Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Retirement

Delay collecting Social Security for a bigger benefit

By

Dear Liz: My spouse started collecting Social Security in 2002 at age 63. I am 59, and not working, so my future benefits are unlikely to increase very much, even if I wait until age 70. If he dies before I do, will I get same amount he would be collecting at that time? If I collect Social Security at 62, would Social Security combine our records to calculate my benefit? In other words, should I try to wait or just start collecting at 62?

Answer: Your presumption that your benefit wouldn’t increase much by waiting is incorrect. Even if you aren’t working now, your benefit amount will grow the longer you can wait to apply. That’s true whether you ultimately get benefits based on your own work record or your husband’s.

When you apply, the Social Security Administration will compare your earned benefit with your spousal benefit and give you the larger of the two. Your spousal benefit starts at half of what your husband’s benefit would have been at full retirement age. That amount is reduced significantly if you apply for benefits before your own full retirement age (which is 66 for you, although it rises to 67 for anyone born after 1959).

Also, if you apply for spousal benefits before your full retirement age, you wouldn’t have the option of switching to your own benefit later, even if your benefit grows to a larger amount than what you’re receiving based on your husband’s record.

When your husband dies, you can switch to survivor’s benefits, which equal what he was receiving. Since he started benefits early, however, his checks have been permanently reduced to reflect that early retirement. In other words, if he had waited longer to retire, you would have been entitled to a larger survivor’s benefit.

The Social Security system is designed to reward people for delaying retirement, which is why it often makes sense to do so.

How spousal benefits work

By

Dear Liz: My wife has never worked outside the home and therefore has no Social Security credits. My understanding is that as a nonworking spouse, she is entitled to 50% of my benefit, assuming she is 66 years old and I have started receiving benefits. Is that correct?

Answer: You’ve got the right general idea. But spousal benefits are available to working spouses as well, your wife has the right to start benefits earlier (at a discounted rate) and you don’t have to actually receive checks for her to get this benefit.

Your wife is eligible for a spousal benefit based on your “primary insurance amount.” That’s the amount you would receive at your normal retirement age, no matter whether you’ve actually attained that age or started benefits. Normal retirement age is currently 66, but it will rise to 67 for people born after 1959. If she waits until her own full retirement age to start benefits, then she can qualify for a benefit equal to half your primary insurance amount. If she starts earlier, the benefit is permanently reduced.

If your wife had worked and qualified for her own retirement benefit, the Social Security Administration would give her whichever benefit paid the most — her own, or a portion of yours.

Because you’re still married, your wife wouldn’t be able to start spousal benefits until you’ve claimed your own benefit. However, if you’ve reached your full retirement age, you have the option to “file and suspend.” That means you’d file for benefits but immediately suspend your claim. That way, your benefit could continue to grow while she could begin receiving her payments.

If you were divorced but had been married at least 10 years, she could begin her benefits without waiting for you to file for your own. That exception was put into place so people wouldn’t have to seek their exes’ cooperation to get benefits.

Is a 3% withdrawal rate too conservative?

By

Question: In a recent column you repeat advice I have often read that withdrawing about 3% of my investment capital will reduce the chances of my running out of money in retirement. But that doesn’t make sense to me. I have been retired for over 19 years and I have sufficient data now to extrapolate that I could live for 100 more years with so meager a drawdown because, through good and bad times, my earnings after inflation and taxes always exceed 3%. If I am missing something, I must be extraordinarily lucky because it hasn’t hurt me yet, and at age 77 I think it unlikely to do so in my remaining years. Can you explain this discrepancy between my experience and the consequences of your advice?

Answer: Sure. You got extraordinarily lucky.

You retired during a massive bull market, which is the best possible scenario for someone who hopes to live off investments. You were drawing from an expanding pool of money. Your stocks probably were growing at an astonishing clip of 20% or more a year for several years. Although later market downturns probably affected your portfolio, those initial years of good returns kept you comfortably ahead of the game.

Contrast that with someone who retires into a bear market. She’s drawing from a shrinking pool of money as her investments swoon. The money she takes out can’t participate in the inevitable rebound, so she loses out on those gains as well. All that dramatically increases the risks that she’ll run out of money before she runs out of breath.

