Social Security

Q&A: Social Security lets you un-retire to avoid a benefit hit, but only once

July 10, 2017 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: My wife recently retired at age 62 and will collect Social Security. But she has decided to return to work full time. I know she will collect less if she makes more than Social Security allows per month. If she eventually goes back to not working at all, can she go back to collecting the original amount?

Answer: Yes, but she’d be smart to reconsider her decision to start collecting Social Security early because she’s permanently reducing her benefit for little (if any) good reason.

The earnings test, which applies when people start Social Security early, takes away $1 of benefits for every $2 she earns over a certain limit, which is $16,920 in 2017. The earnings test will end when she reaches her full retirement age, which for people born in 1955 is 66 years and two months. Her check at that point would be what she originally received at 62, plus any cost of living increases.

But that original check is reduced by nearly 25% from what she would get at full retirement age, and the reduction lasts for the rest of her life. That’s a huge hit, and it should make her question the advisability of starting benefits early when so much could be taken away from her.

Fortunately, she has a little time to change her mind. Social Security allows applicants to withdraw their applications, allowing their benefit to continue growing, if they do so within 12 months of becoming entitled to benefits. People who withdraw their applications have to pay back any benefits that received in order to restart the clock.

This is a one-time do-over: Applications can be withdrawn only once in a lifetime and can’t be withdrawn after a year has passed. She can read more about this at the Social Security site, https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/withdrawal.html.

Social Security benefits make up half or more of most people’s retirement income. Making smart decisions is essential if you want to avoid a lifetime of regret.

At a minimum, people should use a free claiming-strategies calculator, such as the one on the AARP site, to determine when and how to begin benefits. For $40, they can use more sophisticated planners such as MaximizeMySocialSecurity.com and SocialSecuritySolutions.com.

Another good option is to consult a fee-only financial planner familiar with Social Security claiming strategies to make sure they’re not making an irrevocable mistake.

Q&A: The confusing balancing act between government pensions and Social Security benefits

May 1, 2017 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: I am a public school teacher and plan to retire with 25 years of service. I had previously worked and paid into Social Security for about 20 years. My spouse has paid into Social Security for over 30 years. Will I be penalized because I have not paid Social Security taxes while I’ve been teaching? Should my wife die before me, will I get survivor benefits, or will the windfall elimination act take that away? It’s so confusing!

Answer: It is confusing, but you should understand that the rules about windfall elimination (along with a related provision, the government pension offset) are not designed to take away from you a benefit that others get. Rather, the rules are set up so that people who get government pensions — which are typically more generous than Social Security — don’t wind up with significantly more money from Social Security than those who paid into the system their entire working lives.

Here’s how that can happen. Social Security benefits are progressive, which means they’re designed to replace a higher percentage of a lower-earner’s income than that of a higher earner. If you don’t pay into the system for many years — because you’re in a job that provides a government pension instead — your annual earnings for Social Security would be reported as zeros in those years. Social Security is based on your 35 highest-earning years, so all those zeros would make it look like you earned a lower (often much lower) lifetime income than you actually did. Without any adjustments, you would wind up with a bigger check from Social Security than someone who earned the same income in the private sector and paid much more in Social Security taxes. It was that inequity that caused Congress to create the windfall elimination provision several decades ago.

People who earn government pensions also could wind up with significantly more money when a spouse dies. If a couple receives two Social Security checks, the survivor gets the larger of the two when a spouse dies. The household doesn’t continue to receive both checks. Without the government pension offset, someone like you would get both a pension and a full survivor’s check. Again, that could leave you significantly better off than someone who had paid more into the system.