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.
As I understand it, if a person collects at 62 then any benefits they recieve will be permanently reduced. So I would also think that if she switched to a benefit based on your benefit once you collect, she will receive much less than 50%, just as she would if you were already collecting.
Also, even if you wait till 70 to collect, your benefit would be more but her's, if she were collecting against yours then, would not be based on half of your higher amount, but rather on what you would have received at 66.
The only time the higher amount you would get working to 70 would benefit her directly is if she did not collect before full retirement age herself and if you died. (not such a great deal for you!)
So basically if she collects at 62 however she collects based on her own or on your SS will be permanently reduced.
Now someone may come along and tell me I am full of it, but since I have not worked and will have to wait till my own full retirement age by which time my husband will be 68. I am pretty much up on the rules as they stand now affecting that situation.
my comments refer to SS only not anything about any pension.
As I understand it, if a person collects at 62 then any benefits they recieve will be permanently reduced. So I would also think that if she switched to a benefit based on your benefit once you collect, she will receive much less than 50%, just as she would if you were already collecting.
Also, even if you wait till 70 to collect, your benefit would be more but her's, if she were collecting against yours then, would not be based on half of your higher amount, but rather on what you would have received at 66.
The only time the higher amount you would get working to 70 would benefit her directly is if she did not collect before full retirement age herself and if you died. (not such a great deal for you!)
So basically if she collects at 62 however she collects based on her own or on your SS will be permanently reduced.
Now someone may come along and tell me I am full of it, but since I have not worked and will have to wait till my own full retirement age by which time my husband will be 68. I am pretty much up on the rules as they stand now affecting that situation.
my comments refer to SS only not anything about any pension.
Well, I would not be so rude as to say you are "full of it" , but the bolded part is incorrect. Survivor's benefits are not reduced. An early retiree spouse can still collect full survivor's benefits upon the death of her spouse.
good question, im not sure of the answer. i was wondering the same thing.
my wife can take her little one at 62. i can get 1/2 her amount as well and let my own still grow. but once i file can she take 1/2 mine if it is more then hers.?
im not really sure of the answer but i think she cannot take 1/2 mine anymore unless im plant food then she gets it all..
I should add that survivor's benefits can be reduced if taken before full retirement age, but the two programs are separate. Thus, an early retiree spouse can choose to continue taking reduced retirement benefits until he/she is eligible for full survivor benefits. Or, one could take the reduced survivor's benefits and switch to her own retirement benefit at full retirement age.
In many cases, a widow or widower can begin receiving one benefit at a reduced rate and then, at full retirement age, switch to the other benefit at an unreduced rate.
Yes I found on further investigation that the survivor benefit would not be reduced. I also found something else I never knew and that is that in cases such as mine where the spouse has no work record or not enough of one that the primary working spouse can file at full retirement age, but suspend benefits which allows the non working spouse to file and start collecting, again what they would get would depend on how close to full retirement age they were. In my case I would be 64 if my husbands filed at 66.
I was glad to see this since I have always thought it unfair that a divorced spouse that otherwise qualifies can file at 62 or whatever age over that whether the X spouse had started collecting or not and yet the non divorced spouse could not file on the primary spouses earnings until the spouse filed.
This doesn't completely solve that problem but at least it helps.
good question, im not sure of the answer. i was wondering the same thing.
my wife can take her little one at 62. i can get 1/2 her amount as well and let my own still grow. but once i file can she take 1/2 mine if it is more then hers.?
im not really sure of the answer but i think she cannot take 1/2 mine anymore unless im plant food then she gets it all..
Yes she can collect 1/2 yours or hers. Who ever out lives the other will be able to collect your full benefit. All of this is part of the 62/70 strategy, however it could all change with reform. Her claiming 1/2 of yours is only at her full retirement age. My wife's may or may not be greater than 1/2 if mine at age 70. It should be.
Yes she can collect 1/2 yours or hers. Who ever out lives the other will be able to collect your full benefit. All of this is part of the 62/70 strategy, however it could all change with reform. Her claiming 1/2 of yours is only at her full retirement age. My wife's may or may not be greater than 1/2 if mine at age 70. It should be.
I assume you're talking about Spousal Benefits called the 'File and Suspend' strategy. A lot of people have gotten confused about the SS rules pertaining to this strategy - thinking that the collecting spouse receives his/her benefits plus half of the other spouse's benefits. This is not correct. (You appear to understand the eligibility correctly.)
