Give a Gift

Making Your Money Last

Secrets to Maximizing Social Security

Despite a temporary shortfall, the nation's primary retirement system continues to pay full benefits. We show you how to make the most of yours.

By Mary Beth Franklin, Senior Editor, Kiplinger's Personal Finance

August 5, 2010
Text Size T T
  • Comments
  • Print This Article
  • Order a Reprint
  • Advertisement

It's official: High unemployment and a resulting decline in payroll-tax collections have taken a toll on the Social Security program. Benefits will exceed revenues for the first time in 2010 -- six years ahead of previous projections -- according to the Social Security Trustees' 2010 report released Thursday. But the nation's vital retirement program is expected to slip back into the black -- at least temporarily -- when the economy recovers, before posting increasingly larger deficits as more baby-boomers reach retirement age.

There will still be plenty of reserve funds to continue paying full benefits for nearly 30 years. But without reforms, the trust fund is projected to run dry around 2037, when tax revenues will be sufficient to pay only about three-fourths of promised benefits. "The sooner action is taken, the more options will be available and the fairer reforms will be to our children and grandchildren," Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said in response to the trustees' report. Reform proposals include raising the retirement age for full benefits to 70, changing the formula for calculating annual inflation adjustments of benefits, and lifting the cap on the amount of wages -- currently $106,800 -- subject to Social Security taxes.

Related Links


The idea of guaranteed income for life that keeps pace with inflation holds fresh appeal in an era of disappearing pensions and erratic stock-market returns. There's also a growing awareness of the value of working longer and waiting to collect Social Security benefits until normal retirement age or later, when they are worth more. But over the past few years, savvy Kiplinger's readers have also learned that there are a few clever -- and perfectly legal -- little-known strategies to time the collection of your retirement benefits that can immediately boost your household income by thousands of dollars a year and provide larger benefits later for your spouse or minor children when you die. Married couples and parents of minor children who wait until normal retirement age to collect benefits can employ some of these strategies to boost their overall income.

STRATEGY 1 : File and suspend

You can boost household income immediately and provide for a larger survivor benefit later by using this "file and suspend" strategy: File for your retirement benefits so your spouse or dependent children can collect their benefits based on your earnings record, then immediately suspend your own benefits and delay claiming them until they are worth more at an older age. Your benefits will increase by an additional 8% for each year you delay collecting beyond your normal retirement age, up until age 70. (You must be at least full retirement age -- which is age 66 for those who claim benefits this year -- to use this strategy. It is not available to workers who claim benefits earlier.)

The strategy works best if one spouse has substantially higher lifetime earnings than the other. Older workers, whether married or single, who have dependent minor children can also take advantage of it. That's exactly what Lucia Cruz, a trust-company employee from Hollywood, Fla., plans to do when she turns 66 next year.

Cruz, who describes herself as "happily divorced" for the past 30 years, adopted twins Patricia and Alicia in 2002. Each of the girls, now 11, will be entitled to a monthly benefit worth up to half of Cruz's when she starts to collect Social Security. But she wants to keep working and delay collecting her own benefits. If Cruz uses the file-and-suspend strategy, each of her daughters will receive about $800 per month until they turn 18. And by waiting until 70 to collect her own benefits, Cruz will receive approximately $2,250 per month instead of the $1,640 she would get if she were to begin claiming benefits at 66.

STRATEGY 2: Collect some now, more later

Another strategy is to collect half of your spouse's benefits now and delay collecting your own benefits until later, when they will be worth more. It works best for two-career couples.

Al Fry, a retired U.S. Air Force officer who works part-time at an athletic club, was delighted to read a recent Kiplinger's article about the advantages of restricting your Social Security claim to spousal benefits only. Back in 2006, when he turned 62, Fry visited the Social Security office near his home in Fairfield, Cal., and was told -- correctly -- that he had to claim the highest benefit available to him, whether based on his own work record or based on the earnings of his wife, Sandra. The SSA said he could not limit his claim to spousal benefits only. But that rule changes once you hit the magic age of 66 (or a bit older if you were born after 1954), when you can get more creative with your benefit-collection strategies.

