U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-08-2016, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,745 posts, read 4,219,341 times
Reputation: 6866

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BellaDL View Post
Lenora,
You are right that one can get retroactive benefit but would one has to file a claim so why not just getting the correct amount the first time?

It's interesting to learn that there one can be misled in getting 6 months retroactive benefit leading to losing intended delayed SS credits

Forbes Welcome
IMO, Kotlikoff is full of crap. Even if K heard of one or two instances where the claimant's benefit was incorrectly calculated because of administrative error, SS corrects the error when it is brought to its attention. K tends to exaggerate in addition to sometimes providing incorrect information to readers.

Yes, SS makes errors. But it is my belief that it is less likely to err if I file in the immediate month following an easily recognized target date, i.e. 66 or 70. This is merely my hunch based on my professional experience with Social Security.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-08-2016, 10:51 AM
 
29,782 posts, read 34,876,173 times
Reputation: 11705
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed303 View Post
Yes, as in my case explained in thread #8, the phone interviewer did try to talk me into the 6 month retro, with a corresponding reduction in monthly benefits. She did not try and "force" it, but I did have to be very clear that I was not interested.
As I noted in post 17 their are those in power and influence who want to do away with benefits accruing beyond your FRA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2016, 06:19 PM
 
210 posts, read 151,031 times
Reputation: 628
I am hoping someone can help me. This thread has me afraid that my restricted application that I was relieved to get maybe messed up by a premature one-time benefit check.


Since I am currently doing a restricted application, I thought I understood everything and had achieved my goal of collecting my spousal benefit while deferring my own to age 70. But now I am confused and to show the source of my confusion here is the relevant data:
My date of birth 12/01/1948 (actual)
My 2014 FRA benefit estimate $2496 (actual)
My husband's 2014 benefit $1332 (started at age 63) (actual)
My husband's FRA benefit adjusted to 2014 $1602 (computed with SSA calculator AnyPIA)
My benefit $805 beginning in December 2014. (actual)


That is the data I can understand and it seems to conform to this conversation. However, on the second week of December, 2014 I received a check for $792. It is listed as a "12/05/2014 One time payment" on the MySocialSecurity website. This is also referred to in the SSA proof of benefit letter section, "Information about past benefits", as November 2014 to November 2014 full benefit.


When I first applied the man at Social Security office said that I was due this and that it did not change my application date to pre-FRA. I challenged him at the time because I waited until I turned 66 to file in order to assure that I was at or beyond my FRA and, when he told me about this November benefit, I was afraid he didn't understand what I was doing. He was so confident and the amounts were correct so I never thought of it again until now because, obviously from the data above, I am being treated as a spouse and no "deeming" is taking place. In fact I have seen myself referred to as a "dependent of the wage earner" and just assumed the computers were programmed that way and no one wanted to change them for the few restricted application beneficiaries. (Too much information?) I'll get to the point.


Based on the current thread, I should not have been given the one time check for November and, having received a check for November, should not have been eligible for restricted application since I would have appeared to have applied one month before FRA. Should there have been a November 2014 check for someone who reached FRA on December 1, 2014 and who filed a restricted application on or after the birthday?


If the SSA makes a mistake can it be fixed when it is obvious that the mistake was theirs? My worse case nightmare is that I die and my husband goes to switch to my higher benefit and finds they lost the worker part of me when they picked up the dependent spouse part of me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2016, 07:30 PM
 
Location: OH>IL>CO>CT
5,238 posts, read 8,409,707 times
Reputation: 7191
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnnaLee2 View Post
I am hoping someone can help me. This thread has me afraid that my restricted application that I was relieved to get maybe messed up by a premature one-time benefit check.


