Should I apply for Social Security now before potential benefit cuts? Already received survivor benefits
I'm getting really anxious about all this talk of Social Security running out of money. I keep hearing rumors that Congress might slash benefits for future retirees but possibly 'grandfather in' people already receiving payments. I'm 63 and eligible for reduced retirement benefits, but was planning to wait until my FRA at 67. My situation is a bit complicated - I did receive survivor benefits as a surviving divorced spouse for about 4 years after my ex passed away in 2018, but I stopped those payments when I got a decent job in 2022. I'm wondering if being previously 'in the system' for survivor benefits would protect my future retirement benefits if cuts happen? Does anyone know if I should just apply for retirement benefits NOW at a reduced rate to make sure I'm 'grandfathered in' before any potential cuts? Or am I already protected because I previously received survivor benefits? My financial advisor says wait until 67, but with all this uncertainty, my anxiety is through the roof. What would you do?
16 comments
Join the conversation
Amina Bah
Apply NOW!!!! They're gonna slash benefits any day now!!! I filed 6 months early because my cousin works for the government and she said they're planning MASSIVE cuts but can't legally touch people already getting payments. Better to get 90% of what you're entitled to than 50% after they gut the program!!!!
0 coins
Oliver Becker
•This is not accurate. There are no imminent plans to "slash" Social Security benefits. The trust fund is projected to be depleted around 2034, at which point Social Security would still be able to pay about 78% of scheduled benefits from ongoing payroll tax revenue. Congress has numerous options to address this shortfall well before then, and historically has always acted to preserve benefits, especially for those already receiving or near retirement age.
0 coins
Natasha Petrova
I understand your anxiety, but making permanent financial decisions based on speculation isn't usually the best approach. By filing at 63 instead of 67, you're accepting a roughly 25% permanent reduction in your monthly benefit amount. That's a significant lifetime cut to your income that's guaranteed, versus a theoretical future cut that might never happen or might affect everyone regardless of when they filed. As for your question about being "in the system" - having previously received survivor benefits doesn't automatically protect your retirement benefits. They're considered separate entitlements. However, historically, when changes have been made to Social Security, they've typically been phased in gradually with protections for those at or near retirement age.
0 coins
Paolo Marino
•Thanks for the perspective. My financial planner said something similar about the permanent reduction, but it's hard to think clearly when you're scared! Do you think Congress would really cut benefits for someone who's 63 but hasn't applied yet? That seems so unfair when I've paid in my whole life.
0 coins
Javier Hernandez
my mom went thru this exact same thing last year she was so worried about cuts she filed at 62 and now she regrets it every month when that smaller check comes. just sayin.
0 coins
Emma Davis
•Same with my uncle. He panicked and filed early in 2020 because he thought COVID would somehow affect Social Security. Now he's getting $450 less every month than if he'd waited. Decisions made from fear rarely work out well.
0 coins
LunarLegend
Having worked with the Social Security system for many years, I can tell you that any major changes to the program typically include grandfathering provisions based on age, not application status. The 1983 amendments, for example, gradually raised the full retirement age but exempted people who were already near retirement. Your previous receipt of survivor benefits doesn't affect how your retirement benefits would be treated under future legislation. Rather than making a permanent financial decision based on fear, consider that: 1. Each year you delay filing between 63 and 67 increases your benefit by approximately 7-8% 2. This is a guaranteed return that's hard to beat elsewhere 3. Higher monthly benefits are even more valuable if inflation increases or you live longer than expected If you're still very concerned, you might consider splitting the difference and filing at 65 rather than 63 or 67.
0 coins
Paolo Marino
•This is really helpful, thank you. I didn't realize changes are typically based on age rather than whether you've already applied. That makes me feel a bit better about waiting. I guess I'd be in the "near retirement" category at 63 anyway.
0 coins
Malik Jackson
Im in a similar spot and tried calling SSA to ask this EXACT question but gave up after being on hold for 2 hrs!! So frustrating!! Did anyone actually manage to get an official answer from SSA about this "grandfathering" thing???
0 coins
LunarLegend
•I recently helped a client get through to SSA using Claimyr (claimyr.com). It's a service that holds your place in the phone queue and calls you when an agent is available. Saved hours of waiting on hold. They have a video showing how it works: https://youtu.be/Z-BRbJw3puU As for your question, SSA representatives can only discuss current law, not speculate about future legislative changes. Any "grandfathering" provisions would be part of whatever legislation Congress might pass in the future.
0 coins
Amina Bah
Just to add to what I said before, I know THREE people who were told by their financial advisors to wait and then got caught when benefits were cut for new applicants!!! Don't listen to these people telling you to wait!!
0 coins
Oliver Becker
•This is simply untrue. There have been no cuts to Social Security benefits for new applicants. The only major changes to the program in recent decades were the 1983 amendments that gradually raised the full retirement age from 65 to 67, and that was phased in over decades with plenty of notice. Please don't spread misinformation that might cause people to make poor financial decisions.
0 coins
Javier Hernandez
what about that thing where if u worked for the government ur ss gets cut? my friend had that happen, windfall something?
0 coins
Natasha Petrova
•That's the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO). These have been part of Social Security law since the 1980s and only affect people who receive pensions from jobs where they didn't pay Social Security taxes. It's not a recent cut and doesn't apply to the vast majority of workers who paid into Social Security throughout their careers.
0 coins
Paolo Marino
I really appreciate everyone's input. I think I'm going to take a breath and not make a hasty decision based on fear. The 25% permanent reduction would be a big hit to take just to avoid a theoretical future cut that might not even happen, especially since it sounds like near-retirees like me would likely be protected anyway. Still anxious about it, but at least I understand the situation better now. I'll talk to my financial planner again with this new perspective.
0 coins
LunarLegend
•That's a wise approach. One additional point to consider: if you're still working, there's also an earnings limit until you reach full retirement age. In 2025, you'll lose $1 in benefits for every $2 you earn above $22,750 (approximately). So if you're still earning decent income, that's another reason waiting might make financial sense in your situation.
0 coins