It’s the first five years of retirement that are crucial, according to analyses by mutual fund company T. Rowe Price, which has done extensive research on sustainable withdrawal rates. Bad markets and losses in the first five years after withdrawals begin significantly increase the chances that a person will run out of money during a 30-year retirement.

Some advisors contend that a 3% initial withdrawal rate, adjusted each subsequent year for inflation, is too conservative. If you retire into a long-lasting bull market, it may well be. But none of us knows what the future holds, which is why so many advisors stick with the 3%-to-4% rule.

Your Social Security questions answered

By

My column about getting your parents a bigger Social Security check, “More Social Security for mom,”  triggered a boatload of questions from readers–and confirmed what experts had told me, which is that a lot of people seem to be missing out on benefits for which they qualify.

Here are some of the questions that came in via my Facebook page, email and this blog. I’ve edited the questions for clarity and expanded some of my answers. (If you have questions about how Social Security works in general, and its likely future, check out “5 myths about Social Security.”)

Question: I just read your article. My mom and dad lived off his Social Security of approximately $1,600 per month. After he died at age 70 in 1994, my mom, also aged 70, only collected $600 per month from his Social Security. She had been a stay-at-home mom most of her life. Eighteen years later, she is still only receiving a little over $800 a month. How did this happen if she was entitled to his full benefit? Can you suggest help for her?

Answer: You mom definitely should talk with Social Security to see if she’s getting the correct amount. Her survivor benefits would have been reduced if she started them before full retirement age, but that doesn’t appear to be the case here. What might have happened is that they were living on his benefit plus her spousal benefit. When he died, she would have been switched to a survivor benefit that equaled his benefit alone. But it does seem like her benefit would be higher, in that case. She should call Social Security at 1-800-772-1213 and ask them to review her records to make sure she’s getting what she deserves.

Q: If I’m 64 now. If I waited until full retirement age (I’m a housewife with no Social Security benefit for myself) to get half of my husband’s retirement, would it change to his full benefit when he passes? Or will I be stuck with just 1/2 forever?

A: You should be able to step up to 100% of his benefit if he dies after you hit full retirement age (which is 66 for you). I’m not sure if the survivor benefit is affected if you should opt to start your spousal benefit earlier than that. But your spousal benefit would be reduced by up to 30%, so it’s generally worth waiting if you can.

Q: Read your article and enjoyed it but you had nothing for us who unfortunately had to stop work because of our health. I’m 62 and will be drawing my long-term disability till I’m 65 then it will stop. I also draw Social Security disability. How will this effect my Social Security when I reach age 65? Will my Social Security benefit go up? And what is this about drawing my social security but not till I’m 66? My husband is 15 years younger than I, so does that mean I will never be able to draw off of him? Where can I find out all I need to know about all this social security stuff that I just don’t understand? Any information would be greatly appreciated.

A: If you’re 62 now, then your full retirement age is 66, not 65. The full retirement age has gradually been increasing, and it will be 67 for those of us born after 1959. (You can check your full retirement age here.) As far as your Social Security disability benefits, when you hit full retirement age they’ll become your retirement benefits. You won’t need to take any action. You can find more details here.  Spousal benefits won’t be of much use to you, since your husband is so much younger. But starting at age 62, he should qualify for an amount equal to half your benefit if that’s more than his retirement benefit at the time.

Q: I am 60 and work full time. My husband passed 4 years ago at age 59. I thought that I can’t apply for his Social Security until I am 62 because I work.

A: You can get Social Security benefits if you continue to work. However, those benefits may be reduced significantly, or even eliminated, if you apply before your full retirement age. This is because of what’s called the “earnings test.” Basically, you lose $1 in Social Security benefits for every $2 you earn over a certain amount, which in 2012 is $14,680. (You get a break in the year you actually turn your full retirement age: the earnings test reduces your benefit by $1 for every $3 you earn over $38,880.) The earnings test disappears after you reach full retirement age.

