she will continue to do until she reaches full retirement age of 66 at which time she will be entitled to collect half of mine which would be $1,133 based on my full retirement age figure of $2,266.
The trick here is I have to draw then suspend when I turn 67 years 4 months old so she can collect the $1,133 50% of my account.
If I work to age 70 at that point I will collect $2,991 and together we will draw a combined $4,124 in social security alone. With the house paid off, living in a low tax area and no debt we should be able to save $1,000/month from our social security alone and still live with everything we want.
Think of it this way, if we both collected at 62 we would receive a combined $2,550 and that $1,472 every month can mean the difference between living a full retirement and barely scraping by.
If I die my wife will pick up my $2,991.
Two things I want to point out.
Lucky for me Longevity runs in the family where all women lived to be over 100 while the males lived to be late 80's. To die before 80 is considered "dying young" in my family.
The second thing is it isn't about me but my wife. I want her to have the maximum monthly benefit and there is no sense me taking social security while still working because I simply don't need it.
Now everyone is different, if men in my family all died in their late 60's my strategy might be different as may yours.
when a couple is involved longevity of one of the people is always a big factor. longevitity for a couple is longer than either one seperatly since one can always outlive the other.
the wait is the greatest value you can find.
there is no inflation adjusted annuity in the world you could ever buy that pays out that much money at 70 for the amount of money you would lay out from 62 to 70.
Again the OP needs to look at his situation and consider the multiple options as they impact his long term retirement goals and income goals down the road. SS is a great way to stage in income increases over a time period up to age 70. If both spouses work there are multiple variables. If you have a pension that is another significant variable. It is possible to retire and negate the impact of COLA for the meaty years of retirement. Anyone with a pension should consider if they can retire using that as a base and then phase SS in on top of that. If you have investments, SS should be taken in light of that and how it all plays out at say age 85. Or how much will the surviving spouse have for income and where does that put them on a comfort scale. Because of when we retired we were cursed by the Great Recession. Because of when we retired we were blessed by the Great Recession. Stuff happens and having flexibility is awesome. The question is can SS create flexibility for you? It did for us. So much of what gets discussed in various threads connects together in real life if not allowed in forum discussions.
when a couple is involved longevity of one of the people is always a big factor. longevitity for a couple is longer than either one seperatly since one can always outlive the other.
the wait is the greatest value you can find.
there is no inflation adjusted annuity in the world you could ever buy that pays out that much money at 70 for the amount of money you would lay out from 62 to 70.
I wonder how many of our married colleagues who are retired now would see a significant change in life style if the wrong spouse passed?
Let me understand this scenario; an older husband has a younger wife and he collects full-retirement benefits. She is eligible for her own in a few years when she turns 62. She collects her benefits, he collects his and all is well. When the older husband passes away, if she is 65 can she file to continue his full benefits, which they were already receiving? She would, of course, have to drop her own.
Also, what if she opts not to collect her benefits at 62. If her spouse is still alive, may she file at age 66 to collect half his benefits if he is still living? So the couple gets his full benefit and her half of that same benefit?
Thanks for the help!
First of all remember that for most of us FRA is now at least 66 not 65
in your scenario, husband passes away, if she is HER FRA whatever that is then she can recieve his benefit that he was receiving at the time of his death. [if he had not begun collecting then at her FRA she could switch from her own benefit to what his FRA benefit would have been. always assuming that she was not already recieving more than what his benefit was or would have been. She will receive the highest amount for which she is entitled, but only that amount.
in your second situation, if she opts to not collect at 62 but waits until her FRA she can collect 50% of the his FRA benefit but not any additional credits he may have earned if he starting collection after his FRA. She would however get that higher amount as a surviving widow if she were FRA when she started collecting survivor benefits.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
