When to take your social security

[UTGrad98 2,271]

For as long as I can remember, I assumed the "smart" people always waited to take their social security at 67 or 70. Basically to wait as long as you can before starting to take it. That only suckers and the poors took social security at age 62. So many articles I have read over the years say as much. But now Im starting to question that.

So first let's look at the break even age, not factoring in reinvesting the money. Generally, the break even age is in between age 80 and 81. Here is an excerpt from an article showing that:

https://money.usnews.com/money/retirement/social-security/articles/how-to-calculate-your-social-security-break-even-age

Calculating Your Social Security Break-Even Age

You can find your break-even age by doing some calculations based on your age and benefit. If you wait to claim Social Security benefits until after your full retirement age, your full retirement age benefit would increase by approximately 8% per year for each year that you delay claiming (up to age 70). If you decide to claim early, you can expect to receive less than the full benefit amount. By claiming at age 62, for instance, the reduction will be about 30%.

 

Perhaps your full retirement age is 67, at which time you qualify for a benefit of $2,000 a month. You decide to wait until age 68 to apply for benefits. This will increase your benefit by approximately 8%, which comes to $160 more ($2,000 x 0.08) each month, or $1,920 more each year ($160 x 12).

 

By starting at age 67, you’ll have an annual benefit of $24,000 every year (not counting cost of living adjustments). If you start at age 68, you’ll have an annual benefit of about $25,920. “In general, the break-even point using different claiming ages is approximately age 80 or 81,” said Drew Parker, founder of The Complete Retirement Planner in the Seattle area, in an email.

If you claim at age 67 with a benefit of $24,000 a year, you’ll have $336,000 by age 80 (after 14 years). If you claim at age 68 for $25,920, you’ll receive $336,000 by age 80 and 10 months (12.97 years). Note that these calculations are all estimated, as “the Social Security Administration calculates a reduced or increased benefit using your claiming age and the number of months before or after your full retirement age to determine a specific benefit,” Parker said.

Say your full retirement age is 67, and you decide to take benefits at age 62. Your monthly benefit at full retirement age is $2,000, and it will be reduced by approximately 30%. You will receive $600 less each month (2,000 x 0.30), which means each check will be $1,400 ($2,000 - $600). You’ll receive $16,800 a year. By the time you reach age 81, you’ll receive $336,000 (20 years). These estimated calculations are available at The Complete Retirement Planner using its free Social Security calculator, or with more detailed information using the planning tool.

Other factors I see here are family history, the persons current health, and the average life expectancy. Here is the most recent data on life expectancy in the US once you reach age 65.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/266657/us-life-expectancy-for-men-aat-the-age-of-65-years-since-1960/

The life expectancy for men aged 65 years in the U.S. has gradually increased since the 1960s. Now men in the United States aged 65 can expect to live 17 more years on average. Women aged 65 years can expect to live around 19.7 more years on average.

So the big take away here is how healthy are you and what does your family longevity history look like.  Just going by the data, taking social security at 62 vs 67 vs 70 breaks even right around the life expectancy of a man once he reaches age 65 ( 82 years old).

Now though let's say you actually wont need your social security and can just reinvest it. Now that break even number goes even higher. Here is an example of someone taking their social security at 66 vs 70 but reinvesting it at a 5% return.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/should-you-start-social-security-early-and-invest-your-benefit/

For my situation, there is a good chance my wife and I wont "need"  all of our social security and so reinvesting it is a possibility for us. 

Im curious what others are doing as Im not as sure as I was when to start taking my social security.

[msbesq 385]

I reach my FRA in January(66 and 8 months). I’m in no rush so it will be sometime between 67 and 70. At FRA I’ll qualify for around $3500 per month and for every month past FRA you get 2/3% additional until 70.

[CleverNickname 1,308]

I think you nailed it. The key is being a good guesser at your terminal age. That ain't really possible, but if you knew it there would be a "correct" answer. If you got a bad ticker, the do it early. If you keep in good shape and have lucky genetics, plan on exceeding the median.

I will have an ERS pension and my wife a TRS pension. Neither have an inflation kicker, so I just try to think of our SS as making the pensions more or less indexed.

[RDCanecutter 26,376]

I was all in for waiting until I could get the maximum. A couple of my recent ancestors made it to their late 90s and I always heard to plan like you'll make it to 100.

