That sounds like a perfect plan! One more tip: When you look at your earnings record on mySocialSecurity, there's a way to download the entire history as a PDF. Do that and take your time reviewing it. Sometimes seeing it all in one document makes it easier to spot unusual patterns or missing years. Good luck!

Oh thanks for the reminder! I'm already on Medicare since I signed up at 65, but I should check if there's anything that needs updating when I start receiving Social Security.

From what I understand, if you're already receiving reduced benefits due to WEP/GPO, SSA should recalculate and adjust your payments automatically. But if you were completely offset by GPO before (getting $0 in benefits), you would need to apply since you weren't in the system receiving payments. In the OP's case, since she wasn't receiving any benefits due to the full offset, she would need to submit an application for survivor benefits. That said, with a change this big affecting millions of beneficiaries, there could be delays in implementation. I'd recommend applying or contacting SSA regardless to ensure you're in their system for the adjustments.

Your cousin is correct that January 1, 2026 is when the GPO is fully eliminated (100% gone). But the phase-out begins earlier: - January 1, 2024: GPO reduction decreases from 2/3 of pension to 40% of pension (so you get more now) - January 1, 2025: GPO reduction decreases to 20% of pension (you get even more) - January 1, 2026: GPO completely eliminated (you get full benefits) So the original poster can definitely get some benefits now, just not 100% of her husband's benefit until 2026.

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.

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.

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!