Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Social Security

Q&A: Taking half your spouse’s Social Security payment can be better than taking your own.

By

Dear Liz: My bookkeeper cousin told me I could get half my husband’s Social Security instead of my own. I took Social Security at 66, when my benefit was $1,300. My husband waited until 70, when his was $3,295. Does that mean I could be getting a monthly check for $1,600?

Answer: Probably not. Spousal benefits can be up to 50% of the benefit your husband had earned as of his full retirement age, not the amount he claimed at age 70. You can check with Social Security, but your own benefit is likely more than your spousal benefit would have been.

Q&A: Is it only the bread winners who get Social Security?

By

Dear Liz: How is it that elderly people who have never contributed to Social Security can collect a check? My wife’s grandmother was getting more than $1,000 a month.

Answer: Spousal and survivor benefits are nearly as old as the Social Security program itself.

Social Security was signed into law in 1935. Initially, benefits were only for retired workers. In 1939, benefits were added for wives, widows and dependent children. Later changes added spousal and survivor benefits for men as well as disability benefits.

Social Security isn’t a retirement fund where workers deposit funds into individual accounts. Instead, it’s a social insurance program designed to provide income to retirees, workers who become disabled and the families of workers who die. Benefits are paid using taxes collected from current workers. Like other insurance, the system is designed to protect people against significant economic risks, such as outliving your savings, losing your ability to earn income or losing a breadwinner.

In other words, your wife’s grandmother may not have paid into the system, but her spouse or ex-spouse did, and that provided her with a small source of income.

Which Social Security benefit? It depends.

By

Dear Liz: I am 61 and retired. My husband recently died at age 61 and he was still working at the time of his death. He’s always made more money than I did. I’ve been told that I can start getting Social Security after I turn 62 and when I turn 67 I can apply for survivor benefits. Is this correct?

Answer: You can start survivor benefits as early as age 60 and retirement benefits as early as age 62. Most people should delay their applications for Social Security benefits, because an early start typically means a smaller lifetime payout. You’re one of the exceptions since you’re allowed to switch between survivor benefits and your own.

Because the survivor benefit is much larger than your own, you’ll want to maximize your payout by not taking it early. That means waiting to start until your full retirement age. You can start your own benefit at 62 and switch to survivor benefits at 67.

An early start means being subject to the earnings test until full retirement age. If you’re not working, though, that’s a moot point.

Social Security is complicated and the right claiming strategy depends on the details of an individual’s situation. Consider using one of the paid Social Security claiming strategy sites, such as Maximize My Social Security or Social Security Solutions, to find the best approach.

Q&A: Clarification on How Social Security Benefit Estimates Are Calculated

By

Dear Liz: A while back, you responded to a letter writer that Social Security’s estimates of the amount a person will receive assumes the person will continue working until they apply for benefits. I thought the amount a person receives was based on the average of the highest 30 years’ of earnings over a person’s entire career. Can you please clarify?

Answer: Social Security retirement benefits are based on your 35 highest-earning years. To estimate your future benefit, the agency assumes you will continue working for a similar wage to the one you’re making now, and that you will do so until you apply. The agency compares these projected earnings years with those you’ve already had, and picks the top 35 years to determine your estimate.

Life may not follow this script, of course, so the estimates aren’t guarantees of future benefits. If you spend much time out of the workforce or earn much more or much less than you do now, your actual checks could be quite different from the estimates.

Still, the estimates can give you a starting point for figuring out how much additional income you may need in retirement, which in turn will help you determine how much to save from your current earnings. As you get closer to retirement age, you’ll get a better idea of how much you’re likely to get. You’ll also see how delaying the start of benefits can enhance the amount you get over your remaining lifetime. Once you have a claiming strategy, you can plan your retirement income strategy around that amount.

Q&A: Timing on Social Security survivor benefits depends on dependents

By

Dear Liz: My husband and I were married for 23 years before his passing in 2009. I am now 58 and have been told that I can only receive survivor’s benefits at the age of 60. However, an earlier question from a woman stated she and her son received benefits when her husband passed after 13 years of marriage and she was only 34 at the time. I’m aware that the child would receive benefits as he is a dependent but how did she receive benefits also? I’m confused, should I already be receiving as well?

Answer: Only if you’re caring for your husband’s child and the child is a minor or disabled. Surviving spouses can receive Social Security benefits at any age if they are caring for a child under 16 or a child who was disabled before age 22. Otherwise, survivor benefits can begin at age 60, or at age 50 if the survivor is disabled.

Q&A: You can’t spend it when you’re gone, but delaying Social Security payments makes sense

By

Dear Liz: I’m a single person with no children. I worked for one private employer for 36 years, retired from there at 54 and am now 57. My home is paid off. I receive a pension of $2,400. I’ve been working a nearly full-time job averaging $3,800 a month with 8% going into a 401(k) and 4% being matched. I have observed many fellow workers wait till 65 to collect Social Security and then die a few years later. I also volunteer at my local VFW and listen to people complain about the lack of money they have, especially the women, who unfortunately relied on their dead husbands. So would it be bad for me to start collecting my Social Security at 63?

I am a very healthy person and longevity is in the family.

Answer: Some people do die shortly after retiring. Most, though, live well past the “break-even” age, when the smaller checks they give up by delaying Social Security are more than made up for by the larger checks they receive by waiting.

And the ones who die early … well, they’re dead. They no longer care about Social Security checks. The ones who care intensely about how much they’re getting are those who survive and run through their savings. Perhaps some of the women at the VFW had husbands who started their retirement benefits early, thus stunting the survivors’ checks their wives are getting. A few years’ delay could have made a huge difference to these women, who may have to live for years or even decades on a too-small benefit.

That’s why it’s so important for the higher earner in a couple to delay starting Social Security as long as possible, preferably to age 70, when their benefit maxes out. That’s also good advice for single folks who haven’t been previously married and don’t have another person’s benefit to supplement their own.

Plus, starting Social Security before your full retirement age of 67 means you’re subject to the earnings test. That test reduces your check by $1 for every $2 you make over a certain amount, which in 2024 is $22,320.

Your good health and family longevity don’t guarantee a long life, but they certainly make it more likely. Maximizing your Social Security benefit is a powerful way to ensure you don’t run short of money in your old age.