Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Social Security

Q&A: Why Social Security imposes an earnings test

By Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: I am under full retirement age, collecting Social Security and working part-time. I just received a letter from Social Security telling me I earned over the $22,320 limit and now have to pay back some of my Social Security. I was aware of the limit, so the letter was not unexpected. What I’m curious about though is what is the rationale behind the earnings limit? Once you’re eligible for Social Security, why do they care how much you earn? Are they trying to discourage applying before full retirement age? Also, and more importantly, I think I read that somewhere down the line, I will get back what I had to pay back. Can you clarify that for me?

Answer: Social Security was designed as insurance for those who could no longer work, and a retirement earnings test has been a part of the system from its creation in 1935. Back then, the test was all-or-nothing: Any earned income would preclude your getting a benefit.

Over time, the test was modified so that people could earn some income without losing all their benefits. The age at which the earnings test no longer applies has changed as well. In the 1950s, it was set at 75. In the 1960s, the age was lowered to 65. In the 1980s, it was adjusted so that the current “full retirement age,” when the test no longer applies, is 67.

The current test withholds $1 for every $2 earned over a certain limit, which in 2025 is $23,400. Once you reach full retirement age, the withheld amounts will be added back into your benefit.

What you won’t get back, however, is the larger benefit you could have earned by delaying your initial application. Most people are better off waiting at least until full retirement age to collect Social Security, if they possibly can.

Q&A: Widower can file for survivor benefits now and his own later

By Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: My sister and brother-in-law were both 68 when she passed away last December. She had been on Social Security disability since her mid 50s until it was converted to retirement in her 60s. He is the higher wage earner and still working. Can he file for survivor benefits now, and then file for his own retirement benefits after he stops working when he turns 70?

Answer: Yes. Since your brother-in-law has passed his full retirement age of 67, he won’t face the earnings test that would otherwise reduce any Social Security benefits he receives. His applying for a survivor’s benefit now won’t preclude him from applying for his own benefit later. His own benefit can continue to grow until it’s maxed out at age 70.

Note that survivor benefits have different rules than spousal benefits, which are based on the earnings record of someone who is still alive. When applying for a spousal benefit, you’re also considered to be applying for your own, and you’ll get the larger of the two. There’s no switching later.

Q&A: Should a spouse start Social Security now or later?

By Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: I waited until age 70 to start collecting Social Security. My wife turns 65 this year so her full retirement age is 67. Can she start collecting Social Security benefits now based on my benefit or should we wait until her full retirement age?

Answer: If she applies for Social Security now, she would be “deemed” to be applying for both her own benefit and her spousal benefit and given the larger of the two. She would not be allowed to switch to the other benefit later.

Most people are better off waiting at least until their full retirement age to apply, and many will maximize their lifetime benefits by delaying until age 70. Her mileage may vary, of course, so it’s worth using a Social Security claiming calculator and consider getting advice from an objective source, such as a fee-only financial advisor.

Q&A: Timing a Social Security application

By Leave a Comment

Dear Liz: I know you work to maximize people’s money. I had a thought about the quality of life with Social Security. I took it at 65, which was then full retirement age. I was fully employed and did not need it to live. However, the extra money allowed us the opportunity to travel to all seven continents, help our kids with debts and down payments, and generally enjoy things with the extra cash. Now the full retirement age is 67, so there are fewer years between full retirement age and when benefits max out at 70. But the difference could still be enough for that motor home or world cruise.

Answer: All financial planning requires a balance between current and future spending. If you spend too much in the early years, you may not have enough to make it through the later ones. Retirement planning is further complicated by the fact that we don’t know how long we’ll live or how our health will hold up. We can delay spending so long that we’re no longer able to do the things we want to do, such as travel.

Still, the fact remains that when one spouse dies, one Social Security check goes away. That can lead to a devastating drop in income for the survivor. Because the survivor receives the larger of the two benefits, and may have to live on that amount for years, it almost always makes sense for the higher earner to delay filing as long as possible.

Q&A: Survivor benefits from spouse’s higher Social Security check

By

Dear Liz: My Social Security is much higher than my husband’s. He started taking his at 62 and I started at my full retirement age of 67. If I die before him, can he start taking my Social Security at some reduced rate? My current payment before any Medicare premiums is about $3,700 and his is about $1,700.

Answer: If your husband has reached his own full retirement age by the time you die, his survivor benefit would equal 100% of what you were receiving. The survivor benefit would not be reduced because he started his own benefit early.

If you should die before he reaches full retirement age and he starts survivor benefits, the amount would be reduced for the early start.

Q&A: Should retired teacher return to work?

By

Dear Liz: I am a retired special education teacher who receives a government pension. The recent law change now permits me to also receive Social Security. I have 38 of the 40 credits required in order to qualify. Am I better off getting a job to earn those two credits? Another teacher explained to me that I can be paid 50% of my husband’s Social Security benefit instead. That would likely be greater than my own Social Security benefit. We would both wait until we are 70 to collect Social Security.

Answer: The Social Security Fairness Act did away with the windfall elimination provision and the government pension offset, two rules that reduced Social Security benefits for people receiving pensions from jobs that didn’t pay into Social Security.

As you’ve noted, to qualify for your own benefit you would need 40 quarterly credits or 10 years of work history at jobs that paid into Social Security. If your credits were earned decades ago at low-paying jobs, then your spousal benefit might well be larger than your own retirement benefit.

Your spousal benefit can be up to 50% of your husband’s benefit at his full retirement age. Spousal benefits are reduced if you start before your own full retirement age, which is presumably 67, but won’t be increased if you wait beyond that age. Your husband must be receiving his own benefit before you can get a spousal benefit.

The rules can be complex so you’ll want to educate yourself thoroughly and consider consulting a financial planner to figure out the best claiming strategy.