Since I am currently doing a restricted application, I thought I understood everything and had achieved my goal of collecting my spousal benefit while deferring my own to age 70. But now I am confused and to show the source of my confusion here is the relevant data:
My date of birth 12/01/1948 (actual)
My 2014 FRA benefit estimate $2496 (actual)
My husband's 2014 benefit $1332 (started at age 63) (actual)
My husband's FRA benefit adjusted to 2014 $1602 (computed with SSA calculator AnyPIA)
My benefit $805 beginning in December 2014. (actual)


That is the data I can understand and it seems to conform to this conversation. However, on the second week of December, 2014 I received a check for $792. It is listed as a "12/05/2014 One time payment" on the MySocialSecurity website. This is also referred to in the SSA proof of benefit letter section, "Information about past benefits", as November 2014 to November 2014 full benefit.


When I first applied the man at Social Security office said that I was due this and that it did not change my application date to pre-FRA. I challenged him at the time because I waited until I turned 66 to file in order to assure that I was at or beyond my FRA and, when he told me about this November benefit, I was afraid he didn't understand what I was doing. He was so confident and the amounts were correct so I never thought of it again until now because, obviously from the data above, I am being treated as a spouse and no "deeming" is taking place. In fact I have seen myself referred to as a "dependent of the wage earner" and just assumed the computers were programmed that way and no one wanted to change them for the few restricted application beneficiaries. (Too much information?) I'll get to the point.


Based on the current thread, I should not have been given the one time check for November and, having received a check for November, should not have been eligible for restricted application since I would have appeared to have applied one month before FRA. Should there have been a November 2014 check for someone who reached FRA on December 1, 2014 and who filed a restricted application on or after the birthday?


If the SSA makes a mistake can it be fixed when it is obvious that the mistake was theirs? My worse case nightmare is that I die and my husband goes to switch to my higher benefit and finds they lost the worker part of me when they picked up the dependent spouse part of me.
This would seem to have happened because people born on the 1st of a month are considered by SSA to have achieved FRA, etc effective the month before .

You can read the rule here: https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0300615015

"For example, if the birth date is June 1, 1935, FRA is attained on May 31, 2000 and unreduced benefits can begin with May 2000."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2016, 02:37 AM
 
71,643 posts, read 71,777,271 times
Reputation: 49240
if i am understanding the way it works , delayed ss credits earned the current year do not get payed as soon as you file in that year .

accumulated credits for waiting past fra get calculated every january for payment .

so hypothetically if i file in oct when i am 68 my first check will not include any delayed credits earned that year. they will pay me a lower amount right out of the box and increase me in january based on those credits for the past year . while i get that amount going forward i lose that extra money from the delayed credits i earned that year forever .

it seems if this is correct it would always be better to file in january of the following year you planned on if mid year since your first checks will include all the previous credits as well as waiting a bit longer earns you more credits you will be payed on in your first checks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2016, 07:02 AM
 
Location: Idaho
1,455 posts, read 1,156,015 times
Reputation: 5500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
if i am understanding the way it works , delayed ss credits earned the current year do not get payed as soon as you file in that year .

accumulated credits for waiting past fra get calculated every january for payment .
mathjak107

Here is a link to SS webpage on delayed retirement credits and how they increase old-age benefit amount.

https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/404/404-0313.htm


Quote:
(c) When is the increase because of delayed retirement credits effective?—

(1) Credits earned after entitlement and before the year of attainment of age 70. If you are entitled to benefits, we examine our records after the end of each calendar year to determine whether you have earned delayed retirement credits during the previous year for months when you were at or over full retirement age and you were fully insured and eligible for benefits but did not receive them. Any increase in your benefit amount is effective beginning with January of the year after the year the credits were earned.

(2) Credits earned after entitlement in the year of attainment of age 70. If you are entitled to benefits in the month you attain age 70, we examine our records to determine if you earned any additional delayed retirement credits during the calendar year in which you attained age 70. Any increase in your benefit amount is effective beginning with the month you attained age 70.
So your understanding applies to case (1) but not case (2). In addition, the way I read it is that for example if you file for benefit at 68 and say want to start in the middle of the year, you will get the delayed credits calculated at the end of the previous. So in effect, you do not get the credits up to the month that you file. However, when the credits are calculated at the end of the year, the full credits (up to the month that you filed) will be used to calculate your benefits starting in January.