Fry hightailed it to his local Social Security office a month before his 66th birthday -- and this time got the answer that he wanted. Limiting his claim to spousal benefits based on Sandra's earnings as a library assistant for nearby University of California at Davis, Fry will receive $472 per month for the next four years, boosting their household income by more than $5,600 a year.

And by delaying his own retirement benefits, he'll receive about $2,100 per month when he turns 70, compared with $1,500 had he started collecting them at 66. If Fry dies first, Sandra will receive a survivor benefit equal to 100% of the monthly amount Fry collected during his lifetime, as long as she is at least normal retirement age at the time.

STRATEGY 3: Retirement do-over

Some retirement decisions are irreversible, but many retirees are delighted to learn that choosing when to start collecting Social Security benefits is not one of them. If you are already receiving benefits, you can take advantage of an obscure provision that allows you to repay your benefits, interest- and penalty-free, and then reapply for a bigger monthly check at an older age.

Maybe you decided to collect early out of fear that you wouldn't live long enough to collect full benefits. But now that you've made it to 70, you may regret your decision and wish you had held out for a bigger monthly check. In order to get one, you must first file IRS Form 521 ("Request for Withdrawal of Application") at your local Social Security office.

Your retirement benefits will stop almost immediately, and if your spouse receives benefits based on your work record, his or her benefits will stop, too. Then the SSA will send you a letter telling you how much you need to repay (including any spousal benefits). That process may take several weeks or even months. Once you repay the benefits -- which can top $100,000 -- you can reapply for a higher payment based on your current age.

Note that when your benefits stop, so do the automatic deductions that cover your Medicare premiums. You'll have to pay the Part B premiums yourself -- currently $110.40 per month for new beneficiaries who enroll in 2010 -- until your Social Security benefits resume.

Hank Phillips of Pottstown, Pa., decided that the do-over strategy had his name written all over it after he watched the stock market's bumpy ride diminish the savings that he and his wife, Deirdre, accumulated over a lifetime. "The do-over strategy was unaffected by the stock and bond markets, and it had guaranteed income backed by the U.S. government," says Phillips, 70. "It included benefit increases based on cost-of-living adjustments and had a death benefit for my wife in the event that I die first."

The former marketing manager started receiving Social Security benefits at age 62, and after years of annual cost-of-living adjustments, his monthly benefit had increased to about $1,675. But that's substantially less than the more than $2,800 per month he could have collected if he had waited until age 70. Although he had to repay more than $142,000 in benefits that he and Deirdre, 68, had received over the years, Phillips felt it was a bargain compared with what it would cost to buy an immediate-payout annuity with annual cost-of-living increases from an insurance company.

As an added bonus, you can claim an itemized deduction or tax credit -- whichever is more beneficial -- for taxes you paid on past Social Security benefits in the year you repay them (see IRS Publication 915, Social Security and Equivalent Railroad Retirement Benefits, for details).

It took about six months from the time Phillips filled out Form 521 until he began receiving his new, higher benefit -- an increase of $1,175 per month over his previous amount -- plus a check for three months of retroactive benefits dating back to his 70th birthday. Despite the delays and hiccups along the way, Phillips says it was worth the effort to increase their monthly benefit by 160%, with built-in cost-of-living adjustments -- no matter how long he and Deirdre live.


DISCUSS

Permission to post your comment is assumed when you submit it. The name you provide will be used to identify your post, and NOT your e-mail address. We reserve the right to excerpt or edit any posted comments for clarity, appropriateness, civility, and relevance to the topic.
View our full privacy policy

Reader Comments (38)

Posted by: bkl at 08/06/2010 07:38:54 PM

The numbers are wrong. If Al Fry would get $1500 at 66, he will get $1980 at 70. Meanwhile, his $472 as a husband at 66 implies that Sandra would have received $944 on her own if she had waited until 66. Since she started at 62, she gave up 25% of her benefit and is getting $708, $236 less than her full amount. Since Sandra's full benefit ($944) is more than 1/2 of Al's full benefit ($1500), she is not eligible for a wife's benefit. Even if she were, her benefit would be 1/2 of his $1500 (not 1/2 of $1980) and would be reduced by the $236 to $514. Since her own benefit is larger than $514, she will continue to get her own $708.