But then I go visit my Mom at her assisted living, and she's happy but she is recovering from a broken leg and doesn't know what month it is. I'm like, dang, it'd be fun to take multiple vacations to Mexico City while I can still walk.

What happened since is I keep pushing it back a month instead of starting it. Slothfullness.

In a related matter, anybody know if Stage-4 Cancer will get you any disability? I am a really healthy cancer patient, but it seriously interferes with getting a real job.

[Wally Fairway 5,539]

My dad passed away at 89, my mom at 92; both lived almost almost a decade longer than their longest living parent. 

For financial planning purposes, I'm planning on a 50/50 chance to hit 100 (esp as medical care continues to improve). So I'm planning on filing when I turn 70, which will also benefit my wife (hopefully) 

OP should show how big the advantage is at 85, 90 & 95 ( I'm to tired to do maths)

[msbesq 385]

There is no advantage to waiting after70. SS maxes out at 70 no matter how long you live thereafter. There are also good tax reasons to wait until FRA if you want to work between 62 and FRA

[statsman 5,449]

My FIL took it as soon as he could, even though he kept working into his ‘70s. He’s passed (at 91) and his widow is getting by on widow benefits (about half). The 35 years of COLAs in no way kept up with the benefit adjustments to the formula for active workers and contributors. 
 
So- ground rule 1 is: don’t start SS while you are still working. 
 
My brother worked his whole life and died at 59, due mainly to a lifetime of bad choices (eating, drinking, smoking). He had no heirs and got zippo from SS. Ground rule 2: if your health is bad, start drawing it. 
 
I understand that there used to be tricks you could work with spousal SS timing (they get the greater of what they earned, or half of yours?), but I think they did away with those. 

[msbesq 385]

A surviving spouse gets their benefit or 100% of the dead spouse’s benefit, whichever is higher if the dead spouse has reached FRA. Reduced accordingly on a monthly basis if dead spouse didn’t reach FRA

[Armybrat 40,813]

I started taking mine at 62 because I already had experienced one heart attack and three artery stent implants by that time. 
Am surprised to still be here.

SS COLAS? 😄

 

[Mr. Drummond 2,198]

Current plan is retired wife (56) will take at 62.    I wont until 70 (i doubt we will need it).   She will outlive me almost certainly.   So as soon as i die, my higher number will go to her.

[immamac 42,832]

If you don't need SS you take it early and invest it because it's gonna be a snowball to draw on. It's like a 401k contribution/match without having to work or contribute anything to it. 

My mother just recently went through this and did the math for her. 

If you don't take social security you also don't receive any money the time you aren't receiving it. If you spend it all then yeah it's best to keep working till you retire then use it as your income. 

[troph 24,781]

furk, I remember when we were all 22 and still in college. fml. well, except for brat, he's older than dirt.

Edited August 19 by troph

[Armybrat 40,813]

1 hour ago, troph said:

furk, I remember when we were all 22 and still in college. fml. well, except for brat, he's older than dirt.

Fresh dirt, Woman. 😝

[Not a cat 5,651]

1 hour ago, immamac said:

If you don't need SS you take it early and invest it because it's gonna be a snowball to draw on. It's like a 401k contribution/match without having to work or contribute anything to it. 

My mother just recently went through this and did the math for her. 

If you don't take social security you also don't receive any money the time you aren't receiving it. If you spend it all then yeah it's best to keep working till you retire then use it as your income. 

This right here.  Plus if you add the chances of dying early or (no cloak room) benefits being cut because we're broke, it's a no brainer to me.

Another aspect is by spreading it out you can reduce the tax hit a bit if you structure it correctly (85% of ss is taxable above a pretty low threshold).

I'm 54, plan on taking it at 62 and just having the check sent to my brokerage account where it'll go into an index fund.  If i ever need it, it'll be there but if not my kids get a nice chunk with a stepped up basis.

But as immamac notes it makes less sense if you're still working or will spend it 

[CleverNickname 1,308]

I had not thought about "just taken it early and save it.' But doesn't that stream of money go up a healthy 7-8% (+COLA) each year you wait? That's not nothing.

[immamac 42,832]

17 minutes ago, CleverNickname said:

I had not thought about "just taken it early and save it.' But doesn't that stream of money go up a healthy 7-8% (+COLA) each year you wait? That's not nothing.

Again, this isn't hard. You get the money now or you get no money and later they pay you 7-8% more each year or whatever. 

