Update: I finally managed to speak with someone at SSA! You were all right about the GPO - it will reduce my survivor benefit by about $1,230 (2/3 of my pension). But even with that reduction, the survivor benefit would still be higher than my own reduced retirement benefit at 62. They recommended I take the reduced survivor benefit now and then switch to my own retirement benefit at 70, when it will have grown to its maximum amount. Apparently, this will give me the highest lifetime payout given my specific circumstances. Thank you all for your help and guidance through this confusing process!

Congratulations on getting through to SSA and getting a clear answer! Your situation really highlights how complex Social Security can be, especially when you have multiple income sources like a pension. For others reading this thread who might be in similar situations, Christian's experience shows why it's so important to get personalized advice from SSA rather than relying on general rules. The GPO calculation can dramatically change which strategy makes the most sense, and every person's situation is unique. One thing I'd add is that you might want to document the advice you received and perhaps get it in writing if possible. Sometimes different SSA representatives can give conflicting information, so having a record of what you were told and when can be helpful if any questions arise later. Best of luck with your decision, and again, I'm sorry for your loss. It's never easy dealing with these financial decisions during such a difficult time.

I notice you mentioned covering Medicare costs - just to clarify, if you're approaching FRA, Medicare enrollment is separate from Social Security benefits. You'll want to sign up for Medicare at 65 regardless of when you claim SS benefits to avoid late enrollment penalties. If you're already on Medicare, the premiums can indeed be deducted from your SS payment once it starts, which many find convenient. Also, while family longevity is important to consider, don't forget to factor in your own health status and financial needs when making this decision. Statistics are helpful guides, but your personal situation should drive the final choice.

I'm a newcomer here but have been researching Social Security extensively for my own upcoming decision. Based on what I've read in this thread, it seems like the consensus is pretty clear - take the survivor benefits now at $3,493/month rather than waiting for the extra $100. What really struck me was Olivia's breakdown showing you'd need to live past 82 just to break even on waiting 6 months. That's a long time to recover what you'd miss out on now. Plus, with your earnings situation affecting when you'd get your first payment anyway, the survivor benefit seems like the obvious choice. I'm curious though - have you considered what happens if your own retirement benefit continues to grow until age 70? Gabriel mentioned you could potentially switch later if your own benefit becomes higher. That might give you the best of both worlds: immediate income now from survivor benefits, plus keeping your options open for the future. Good luck with your decision! It sounds like you've got a lot of good advice here.

Thank you all for your helpful responses! I finally called SSA again today using the specific terms "spousal benefit computation" as suggested, and got someone who seemed to understand the situation. She confirmed that since my wife was born in 1957, she falls under the deemed filing rules, but because she started receiving her own benefits before I filed, the system didn't automatically compare the benefits. The representative has initiated a review of her case, and preliminary calculations show she should be eligible for about $175 more per month, plus some retroactive payments. They said it will take about 30-45 days to process the adjustment. For anyone else in a similar situation - be persistent and use the specific terminology "spousal benefit computation" when you call!

Congratulations on getting this resolved! This is exactly why I love this community - everyone sharing their experiences helps others navigate these complex SSA issues. Your story perfectly illustrates how the system is supposed to work versus how it actually works in practice. It's really concerning that SSA representatives give such inconsistent information on these basic eligibility questions. The fact that you had to call multiple times and use specific terminology just to get a proper review shows there are serious training gaps in their customer service. For anyone else reading this thread who might be in a similar situation, I'd also recommend documenting everything - dates you called, names of representatives if they give them, and exactly what you were told. This can be helpful if you need to escalate later or if there are any disputes about timing for retroactive payments. The $175 monthly increase might seem modest, but that's over $2,000 per year - definitely worth the hassle of dealing with SSA's bureaucracy!

anyone else notice how the ssa website says one thing but then the people on the phone tell you something totally different?? its so confusing trying to figure out whats actually true

I'm in a somewhat similar situation and wanted to share what I learned from my research. One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is that if you do file for spousal benefits at 62, you'll be subject to the earnings test if you're still working (even part-time). They'll reduce your benefits by $1 for every $2 you earn above $23,400 (2024 limit). This might not apply to you if you're not working due to disability, but it's something to keep in mind. Also, I found that creating a my Social Security account online helped me see my estimated benefits and work history, which made it easier to compare my own retirement benefit vs. spousal benefit options. The whole system is definitely confusing, but having those numbers in front of you can help with the decision.

One strategy some people use if they're close to another year of substantial earnings is to work part-time in Social Security covered employment to reach another year threshold. Each additional year between 20-30 reduces your WEP penalty by about 5%. If you're only 1-2 years away from 30 years, it might be worth considering working a bit longer to significantly reduce or eliminate the WEP impact.

I went through this exact situation about 6 months ago! I also had around 22 years of SS-covered work plus a state pension. The harsh reality is that WEP will definitely apply regardless of when you claim - FRA doesn't protect you from it. Based on what others have shared here about the sliding scale, with 22 years you're probably looking at around a $300-400 reduction rather than the full $612 maximum. I'd strongly recommend getting your exact WEP calculation from SSA before making your final decision. Also, double-check that all 22 of your years actually meet the "substantial earnings" threshold - I discovered one of my early years didn't qualify, which changed my calculation. The good news is that even with WEP, you'll still get a significant benefit, just not the full amount you were initially expecting.