Husband offered retroactive Social Security benefits while still working past FRA - what's the best option?

Taking the retroactive benefits is a no-brainer in my opinion, especially since your husband is already past FRA. Here's why: 1. There's no earnings test after FRA, so his current employment won't reduce his benefits 2. The monthly amount will be identical whether he starts now or in January 3. The retroactive lump sum is essentially "free money" that he'd otherwise never get The only real consideration is taxes. The lump sum will be added to your taxable income this year, which could potentially push you into a higher tax bracket. But you'd still come out ahead financially even with the extra tax. Just make sure to set aside enough for taxes when that lump sum arrives.

my dad did this exact thing!!! he was 68 and still working and got like 4 months backpay. the SS lady told him its a special rule for people over FRA, they can get up to 6 months retroactive benifits. we were shocked too lol. he took the money and used it to fix his roof

DONT TAKE THE LUMP SUM!!!! The SSA always tries to push this on people because it saves THEM money in the long run!! If you take the 6 months back pay, you're permanently REDUCING your monthly benefit amount compared to if you waited until your original filing date!!! They did this to my cousin and she lost almost $200 per month FOREVER just to get a quick lump sum. THEY NEVER TELL YOU THIS PART!!!!!

I faced this exact situation when I applied for my retirement benefits. I was 68, still working part-time, and had initially applied to start benefits the following month. The claims specialist told me I could get 6 months retroactive benefits. Here's what I discovered: 1. Tax implications are real. The lump sum pushed us into a higher bracket that year. We ended up paying about 22% of the lump sum in additional taxes. 2. Consider Medicare premiums. If your income crosses certain thresholds (IRMAA), you might pay higher Medicare Part B and D premiums two years later. This affected us. 3. If either of you is planning to file for spousal benefits now or later, the timing decision gets more complicated. In my case, I took the lump sum because the math worked out even with the extra taxes. But I'd suggest calling SSA directly to have them explain all implications for your specific situation. The wait times are ridiculous though. One solution I found when I needed to discuss a different issue with SSA was using Claimyr.com - it got me through to an agent in about 15 minutes instead of waiting for hours. There's a demo on https://youtu.be/Z-BRbJw3puU showing how it works. Really saved me a lot of frustration.

Wait im confused… i thought u cant get ss while working??? My brother in law had to quit his job to get his ss checks started. Can someone explain the rules on this???

I think everybodys missing a HUGE factor here. If you take the retroactive payment, you'll lose 6 months of delayed retirement credits!!! Each month past FRA adds 2/3 of 1% to your benefit. So 6 months = 4% PERMANENT increase lost!!!!! That could be tens of thousands over your lifetime!!!!!

Thanks everyone for the helpful advice! I called our tax accountant this morning and ran the numbers. Taking the lump sum now would push us into a higher tax bracket this year since we're both still working. We'd end up paying about 32% of that lump sum in additional federal and state taxes. We've decided to stick with the original plan of starting benefits in January when he's fully retired. Our tax rate will be lower then, and we don't need the money urgently right now. The difference in taxes makes waiting worth it for our specific situation. I really appreciate all the insights about the FRA rules, retroactive benefits, and earnings limits. This forum has been incredibly helpful!

Great decision! It sounds like you really did your homework on this one. The tax implications can be huge when you're both still working - 32% is a significant bite out of that lump sum. For anyone else reading this thread who might be in a similar situation, Dylan's approach is exactly right - run the actual numbers with a tax professional rather than just assuming the lump sum is always better. The "free money" argument only works if you're not giving a huge chunk back in taxes. Your timeline makes perfect sense too. Starting benefits in January when you're both retired will likely put you in a much more favorable tax situation for the Social Security income going forward. Plus you avoid any potential IRMAA issues that Miguel mentioned earlier. Thanks for following up with your decision - it's really helpful for future readers to see how this played out!

This is such a valuable thread for anyone navigating Social Security decisions! As someone who's still years away from retirement but trying to understand these rules early, I had no idea about the 6-month retroactive benefit option for people past FRA. Dylan, your methodical approach really stands out - getting input from the community, consulting with a tax professional, and actually running the numbers rather than just going with gut instinct. The fact that you'd lose 32% to taxes completely changes the equation from what initially seemed like an obvious choice. One question for the group: Are there any other "hidden" Social Security rules or options like this retroactive benefit that people should know about but might not discover unless they specifically ask or get lucky with a knowledgeable claims processor? It seems like there might be other beneficial provisions that aren't well-publicized. Thanks to everyone who shared their experiences and expertise here - this is exactly the kind of real-world guidance that's so hard to find elsewhere!

This thread has been incredibly enlightening! As someone who's still learning about Social Security benefits, I'm amazed by how many nuances there are that you don't hear about in general retirement planning discussions. Dylan, your decision-making process was really impressive - getting community input, consulting a tax professional, and actually crunching the numbers. The 32% tax impact completely flips what seemed like an obvious choice at first glance. I'm curious about something that came up earlier: Miguel mentioned that taking the lump sum could potentially trigger higher Medicare premiums (IRMAA) two years later. For those who might be in similar situations, is there a way to estimate what income thresholds would trigger this, or is it something you only find out about after the fact? It seems like another factor that could significantly impact the math beyond just the immediate tax implications. Thanks to everyone who shared their experiences - this is exactly the kind of practical, real-world guidance that makes these government benefit programs less intimidating to navigate!