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.
Yes it would. My comment only concerned spousal SS. I just wanted to point out that just because you may earn credits beyond the "normal" full retirement age, spousal SS (if applicable) wouldn't continue to grow too.
I realize this isn't a factor for many folks, but thought it was worth mentioning as a special situation.
That is my question exactly, and thanks for your response. SS said that my non-working wife's survivor benefit is based on my benefit at full retirement age of 66. I will be drawing that as of this year and it is about $2000 a month. However, I am still working while drawing SS and my payment will go up as I replace zero earning years with good earning years. Won't my wife's survivor benefits also go up as a result, or is she locked into the $2000 a month level?
I think if you are a single man, it's best to draw at 62. You can always pay it back if you want and draw the full amount at 65 or 70. But time is not on a man's side.
But there are other considerations besides what you get especially if you are married.
If I retired right now (62) I would collect $1,481/mo which, with my wife's SS and small state pension and savings, we could survive but there wouldn't be a lot for extras. Not only that I am not ready to quit work so it wouldn't be worth collecting for the extra taxes and income penalties.
If I wait to 66 the payment would increase to $2,020/mo and if I wait to age 70 it would increase to $2,723 or so the estimate says.
As I understand it if I work to 70 to collect and die six months later my wife will receive the $2,723 since my SS is much higher. Correct?
I look at it this way, I am fortunate to have a job that's physically easy that I enjoy doing. i am not looking to retire and if I put it off to give my wife more then that is what I need to do. If I can work to 75 while collecting that is what I want to do.
Thinking should something happen to me the thought of my wife having to live on maybe $2,000/mo depresses me. She might be able to do it but there wouldn't be a whole lot for extra's and visits to see the grand kids.
$3,500/month would be a whole lot better.
Retirement is not about me.
When I retire I want to receive at least double what we calculate we would need.
But there are other considerations besides what you get especially if you are married.
As I understand it if I work to 70 to collect and die six months later my wife will receive the $2,723 since my SS is much higher. Correct?
No. I thought the same thing, but SS told me that my wife will receive only what I get at 66 (full retirement age) as her survivor benefit even if I keep working and don't start drawing benefits until I'm seventy. I also am most concerned about leaving my wife as well off as possible after I am gone.
I have about 10 years from 50K and up to 150K last year. the previous years were in the 30K range, school etc. so each year I work now and earn my current salary bumps me up quite well I would think. is there a ratio ? replacing a $0 year with $100k?
That is my question exactly, and thanks for your response. SS said that my non-working wife's survivor benefit is based on my benefit at full retirement age of 66. I will be drawing that as of this year and it is about $2000 a month. However, I am still working while drawing SS and my payment will go up as I replace zero earning years with good earning years. Won't my wife's survivor benefits also go up as a result, or is she locked into the $2000 a month level?
Survivor benefits are different from spousal benefits. My understanding is that the spousal would be replaced with survivor benefits, and be based upon your longer and higher earnings.
Survivor benefits are different from spousal benefits. My understanding is that the spousal would be replaced with survivor benefits, and be based upon your longer and higher earnings.
That's my understanding as well.
In our case, my wife's survivor benefits from my pension would also give her the same monthly amount I'm receiving plus she'd still receive her full pension.
She'd be fine, especially with one less mouth to feed!
I work currently full time. As I think about retiring I see the social security coming in at $2100/mo at 65 and $3100/mo at 70. I suppose I can keep working p/t til 70. Should be easy being an RN. Can one work p/t til 70? Any RN's do this or any other people here have a similar career or experience?
OMG I'd be retiring at 62 and go fishing or something fun. There are AN AWFUL LOT OF PEOPLE who die between 65 and 70 years of age and never get to enjoy the retirement that they worked so hard for.
OMG I'd be retiring at 62 and go fishing or something fun. There are AN AWFUL LOT OF PEOPLE who die between 65 and 70 years of age and never get to enjoy the retirement that they worked so hard for.
No. I thought the same thing, but SS told me that my wife will receive only what I get at 66 (full retirement age) as her survivor benefit even if I keep working and don't start drawing benefits until I'm seventy. I also am most concerned about leaving my wife as well off as possible after I am gone.
Now that would change things.
I still have a few years to go so I will have to be careful and checking it out but if this is true, sounds like it is, then the best protection for my wife might be to start collecting at 66, while continuing to work, banking the entire social security check.
$2,040*48=$97,980.00.
Without interest my wife could draw the difference ($97,980($2,723-$2,040))=143 months (just short of 12 years) to the break even point. Add interest at 3% and make that $106,615 with 3% interest and drawing $800/month it would last 13 years and 6 months. Simply replacing it, $683, would last 16 years 5 months.
Obviously I need to look into this more as my time nears.
I don't care about me I want my wife to be taken care of should I go first.
BTW, I'd like to address a statistical flim flam being used to raise the SS eligibility age. They claim Americans are living longer than in the past and trot out a higher average life span as evidence. The average is mostly reflecting a better infant mortality rate and that more of us are living to adulthood, not that we are living longer. Ben Franklin lived into his mid eighties and so will most of us.
Even the average life spn into aduklthood has gotten longer. infant morality was higher in past ;but so was adult workers.The are state for the average worker if you want to compare available. Google
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.
