Two out of five regret taking Social Security early

Sad lonely pensive old senior womanA substantial number of people file for Social Security benefits as soon as they’re eligible. Many live to regret their decision.

Two out of five early retirees wish they had waited, according to a recent survey by the Nationwide Financial Retirement Institute, an arm of Nationwide Mutual Insurance. Here’s why, according to an article in the AARP Bulletin:

When you look at the differences in their monthly payout, you can understand their remorse. Those who took their benefit early report an average monthly payment of $1,190. Those who collected it at their full retirement age have an average $1,506 monthly payment. And those who delayed collecting their benefit report an average monthly payment of $1,924 (or $734 more than the early payout). The difference between the lowest and the highest monthly checks over 20 years comes to a whopping $176,160.

I suspect the longer folks live, the more they’re likely to regret rushing to grab their benefits. And this is an especially critical issue for women, since we tend to live longer and often have smaller Social Security benefits than men.

Financial advisors typically understand the huge potential benefits of waiting a few years to start Social Security checks, and many recommending tapping other resources, including retirement funds, if that’s the only way to delay. But many people apply for Social Security without ever checking in with an advisor. Many rely on friends and family for advice–not the best course with something as complicated as Social Security claiming strategies. The worst reason for starting early? The unfounded fear that Social Security will “go away” if they don’t grab their checks now. That can be a costly misconception.

I have a lot of posts on this blog that can help you make better claiming decisions; just type “Social Security” into the search box above. Here’s a link to one post that has important information, as well as links to recent research that underscores the importance of waiting to claim.

Social Security statements make a comeback

Zemanta Related Posts ThumbnailUntil a few years ago, Social Security sent annual statements to just about everybody who was still working to let them know what they could expect to receive in retirement, survivor and disability benefits (minus a 25% or so haircut if Congress never gets its act together to fix the system). Those statements got axed by budget cuts, but now Congress wants them resumed.

Here’s the scoop from Reuters columnist Mark Miller:

Starting this September, the Social Security Administration (SSA) will resume mailings at five-year intervals to workers who have not signed up to view their statements online, an agency spokesman told Reuters. The statements will be sent to workers at ages 25, 30, 35, 40, 45, 50, 55 and 60, he said, adding the agency would continue to promote use of the online statements.

We won’t be getting these in the Weston household, since we signed up for online accounts. (If you decide to go that route, note that some people have had trouble setting up their Social Security accounts because they have security freezes on their credit reports at Experian, the bureau that Social Security uses to verify identity. Investment News columnist Mary Beth Franklin says you’ll have to unfreeze your report, or visit a Social Security office in person with a government-issued ID to set up an online account.)

Social Security tends to be a pretty vague concept for most people until they start closing in on retirement age–or they’re unlikely enough to need its survivor or disability benefits. But the system contributes half or more of most people’s retirement income, so it’s worth knowing what you’ve been promised. Perhaps knowing might even inspire you to lean on your lawmakers to get the system’s problems fixed while there’s still time.


A Social Security “do over” you should consider

Delete "MISTAKE"For years Social Security had a loophole that allowed people to hit “reset” on their benefits.

Those who had made the mistake of starting benefits early had the option of paying back all the money they’d received from Social Security. Then they could restart their checks at a higher rate that they would enjoy for the rest of their lives. For those who could afford it, this “do over” was similar to buying an annuity with a risk-free annual payout of 7% to 9%.

Social Security closed the loophole in 2010, and now you have only 12 months from the time you start benefits to pay back what you’ve received and hit the reset button. This limited do over could help those who make smaller mistakes, such as starting benefits right before their full retirement ages, but doesn’t represent the great investment deal that it used to.

But there’s another potential do over that people should know about, and it has to do with the “file and suspend” strategy.

This strategy is typically recommended for married couples. The first to reach full retirement age (currently 66, gradually increasing to 67) files for Social Security benefits but then immediately suspends the application. This move allows spouses to file for spousal benefits while leaving the older spouse’s benefit alone to grow.

If the younger spouses wait until their own full retirement age to begin spousal benefits, they’ll have the option of switching to their own benefit later, say at age 70 when it maxes out.