If you earn enough money, the earnings test could wipe out any survivor’s benefit. That may be why you were told you should wait. You can apply for reduced survivor’s benefits as early as age 60 (50 if you’re disabled, and there’s no age limit if you have dependent children).

At age 62 you can switch to your own retirement benefit if you want, although your checks will be reduced because you’re getting the money before your full retirement age. Your benefit will be reduced further if you continue to work. That’s why it can make sense to wait until your full retirement age. This area is pretty complex, so it would be worthwhile to talk to an SSA rep.

Q: After my ex died, I applied for Social Security at age 62 1/2. The Social Security specialist I talked to used some formula, adding half of my benefits to half of my deceased husband’s, without giving me an explanation or a choice. I had been a low part-time earner. How can I find out if she acted in my best interest?

A: What I think happened is that the SSA specialist compared your (age-reduced) retirement benefits to the (age-reduced) survivor benefits based on your ex’s record and gave you the larger of the two. But the best way to check may be to call Social Security back and ask if you’re getting the maximum benefit for which you qualify. Also, if you’ve been getting survivor benefits, you may be able to switch to your own benefit at full retirement age, if that’s larger. (It may not be, if you were a low earner and your ex was a higher earner, but it’s worth checking.)

Q: I retired at age 59 on disability. Can I receive full retirement benefits now? I’m 70 now.

A: When you hit full retirement age (which for you would have been 66 years, 10 months), your Social Security disability benefits became retirement benefits. You can read more here, and call Social Security to confirm.

Q: If a person draws a benefit based on a divorced spouse’s earnings record, does the spouse have to be 62 years of age? Or does just the mom have to be 62?

A: Both parties have to be old enough to qualify for at least early retirement benefits, meaning age 62. If the dad in this scenario is old enough to apply for benefits but hasn’t applied, the mom can still do so as long as they’ve been divorced at least two years. Here’s a link to the rules. Remember that applying early permanently reduces your benefit, so it’s often better to wait until your full retirement age if you can.

Q: My sister is 63 and lives in North Carolina. She was on Social Security disability and lost all of her work benefits, including any insurance benefits. She received a small insurance claim for a car accident and the federal government is stating that because she received this settlement and still collected the SS benefit, she now owes them $13,000 and cannot collect another dime until that is all paid off. She lives on a very small amount of money each month, she is a diabetic and cannot get her medicine. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks so much

A: I’m not an expert in disability benefits, but I believe windfalls and earnings can reduce what you get. She may want to talk to a lawyer who specializes in Social Security disability to see what her options are. She can start with North Carolina’s Legal Aid.

Q: Someone I know is retiring after working for most of her life as a public service employee where they didn’t take Social Security out of their paychecks. For the last 15 years, though, she has been working in a retail job and has paid in her 40 hours into Social Security. She is 68 years old, is she eligible for Social security benefits?

A: If she’s got her 40 credits (not hours–you earn credits based on earnings and years worked, and you typically need to work 10 years to qualify for Social Security retirement benefits), then she should be eligible for some kind of check from Social Security. The amount will be based on her 35 highest-earning years, though, so she might have a lot of zero-earning years because she wasn’t covered by Social Security in her previous job. Also, since her previous job didn’t pay into Social Security, she’s probably eligible for some kind of benefit from that which also may reduce her Social Security benefits. She needs to call the SSA and find out what she might be entitled to. Click here to learn more about credits.

Q: My dad died before he started to receive Social Security. He was receiving disability due to cancer. My mom is disabled and receiving disability benefits, but has not yet reach full retirement age. Is it still possible for her to receive my dad’s Social Security benefit?

A: If your mom is disabled, she probably was eligible for reduced survivor benefits as early as age 50. (The age limit is 60 otherwise, if there are no dependent children at home.) Your mom should call Social Security and find out.

Q: My husband has been dead two years the 15th of this month. I work a full time job and make about $39,000 a year. Can I claim the $1,160 monthly benefit he used to get? I will be 64 in August.

A: You can’t get 100% of his full benefit if you claim it before your own full retirement age, but you should be able to get a reduced amount. The monthly benefit you could get depend on your age and the type of benefit you qualify for. You can call start your research here.