Only when the weaker earner's benefits are less than half (50%) of the other spouse's benefits does the weaker earner qualify to receive 'extra' benefits. And the higher earner spouse must have reached full retirement age. For example, if Spouse A has benefits of say $600 and Spouse B has benefits of $1,500 then Spouse A will get a total of $750 (or $600 plus $150 extra added to their benefits), which brings the total benefits to $750 (50% of $1,500) or half of Spouse B's benefit. However, if Spouse A already has their benefit equal to 50% of the higher earner's benefit (e.g. $750 or more) then he/she does not qualify for 'File and Suspend" because with the weaker earner's own benefits they will already be receiving benefits equal to half or greater the other spouse's benefit.
I assume the government incorporated this strategy method, along with ex-spouse (divorced), to protect the weaker earner or non-wage earner. Years ago it was commonplace for the woman of the house to work fewer years than her husband, or not work at all, but instead to be a stay-at-home homemaker taking care of small children, etc. This benefit protected her from being totally left-out of collecting SS. Likewise, it protected the weaker earner spouse if they were divorced from the higher earner with greater benefits.
More and more married couples both earn a living nowadays, and both spouses earnings (and SS benefits) are more equal than years ago. Thus, the Spousal Benefit strategy "File and Suspend" is probably used less compared to years ago.
One thing I'm unsure of however. I'm not sure where this 'extra' money (paid to the < 50% weaker earner) comes from since it does not reduce either spouse's benefits (except the weaker earner spouse has a reduction in their own benefits because they started collecting before full retirement age...yet it does not reduce their benefits any further). I have to assume the extra money simply comes from the SS money pool...much like the money comes from the SS money pool to pay benefits to ex-spouses (i.e. divorced spouses), or to people that far outlive their life expectancy (I understand the actuary age keeps moving higher).
Last edited by highcotton; 04-07-2011 at 09:06 PM..
I assume you're talking about Spousal Benefits called the 'File and Suspend' strategy. A lot of people have gotten confused about the SS rules pertaining to this strategy - thinking that the collecting spouse receives his/her benefits plus half of the other spouse's benefits. This is not correct. (You appear to understand the eligibility correctly.)
Only when the weaker earner's benefits are less than half (50%) of the other spouse's benefits does the weaker earner qualify to receive 'extra' benefits. And the higher earner spouse must have reached full retirement age. For example, if Spouse A has benefits of say $600 and Spouse B has benefits of $1,500 then Spouse A will get a total of $750 (or $600 plus $150 extra added to their benefits), which brings the total benefits to $750 (50% of $1,500) or half of Spouse B's benefit. However, if Spouse A already has their benefit equal to 50% of the higher earner's benefit (e.g. $750 or more) then he/she does not qualify for 'File and Suspend" because with the weaker earner's own benefits they will already be receiving benefits equal to half or greater the other spouse's benefit.
I assume the government incorporated this strategy method, along with ex-spouse (divorced), to protect the weaker earner or non-wage earner. Years ago it was commonplace for the woman of the house to work fewer years than her husband, or not work at all, but instead to be a stay-at-home homemaker taking care of small children, etc. This benefit protected her from being totally left-out of collecting SS. Likewise, it protected the weaker earner spouse if they were divorced from the higher earner with greater benefits.
More and more married couples both earn a living nowadays, and both spouses earnings (and SS benefits) are more equal than years ago. Thus, the Spousal Benefit strategy "File and Suspend" is probably used less compared to years ago.
One thing I'm unsure of however. I'm not sure where this 'extra' money (paid to the < 50% weaker earner) comes from since it does not reduce either spouse's benefits (except the weaker earner spouse has a reduction in their own benefits because they started collecting before full retirement age...yet it does not reduce their benefits any further). I have to assume the extra money simply comes from the SS money pool...much like the money comes from the SS money pool to pay benefits to ex-spouses (i.e. divorced spouses), or to people that far outlive their life expectancy (I understand the actuary age keeps moving higher).
I don't like the way you mention the non working stay at home mom as years ago, i.e. obsolete! Because you are talking about my situation here. It has been my fear for years that they would do away with the spousal benefit because "after all, no one stays home anymore everyone works" well I don't I never have, at first it was to care for my five children then later I became disabled, though because I had not worked and because my husbands makes a decent amount I never qualified for any disablity etc.
I am about to turn 59 now and husband is 61 so hopefully if they mess with things it won't affect us since I would hope to be grandfathered.
The second thing is the way you mention where the money comes from as if for the wage earner they have an account with money or something, ALL benefits come from that "general pool" there is no money , set aside, for anyone.
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.
, but the bolded part is incorrect. Survivor's benefits are not reduced. An early retiree spouse can still collect full survivor's benefits upon the death of her spouse.