Posted by: Bob at 08/06/2010 08:16:29 PM

I see one big problem with the retirement do-over. What if you pay back all the money up to that point and then die shortly there after. The money you paid back will then not go to your heirs and you will have only have received the higher SS rate for a very short time. It would make far more sense to keep the money and invest it. If the amount was around $100,000 safely invested at a rate of 4%, that would be $333 a month in extra income to add to the lower social security check and you would still have the $100,000 to pass on to your family regardless of how much longer you live. The do-over looks like a losing strategy to me unless you live a really, really long time. Most of us won't.

Posted by: Ed Clemensen at 08/07/2010 05:07:35 PM

The Republocan leadership (and many of it's Lemming followers) have preached the demise of Social security since it's inception. Today we even have a Retiring Republican Senator Joe Bunning, a leading Republican Senator Tom Colburn, and a Congressional Representative, Presidentual Candidate Paul Ryan, not to mention (and the most destructive to her constituents) Sharron Angle calling for the death of social security. To illistrate how bad that idea is in her state, Most tourists in Nevada, are using their Social Security and Pensions to visit Las Vegas and Reno. Without the Socal Security Nevada can expect a thirty percent drop in Tourism, in a struggling Economy in the sin cities already. I didn't mention The minority whip calling to raise it to Seventy years of age. Why the present charge against social security, their reasoning is that we can't afford it. Yet they , to a man want to extend eight hundred billion dollars of tax cuts to the wealthiest TWO (2) pecent of the country. These are the very same people who marched us into a war for non-existent Weapons Of Mass Destruction, at least another eight hundred Billion dollars plus , however many dollars the Republican Commander in Chief BORROWED from CHINA, Now while it is true that the unemployment picture is bleak, these self same "LEADERS" will not tax the corporations that are sending the jobs over seas, but giving them tax breaks. The object is to make more people work longer, creating more computition in labor, thereby lowering wages. The problem that none of them see is that lowering wages also lowers buying power, which in turn lowers the need for non-eccetial products, which kills the need for employees and for businessess that would product un-neccessary products. To put it short and sweet, the best economy would be one where everyone has expendable cash. One of the best way is stop business from shipping jobs overseas, electronic support, etc. and to lower Social Security Age so that Families can make enough money in wages to live a good life.

Posted by: Kevin at 08/07/2010 05:16:52 PM

What the lady is doing in Strategy 1 is absurd and this loophole should be closed. Why should the American taxpayer subsidize this woman's choice to adopt children late in life (a choice she presumably shouldn't make unless she could afford it). $800 a month each for 7 years??? That's nearly 20K per year of subsidization. Some hardworking folks barely make that after taxes for working an entire year. I get the idea of benefits of minors for disabled/deceased parents, but I don't get this at all.

Posted by: M. L. Face at 08/08/2010 05:38:16 AM

That is nice. I'm too poor to pay back what I've earned so far, and have nothing to live on until 70, but still, I always applaud nice things happening to people my age and older.

Posted by: Ken at 08/08/2010 11:49:37 PM

The money Lucia Cruz receives in strategy 1 is a return of money she gave the government to keep in trust for her needs according to the rules of the Social Secuirty TRUST. My question is why she waited until she was 66 instead of applying at age 62?

Posted by: john at 08/09/2010 07:27:28 AM

government needs to pay back every penny taken during decades of raiding social security fund to pay for their deficit pork barrel spending and then keep their hands off of it..

Posted by: TES at 08/09/2010 10:39:43 AM

When you do pay back benefits received after the four years . . . .and you use the monies from your 401K . . . at what tax rate would you be taxed on your 401K moneyused to pay back the benefits lets say if you would have been drawing a safe interest rate of say 3% or 4% ?

Posted by: Stoic7 at 08/09/2010 11:29:23 AM

Ed...What do the tax cuts have to do with the Social Security fund, which do not come from general revenues? Stop your...partisan politics and address the real problem, which is tax and spend, government takeover of everything DEMO(N)CRATIC spending. By the way, does anyone know how SSDI affects your status if you collect before 62?

Posted by: MAE at 08/09/2010 02:50:21 PM

Does anyone know of any links to excel spreadsheets that would help someone calculate what is the best scenerio for their individual situations? This is certainly not a "one size fits all" type of situation.