This strategy can add as much as $250,000 to the lifetime benefits a married couple can receive.

But the file-and-suspend strategy has other applications. It can be a kind of insurance policy for single people as well as married couples. Those who file and suspend can later change their mind and receive a lump-sum payout.

Let’s say you’re single and want to leave your benefit alone to continue growing at 8% a year until age 70. So you file and suspend at your full retirement age of 66. But if you should lose your job, run into financial problems or get a bad medical diagnosis, you can start your checks and request a lump-sum payout of your benefits back to the date you suspended.

Anyone who files-and-suspends so a spouse can get benefits could do the same thing, of course. For those who want to maximize their benefits but still give themselves a safety net in case of disaster, file and suspend can make a lot of sense.


You may not be as smart as you think you are

Portrait Of Senior Couple In ParkMost people are better off delaying the start of their Social Security benefits as long as possible. That’s the consensus of the AARP, financial planners and researchers who have studied the thousands of different claiming options. In fact, the benefits of putting off Social Security have grown in recent years, thanks to low interest rates, gains in longevity and changes in the law since the 1990s.

Still, every time I pass along the advice that waiting is better, I hear from those who just refuse to believe it. They focus on breakeven points rather than longevity risk; they don’t factor in spousal or survivor benefits; they underestimate how much their benefit can grow with even a few years’ delay.

So when Financial Engines approached me with the results of a recent survey, I just nodded my head in recognition. Their poll found that most people nearing retirement are confident that they can make smart Social Security claiming decisions–but that most do poorly on a test that measures their understanding of basic Social Security claiming concepts. You can read more about it in my column this week for Bankrate, “Are you Social Security smart? Guess again.”

My best advice is that before you claim Social Security, use some of the software tools that are available to help you evaluate your options. The AARP has a good calculator here. If you want to play with the numbers and assumptions a bit more, has software that will really let you get your geek on; a one-year license is $40. You also can talk to a fee-only financial planner who is savvy about claiming strategies.

Here are two things you should know:

1. If you’re married (and that includes you same-sex couples, if you file in a state that legally recognizes your marriage), you have unique opportunities to maximize your lifetime benefits and protect your surviving spouse from poverty. The difference between the best claiming strategies and the worst can be $250,000. No, that’s not a typo.

2. Social Security is not going to disappear. The program is simply too popular and its problems, though real, are not insurmountable. Even if Congress does nothing, the system can still pay out 75% of the benefits promised just from the taxes it will collect. If Congress does do something, the changes almost certainly won’t affect near-retirees but will instead change benefits for younger taxpayers. Signing up for benefits as soon as you’re eligible in order to “lock in” your checks will just lock you in to a much lower payment, for life.

If you’re one of those people who likes to dive into the academic research surrounding claiming strategies, here are a few articles to check out:

“Recent Changes in the Gains from Delaying Social Security.” This article in the Journal of Financial Planning demonstrates how changes in interest rates, longevity and the benefit formula have dramatically improved the benefits from delaying Social Security claims.

How the Social Security Claiming Decision Affects Portfolio Longevity.” Researchers William Meyer and William Reichenstein have done a lot of research on Social Security claiming strategies, and in this Journal of Financial Planning article they use a sophisticated model that factors in taxes to weigh how delaying Social Security can help retirees make their savings last longer.

Should You Buy an Annuity from Social Security?” This brief from Boston College’s Center for Retirement Research explains why it often makes sense to tap retirement savings so that you can delay the start of Social Security benefits.

When Should Married Men Claim Social Security?” This article, also from the Center for Retirement Research, should be required reading for any married couple thinking of starting benefits early. It does a great job of summarizing potential spousal and survivor benefits–and of making the point that starting too early can leave your surviving spouse in a world of hurt.

Don’t obsess about Social Security “breakeven”

Dear Liz: I read your recent article in which you advised waiting before starting Social Security benefits. Is this good advice for everyone? You probably know that there is a break-even age around 85, so that if you die before 85, starting benefits early is better, but if you die after 85, starting late is better. “Better” means you receive more money. So, right off the bat the advice to delay is wrong for half the people in their 60s, since about half will die before the crossover, and if they had delayed, they lost money.

