Social Security Administration
CommunityGovernment Services


Ask the community...
I'm in a really tough spot with Social Security and wondering if there's ANY way around the 10-year marriage rule for divorced spouse benefits. My situation: I was married to my first husband for just under 10 years - he actually timed the divorce filing deliberately so I wouldn't qualify for his SS benefits (he passed away recently). My second marriage lasted 8.5 years before ending in divorce. Now I'm 62, receiving a tiny Social Security check ($875/month) that barely covers basics. The worst part is I just found out that for 30+ years I was working as a 1099 contractor caring for seniors and people with disabilities, and my employer wasn't properly contributing to Social Security! I thought everything was being handled correctly. Is there any exception to the 10-year rule for either ex-spouse? Some kind of hardship provision or appeal process? I'm looking at having to work well into my 70s just to keep food on the table.
My husband turned 67 (his FRA) last summer and originally planned to start his Social Security retirement benefits in January 2025 when he fully retires from his job. He submitted his application online last week, but yesterday got a call from an SSA claims processor who said something surprising. The processor told him he could actually start receiving his full benefit amount immediately PLUS get retroactive benefits in a lump sum for up to 6 months back. We weren't expecting this option! The thing is, he's still working full-time until December 31st. Since he's past his FRA, I know there's no earnings limit, but I'm worried about whether taking benefits now or getting that lump sum might affect our taxes or be a bad financial move. His monthly benefit would be about $3,250 either way (now or January). Should we take the 6 months of retroactive benefits (roughly $19,500) and start his payments now? Or stick with the original January 2025 start date? What factors should we consider to figure out what's best? Has anyone been in this situation?
Thanks everyone for the helpful advice! I called our tax accountant this morning and ran the numbers. Taking the lump sum now would push us into a higher tax bracket this year since we're both still working. We'd end up paying about 32% of that lump sum in additional federal and state taxes. We've decided to stick with the original plan of starting benefits in January when he's fully retired. Our tax rate will be lower then, and we don't need the money urgently right now. The difference in taxes makes waiting worth it for our specific situation. I really appreciate all the insights about the FRA rules, retroactive benefits, and earnings limits. This forum has been incredibly helpful!
Great decision! It sounds like you really did your homework on this one. The tax implications can be huge when you're both still working - 32% is a significant bite out of that lump sum. For anyone else reading this thread who might be in a similar situation, Dylan's approach is exactly right - run the actual numbers with a tax professional rather than just assuming the lump sum is always better. The "free money" argument only works if you're not giving a huge chunk back in taxes. Your timeline makes perfect sense too. Starting benefits in January when you're both retired will likely put you in a much more favorable tax situation for the Social Security income going forward. Plus you avoid any potential IRMAA issues that Miguel mentioned earlier. Thanks for following up with your decision - it's really helpful for future readers to see how this played out!
I'm trying to understand how household rules work with SSA. My son is turning 18 next month and is in the process of being approved for SSI based on his disability (Adult Disabled Child). I'm currently receiving Social Security survivor benefits after my husband passed away last year. My question is whether my son will be considered his own household for SSI purposes once he turns 18, even though he still lives with me? I'm worried that my survivor benefits might reduce his SSI payment or make him ineligible altogether. Has anyone dealt with this situation? The SSA rep I talked to gave me a confusing answer about deeming and living arrangements that I didn't fully understand.
Thank you all so much for this helpful information! I feel much better prepared for his upcoming birthday now. I'm going to: 1) Make sure both the SSI and the Childhood Disability Benefits applications are being processed, 2) Create a rental agreement to avoid the one-third reduction rule, 3) Look into ABLE accounts for his savings, and 4) Use Claimyr to actually get through to SSA and confirm all of this information. This has been incredibly helpful!