Posted by: Nomen at 08/09/2010 04:46:41 PM

MAE, there are many programs out there but understanding the best plan of action always falls back on knowing just how long you are going to live. Financial services people will always steer you toward a plan that assumes you will live to be 94 to 96. They will also play on your fear of outliving your money. The best number that I have found is that you will probably not live more than 4 years longer than your oldest parent did at best and most likely will only reach their maximum age. If your health is poor or you are seriously overweight, you may want to subtract 4 years from those numbers. These aren't pleasant thoughts but neither is working, scrimping and saving enough money to live to be 96 and dying at 78. My personal philosophy is to always retire as soon as you have saved enough to live on 50% of your working income without reducing your savings. This 50% includes Soc. Sec. + pensions+ investment income. Needless to say, the more you have saved for retirement, the earlier you can retire.

Posted by: Francisco at 08/09/2010 05:21:31 PM

If one tries the retirement do-over after age 70, say age 76, would one have to reimburse benefits through age 76? or only through age 70 which the age of maximum SS increases. Does anyone know?

Posted by: Bob at 08/09/2010 08:17:27 PM

Francisco, if a do over is a bad idea at 70, it's a really bad idea at 76 unless you have the genes to live past 100. Doesn't trading $150,000 for $500 a month sound like a bad deal to you? Especially if you can KEEP BOTH the $150,000 and get $500 a month extra income from a nice safe 4% investment. This "Do over" thing has got to be one of the dumbest things that I have ever heard of.

Posted by: john at 08/10/2010 04:57:09 PM

MAE, the break even point is roughly at age 77. Some experts say that you can add 3-5 years to that(age 80-82) if you take into consideration investing that money in the early years. Even if you don't invest that money early on, the income you receive can allow you to keep other retirement savings growing instead of drawing them down without the income. If you google 'break even point on social security' you schould get an abundance of information. schwab.com has a graph for the break even.

Posted by: Susan at 08/11/2010 05:10:17 PM

I am in the same situation as the woman in strategy number 1, except that I'm married with a younger husband. I have two children, ages 11 and 17. I called the Social Security office and asked if I could file an application and suspend it, and then get benefits for my children. She told me two things: 1. You can't suspend your benefits yourself, SS needs to do it, and there has to be a reason 2. If your benefits are suspended your children can't collect during that period. So my question is, what's the best way to implement this strategy?

Posted by: John at 08/14/2010 02:15:01 PM

@ Ken. My understanding of why Ms Cruz is waiting until age 66 to utilize the file and suspend strategy is that one must reach full retirement age to use the strategy.

Posted by: cm at 08/17/2010 11:13:54 AM

I called the social security office twice and they told me that my minor children could not continue collecting benefits if we suspended my husband's benefits. So how does file and suspend work? My husband is retirement age and we have 2 children under the age of 18. I am not retirement age. How do we implement the File and Suspend strategy that you wrote about in your article?

Posted by: sb at 08/20/2010 10:54:41 AM

I cannot find where SSA regulations state that the requirement to "claim the highest benefit available" changes at the "age of 66". Two different SS offices have told me that this requirement does not change at the age of 66; that one must always take to highest benefit. Anyone help?

Posted by: sandra hutchens at 08/23/2010 09:56:17 AM

Social Security now has a 10 year rule on collecting disability benefits-my husband was self employed and fell short of paying in by 3 quarters --therefore all that he has payed in since age 16 does not count--now being unable to work--they tell him he does not qualify for any benefits--can anybody give me any help or sugestions?

Posted by: Helen Hill at 08/26/2010 10:40:49 AM

I plan to retire next year when I turn 66, my husband has already retired and started taking SS benefits when he was 62. what would you suggest that I do....start taking my SS benefits when i turn 66 or delay?

Posted by: John at 08/26/2010 12:06:21 PM

Those (with modest incomes) who postpone social security are hit with a higher medicare premium; it is happening to me now. Does anyone know if, by claiming spousal benefits, whether Fry will receive less at age 70 than he would if he did not claim spousal benefits?