Answer: The problem with do-it-yourself financial planning is that people often focus their attention too narrowly and ignore the bigger picture. That’s what leads them to do things like pay down relatively low-rate student loan debt while failing to save for retirement. They may focus only on the expected returns of each option, while ignoring the tax implications, company retirement matches and the extraordinary value of future compounding of returns.

Obsessing about the break-even point — the date when the income from larger, delayed retirement benefits outweighs what you’d get from starting early — is often a mistake, financial planners will tell you. There are a number of other considerations, including the value of Social Security benefits as longevity insurance. If you live longer than you expect, a bigger Social Security check can be enormously helpful later in life when your other assets may be spent. Also, if you have a spouse who may be dependent on your benefit as a survivor, delaying retirement benefits to increase your checks will reduce the blow when she has to live on just one check (yours) instead of two (yours and her spousal benefit).

In his book “Social Security for Dummies,” author Jonathan Peterson offers a guide to figuring out your break-even point based just on the dollars you can expect to receive (rather than on assumed inflation or investment returns). In general, the break-even point is about age 78. That means those who live longer would be better off waiting until full retirement age, currently 66, than if they started early at age 62.

Currently, U.S. men at age 65 can expect to live to nearly 83, and the life expectancy for U.S. women at age 65 is over 85.

You can change that break-even by making assumptions about inflation and your future prowess as an investor, but remember that the increase in benefits you get each year by delaying retirement between age 62 and 66 is about 7%. It’s 8% for delaying between age 66 and age 70, when your benefit maxes out. Those are guaranteed returns, and there’s no “safe return” anywhere close to that in today’s environment.

Don’t forget that those benefits will be further compounded by cost-of-living increases. One researcher published in the Journal of Financial Planning found that an investor would have to achieve a rate of return that exceeds inflation by 5% to justify taking benefits at 62 rather than at full retirement age.

“At higher inflation rates and/or higher marginal tax rates, the rate of return may need to be even higher, perhaps in excess of 7% or 8% above inflation to justify taking benefits at age 62,” wrote Doug Lemons, a certified financial planner who retired from the Social Security Administration after 36 years.

You can read Lemons’ paper, as well as other research that planners have done on maximizing Social Security benefits, at

Your payout from Social Security and Medicare

Old Woman Hand on CaneA reader recently wondered what the average person could expect from Social Security, compared to the taxes we pay into the system.

Urban Institute has done the math, and recently released “Social Security and Medicare Taxes and Benefits Over a Lifetime: 2013 Update.” The institute figured out net present values of money paid in and paid out for various situations: single male and single female, one-earner family, two earner families. Spoiler alert: in most situations, people in the simulations pay more in Social Security taxes than they get back in benefits–but they get back vastly more Medicare benefits than they pay in taxes. Overall, benefits received exceed taxes paid. Here’s one example with a cogent comment from the Wall Street Journal:

Consider: A one-earner couple with a high wage ($71,700 in 2013 dollars) retiring in 2015 can expect lifetime Social Security benefits of $640,000. The same couple can expect to get $427,000 in lifetime Medicare benefits—while paying only $111,000 in Medicare taxes. The latter figures help illustrate how Medicare, in particular, is expected to strain future federal budgets.

The report, which you’ll find here, is interesting reading. Obviously, there are caveats. Nobody can know for sure what his or her Social Security “payout” will be, since a lot depends on longevity. And that brings me to the most important point: it’s really not about money in, money out.

Social Security isn’t an investment scheme. It’s insurance. (The formal name for what we know as Social Security is Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance or OASDI). It’s insurance against poverty, against outliving your assets, against a downturn in the market at the wrong time that could leave you with too little money on which to live. You still should save and invest as much as you can on your own, but Social Security provides a safety net in case things don’t go as planned.

