Social Security

Why delaying Social Security can make sense

May 20, 2013 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: Your comments about the benefits of delaying Social Security misled readers. While a cost-of-living increase was standard for many years, it no longer is. You might want to check back over the last 10 years to get details. In addition, a reader might interpret your points about the increased benefit at full retirement age versus the benefit amount at 62 as a promise for the future. Factors such as health and family longevity are also involved. Depending solely on one’s Social Security check for living expenses will most likely bring derisive laughs for those who unfortunately have to do just that.

Answer: Your comments are a good example of why it’s important to get a second opinion on Social Security benefits, because what we think we know about the program may not be true.

One of the best reasons for delaying Social Security is to claim a bigger benefit down the road, a benefit that has nothing to do with cost-of-living increases. “Retirement benefits increase by 6 2/3% each full year an individual waits between age 62 and 65,” said Patricia Raymond, regional communications director for the Social Security Administration. “For each additional year an individual delays benefits from age 65 until full retirement age, the benefit increases 5%.”

The full retirement age is now 66 and will increase to 67. Even if Social Security is restructured sometime in the future, it’s highly unlikely that the system would stop rewarding people for delaying retirement or that cost-of-living increases would be discontinued (although they may be reduced).

By the way, there have been only two years in the last 10 when there was no cost-of-living increase, as you can see at http://www.ssa.gov/cola/automatic-cola.htm. Increases have ranged from 1.7% this year to 5.8% in 2009. The average for the last decade was 2.56%. Whether these increases truly keep up with inflation is questionable, especially with increasing Medicare costs, but to say cost-of-living adjustments are no longer “standard” simply isn’t true.

Trying to decide when to take Social Security based on your current health or your family history of longevity is tricky, at best. Taking Social Security early might turn out to be a good decision if you die relatively early, or it could be a big mistake if you live longer than expected or you have a surviving spouse who may depend on your benefit. (Starting your retirement early would reduce not only your check but also the check a survivor would receive.)

The AARP website has a Social Security calculator that can help you understand the ramifications.

Obviously, some people have little choice but to apply for Social Security as soon as they’re eligible because they need the money. But delaying Social Security for a bigger benefit can be seen as a kind of longevity insurance for those who can afford to do so. Even people in poor health or who lack a family history of longevity might want to hedge against the possibility of outliving other assets, either for themselves or their spouses.

Ideally, no one would rely solely on Social Security benefits, but unfortunately many do. Social Security constitutes 90% or more of income for nearly half of single retirees and more than 1 in 5 married couples. For most people who receive Social Security, the checks represent half or more of their income. So it makes sense to learn how to maximize your benefits using information from reliable sources. In addition to the Social Security and AARP websites, you can learn more from the excellent primer “Social Security for Dummies” by Jonathan Peterson.

Waiting to take Social Security has hidden benefits

May 13, 2013 By Liz Weston

Dear Liz: When I was 62, I started Social Security and I’m currently saving half of my monthly benefit after taxes (about $750). My decision to take my benefits early was influenced by a financial columnist who suggested that if I started at 62 and invested half or more of it until I reached full retirement age, the lower early benefits would be matched by the investment returns by the time I’m 85. Is this advice still reasonable?

Answer: In today’s investing environment, it’s hard to match the guaranteed annual return you get from delaying Social Security benefits. You may do better investing in the stock market, but there isn’t an investment that can guarantee 6% returns right now, which is the approximate amount Social Security benefits increase annually between the earliest age you can take benefits (62) and your full retirement age (currently 66). The higher benefit you get by waiting is then increased by inflation adjustments each year, making it an even harder target to beat.

That’s not to say it can’t be done. In your case, it’s too late for second thoughts anyway. But most people are better off waiting, if they can afford to do so.

There are other good reasons to delay, even if you’re an investing genius. If you’re married, your spouse would be eligible for a survivor’s benefit should you die first. That benefit is equal to the Social Security check you’ve been getting. A bigger check could make it easier for him or her to make ends meet down the road.

Spouses who wait until full retirement age also have the option of taking spousal benefits first, and then switching to their own benefits later, after those benefits have had a few more years to grow. When you take benefits early, you lose the option to switch.

Even if you’re not married, you can look at Social Security as a form of longevity insurance. A larger benefit could be a big help if you live a long time and spend down your other assets.

Hopefully you understood all this before you put your retirement plan into motion. If you didn’t, then your situation could serve as a cautionary tale for anyone who’s trying to make decisions about retirement based solely on his or her own research. It’s vitally important to get a second opinion from a fee-only comprehensive financial planner. Even the most ardent do-it-yourselfer can miss important nuances when it comes to retirement, and those nuances can have a dramatic effect on your future quality of life.

Are too many people on disability?

April 23, 2013 By Liz Weston

The number of people getting disability checks from the government has skyrocketed in the past three decades. The federal government spends more on cash payments to disabled workers than on food stamps and welfare combined.

This trend has drawn some media scrutiny lately. You may not have time to read everything that’s been written, so here’s an overview:

As jobs for people without college degrees have disappeared, many people who lose their jobs wind up on disability. Planet Money reporter Chana Joffe-Walt says in the NPR piece “Unfit for Work” that “disability has also become a de facto welfare program for people without a lot of education or job skills.” Qualifying for Social Security disability means you get about $13,000 a year, plus you qualify for Medicare, the government health insurance program for the elderly. For many who qualify, that may beat a minimum wage job with no benefits. “Going on disability means, assuming you rely only on those disability payments, you will be poor for the rest of your life. That’s the deal. And it’s a deal 14 million Americans have signed up for.”

The rise in people on disability, however, isn’t unexpected or solely the result of the lousy economy, according to a response to the NPR report by a group of former commissioners of the Social Security Administration, which oversees the disability programs. “The growth that we’ve seen was predicted by actuaries as early as 1994 and is mostly the result of two factors: baby boomers entering their high- disability years, and women entering the workforce in large numbers in the 1970s and 1980s so that more are now ‘insured’ for DI based on their own prior contributions,” the commissioners wrote. The commissioners point out that it’s not easy to get government disability and that most people who apply are denied. “The statutory standard for approval is very strict, and was made even more so in 1996,” the commissioners wrote.

Few people on government disability ever go back to work. Private disability insurers do a better job than the government programs of returning people to the workforce, according to this story in the Wall Street Journal. That shouldn’t be surprising, since qualifying for government disability is typically a lot tougher than the standards you have to meet to trigger private disability insurance payments. That means the folks getting government disability checks are often a lot sicker (in fact, one in five men and one in seven women die within 5 years of being approved for government disability). Private insurers are also, shall we say, eager to get people back to work (or at least off their benefits). Yet the discrepancy seems to offend the Journal, which also decided to blame people on government disability for at least some of our current economic malaise in “Workers stuck on disability stunt economy.”

As a taxpayer, I don’t want to foot the bill for someone who could work but doesn’t. But I’m also leary of attempts to paint government disability programs as a refuge for loafers.

Clearly, this is a complicated–and emotional–issue. You’ll be hearing more about it as Congress struggles with the budget and social safety net programs, so it would be worth spending a little time researching the facts.