As a newcomer to this community, I really appreciate this detailed discussion! I'm 61 and starting to think about my own Social Security strategy, so this is incredibly helpful to see all the nuances explained. One question I have after reading through everything - if someone applies online and then calls to verify their MOE was recorded correctly, about how long should they wait between submitting the online application and making that verification call? I want to make sure the system has time to process the initial application before I call to check on it. Also, has anyone had experience with the local SSA field offices for this type of verification, or is the phone line generally the better route? I live in a smaller town and our local office might be less busy than the national phone system.

As someone who just went through this process at 62, I want to emphasize how important it is to get that confirmation call in! I thought my online application went through perfectly, but when I called a few days later to verify, they had somehow recorded my MOE as two months later than I requested. The agent was able to fix it immediately over the phone, but if I hadn't called to check, I would have lost two months of benefits. She told me this happens more often than you'd think - sometimes it's a system glitch, sometimes it's user error during the online application. My advice: apply online for convenience, but ALWAYS follow up with a phone call within a week to confirm your Month of Entitlement is exactly what you wanted. Don't assume anything is automatic or correct just because you submitted it online. Better safe than sorry when it comes to your retirement income!

I'm so sorry you're going through this - a $650 monthly difference is absolutely unacceptable without a proper explanation! One additional thing to consider: if you had any periods where you were self-employed, make sure SSA correctly credited all your self-employment earnings to your record. Sometimes SE earnings get posted differently than W-2 wages, and if they missed any quarters or years, it could significantly impact your calculation. Also, when you call back, ask specifically if they applied any "special minimum" calculations or if there were any adjustments made for cost-of-living increases that might not have been reflected in the online estimate. Sometimes the timing of when estimates are generated versus when benefits are calculated can result in different COLA adjustments being applied. The missing interview is definitely a red flag - that interview serves as a quality control check to catch exactly these kinds of calculation discrepancies before they become final. I'd argue that skipping this step may have denied you due process in your benefit determination. Keep fighting for answers! With your detailed work history and the systematic approach others have suggested, you should be able to get to the bottom of this. Please keep us updated - your experience could help others facing similar issues.

I'm really sorry you're dealing with this - a $650 monthly discrepancy is absolutely significant and you deserve clear answers! A few additional thoughts that might help: 1. **Request your complete earnings record** - Sometimes there are discrepancies between what shows online and what's actually used in the calculation. Ask for a printout of your complete indexed earnings history. 2. **Ask about the "bend points"** - These are the income thresholds used to calculate your Primary Insurance Amount (PIA). The online calculator might have used different bend points than what was actually applied. 3. **Verify your retirement age calculation** - Even a small error in determining your exact full retirement age can impact the reduction factors applied for early retirement. The missing interview is particularly concerning. That's supposed to be when they verify all your information and catch calculation errors BEFORE finalizing your benefit. I'd argue this represents a failure in their process that may have prejudiced your case. When you call, be firm that you need a line-by-line explanation of how they calculated your benefit, including all reduction factors applied. Don't accept vague explanations - you're entitled to understand exactly where that $650 difference came from. Document everything and consider filing a formal appeal if they can't provide satisfactory answers. This much of a discrepancy suggests either a calculation error or missing information that should be corrected.

As a newcomer to this community, I'm finding this discussion incredibly valuable! I'm 64 and was born in 1960, so like the original poster, my FRA is 67. I've been putting off this decision but need to start planning seriously. One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is the impact of state taxes on Social Security benefits. While we've talked about federal taxes (up to 85% of benefits can be taxable), some states don't tax Social Security at all, while others do. If you're considering relocating in retirement or working remotely, this could be another factor in your timing decision. Also, I wanted to ask - does anyone know if there are any recent changes to these rules or earnings limits due to inflation adjustments? With everything changing so rapidly economically, I want to make sure I'm working with the most current information. Thanks to everyone who's shared their experiences here - it's really helping me think through my own situation!

