

Ask the community...
wait i just thought of something - doesnt this affect medicare premiums too? like if u show too much income don't they charge u more for part b or something?
Yes, that's called IRMAA (Income-Related Monthly Adjustment Amount). If your modified adjusted gross income from two years prior exceeds certain thresholds, you pay higher Part B and Part D premiums. So income reported in 2024 would affect your 2026 Medicare premiums if you're enrolled by then. It's another factor to consider in your calculation.
That's a common misconception. Social Security is not going bankrupt. According to the 2023 Trustees Report, even if Congress does absolutely nothing (which is unlikely), the trust fund would be depleted in the 2030s, but ongoing payroll taxes would still fund approximately 80% of promised benefits. And Congress has always acted to shore up the program before significant cuts would take effect, as they've done several times over the program's 89-year history.
just wondering - does ur mom's pension come from a job where she DIDNT pay into social security at all? or did she pay into both? my mom paid into both and they still did the GPO thing to her which seemed so unfair!!!
She paid into both! She worked at a school district that had its own pension system, but she also had several side jobs over the years where she paid into Social Security. Then she worked part-time at a private company after retiring from the school district. So she definitely contributed to both systems, which is why the GPO seemed so unfair to us too!
just wondering - did your sister ever work enough to qualify for Medicare on her own record? if shes getting SS benefits i assume yes but just checking cause thats important at her age too
After thinking about this more, I want to clarify something important: When your sister's husband eventually DOES file for benefits (whether now or later), she will automatically be eligible for the spousal benefit if it would increase her total benefit amount. The benefit calculation is: She gets her own benefit first, then an additional amount if the spousal benefit (up to 50% of her husband's PIA) would be higher. The early filing reduction from her claiming at 62 will affect the spousal amount, but she'd still likely see some increase. Also worth noting - if her husband passes away before her, she would be eligible for 100% of his benefit amount as a widow (assuming it's higher than her own). This survivor benefit can actually be a major factor in deciding when he should claim.
Thank you for this additional information! That's helpful to know about the survivor benefit - I hadn't considered that. I think we need to sit down with her husband and look at the long-term picture, especially considering both their ages and health conditions. I appreciate all the helpful responses here.
who else gets confused between all these dif benefits? survivors, retirement, spousal, SSI, SSDI...my head spins! 🤯
It's definitely confusing! Quick summary: Retirement benefits are based on your own work. Spousal benefits are based on a living spouse's record. Survivor benefits are based on a deceased spouse's record. SSDI is disability insurance based on work credits. SSI is needs-based for limited income/resources. Each has different rules!
Just to clarify some technical details about your strategy: This approach (survivor benefits first, then switching to retirement) can work very well when your own benefit at 70 exceeds your survivor benefit. A few important facts: 1. Your survivor benefit reached maximum value at your FRA (66 years, 8 months) 2. Your own retirement benefit grows until age 70 (getting 8% delayed credits per year) 3. Taking survivor benefits early at 64.5 means you're accepting a reduced amount (about 88-90% of the full survivor benefit) 4. But that reduction doesn't affect your own retirement benefit at 70 So mathematically, your strategy makes perfect sense if your own benefit at 70 is indeed higher than your survivor benefit would be at FRA, as the SSA rep confirmed.
CosmicCowboy
I HATE the windfall elimination!!!! Its so unfair to teachers!!! We work our whole lives and then get penalized for choosing a public service career?? Make it make sense!!!
0 coins
Keisha Johnson
•The rationale behind WEP is that Social Security benefits are designed to replace a higher percentage of income for lower-wage workers. Since teachers with non-covered pensions appear to Social Security as "low-wage workers" (because their teaching earnings don't show up in SS records), WEP was created to adjust for this. I agree it feels unfair, but that's the current policy logic. There are ongoing efforts to reform it.
0 coins
Connor Gallagher
Just to add to my earlier comment: When you suspend benefits, you continue earning delayed retirement credits until age 70, which will permanently increase your benefit by about 8% per year. So suspending from FRA (67) to 70 could increase your benefit by around 24% for the rest of your life. Also, regarding WEP - if you have 30+ years of "substantial earnings" in Social Security-covered employment, WEP doesn't apply at all. If you have 21-29 years, the WEP reduction is lessened. Might be worth checking your earnings record to see where you stand.
0 coins
Zainab Omar
•I just checked my SS statement online and I only have about 15 years of substantial earnings under Social Security. Most of my career has been teaching. So I guess the full WEP will apply to me regardless. Still, getting that 24% increase by waiting until 70 seems worthwhile.
0 coins