So you get 100% of 0 for the time you wait. This is the misconception with social security. In a vacuum where you don't ever get money you "get paid more" for longer. 

Round numbers for example:

Full SS benefit at 67 or whatever: $1000/mo

Early SS benefit at 62: $800/mo

Max SS benefit at 70: $1100/mo

Year 1 is 63

Full: $0

Early: $9600

Max: $0

Year 5 is 68

Full: $12000

Early: (assuming no cola, etc) $48000

Max: $0

Year 8 is 70

Full: $36000

Early: $76800

Max: $13200

So you could have had 76800 paid to you in the same timeframe as 13200. 

You could literally do it in tbills or some long term bonds and pay yourself coupons for the difference in the 8 years payment of max based on the money already paid it drawing it down to 0 over time. 

This of course only maths if you don't use it to pay for life etc and are not working. 

It's not inconsequential that you are paid out your $$ early. The time to payout xx dollar amount is a way to look at it, but it doesn't take into account opportunity cost or the difference in working for 5 or 8 more years.

[UTGrad98 2,271]

1 hour ago, CleverNickname said:

I had not thought about "just taken it early and save it.' But doesn't that stream of money go up a healthy 7-8% (+COLA) each year you wait? That's not nothing.

Yes but it takes about 19 years, if you took benefits at 62,  before you recoup the loss of missing out a full year (or 8 ) of reduced benefits. And that's without investing it. 

Edited August 19 by UTGrad98
...

[CooterBrown 18,001]

I’ll take it at 62 and invest all of it monthly in VGT.

[Armybrat 40,813]

2 minutes ago, CooterBrown said:

I’ll take it at 62 and invest all of it monthly in VGT.

Just one word: “Depends”

[UTGrad98 2,271]

2 hours ago, Not a cat said:

This right here.  Plus if you add the chances of dying early or (no cloak room) benefits being cut because we're broke, it's a no brainer to me.

Another aspect is by spreading it out you can reduce the tax hit a bit if you structure it correctly (85% of ss is taxable above a pretty low threshold).

I'm 54, plan on taking it at 62 and just having the check sent to my brokerage account where it'll go into an index fund.  If i ever need it, it'll be there but if not my kids get a nice chunk with a stepped up basis.

But as immamac notes it makes less sense if you're still working or will spend it 

This is what I'm leaning towards now, taking my benefits at 62. The checks will go right into my vanguard account where I'll put into VOO or something similar. 

 

Like imma said this strategy works if you aren't going to work after turning 62 and if you don't need the money to live on. It's a small hedge against dying early as well. Plus as you age, and especially after hitting 80 you don't spend nearly as much on travel, going out etc. Seems like quite a few pros to taking it as early as possible if your situation warrants that. 

Edited August 19 by UTGrad98
...

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,506]

Great question on when to take it. Personally I don’t think of it as maximizing the SS income, or calculating the break even number, or some hedge against dying relatively young.  If I’m dead, I won’t give a fuck if I broke even. 

my plan at 62 most likely will depend if I need it or want it. My expectation is that I won’t so why not wait a few years to draw SS benefits. Take the guaranteed 8% plus cola. Could I beat that in market? Who knows. I will already have plenty of other exposure to the markets so the different could be minor.

 

[Armybrat 40,813]

I started taking my SS at 62 in 2007 ($1,900/month) 

My current monthly annuity is $2,320.

Those 1,900 dollars from 2007 would be the equivalent to $2,878 in today’s dollars. 

It appears the Social Security COLAS ain’t keeping up with inflation.

 

[tx 3 putt 76,858]

22 hours ago, immamac said:

If you don't need SS you take it early and invest it because it's gonna be a snowball to draw on. It's like a 401k contribution/match without having to work or contribute anything to it. 

My mother just recently went through this and did the math for her. 

If you don't take social security you also don't receive any money the time you aren't receiving it. If you spend it all then yeah it's best to keep working till you retire then use it as your income. 

all this. Don’t leave money on the table 

[immamac 42,832]

16 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Great question on when to take it. Personally I don’t think of it as maximizing the SS income, or calculating the break even number, or some hedge against dying relatively young.  If I’m dead, I won’t give a fuck if I broke even. 

my plan at 62 most likely will depend if I need it or want it. My expectation is that I won’t so why not wait a few years to draw SS benefits. Take the guaranteed 8% plus cola. Could I beat that in market? Who knows. I will already have plenty of other exposure to the markets so the different could be minor.