Q: My mom is retired and recently widowed, is she entitled to any of my father’s social security? They were married 49 years.

A: She may be able to receive up to 100% of his benefit, depending on her age and other factors. She wouldn’t be entitled to both a survivor’s benefit and her own retirement benefit, however. You can read more about the rules here.

What’s a “safe” withdrawal rate?

By

Dear Liz: After working all out for 28 years in a small business, I have put away $2.6 million in stocks, bonds and some cash. (I am a reasonably smart investor.) I’m 58 and want to be done at 60. I’m not tired of my business, just tired of working. How much do you think I could draw out and not get myself into trouble? I’m in great health, so I could last 30 more years. Our house is paid off, and my wife gets about $40,000 a year from a nice pension. Any ideas?

Answer: Financial planners typically recommend an initial withdrawal rate of 3% to 4% of your portfolio. With $2.6 million, your first year’s withdrawal would be $78,000 to $104,000. The idea is that you could adjust the withdrawal upward by the inflation rate each year and still be reasonably confident you won’t run out of money after 30 years.

Some studies indicate you can start with a higher withdrawal rate, as long as you’re willing to cut back in bad markets.

There is still some risk of going broke, though, even with a 3% withdrawal rate. Particularly poor stock market returns at the beginning of your retirement, for example, could increase the chances your nest egg will give out before you do.

This is an issue you really should discuss with a fee-only financial planner who can review your investments and your spending to make personalized recommendations. (You can get referrals from the National Assn. of Personal Financial Advisors or the Garrett Planning Network.) If you’ve chosen especially risky stocks or have too much of your portfolio in bonds, for example, your retirement plan could fail even if you choose a conservative initial withdrawal rate.

You’ll also want to talk about how you’re going to get health insurance, and how much it’s likely to cost. If you’ve been arranging coverage through your business, you might face some sticker shock when you have to buy a policy on your own. But it’s essential to have this coverage, since you won’t qualify for Medicare until you’re 65.

If you’re not tired of your business, you might consider phasing in retirement, if that’s possible in your situation. That would mean starting to take some long breaks to travel or pursue the interests you plan to indulge in retirement. Delaying retirement even a few years can dramatically increase the chances your nest egg will last.

Don’t start Social Security too soon

By

Dear Liz: I am 66-1/2 and eligible to collect my full Social Security benefit now. I am in good health and assume I will live into my 80s. I am still working and don’t need the extra money. Is it better to put off taking my benefit so that it will grow 8% with Uncle Sam, tax free and guaranteed, or should I take the money now, pay taxes on it and invest it? Politically speaking, I think I should take it, but my gut says let it grow. What do you think? Is there a program available to demonstrate the differences?

Answer: Far too many people grab their Social Security checks too early, locking themselves into lower payments for the rest of their lives. Some do so in the mistaken belief that their benefits, or Social Security itself, will go away or be dramatically altered if they don’t “lock in” their checks. It’s true that Congress needs to change the Social Security program if it is to meet all its future obligations. But lawmakers are far more likely to change benefits for young people than they are to mess with promised benefits for people close to retirement age.

As you’ve noted, when left untouched benefits grow about 8% a year, which is a strong incentive to delay filing. You’d be hard-pressed to find an investment with that kind of guaranteed annual return, let alone one that would offer that yield plus enough extra return to offset the taxes you’d pay on those benefits if you took them earlier.

The Social Security site has a benefit estimator that can show you the effects of claiming your benefit at various ages. You’ll find it at http://www.ssa.gov/estimator.

AARP also has an excellent retirement calculator that can help you plan various scenarios using not just Social Security but all of your retirement benefits. It’s at http://www.aarp.org/work/retirement-planning/retirement_calculator.

Finally, you should check out mutual fund company T. Rowe Price’s information about “practice retirement” at troweprice.com/practice, which details the benefits of continuing to work through your 60s while saving less for retirement. The growth in Social Security benefits and retirement accounts is so great during that decade that it often more than offsets a sharp reduction in savings, which would mean you’d have more money to spend on vacations and other fun pursuits even before you retire.