Can my wife switch from early SS benefits at 62 to higher spousal benefits later? Also worried about survivor benefits

The answer to your first question is unfortunately no. If your wife claims any benefit before her Full Retirement Age (FRA), she'll be deemed to be filing for ALL benefits she's eligible for, both now and in the future. This is due to the deemed filing rule that went into effect after 2015. If she files at 62, she'll get her own reduced benefit. Later when you file, she'll only get the difference between her benefit and the spousal benefit IF the spousal amount is higher, and that spousal amount will ALSO be reduced because she filed early. There's no separate "switching" to full spousal benefits at 67.

For your second question, survivor benefits work differently than spousal benefits. If you die, your wife can switch to survivor benefits at any point, and she'll receive either: 1) Her own benefit amount, or 2) About 71.5% of your benefit if she claims survivors at age 60, up to 100% of your benefit if she waits until her FRA to claim survivors. Her early filing for retirement benefits doesn't affect her survivor benefit amount. She would still be eligible for your full benefit amount as a widow IF she waits until her FRA to claim it.

To answer your follow-up: If your wife files at 62, her own benefit will be reduced to about 70% of her full benefit amount. For the spousal addition, if she's eligible for it when you file at 70, it would be reduced to as little as 32.5% of your PIA (Primary Insurance Amount) instead of the full 50% she'd get by waiting until her FRA to file. Basically, once she files early for ANY benefit, ALL her benefits get permanently reduced due to that early filing decision.

MY SISTER GOT CAUGHT IN THIS EXACT TRAP!!! Filed at 62 and now she's stuck with a tiny benefit forever! Even when her husband started collecting, she barely got any increase at all. The SSA doesn't explain this clearly ON PURPOSE if you ask me. She would have waited if anyone had explained how much money she was giving up!!!

To correct some misinformation above: Regarding survivor benefits, @user7 - your aunt's situation was likely different. If your uncle had already started receiving reduced benefits when he passed away, then your aunt would receive a percentage based on what he was actually receiving, not his full benefit amount. Another possibility is that she claimed survivor benefits before her Full Retirement Age, which would reduce the amount. @OP - For your situation, assuming you wait until 70 to claim, if you pass away after that, your wife would be eligible for 100% of your age-70 benefit (including delayed retirement credits) IF she waits until her FRA to claim survivor benefits.

my wife and i did something similar. she took her ss at 62 cuz she had health issues and i waited till 68. she got her check and then when i filed she got a bump but not much. maybe like $230 more per month. its all a gamble really because who knows how long any of us have. if your wife needs the money now take it. if not and shes healthy maybe wait.

In answer to whether there's any advantage to filing early in your situation - it really depends on several factors: 1) Your wife's life expectancy (health status, family history) 2) How much lower her PIA is compared to yours 3) Your immediate cash flow needs 4) Your investment options for the early benefits Generally, if your wife's benefit is substantially lower than yours and you're confident you'll live past 80, having her wait until FRA often makes more mathematical sense. The break-even point is usually around age 78-82. Also, remember that if you pass away before she does, she can switch to your higher benefit as a survivor at that point regardless of when she initially filed.

@user8 - COLA adjustments are percentage-based, so a smaller benefit gets a smaller dollar increase, while a larger benefit gets a larger dollar increase. The percentage is the same. So waiting for a larger benefit actually provides better inflation protection in terms of absolute dollars. @OP - One other consideration: If your wife has a lower life expectancy or health concerns, taking benefits at 62 might make sense despite the reduction. But if she's in good health with family longevity, waiting would likely provide more lifetime income, especially if you predecease her and she switches to survivor benefits.

One strategy worth considering is the "claim and invest" approach. If your wife takes her reduced benefit at 62 and invests it conservatively (even in CDs or treasury bonds), she could potentially come out ahead depending on market conditions and her longevity. For example, if she receives $1,400/month starting at 62 versus $2,000/month starting at 67, that's $84,000 she could have invested over those 5 years. Even with conservative returns, this might offset some of the reduction, especially if there are concerns about Social Security's long-term solvency. However, given that you're waiting until 70 to maximize your benefit and she has good health/longevity, the math usually favors waiting. The survivor benefit protection is particularly valuable in your case - she'd get your full age-70 benefit amount if you predecease her, regardless of when she initially filed for her own benefits. I'd recommend running the numbers through the SSA's online calculators or consulting with a fee-only financial planner who specializes in Social Security optimization before making this irreversible decision.

As someone who's been through this decision process recently, I wanted to add a few practical considerations that might help: First, don't underestimate the psychological benefit of having some income coming in during those early retirement years. Even though the math often favors waiting, there's real peace of mind in having guaranteed monthly income while you're adjusting to retirement life. Second, consider your overall retirement income picture. If you have other sources of income (pensions, 401k withdrawals, part-time work), the pressure to claim early decreases significantly. But if Social Security will be a major portion of your retirement income, the waiting strategy becomes even more important. One thing that helped us was creating a year-by-year cash flow projection for both scenarios - claiming at 62 vs waiting until FRA. Factor in your other income sources, expected expenses, and don't forget about Medicare premiums starting at 65 (which get deducted from Social Security if you're already collecting). Also worth noting: if your wife does decide to wait, she can always change her mind later if circumstances change (health issues, market crashes, etc.). But once she files, there's no going back except in very limited circumstances within the first 12 months. The survivor benefit piece you mentioned is crucial and often overlooked. Since you're maximizing your benefit by waiting until 70, that provides excellent protection for your wife's later years regardless of her initial filing decision.

I'm going through a similar decision process with my spouse, and one thing our financial advisor emphasized was to look at this from a "household optimization" perspective rather than individual optimization. Since you're already maximizing your benefit by waiting until 70, you've essentially locked in the highest possible survivor benefit for your wife. This means the decision about her filing timing becomes more about optimizing total household income rather than worrying about leaving money on the table. A few additional factors to consider: 1) Tax implications - if you have substantial retirement account balances, having your wife's smaller benefit start early might help manage your overall tax bracket when you start taking RMDs later. 2) Social Security's future - while the program isn't going anywhere, there's ongoing discussion about potential changes. Having some benefits locked in earlier provides a hedge against any future modifications to the program. 3) Healthcare costs - if your wife retires early at 62 and needs to bridge health insurance until Medicare kicks in at 65, that monthly SS income could help offset those premium costs. The most important thing is that you're asking these questions now rather than making a hasty decision at 62. Even if the "optimal" choice is to wait, having guaranteed income starting at 62 isn't necessarily wrong if it fits your overall retirement strategy and gives you peace of mind.