Making Your Money Last
Boost Your Social Security Benefits
These strategies will help you make the most of your benefits.
By Susan B. Garland, Editor, Kiplinger's Retirement Report
October 22, 2009
Advertisement
For many couples, a husband should claim at 70 while the lower-earning wife should start collecting at 62, according to a study by Boston College's Center for Retirement Research. Because the husband is likely to die earlier, the study says, he will increase the value of the survivor benefit by delaying. As for the wife, even though her benefit will be reduced by 25%, the authors figured that her reduced benefit is only temporary. After her husband dies, she will step up to the higher survivor benefit. In the meantime, the household is bringing in extra income.
Found money. Let's say you're at full retirement age. You'd like to delay collecting benefits until 70. If your wife is 62 or older, she could collect benefits based on her own work record, but she'd get more money with a spousal benefit. One problem: She can't apply for the spousal benefit until you file for your own benefit.
Here's what you do. You file for your own benefit, and your wife applies for the spousal benefit (which will be less than 50% of your benefit if she applies before her full retirement age). You immediately request a voluntary suspension for your own benefits. Your wife would then get spousal checks, and you can earn a bigger benefit when you reapply later.
James Mahaney, vice-president of Prudential Financial, recalls one couple who didn't realize they could "file and suspend." The husband didn't want to collect until 70. "They were leaving money on the table," he says. Once they learned of this strategy, the wife applied for a monthly spousal benefit of $1,000 -- a nice pot of "found money" over four years. If the husband dies first, she'll collect a higher survivor benefit.
Claim a spousal benefit. Like the man above, you're at full retirement age and you want to delay until 70. But you can still get benefits now -- a spousal benefit. If your lower-earning spouse is at least 62, she could claim her own benefit. You can then apply for a spousal benefit. At 70, you switch to your own higher benefit. This strategy offers you and your spouse several advantages: Your wife's survivor benefit will be higher if you die first, and you'll be bringing extra income into the household until you reach 70. At that point, your wife can switch to a spousal benefit based on what you would have received at 66.
Raymond Lekowski, 67, of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., had planned to wait until 70 to claim benefits. But when he read in Kiplinger's Retirement Report about claiming a spousal benefit, he decided to go for it.
His wife, Carol, a retired nurse, started collecting her own benefit just short of full retirement age. Her monthly benefit is about $1,000. Raymond, a retired executive for a communications company, gets a spousal benefit of about $500. If Raymond had claimed at 66, he would have collected more than $1,925 a month. By waiting until 70, his benefit will be 32% higher, plus inflation adjustments. "By not taking the benefit, it's like investing the money and seeing it grow," Raymond says. And if he dies first, Carol will be left with the bigger survivor benefit.
Note that the higher-earning spouse cannot use this tactic -- known as "restricting an application" to spousal benefits -- if he's younger than full retirement age.
The retirement do-over. If you claimed your benefits early, perhaps at age 62, you may decide that taking a permanent cut was a mistake. Believe it or not, you can repay the benefits, free of interest, and reapply for a bigger benefit later. Your wife must return any accumulated spousal benefits as well. Dan Cowles, a retired systems analyst for IBM and Wachovia, decided a do-over was a smart move. He had claimed his benefits at age 62. But he says: "I had regrets as the years went by. I was in good health, and my mother lived until she was 94."
Last year at age 67, Cowles, who lives with his wife, Sharon, 65, in Cumming, Ga., decided to repay his benefits. After mailing in a Request for Withdrawal of Application (SSA Form 521), the government told him that the tab was about $84,000. He took the cash from a money-market fund paying 3% interest. Because each year of delay boosts a benefit by more than twice that rate (not including the COLA), he figured he was getting a nice return on his investment.
At the time he repaid his benefits, he was receiving $1,580 a month. He reapplied soon after and now receives $2,196 a month -- $616 more. By repaying $84,000 in past benefits, Dan "bought" an additional $616 a month in inflation-adjusted income. That's less than what it would cost to buy an inflation-protected immediate annuity with a 100% survivor benefit from a low-cost annuity provider.
If Dan dies first, Sharon would receive his full benefit. Dan's higher benefit also means that Sharon's spousal benefit will be bigger. And he will be able to recoup the income taxes he paid on the benefits he gave back. Cowles says that he's owed a credit of about $8,200, reducing his repayment cost even further. (Check IRS Publication 915 for instructions.)
One word of caution: Although this do-over strategy works well if you were already collecting benefits, it's riskier to plan to collect reduced benefits now with the intention of repaying them later. You might not live long enough to take advantage of the repayment strategy. In that case, your spouse would be left with a reduced survivor benefit.
Remember, Medicare premiums are deducted from Social Security checks. When you withdraw an application, you must pay back all the benefits, including the benefits that paid your Medicare premiums. But if you don't intend to reapply for Social Security for several years, be clear that you are withdrawing from Social Security but not Medicare. You will pay your Medicare premium separately. You can test out the payback strategy on Hebeler's Web site, AnalyzeNow.com.
For more authoritative guidance on retirement investing, slashing taxes and getting the best health care, click here for a FREE sample issue of Kiplinger's Retirement Report.


Reader Comments (16)
Posted by: Joni at 10/21/2009 10:45:09 PM
This was VERY informative infomration in this article! I will pass this on to my friends,some who are getting ready to POSSIBLY retire. Thanks!
Posted by: nancy at 10/22/2009 10:33:45 PM
What about those who have divorced and have not remarried? What about wife's ability to collect on ex-husband?
Posted by: Susan at 10/26/2009 07:37:22 AM
Why do you assume the husband is the higher earning spouse?