As someone who just went through this exact decision process last year (born in 1959, so my FRA was 66 and 10 months), I can confirm what others have said - once you reach your FRA of 67, you can absolutely work full-time and earn $85k with zero penalty to your Social Security benefits! I was in a similar boat - still working and earning good money but wanted to start collecting. The key thing that helped me decide was running the numbers on the "opportunity cost" of waiting. Yes, you get 8% more per year if you wait until 70, but that's 8% of your base benefit amount. For me, three years of collecting benefits at FRA actually came out ahead in total dollars received until I'd be about 82-83 years old. One practical tip: when you do file, you can choose to have federal taxes withheld from your Social Security payments (10%, 12%, 22%, or 24%). Given your income level, you'll definitely want some withholding since up to 85% of your benefits will be taxable. I chose 22% withholding and it's worked out well for avoiding a big tax surprise. Also, don't forget that your Social Security benefit will continue to get annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) regardless of when you start collecting. Last year's 3.2% COLA and this year's 2.5% really add up over time! The peace of mind of having that monthly payment coming in while still working has been worth it for me, even knowing I'm not getting the absolute maximum possible benefit.

As a newcomer to this community, I'm incredibly grateful to have found this discussion! I'm 62 and have been married for just 3 years, and like so many others here, I was absolutely convinced I needed to wait 7 more years to qualify for spousal benefits based on that 10-year rule I kept seeing everywhere online. Reading through all these responses has been such a huge relief - learning that the 1-year marriage rule applies to current spouses while the 10-year requirement is only for divorced spouses finally makes sense! What really concerns me as someone new to all this is how widespread this confusion seems to be. The fact that so many people in this thread had the exact same misconception shows there's a serious communication problem with how SSA explains these basic eligibility rules. I haven't even attempted to call SSA yet after reading all the horror stories here about wait times and conflicting information from representatives. It's pretty alarming that we're having to rely on community forums to get accurate information about something as crucial as our retirement security. The detailed explanations about early filing penalties and benefit calculations have been incredibly helpful - I had no idea that you automatically get whichever benefit is higher rather than being able to choose. Thank you all for creating such a supportive space where newcomers like me can actually get clear, reliable information about navigating this complex system!

As a newcomer to this community, I want to express my sincere gratitude for this incredibly comprehensive and helpful discussion! I'm 60 and have been married for just over 2 years, and like so many others who've shared their stories here, I was completely confused about Social Security spousal benefit eligibility requirements. I had read multiple sources online that mentioned a 10-year marriage requirement and was dreading having to wait 8 more years before I could access any benefits based on my spouse's earnings record. Discovering through this thread that the 1-year rule applies to current spouses while the 10-year requirement is specifically for divorced spouses has been such an enormous relief! What strikes me most as someone new to navigating this system is how many people here have had identical misconceptions about these fundamental rules. This suggests a real problem with how SSA communicates basic eligibility information to the public. The personal experiences shared here about difficulties reaching SSA representatives and receiving conflicting information are genuinely concerning when we're trying to make such important financial decisions. This community discussion has provided clearer, more reliable information than anything I've been able to find through official channels. The detailed explanations about early filing penalties, benefit calculations, and how you automatically receive whichever benefit is higher have been invaluable. Thank you all for creating such a welcoming and knowledgeable community where newcomers like me can get the accurate information we need to make informed decisions about our retirement security!

This is a textbook example of SSA administrative confusion with concurrent benefits. I work in disability advocacy and see this exact error regularly. The key issue is that different SSA departments handle Title II (Social Security disability) and Title XVI (SSI) claims, and they often don't communicate properly. Your brother is absolutely entitled to backpay from BOTH programs. The fact that SSI correctly calculated their portion by reducing for the Social Security benefit proves that both benefits are legitimate and should provide retroactive payments. Here's what I'd recommend doing immediately: 1. Request a formal written denial notice for the Social Security backpay (you need this to appeal) 2. File a Request for Reconsideration (Form SSA-561) within 60 days 3. In your appeal, specifically cite that he's a "concurrent beneficiary" entitled to both Title II and Title XVI backpay 4. Include documentation showing both benefits started the same date The SSA manual (POMS DI 52150.001) is clear that concurrent benefits don't eliminate each other's backpay entitlements. This is simply an undertrained representative making an incorrect determination. With proper documentation and persistence, this should be correctable.

I'm new to navigating SSA benefits but this situation sounds incredibly frustrating and unfortunately all too common from what I'm reading here. As someone who's dealt with bureaucratic mix-ups before (though not with SSA), I wanted to ask - when you do get this resolved (and it sounds like you absolutely will with all the great advice here), is there anything you can do to prevent this from happening to others? It seems like this specific error with concurrent benefits happens frequently enough that there should be better training for SSA representatives. Maybe once you get through the appeals process, it would be worth documenting the whole experience and sharing it with disability advocacy groups? I'm really hoping your brother gets every penny of backpay he's entitled to. The stress of dealing with these errors on top of managing a disability must be overwhelming.