 

Your math is completely bogus. Read my post. This is the greatest fallacy regarding social security payouts. You aren't counting GETTING PAID THE ENTIRE TIME FROM 62 until you take it. 

You wouldn't need to "beat the market" you'd be getting a draw and anything you make in the market makes it EVEN BETTER not worse or catching up to when you "waited to take it". 

25 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

I started taking my SS at 62 in 2007 ($1,900/month) 

My current monthly annuity is $2,320.

Those 1,900 dollars from 2007 would be the equivalent to $2,878 in today’s dollars. 

It appears the Social Security COLAS ain’t keeping up with inflation.

 

See how it works? 

10 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

all this. Don’t leave money on the table 

^^^^^^ the math maths. 

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,506]

16 minutes ago, immamac said:

Your math is completely bogus. Read my post. This is the greatest fallacy regarding social security payouts. You aren't counting GETTING PAID THE ENTIRE TIME FROM 62 until you take it. 

You wouldn't need to "beat the market" you'd be getting a draw and anything you make in the market makes it EVEN BETTER not worse or catching up to when you "waited to take it". 

See how it works? 

^^^^^^ the math maths. 

I'm fairly certain that I didn't include any math so uncertain where you call out my math.

And I distinctly wrote that I wasn't worried about maximizing retirement income. Just because something works well for your situation, doesn't mean other people are wrong. If your plan works best for you, go for it. cool post.

[immamac 42,832]

17 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Take the guaranteed 8% plus cola. Could I beat that in market? Who knows.

Math in your post. It's not necessarily about you, it's about people who drive by and read and see this and fall into the same logic trap. Of course every situation is different and the only wrong answer is to not take it if you need it and are gonna die with certainty early. 

[boilerhorn 1,371]

Just run the numbers, as @immamac said.  I looked up my benefits from age 62 to 70 and normalized to $1k per month at age 62.

Left columns show age starting SS and monthly $$ based on age started.  Matrix on the right shows asset values based on depositing 100% into a fund that yields X%.  For the cut-paste example, I chose 5%.  You only "fall behind" in this example If you live past 90. If I have the energy, I will share a "blank" spreadsheet for those to try at home.  Basic assumptions.  100% deposited into funding generating 5%.  0% taken out.  

 

 

[jimmyjazz 45,877]

I haven't put much thought into it.  No way am I going to stop working at 62.  I assume drawing SS while working is a no-go for any professional?

Good topic.  Shit, I'm getting old.

[tx 3 putt 76,858]

27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I haven't put much thought into it.  No way am I going to stop working at 62.  I assume drawing SS while working is a no-go for any professional?

Good topic.  Shit, I'm getting old.

 

how does this work ?

[jimmyjazz 45,877]

6 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

 

how does this work ?

It's my understanding one can draw SS before full retirement age, even if working, but salary earned reduces the draw.  I don't know at what salary the draw is essentially zero, though.  I think it's pretty low, but that's why I asked.  Like, schoolteacher low.

[boilerhorn 1,371]

What the SSA site says:
https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/whileworking.html

If you are younger than full retirement age and earn more than the yearly earnings limit, we may reduce your benefit amount.

If you are under full retirement age for the entire year, we deduct $1 from your benefit payments for every $2 you earn above the annual limit. For 2024, that limit is $22,320.

In the year you reach full retirement age, we deduct $1 in benefits for every $3 you earn above a different limit. In 2024, this limit on your earnings is $59,520. We only count your earnings up to the month before you reach your full retirement age, not your earnings for the entire year.

[statsman 5,449]

I think that, if you keep working, two things happen:

1. There is a tax penalty on the SS

2. Your continued salary has no impact on your SS. IOW, you (and your employer) continue to pay FICA, but the baseline for your SS is unchanged. 
 
As to Immamac’s strategy- it can be a good one, based on the key element of “invest all the SS payments”. Maybe even “invest most of the SS payments”. My opinion is you need to really be sure that you won’t be drawing in those payments for “life stuff”. 
 
I don’t mean spending it on extra trips and stuff; I assume most have the discipline for that. What about- you’re getting that check each month, plan to invest it, but you realize Mom’s assisted living facility is kind of crappy, and none of your siblings can (or will) help? And you have that check that can make a difference?

