Update: Just received my letter in the mail today explaining the COLA adjustment! It says my first increased payment will be on the 4th Wednesday of this month, and the lump sum for retroactive adjustments will come within 10 business days after that. Going to mark my calendar and stop worrying. Thanks everyone for the helpful info!

Just wanted to share my experience for anyone still waiting - I'm also on the 4th Wednesday payment schedule and haven't received mine yet, but after reading all these responses I'm feeling much more confident about the timeline. It's really helpful to see that the SSA website doesn't update right away and that the money often shows up before any letters. I've been checking my bank account obsessively but now I know to just wait for my regular payment date. Thanks to everyone who shared their experiences and especially to those who provided the official schedule breakdown - this community is so valuable for getting real information when the official channels are hard to reach!

just to clarify I said 2023/2024 earlier but I mean't 2022/2023... I have covid brain fog today lol

As someone who went through this exact same decision process a few years ago, I can confirm what others have said - there's absolutely no automatic enrollment at any age. I was so paranoid about it that I actually printed out SSA's official guidance just to have it on hand! One thing I'd add to the excellent Roth conversion advice already given: consider doing "practice runs" with smaller conversion amounts in your first year to see how it affects your overall tax situation. I learned this the hard way when I did a larger conversion than planned and it pushed me into a higher bracket than I anticipated. Also, since you mentioned you're turning 62 in December, that gives you almost a full year to fine-tune your conversion strategy for 2025. Perfect timing to work with a tax professional to map out multi-year projections before you start the conversions.

I'm dealing with a similar situation and wanted to share what I've learned from my research and speaking with SSA representatives. The key thing to understand is that there are really two separate calculations happening here: 1. Your son's DAC benefit amount (50% of your husband's PIA - this doesn't change based on when your husband files) 2. The Family Maximum Benefit limits that could reduce everyone's payments From what I've gathered, if your husband is the only one receiving benefits on his record initially, the family maximum won't be an issue. But once your son starts receiving DAC benefits, the combined payments might hit that ceiling, especially if your husband took reduced benefits early. One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet - consider whether your earnings record might provide better benefits for your son than your husband's. DAC benefits can be claimed on either parent's record, so it's worth having SSA calculate both scenarios. Also, regarding timing - your son can potentially start receiving DAC benefits as soon as your husband begins receiving retirement benefits, assuming he meets the disability requirements and has the proper documentation. The age 18/22 confusion often comes from mixing up DAC benefits with student benefits or other programs. Definitely start gathering all medical documentation now and consider that SSI application to establish the disability determination!

I'm a newcomer to this community but have been researching this exact situation for my own family. Reading through all these responses has been incredibly helpful! One thing I want to emphasize that several people have touched on - the timing of starting the disability application process is critical. Even though your son is only 17, beginning the SSI application now can establish that crucial disability determination before he turns 18. This creates a paper trail that will be invaluable when applying for DAC benefits later. From what I've learned, the Social Security Administration requires extensive medical documentation proving the disability began before age 22. Having that SSI application in process (even if denied due to family income) creates an official record of the disability evaluation that can streamline future DAC applications. Also, I noticed someone mentioned considering both parents' earnings records for potential DAC benefits - this is huge! Many families don't realize they can choose which parent's record provides better benefits for their disabled adult child. Definitely have SSA run calculations for both scenarios. The complexity of how early retirement affects family maximum benefits seems to vary case by case, so getting those personalized calculations from SSA will be essential for your decision-making process. Good luck navigating this - it's overwhelming but you're asking all the right questions!

Just to clarify one point - Social Security sends an SSA-1099 form, not a W-2. The SSA-1099 shows your benefits in Box 3 (total amount) and Box 5 (net amount after deductions). For most people, the difference between these amounts is their Medicare Part B premium. This is just how the tax system is structured. The IRS views the full benefit as being paid to you, and then you paying Medicare separately, even though it was automatically deducted. Unfortunately, you can't get a corrected form because the current one is technically correct according to IRS rules.

I'm new to Medicare and Social Security benefits, and this thread has been really eye-opening! I had no idea that Medicare premiums would be treated this way on tax forms. It does seem counterintuitive that we'd pay taxes on money we never actually received in our bank accounts. Reading through everyone's experiences, it sounds like this is just how the system works, even if it feels unfair. I appreciate all the explanations about the SSA-1099 form and the difference between Box 3 and Box 5 amounts. For those of us who are frustrated by this, has anyone had success advocating for changes to this policy through their representatives? Or is this just something we have to accept as part of how Social Security and Medicare interact with the tax system?

I work in payroll administration and see this issue fairly often. What likely happened is that your employer submitted your W-2 information to SSA with either a transposed digit in your SSN or a slight name variation that prevented the automated matching system from crediting the earnings to your record. The SSA rep can see the "unmatched" wage data in their system - it's there, but it's essentially in limbo because the computer couldn't definitively match it to your specific earnings record. This is why she could tell you the employers and earnings amount but it's not showing up in your official record. For $11K from 1999, honestly it's probably not worth the paperwork hassle unless you're close to retirement and every dollar counts. The indexed value of those earnings for benefit calculation purposes would be relatively small compared to your more recent work years. If you're curious about the exact process, you could always request a detailed earnings inquiry from SSA, but based on what you've described, this sounds like a classic case of employer reporting error that created an unmatched record.

I had a similar issue with missing earnings from 2003! When I called SSA about it, the representative could see my employer information and even knew how much I made that year, but it wasn't showing up in my actual earnings record. She explained that sometimes the IRS data and SSA records don't sync properly due to reporting errors. In my case, it turned out my employer had submitted my W-2 with one digit wrong in my Social Security number. The earnings were sitting in SSA's system as "unmatched" - they had the data but couldn't link it to my record because of the SSN mismatch. I ended up fixing mine because I was worried about qualifying for disability benefits at the time, but it took about 6 months and a lot of paperwork. For your situation with $11K from 1999, the rep is probably right that it won't significantly impact your benefits. Those older earnings get indexed for inflation, but they're still relatively small compared to what you'd earn in more recent years. The fact that she mentioned employers from different years makes sense too - they're probably looking at a screen that shows multiple years of tax data all at once.