Ask Liz Weston

Get smart with your money

Social Security

Q&A: Don’t confuse Social Security’s spousal and survivor benefits

By

Dear Liz: I waited until 70 to start taking Social Security. My wife, who is the lower earner, took a spousal benefit at her full retirement age. I know she is entitled to my benefit when I pass. However, I understand she does not get my current benefit but the amount I would have received if I had started Social Security at my full retirement age. How do I find that amount?

Answer: You don’t need to. Your wife’s current spousal benefit was based on the amount you would have received at full retirement age. Her survivor benefit — the one she would get if you die first — will be 100% of your current benefit. Because you waited and maximized your own benefit, you also maximized the survivor benefit she may have to live on in the years to come.

Many people confuse the rules for spousal and survivor benefits. Even though they’re based on the same thing — the earnings record of the higher or “primary” earner, which is you — they have different rules for how they’re calculated.

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: 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.

Q&A: Beware of penalties that can come with delaying Medicare enrollment

By

Dear Liz: I have a high-deductible insurance plan from my employer and I contribute to a Health Savings Account. I understand people on Medicare can’t contribute to an HSA. If I’m still working at full retirement age, can I start my Social Security benefit but avoid enrolling in Medicare?

Answer: No. Once you start Social Security, you’re automatically enrolled in Medicare if you’re 65 or older.

If you delay Social Security and don’t plan to enroll in Medicare at 65, you’ll want to make sure your employer-provided health insurance will allow you to avoid penalties for late enrollment. These penalties, which are permanent, result in higher premiums for Part B (which covers doctor visits) and Part D (which covers prescriptions). You can avoid those penalties if your employer has 20 or more employees and your health insurance provides at least as much coverage as Medicare. Check with your company’s human resources department.