How about that favorite niece with the worthless parents? She has a job, but her car is broken and she can’t afford to repair or replace?

My point is- we love people; we don’t love money. I suspect that the strategy is harder than we first think. 
 
I get a small pension ($1,500 per month). I’m 60. I think I posed the question on the “Help” board about the monthly payment vs. the lump sum. I decided to take the pension monthly, and invest it. Every month that check comes in, and every month it is needed for bills, and I am so glad I get it. 

[UTGrad98 2,271]

10 hours ago, boilerhorn said:

Just run the numbers, as @immamac said.  I looked up my benefits from age 62 to 70 and normalized to $1k per month at age 62.

Left columns show age starting SS and monthly $$ based on age started.  Matrix on the right shows asset values based on depositing 100% into a fund that yields X%.  For the cut-paste example, I chose 5%.  You only "fall behind" in this example If you live past 90. If I have the energy, I will share a "blank" spreadsheet for those to try at home.  Basic assumptions.  100% deposited into funding generating 5%.  0% taken out.  

 

 

I would be grateful if you could post that spreadsheet. Excel is not a strong suit of mine and I'd be afraid I'd fuck up the numbers somehow trying to input the variables and formulas. I assume cola doesn't make a difference here? It's applied the same whether or not you take the money. 

[immamac 42,832]

Yeah the whole reason I dug into this is because my mother wanted to retire and get another job to keep paying into social security until she drew it. 

Drawing early makes no sense if you are still working and need a full income to live (aka not set up for retirement)

The generally correct answer is retire as soon as you are able without SSA and take SSA as soon as you are able to supplement or take the cash and invest on top of your retirement pile. 

[UTGrad98 2,271]

That was always one of the questions I had in terms of how COLA is applied.  Let's assume COLA is 2% a year. Now let's assume you take your ss at 62. Is the COLA percent applied fully to the amount or does it go into that PIA formula? I'm at work so I can't post how they calculate it right now but you basically get 90% of the first $900 of your monthly total gross over your lifetime earnings then only 32% of the next $2000 monthly gross total earnings. Doesn't it make a difference WHERE the 2% COLA is applied.  Is it before or after ? That would also make a huge difference as you want want to take your ss asap if the cola is applied fully after that pia calculation. 

[Armybrat 40,813]

SS COLAS don’t mean shit when the increases in Medicare deductions from your monthly annuity eat most of it up.

[Mr. Drummond 2,198]

Is married income looked at or is it as an individual.     If i am still making too much money at 62 and working, will the wife, who no longer has income be penalized at 62 or is she seen as a separate entity as far as SS goes?

 

[Redneck Mutha 7,952]

3 hours ago, Mr. Drummond said:

Is married income looked at or is it as an individual.     If i am still making too much money at 62 and working, will the wife, who no longer has income be penalized at 62 or is she seen as a separate entity as far as SS goes?

 

Different thresholds based on how you file. The "combined income" formula for what percentage of your SS is taxed counts half your SS income plus all other income.

https://www.kiplinger.com/retirement/social-security/604321/taxes-on-social-security-benefits

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,506]

7 hours ago, UTGrad98 said:

That was always one of the questions I had in terms of how COLA is applied.  Let's assume COLA is 2% a year. Now let's assume you take your ss at 62. Is the COLA percent applied fully to the amount or does it go into that PIA formula? I'm at work so I can't post how they calculate it right now but you basically get 90% of the first $900 of your monthly total gross over your lifetime earnings then only 32% of the next $2000 monthly gross total earnings. Doesn't it make a difference WHERE the 2% COLA is applied.  Is it before or after ? That would also make a huge difference as you want want to take your ss asap if the cola is applied fully after that pia calculation. 

If you're asking if there is a difference between the 2 "increases" being applied when delaying benefits, I don't think there is. 

Example: Someone's annual benefit at 62 is $30K/yr but they want to wait until 63 to draw benefits. Let's say at age 63 the COLA is 2% and the 1-year delay creates a 8% bump.  Regardless of how to apply the percent increases, you end up with $33,048. It's basically 30K * 1.02 * 1.08 = 33,048.  FYI, using these assumptions identically, this becomes $40K and $49K (rounded) at ages 65 and 67.