Posted by: MesaMel at 08/26/2010 05:30:29 PM

My husband just turned 65..I am 53..He is retired and started collecting SS at 62..My question..we are thinking of the do over.. Once we pay back the original benefits,.can he collect off MY SS until he is 70 and then tap into his benefits? I am not officially retired from my company of 32yrs employment but off on a work related injury..am not collecting any type of pay but may be able to retire officially when I turn 55.

Posted by: Pat at 08/26/2010 06:00:40 PM

Wrong #'s or not this certainly looks like something to explore! I am 62 and due to the economic downturn I have been let go after a 36 year career in the Medical arena ( funny I always felt so secure b/c it was a hightech medical job) go figure. In these uncertain times we ALL owe it to ourselves to research and be informed about what is out there.

Posted by: Gary at 08/30/2010 04:41:48 PM

How does this work? I just got back from our SSA office and they have never heard of this process. They also said that even if it were possible when I suspend my benifits until a later time anyone who is drawing benifites on my record would also be suspended.

Posted by: Fred at 09/01/2010 11:40:47 PM

To Stoic7: You are right let congress get away from politics. It does not matter what fund the monies come from for SS or tax breaks, what does matter is that they represent 2 very different ways of treating the lower paid retirees and the 2% who are considered wealthy. Where is the fairness in this debate, to call it politics is outrageous. DOESN'T IT MAKE MORE SENSE TO GIVE THE 2% MORE WEALTH SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT RETIRING? THEN REDUCE THE SS PAYMENTS OR ABOLISH SS SO THE REMAINING 98% OF RETIREES TRYING TO RETIRE A LITTLE MORE COMFORTABLE - WON'T, because you think it is politics! IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT FUND IT COMES FROM, WHAT MATTERS IS WHO WILL STAND UP AND START GIVING THE BASIC MEANS OF LIFE AND SURVIVAL TO ALL RETIREES?

Posted by: Millie at 09/04/2010 09:45:20 PM

With the shape social security is in, I don't think I would ever consider this option. You may never see your money that you just turned over to the government to do with what they choose. No, thank you. I will keep mine.

Posted by: Lynda at 09/05/2010 02:13:44 AM

I became disabled in 2004 and started collecting SS benefits the first time I applied. They said they would review my case again in 7 years. I turned 63 last month. I may have to have a 2 day surgery because the first one didn't take in 2004! I receive $1384.00 a month. My husband is retired AF (noncom) and can retire from a school district in TX in 2 years and get a pension from them. He has also been paying into Social Security for 4 years because he has been driving school bus part time for about4 years. This will be our only retirement income. What do you suggest for us?

Posted by: hcer at 09/05/2010 11:43:22 PM

Social security seems to offer strategies/opportunities for which very, very few can afford to use, "retirement do-over" or "file and suspend", for instance. Soc Sec should consider allowing people who retire early (before age 66), to continue to work, if they choose, and not limit their earned income to less than $15,000/yr. The income would be taxed, adding to Social Security as it currently is and I/we would be able to enjoy some of our benefits, we have worked so many years for and by continuing to work, maybe ourt monthly soc sec income would also increase. In my case, health issues may make it necessary to retire from current job, before age 66, but I will need to work somewhere for someone to earn enough for pay health care insurance since I won't be old enough for Medicare. Again, another government program that may not exist for much longer!.

Posted by: Hank Clark at 09/16/2010 06:58:50 AM

I am going to be 66 years old in January and will continue working full time for another two or three years. The social security office has told me that if I collect my full retirement benefits in January and continue working I will continue to accrue benefits based on my work earnings and that my benefit will rise each year over and above the cost of living adjustment. If this is true why don't publications such as yours discuss this alternative? All I see written up is waiting to age 70 to collect a higher benefit.

Posted by: Bill at 09/19/2010 03:09:52 PM

I looked at Strategy 3 [do over]. There are a couple of errors in the article: 1-the increase in Phillips' SS is 1125, not 1175. That's an increase of 67%, not 160% I'm 67 [wife= same] After visiting the SS office I determined that after paying back benefits for my wife and myself we'd get the amount back in about 50 months. Not bad. However, the proper way is to look at how long it takes to make up the payback from the increase in monthly payments. In Phillips' case he may think the break-even is 50 months [$142k divided by $2800/mo] but it's actually 126 months [$142,000/$1125/mo]. When you consider earnings on the $142k that are lost it stretches the payback out even further. In my case it would take 14 years for the increased monthly payments to recover the assets paid back now. If the average earnings on those assets [and other assets] is 5% the payback stretches out to 26 years. Until I looked at the "asset approach" we were just about ready to do the do-over. It was not wasted effort, though. I found out some things about SS benefits in the process.

