Your brother is partially correct. If the benefits were received and repaid in the same year (as in OP's case), the corrected 1099 is the proper solution. If benefits were repaid in a different year than received, then you'd use the line 7 on Schedule A for "Repayment of income reported in an earlier year" if over $3,000, or as a miscellaneous itemized deduction subject to the 2% floor if under $3,000. But since OP's situation is same-year, a corrected 1099 is the right approach.

It does seem counterproductive. They want seniors to stay active but then penalize us if we work too much before FRA. At least the limit goes away completely once you reach full retirement age.

Smart planning! One more tip: when your husband applies, get the name and direct extension of the claims representative who handles his application. This makes follow-up much easier if there are any issues with how the monthly earnings test is applied.

That's good to know. My ex did remarry about 10 years ago, but I never did. I was worried that might affect eligibility somehow. You've all been so helpful in clearing up my misconceptions!

Survivor benefits have different rules than divorced spouse benefits. With survivor benefits (including divorced survivor benefits), your mom can actually receive her own retirement benefit AND a partial survivor benefit if she's at full retirement age. Or she could take one first and switch to the other later depending on which maximizes her overall benefits. She should definitely contact SSA about this specific situation because survivor benefits offer more flexibility.

The 2025 wage base limit hasn't been officially announced yet. The SSA typically announces the new limit in October of the preceding year, so we should know the 2025 limit around October 2024. Your brother-in-law's estimate of $175k is reasonably close to what we might expect based on recent increases, but it's just a projection at this point.

It's a common question! The system was designed as social insurance with some wealth redistribution built in. Higher earners do get higher benefits than lower earners, but not proportionally higher. Here's an example: someone earning the maximum taxable amount their entire career might get a monthly benefit around $3,800 at full retirement age, while someone earning half as much might get around $2,400. So the high earner paid twice as much in taxes but doesn't get twice the benefit. The philosophical argument is that Social Security ensures a basic standard of living in retirement for all workers, not a direct savings account. But people definitely have different opinions about whether that's fair or not!

Just to clarify for anyone reading this thread: SSI (Supplemental Security Income) and SSDI (Social Security Disability Insurance) have different rules regarding survivor benefits. SSI is needs-based and doesn't generate survivor benefits, while SSDI is based on work credits and does provide survivor benefits. This is why it's so important to understand which benefit type you're dealing with when making these decisions.

There's no one-size-fits-all answer with Social Security. While waiting until FRA maximizes that particular benefit, personal circumstances matter enormously. In the original poster's case, with a spouse on SSDI, limited working years, and the option to switch to survivor benefits later, taking reduced benefits at 62 may align with their specific financial situation and goals. This is why personalized analysis is so important rather than general rules of thumb.