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.

Oh wow, I hadn't considered the Medicare angle. I need to check those IRMAA thresholds too. This is getting complicated!

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.

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.

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.

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!

good point about the documents. they always want proof even when its in their system already. my dad had to show same documents 3 different times for same claim!!

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!

Thank you for breaking down the math! So even though I'm taking reduced survivor benefits early, it was still the right move if my own benefit at 70 will be higher than the full survivor benefit would have been? That's a relief!

Great question. There are a few scenarios where GPO impact could change: 1. A change in pension amount (unusual, but possible with pension recalculations) 2. A recalculation of the spouse's PIA that increases the spousal benefit potential 3. Administrative correction of a previous error 4. Changes in other income affecting taxation (doesn't affect GPO directly but might affect net payment) The GPO reduction is 2/3 of the non-covered pension amount. So if her spouse's benefit increased significantly due to delayed retirement credits or earnings recalculations, it's possible the math now works out differently. For example: If her spouse's PIA increased enough that 50% of it (reduced for early filing) is now greater than her own benefit plus 2/3 of her pension, she might now be eligible for a partial spousal benefit where before it was reduced to zero.