Divorced spousal benefits cause confusion

Dear Liz: You’ve been writing about Social Security and how people can qualify for benefits based on a spouse’s or ex-spouse’s earnings record. Please add that given the parameters you already cite, a divorced spouse may remarry after the age of 60 and collect Social Security from the ex. However, if a person is collecting a public pension, any Social Security, whether one’s own or that of the former spouse, will be offset, possibly to the extent that one cannot collect anything from that former spouse. It is important to have all of the information.

Answer: It is indeed — but you’re incorrect about the availability of divorced spouse benefits after remarriage.

Only spouses or ex-spouses who are receiving survivors’ benefits may remarry after 60 without worrying about losing their checks. If the primary earner is still alive, the rules are different. Here’s what Social Security has to say on its website: “Generally, we cannot pay benefits if the divorced spouse remarries someone other than the former spouse, unless the latter marriage ends (whether by death, divorce or annulment), or the marriage is to a person entitled to certain types of Social Security auxiliary or survivor’s benefits.”

People who are eligible for pensions from the government or from a job not covered by Social Security should learn about the offsets that affect their benefit. The Social Security website has information about these offsets at Information also is available by calling 1-800-772-1213.

Spousal vs. survivor benefits: the key differences

Dear Liz: I am 66 years old. When I was 60, my husband of 42 years died. He was a banker with more than 40 years of work history at a good income level. I remarried a year later. When I was 62, I was downsized and took early Social Security benefits based on my first husband’s earnings record. This amounts to about $2,000 a month. It would have been about $2,500 at full retirement age (66) and about $3,000 at age 70. I was not advised about survivor’s benefits at all or about any variance of survivor’s benefits versus Social Security based on my deceased husband’s earnings. Do you think I would have gotten a bigger benefit amount if I had taken survivor’s benefits at age 62?

Answer: No, because survivor’s benefits are what you’re getting.

Both spousal benefits and survivor’s benefits are based on the earnings record of the other person in a couple (whom we’ll call the “primary earner”). The maximum spousal check is 50% of the primary worker’s benefit. As with other Social Security benefits, the amount you get is permanently discounted if you apply before your own full retirement age.

Spousal benefits are available to current and former spouses, although former spouses must have been married for at least 10 years to the primary earner and must be currently single. (In other words, you can’t have remarried, unless that marriage has ended as well.)

Survivor’s benefits, on the other hand, can be up to 100% of the primary worker’s benefit. Survivor’s benefits based on a deceased spouse’s earnings record are not available to those who remarry before age 60, but can be claimed by those who remarry after that point.

Since the biggest Social Security benefit is around $2,500 a month and you’ve remarried, it’s clear that what you’re getting is the survivor’s benefit, discounted because you applied early.

Maximizing Social Security benefits requires some patience

Dear Liz: I am 65 and recently visited our local Social Security office to apply for spousal benefits. (My wife, who is also 65, applied for her own benefit last year.) I wanted to get the spousal benefit, even if the amount is discounted, so I can let my own Social Security benefit grow. The Social Security office manager advised us that I cannot claim spousal benefits until my full retirement age. You said in a recent column that I can. Who is correct?

Answer: You can apply for spousal benefits before your own full retirement age. But doing so means you’re giving up the option of switching later to your own benefit. The office manager gave you correct information, based on your goal. If you want the choice of letting your own benefit grow, you must wait until your full retirement age (66) to apply for spousal benefits.

Divorced retiree entitled to spousal Social Security benefits

Dear Liz: My daughter, 63, has been recently amicably divorced and receives a small alimony ($1,000). Her ex-husband of 30 years is a doctor who just retired. Is she entitled to part of his Social Security? Neither has remarried.

Answer: Because they were married for more than 10 years, your daughter should qualify for spousal benefits, which can equal up to half of her ex’s benefit at his full retirement age. That amount would be permanently discounted if she applies before her own full retirement age (which is 66).

The ex’s marital status doesn’t matter, although your daughter’s does. If she remarries, she will lose access to spousal benefits as a divorced spouse. This is just one of the ways that spousal benefits differ from survivor’s benefits, which are based on 100% of the earner’s benefit and which widows and widowers can receive even if they remarry after age 60.