I'm so sorry for your loss, and I admire how you're navigating all these complex benefits while caring for your son. I went through something similar when my brother became disabled at 17. One thing I learned that might help - when you create that rental agreement that StarSailor mentioned, make sure to document everything properly. We had to provide bank statements showing the rent payments were actually being made from his SSI account to mine. Also, regarding the timing - don't wait until after his 18th birthday to set this up. You can create the agreement to begin on his 18th birthday, which shows SSA it's a legitimate arrangement rather than something you're doing just to avoid the reduction. The SSA rep should be able to walk you through exactly what documentation they need. You're doing an amazing job advocating for your son during such a difficult time.
I retired from public education after 27 years and currently receive my teacher's pension of $4,250/month. I also qualify for Social Security benefits that are reduced by the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), so instead of getting about $1,850/month, I only receive around $1,070/month. I've arranged my teacher's pension so my wife will receive 100% continuation of my pension if I die before her. My question is about Social Security survivor benefits: When I pass away, will my wife's Social Security survivor benefits be the WEP-reduced amount I'm currently receiving, or will she get the full unreduced Social Security benefit? Does WEP disappear for survivor benefits or does it continue to reduce what my spouse can collect? Our financial advisor gave us conflicting information recently and now I'm confused about our long-term planning.
Thank you all for the incredibly helpful responses. This clarifies things tremendously. Just to make sure I have this straight: 1) WEP goes away for survivor benefits, so my wife would be eligible for my full non-WEP Social Security amount. 2) She would get either her own benefit OR my non-WEP benefit, whichever is higher. 3) This is in addition to the teacher's pension continuation I've arranged. This makes our financial future much more secure than I thought. Really appreciate everyone's insights!
You've got it exactly right, Freya! Your summary is spot-on. As someone who's been helping folks navigate these waters for years, I can confirm that WEP truly does disappear for survivor benefits - it's one of the few silver linings in an otherwise frustrating system. Your wife will indeed be in a much better financial position than you might have originally planned for. One small additional note: when she becomes eligible, she should apply promptly as survivor benefits don't automatically start. And definitely keep a copy of your most recent Social Security statement showing both the WEP-reduced and non-WEP amounts for your records. It sounds like you've done great planning with the 100% pension continuation too. Your wife will be well taken care of!
Hey everyone, I'm trying to change my name and need to make an appointment. Has anyone gone through this process recently? What documents do I need to bring? Any tips on making the process smoother? I've heard it can be a real hassle.
PSA: If you're changing your name, don't forget to update your voter registration too! It's easy to overlook but important for avoiding issues at the polls.
Another thing to keep in mind - if you're doing a legal name change (not marriage-related), some SSA offices might ask for additional documentation like proof of why you're changing your name. I had to bring a letter from my lawyer explaining the circumstances. Also, if you have any accounts or benefits with SSA, make sure to ask them how the name change will affect those. The whole process took me about 30 minutes once I was in the office, but having all the right paperwork made all the difference!
Shelby Bauman
also idk if this helps but my mom told me grandma eventually got on a subsidized housing list and that helped her a lot with expenses. the wait was like 2 years tho so maybe apply now even if ur not sure?
0 coins
Charity Cohan
AuthorThat's a really good suggestion! I hadn't thought about subsidized housing. I'll definitely look into getting on waiting lists in my area. Thank you!
0 coins
Zainab Ibrahim
I'm really sorry you're going through this - the 10-year marriage rule is unfortunately one of the strictest requirements in Social Security law with no exceptions or hardship provisions. Your ex-husband deliberately timing the divorce is sadly more common than people realize. However, I'd strongly encourage you to pursue the worker misclassification issue aggressively. If you were truly functioning as an employee (set schedule, using their equipment, following their procedures), you may have been illegally misclassified. While Form SS-8 typically only allows corrections going back 3 years, there can be exceptions in cases of employer fraud or willful misclassification. You might also want to consult with an employment attorney who handles wage theft cases - some take these on contingency if there's a strong case against your former employer. They could potentially help you recover not just the Social Security credits, but also the employer portion of payroll taxes that should have been paid on your behalf. Additionally, contact your state's Department of Labor - they often have programs to help workers who've been misclassified recover what they're owed. This could potentially impact more than just the recent 3 years if there's evidence of systematic misclassification.
0 coins