This is my rough understanding of how it works. Happy to be corrected and I understand that there are other factors that come into play like marriage status, work status, and I imagine the exact month you apply for benefits. 

As far as comparing all of these numbers by investing the take-home benefits until you die or hit 100, I don't see the point. Life is meant to be more than numbers on a spreadsheet. 

6 hours ago, Armybrat said:

SS COLAS don’t mean shit when the increases in Medicare deductions from your monthly annuity eat most of it up.

Yep. I doubt that Medicare premium increases are used in calculating CPI and eventually COLA. 

Edited August 21 by Nice Guy Eddie

[hornmpa96 2,618]

This is a great thread. Like the OP, I always thought the common wisdom was waiting as long as possible before drawing your social security benefits. I just ran my numbers and at best, I break even at 84 (assuming a 4% return and no COLA) by waiting until 65 to take benefits. Unless you know you’re living into your 80s, it feels like an easy answer to start pulling the cash at 62 and investing it. 

[4th and 5 4,914]

9 hours ago, boilerhorn said:

What the SSA site says:
https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/whileworking.html

If you are younger than full retirement age and earn more than the yearly earnings limit, we may reduce your benefit amount.

If you are under full retirement age for the entire year, we deduct $1 from your benefit payments for every $2 you earn above the annual limit. For 2024, that limit is $22,320.

In the year you reach full retirement age, we deduct $1 in benefits for every $3 you earn above a different limit. In 2024, this limit on your earnings is $59,520. We only count your earnings up to the month before you reach your full retirement age, not your earnings for the entire year.

 

I'm incIined to take SS early and use it to fund backdoor Roth, 529s for grandkids (and if any excess in taxable account) yearly in VOO or even more risky index funds or stocks to get growth.

Is earnings limited to wages from employment? because I'm retiring early but both my wife and I would expect to have investment income (non-tax advantaged accounts, real estate, etc) in excess of the yearly limits.

If I take SS early with the plan to invest it and if "earnings" = "income" rather than "wages" and the SS benefit is reduced due to overall income, that would not be worth it.

 

[4th and 5 4,914]

well, I guess I could have just scrolled down the page and then posted

When we figure out how much to deduct from your benefits, we count only the wages you make from your job or your net profit if you're self-employed. We include bonuses, commissions, and vacation pay. We don't count pensions, annuities, investment income, interest, veterans benefits, or other government or military retirement benefits.

[KYHorn 17,000]

On 8/21/2024 at 9:35 AM, immamac said:

Yeah the whole reason I dug into this is because my mother wanted to retire and get another job to keep paying into social security until she drew it. 

Drawing early makes no sense if you are still working and need a full income to live (aka not set up for retirement)

The generally correct answer is retire as soon as you are able without SSA and take SSA as soon as you are able to supplement or take the cash and invest on top of your retirement pile. 

 

On 8/20/2024 at 10:55 PM, boilerhorn said:

Just run the numbers, as @immamac said.  I looked up my benefits from age 62 to 70 and normalized to $1k per month at age 62.

Left columns show age starting SS and monthly $$ based on age started.  Matrix on the right shows asset values based on depositing 100% into a fund that yields X%.  For the cut-paste example, I chose 5%.  You only "fall behind" in this example If you live past 90. If I have the energy, I will share a "blank" spreadsheet for those to try at home.  Basic assumptions.  100% deposited into funding generating 5%.  0% taken out.  

 

 

Great info. Two other factors to consider:

Spousal benefits are up to 50% of their spouse's SS benefit (if the spouse who did not pay-in waits until 67, but it's 32.5% if taken at age 62. Again, this is based on the age of the spouse who is receiving the spousal benefit)

Survivors benefits are 100% assuming you live past full retirement age, so if your spouse is much younger than you and you will pass that benefit on to them (because they don't have or have a lower SS benefit), this would need to be added into the calculations.

Edited August 22 by KYHorn

[Fudge Nuggets 19,184]

On 8/21/2024 at 8:35 AM, immamac said:

Yeah the whole reason I dug into this is because my mother wanted to retire and get another job to keep paying into social security until she drew it. 

Your mom has a different definition of the word ‘retire’ than I do. Why not just keep working where she’s at?

[Judge Roybeanbag 11,819]

FYI I did the spreadsheet, if anybody needs it pm me.  

[tx 3 putt 76,858]

7 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

FYI I did the spreadsheet, if anybody needs it pm me.