With respect, this is incorrect. The restricted application strategy (claiming spousal while letting your own grow) is only available to people born before January 2, 1954. For everyone born after that date, when you file for any benefit, you are deemed to be filing for all benefits you're eligible for, and you'll receive whichever is higher. Your sister-in-law was likely born before that cutoff date, which is why she was able to use that strategy.

That sounds like a wise decision! Getting professional advice specific to your situation is always smart. One other thing to consider - if you're still working, you might look into an ABLE account for your son if you haven't already. It allows disabled individuals to save money (up to $16,000/year) without impacting their SSI eligibility. Could be another way to provide security.

That's great to know about the higher limit in the year I reach FRA. My full retirement age is 67, so I'll need to plan carefully for the years between 60-67. I'm hoping to work part-time during those years anyway, but it's good to know I have more flexibility once I reach FRA.

Yes, I'm using the correct limit for 2024. My earnings from my part-time job will be $22,339, which puts me $19 over. I don't have any other income that would count toward the limit.

You're thinking of the Grace Year rule, but the original poster already mentioned that the monthly calculations wouldn't help because their earnings are higher in November/December (the months they're claiming benefits). The monthly limit would be $1,860, and if they earn more than that in those months, the Grace Year provision wouldn't be beneficial in this case.

You're referring to a strategy where someone could claim one type of benefit and later switch to another. For example, a person could claim a spousal or survivor benefit first, allowing their own retirement benefit to grow until age 70, then switch to their own (now larger) retirement benefit. However, this flexibility was largely eliminated for most people by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, with some exceptions for specific groups. The rules are complex and depend on birthdate and specific circumstances.

Glad we could help clarify things. One additional suggestion - make sure your fiancé understands the eligibility for Social Security disability (SSDI) as well, since he's not yet retirement age. If any health issues arise before he reaches full retirement age, knowing the SSDI process could be beneficial. Wishing you both happiness in your new chapter together!

You're confusing WEP and GPO. WEP (Windfall Elimination Provision) reduces your OWN Social Security benefit if you worked in jobs where you didn't pay Social Security taxes (like some government or foreign jobs) AND also worked enough in SS-covered jobs to qualify for benefits. GPO (Government Pension Offset) reduces spouse/survivor benefits if you receive a pension from non-covered government work. The railroad retirement system has special coordination with Social Security that works differently from either of these provisions.

Yes, that was my thinking at the time - that delaying would at least partially offset the WEP reduction. What I didn't anticipate was potentially getting both the full non-WEP amount AND the delayed credits if reform passes. That would be a significant windfall for me and others in similar situations. Do you happen to know which specific bill has the most support currently? I'd like to contact my representatives about it.

The Social Security Fairness Act (H.R. 82 in the last Congress) had the most co-sponsors, but there are other bills with different approaches too. The Ways & Means Committee has also discussed compromise solutions. Best approach is to contact your rep and express support for WEP reform generally rather than a specific bill, since the final solution might be a compromise version.