Comments on: When Should I Take Social Security?

By: Dan Toloso

Dan Toloso — Tue, 23 Aug 2011 15:34:33 +0000

I read about filing for SS benefits, registering my minor son, and then suspending my benefits so it will increase between now (66 years old) and 70 years old, but my son would start getting benefits. I tried that and was turned down by SS office. They used the word “entitled” which I think they misunderstand the meaning of. They said because I wasn’t entitle to SS he could not receive benefits, I read it as “Entiltled” meaning authorized to receive, they read it as “Entitled” you are receiving benefits.
They couldn’t find the official reference to why I couldn’t claim benefits for him while deferring mine. You said in this articel that “Because Jack will apply for benefits and then immediately suspend, Jill will receive a spousal benefit of $11,833 beginning at age 66, her age of full eligibility and this will continue through age 69 when her $31,035 benefit kicks in. Jack is not penalized for this strategic maneuver.

Isn’t this the same thing except my son is a minor and she is Jack’s spouse. Minors can collect through their 18th year. They clearly said that if i was not receiving my benefits (Entitled) then he could not collect. What is the real story here, should I have been denyed.

Thanks
Dan

By: Marcie

Marcie — Fri, 15 Apr 2011 05:13:14 +0000

Went to SS Office prior to my Birthday 4/10/11 to get info on Spousal Benefits, as my younger sister told me she was receiving in Tennessee. When there I was told Yes I could get the Spousal & No it would not affect my later getting my own SS Retirement.

Today I went back to go ahead with the plan. Guess What! I was told by another “expert agent” that I could not get the Spousal because my Retirement amount currently is higher than my husband’s already. So, looks like we are stuck because he would have to have been the one filing for Spousal. And, that I would have to actually draw Retirement SS benefit to get any amount at this date…at the younger age (of course) thereby getting the lower dollar amount.

The “expert” told me that additionally my sister had to be very careful not to exceed $14K salary or she would reduce her benefit. I know my sister works in the nursing field and does make fairly good money, so she needs that info and I am concerned that she was not advised properly….And, she told me herself that she could get the benefit & continue work until she was ready to Retire without reducing her Retirement Amount. I am concerned that she was not correctly informed that by taking the Spousal Benefit the possible affect it would or could have on her
just the way I have been told two different stories. BAD, JUST PLAIN BAD! ALL THE WAY AROUND!!
So, Pinyo, now what? :^(

By: Pinyo

Pinyo — Tue, 12 Apr 2011 03:44:44 +0000

@Marcie – You can also ask the Social Security Administration about this when you visit them. Based on what I know, you can file for spousal benefits now, then switch to your own benefits later.

By: Marcie

Marcie — Fri, 08 Apr 2011 07:23:08 +0000

My husband is 67, retired and receives $1053 SS monthly. I am 64 this week, receiving a pension of $1314 monthly. We are having a difficult time making ends meet. If I take a Spousal Benefit of $362 monthly now, will it prevent me from getting my projected SS benefit of $1333 at 66 (or more at 70)? Am I then required to only get a Spousal Benefit? Or, do I get my SS and the Spousal together? I am so very confused over all of this. Along with retirement comes age…and, confusion!! Too much! Thanks, Marcie

By: Jasuba

Jasuba — Tue, 20 Jul 2010 04:01:13 +0000

http://ssincomeplanner.com – Social Security Income Planner web-site allows Cahsflow modeling of Social Security claiming strategies. Thx

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 26 May 2010 16:59:04 +0000

If you run your numbers in http://basic.esplanner.com/ (Free) or the download program you buy, you’ll see the impact of SS on your taxes. Certainly these things interact. Each situation is different, which is why you have to run each case. But it doesn’t take long. What you want is a smooth living standard through the ups and downs of taxes, etc. This calculator figures out that smooth living standard level for you. –Dan

By: vincent

vincent — Wed, 26 May 2010 13:37:48 +0000

I get 47,616 pension per year. I expect to get 2000 per month from social security. My wife will get 1000 per month from social security. Is there a way to reduce my taxes so that i can pay less tax on my social security?

By: Dan

Dan — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 15:18:36 +0000

Hi Ron:

Yes, I understand your point there. To answer the question you pose, the reason you would maximize through delay of SS is so that you can have a higher living standard NOW, at age 55 or 60 or 65 etc. As I say in the article above, if you die at age 68 and never touch a dime of SS, then you’ve still had a higher living standard–more money to spend each year–than you would have had if you had taken the SS at 62. Granted, you will have less IRA to leave to your heirs.

If you are 62 and think SS is going to be cut, then calculate the plan with that cut in mind. I guess you are saying that SS would never cut your existing benefit once they start paying it at age 62? Right now they raise it for inflation each year. Perhaps they will stop that. Indeed, the future is uncertain–especially where something like this is concerned.

I agree that maximizing your IRA is very important. But if you want to maximize its use to you, then delay SS to age 70! For each year that SS pays out at age 70–the higher premium–the more you are going to stretch those IRA dollars.

SS is a kind of longevity insurance. If we all knew we were going to die at a certain date, then it would be easy to calculate the right year to take SS. But we don’t, just like we don’t know if our house is going to burn down–thus we pay for hazard insurance. My point is that you get WAY MORE longevity insurance for your dollar if you delay. Uncle Sam gives a really, really good deal for waiting. If you think he’s going to get out of the SS business, or cut the premiums or whatever, then I guess take it now, but you are likewise assuming that he’s not going to cut your premium once you get it going?

I guess that’s another way to look at it.

Best,

Dan

By: Ron

Ron — Mon, 26 Apr 2010 14:35:27 +0000

My IRA is my account which has cash that I can control and I know will be there for me.

My SS is an account in which I have no real control. I don’t even know how much I can depend upon SS because the government could suddenly say were going to drop your benefits by 30% and I would be powerless and have no choice in the matter.

Why should anybody plan to maximize their SS benefits when there is no control or guarantee that they’ll be there for you? Having a good portion of my monthly income depend upon the political whims of big brother and his political lobby scares me.

On the other hand my IRA, if invested properly with consideration to the risks, will be guaranteed to be there for me. It seems to me that one should take their SS at 62 and avoid dipping into the IRA and other savings if possible. Sure, SS payout increases 8% per year you delay ( and there is not guarantee on any increase in the stock market) but what good is that if I cannot depend upon the foundation of SS?

I say maximize your personal savings and IRAs rather than SS.

By: PVH

PVH — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:45:25 +0000

I think one major assumption that you’ve built in is driving your results — ESP let’s you set the ‘worst (best?) case scenario’ in terms of longevity — it looks like you’ve set it at 100 years. If we are planning to live to 100 (or even 85+) then delaying SS benefits to age 70 is the obvious choice.