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.
I'm not sure exactly what you are asking. If you wait past FRA, your social security payments are increased until age 70 by delayed earnings credits. The delayed earnings credit stop accruing after age 70. It doesn't matter if you are working or not. It is a function of time.
If you continue working and your wages are higher than your indexed (for inflation) earnings in the past, the lower wages will not be used in your average. The higher wages will be used in your average and that would help to increase the Primary insurance amount (PIA) which is also referred to as your social security retirement benefit. Bear in mind, that the average uses 35 numbers, so the change is slight.
Thanks for the response which is what I thought, however, there was a previous thread where the spouse continued to work past 70, collected at 70 and his SS has increased each year. I can't find it though.
My husband and I have already made the decision to wait until 70.
He, however, has clients who have asked such questions and he always refers them to SSA but it's good info. (He's a CPA).
I do worry if it's only 1 of us down the road (of course).
I did try to find that thread and was surprised when I read it.
IOW, if you continued working after 70 and kept your earnings higher, that way it would increase would be to cancel the lower earning years. By that time, we will have over 53 years (at 70), that is.
your ss is based on your 35 inflation adjusted highest years .
there is no point waiting past 70 because there is little chance that you will ever go up enough by bouncing lower years to offset the checks you are giving up at that point . there are no more delayed credits going up 8% a year to help you .
Also note that the final high-earning years add very little to your SS benefit. That's because, after indexing and averaging your 35 highest years, your monthly benefit in 2019 would be 90% of the first $926, plus 32% of the rest up to $5,583 plus 15% of the amount over $5,583 up to the wage cap. Yes, 15%. The formula is designed to replace a higher % of income for low-wage earners. According to my calculations if I'd retired at age 65 instead of 61, my employer and I would have contributed another $120,000 or so into SS and my payment at FRA would have gone up by a whopping $50/month.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,563 posts, read 81,147,605 times
Reputation: 57767
Use the calculator on the SS website. You can plug in any age, and compare the benefit amounts. In my case, retiring today at age 66 I would get about $2,300, but at 70, that would be about $3,200. That's assuming the same salary those last 4 years, however I have been getting a raise of 4-5% annually so it would be a bit more. At the same time my pension will be higher by staying longer, as will the 401k and 457.
Yes- delaying when you collect makes a big difference. I'm getting Survivor benefits on DH's record now and will collect on my own record when I'm 70. My numbers are similar to yours.
Working another 4 years, though, would have added very little to that benefit.
Even if you're replacing a $0 income year in those 35 years with a max income year, you'd never make it back if you deferred collecting beyond age 70. You wouldn't live long enough. It's only 1/35th of the calculation.
your ss is based on your 35 inflation adjusted highest years .
there is no point waiting past 70 because there is little chance that you will ever go up enough by bouncing lower years to offset the checks you are giving up at that point . there are no more delayed credits going up 8% a year to help you .
Self employed people --business owners who can pay themselves more could opt to benefit in others ways however--
or those who are involved in creative fields (thinking someone ike Clint Eastwood/Michael Caine) are likely the only ones who are going to see higher wages past 70
That is a very special niche of individuals...
Even if you're replacing a $0 income year in those 35 years with a max income year, you'd never make it back if you deferred collecting beyond age 70. You wouldn't live long enough. It's only 1/35th of the calculation.
I’ve read it’s best to avoid zero years. I managed to have $20 in one year but index with inflation, it will turn into $1000 in today’s dollar. I take it.
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.
Question was two-part actually