Posted by: Joe at 10/26/2009 06:55:18 PM
Answer to Susan's comment/question: Because "That's the way it usually is". See page one.
Posted by: Tara at 10/28/2009 04:53:05 PM
I have been disabled since mid 30's , though able to work part time. My question is does any of my work points go toward my retirement age in social security? I dont think i've been permanently disabled because they review me every 6 years.
Posted by: Tara at 10/28/2009 04:54:46 PM
as for collection on ex husband if you were married...11 years and not remarried, you qualify for benefits from your ex? i was told that by a ssi specialist years ago in my first marriage
Posted by: Johnny wills at 10/28/2009 05:26:28 PM
I would like to know if I can start to receive my SS now that I'am unemployed at age 52.
Posted by: Hank Bezrucik at 10/28/2009 08:48:30 PM
went on soc security DISABILITY 5 yrs ago due to having no health ins, no income to support wife and family. Receiving est 1300. monthly now...had bad experience in past...Was convinced to stop soc sec input and go on private pension plan with 2 employees of past. BIG MISTAKE in that needed monies desperately due to unemployment and many mounting bills to pay. Took pittance amts and forfeited rest. OUCH ! Major cancer surgery-allowed to work but 2-3 hrs per day/get no commissions (salesman of past) and it's tough- Can I return after 5 yrs on soc sec-disability to work more hrs now??? would be careful due to tire easy and bad foot problem-yet need to increase monthly income to help w/mounting bills! Any ideas ??
Posted by: LC at 10/29/2009 01:00:18 AM
What happens if the spouse (husband) has opted out of SS? Are there any benefits that go to the wife?
Posted by: retireewannabee at 10/29/2009 11:10:50 PM
To Unemployed at 52: I do not believe you can claim SS that early. sorry.
Posted by: sskaist@verizon.net at 10/30/2009 05:42:14 PM
When i turned 65, 14 years ago my health insurance dropped me. I was earning enough from my self employment so I wanted to wait unil I was 70. But because of being dropped I had to go to medicare. Once I applied for medicare they insisted I take social security. A that time there was a cap so I only received half of my benefits which came in the second half of the year. I could of used it better in the first half
Posted by: Jean at 10/31/2009 10:52:11 AM
I am eligible to draw from my ex-husbands social security. He has started drawing his at age 65. I am only 61 and don't plan to draw on my own social security until age 70. Can I draw from my ex-husbands SS at age 65 and then switch to my own at age 70?
Posted by: lynda at 11/02/2009 05:00:42 PM
Jean, I don't think you can collect on your husband's ss until you reach full retirement age which for you would be in 5 years (you are 61) at age 66. You can then collect 1/2 of his benefit and then apply for your own benefit 4 years later at age 70. If you apply and collect at 62 it will be on your own benefit and it will be 75% of your full (age 66) benefit. You would then be depending on the "rules" staying the same for the next 9 years if you plan to repay your benefits and apply at the higher amount when you are 70. I'd just apply on my husbands benefit at 66; then apply for my own at 70 if you are healthy and have longevity in your family.
Posted by: Dean at 11/05/2009 11:22:27 AM
In the example "Found Money", can a person age 66 "file and suspend" and delay collecting benefits until age 69 instead of 70? In this example my wife, who is 63 would file for the spousal benefit now.
Posted by: Dianne Kittinger at 11/16/2009 04:16:45 PM
What about those who have divorced and have not remarried? What about wife's ability to collect on ex-husband?
Posted by: Limoman at 11/20/2009 10:02:50 AM
Being Single age 62, take it Now and Just Invest it and if you ave say 7% apy? You're going to have about the same or More $ vs waiting till age 66+ and You're going to have that $ in your pocket.. Just take say $10,000 yr At age 62 and Making 7% yr on it for the following 4 yrs How much do you have total by age 66? and now take that Tot. $ x 7% apy there after.. $47, 500 Tot x 7% = +$3,325 yr from it...+ your $10,000 yr comming in after age 66 fwd = $13, 325 yr and you also have that $47,500 in your Hands to use for emergencies and /or leave to heirs.. Compare that to Waiting till age 66 to get your $? + 32%? = $10,320 and you Don't have that $47,500 in your hands ... Especially if you use the Ave Age of Lifespan.. for men = age 82 - 66 = 16 yrs 62-82 = 20 yrs...Your'e going to get the same or More back after those time frames doing it either way, but still have that $47,500 to leave to Heirs/spouse...And if you really don't need it til age 66 or 70? Invest it into More Aggressive Bonds like Kips. Recommended Bond Funds Like LSBRX or a balanced Fund Like OAKBX and you shuold have as much a over $60k or more by age 66.. Make sense? And I have to tell you, Me thinks since people are living longer? We should be paying MORE into SS, not less per Inflation.. The rate structure should be Per Inflation paid in, not this Fixed % they have.. 7.5% for Employees and 7.5% for Employers... I think the only reason we don't? Wall Street and The Gov't Doesn't want us Saving More and thus Have Less to Spend and invest into Wall Street and our Spending Economy attitude..and The Gov't would have LESS Taxes to spend out of our Payroll checks in the process Or have to either raise payroll taxes and other taxes in the process. Wall Street and all related to making their Living off it, Need Us to Invest as much as they can get their hands on, TO FUND THEIR LIVING AND THEIR RETIREMENT, NOT OURS..! As some of our Popular FA's have said.. It's Been the BIG HOAX of the 20th and starting to be for the 21st Century! What's wrong with Having Our Immigrants & Kids pay MORE Into SS to support the rest of us Retiree's who built this country for them? Or give them the opiton of Having to Go Serve 4 yrs in our Military!