P.S. Here is the link to an article on this subject with examples
http://www.investmentnews.com/articl...ts-are-delayed

Last edited by BellaDL; 04-09-2016 at 08:10 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2016, 07:13 AM
 
71,643 posts, read 71,777,271 times
Reputation: 49240
however that new rate in january is going forward based on what you earned in credits , however there is no compensation for those months you collected mid year at the old rate . remember you get the older rate after fra when you file . your new rate is not calculated with that years delayed credits until january

if you retired at 68-1/2 ( july) your new rate in january going forward will be based on 68-1/2 . however you get no additional money for august to december when you were paid at the old rate without the current years credits .

if you waited to january to collect you would have gotten paid for all 12 past months .

i believe i am correct but don't quote me . perhaps lenora knows for sure .


to me it looks like starting the following january you will get paid at the 68-1/2 rate but the older checks that were paid at a lower rate for the last 6 months i don't see anything saying they add that back in .

i remember reading somewhere that was a gotcha

Last edited by mathjak107; 04-09-2016 at 08:09 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2016, 09:23 AM
 
71,643 posts, read 71,777,271 times
Reputation: 49240
actually it took some searching but i found where i first heard about the no retroactive catch up on the 1st year if you file after fra mid year ..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No, there is no retro-active catch up. You simply ratchet up to the correct amount.
Here's an earlier thread.If you think you might start SS after FRA but before age 70

I'm not sure if I mentioned it there, but when we went in to file and suspend, I asked the SS employee this specific question. He was pretty new, so he got one of the more experienced people who agreed with the "no catch up" interpretation."



If you think you might start SS after FRA but before age 70 - Early Retirement & Financial Independence Community
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2016, 01:02 PM
 
210 posts, read 151,031 times
Reputation: 628
Quote:
Originally Posted by reed303 View Post
This would seem to have happened because people born on the 1st of a month are considered by SSA to have achieved FRA, etc effective the month before .

You can read the rule here: https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0300615015

"For example, if the birth date is June 1, 1935, FRA is attained on May 31, 2000 and unreduced benefits can begin with May 2000."
Thanks for the information and link.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2016, 07:16 PM
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
3,745 posts, read 4,219,341 times
Reputation: 6866
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
actually it took some searching but i found where i first heard about the no retroactive catch up on the 1st year if you file after fra mid year ..
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No, there is no retro-active catch up. You simply ratchet up to the correct amount.
Here's an earlier thread.If you think you might start SS after FRA but before age 70

I'm not sure if I mentioned it there, but when we went in to file and suspend, I asked the SS employee this specific question. He was pretty new, so he got one of the more experienced people who agreed with the "no catch up" interpretation."



If you think you might start SS after FRA but before age 70 - Early Retirement & Financial Independence Community
I found this:
Example 2 – NH earns partial amount of DRCs:
A beneficiary’s DOB is 11/05/1944 and she attained her FRA of 66 in 11/2010. Based on a new claim for RIB filed in 01/2011, she is entitled to a benefit of $1,000 (full PIA) as of 11/2010, but elects to voluntarily suspend her benefit and earn DRCs beginning with 11/2010. She earns DRCs until age 67 in 11/2011, when she asks to have her benefits reinstated as of 11/2011. She earned two DRCs in 2010, which are effective with the benefit of $1,013.30 payable for 11/2011 and 12/2011. She earned an additional 10 DRCs in 2011 that are first payable 01/2012 and increase her benefit to $1,080.80 effective 01/2012. https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0202409120

Aaaaarrgghhh. She did not "lose" anything. But.... Let's walk through this.

Benefit suspension: 11/2010 (PIA $1,000)
She reinstated her benefits beginning 11/2011.
Total monthly DRCs: 12
The 2 2010 DRCs (Nov and Dec) were payable for 11/2011 and 12/2011 ~ $1,013.30
She earned another 10 DRCs in 2011 (Jan thru Oct) that were FIRST payable in Jan. 2012.
She ultimately receives the correct monthly benefit ~ $1,080.80

She received 12 months of DRCs. Notably, the first 2 DRCs in 2010 were applied to the last two months of 2011. See the problem with this example? Ugh. I'll keep looking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Retirement
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top