Posted by: Jack at 09/22/2010 03:22:03 PM

2 comments, first MAE on 8/9: try an outstanding no-frills, non-commercial, what-if spreadsheet tool, and an otherwise excellent site...and BILL on 9/19 regarding the do-over: yes, how could Kiplinger let that "160%" get by?? But regarding your analysis using a 5% foregone return on the payback amount, try a lower real return figure and/or remember that the benefits increase with inflation. And don't wait too long because SSA has proposed to limit do-overs to the first 12 months after the original application for benefits.

Posted by: Jack at 09/24/2010 05:32:35 PM

Kiplinger, really, why do you offer Comments if you take sooooo long to post them?

Posted by: Jeffrey at 09/28/2010 09:09:03 AM

I've thought a lot about when to collect SS benefits. Assuming you have a viable choice about when to collect, the factor that almost is never considered is whether you would ENJOY spending the SS benefit early or wait and spend the additional benefit later. Obviously this aspect of the earlier vs later choice is dependent on lots of variables, e.g., personal health, genetic heredity predisposition towards long life, dependents and the desire to pass along your wealth either while you are living or after you pass-away.

Posted by: Herbie at 09/29/2010 01:13:17 PM

Wait one minute. Had retriee #3 banked his $140,000 and some he would be earning interest on those monies (and) still be receiving benefits. Hard to beat considering the possiblity of dying sooner rather than later. Any comments?

Posted by: almi at 10/02/2010 11:52:49 PM

I am 64 years old and a healthcare professional with good job making 110 grand per year My wife a registered nurse retired three years ago with a pension of $990.00 per month. She turned 62 last Oct 2009 and started collecting SSI since July 2010. When I turn 65 in June 2011 I want to file and suspend SS benefit and when I turn 66 can I claim benefit for my two grand daughters. Thanks...

Posted by: Arthell at 10/05/2010 01:19:39 PM

Ed Clemensen makes the point that Repulbicans have "have preached the demise of Social security since it's inception." Actuaries will tell you this is truth not Doom and Gloom naysaying (see he98033.pdf at the goa dot gov website). Also Mr. Clemensen points to the Lemming followers as doing the same. Yet in the Same paragraph he states that "To illistrate how bad that idea is in her state, Most tourists in Nevada, are using their Social Security and Pensions to visit Las Vegas and Reno." Does this assertion However factual prove solvency for the program, or the Lemming status on Gambling with the use of others money, be it Government or Casino, to WIN big. Most calls for Social Security's demise are about the solvency not taking the money and run example that most would have you believe. Most plans I have heard have asked for the cancellation of most or all benefits of individulas below a certain age such as myself a 40 year old male would be frozen at the current level of benefit my son an 18 year old would be given ample opportunity to stickpile his money for retirement. Since he understands the idea of compounding intrest he could do quite well infact probably better than Soc. Sec. without any effort. Initially, I believe, when Social Security was set up the Average Life expectancy was 62. That mens the program was set up to account for at least 6 of the 10 people being dead by 65. Tha means the intent was for the interest of 6 could be used to support the living 4 as well as their contributions. Additionally, anyone who says their were no reported weapons of mass destruction would be correct. A friend of mine will say the same thing and then tell you about transporting a found repository of VX gas while in Iraq. Also taxes are one of the reasons that companies are going overseas since the tariffs have been lifted many jobs can be done cheaper at 11% and ship to America than 25% internally.

Posted by: Phil at 10/05/2010 08:07:34 PM

I Hear all of you. This is a hot topic for seniors but evidently not for most of the younger people, government officials, the President or most billionaires who may not need help as much. They have already raised Medicare premiums for everyone as well as people over $250,000. They want to raise the SS retirement age, cut benefits, limit benefits on Medicare. Why is it that it was OK to raise the Social Security lage from 65 years to 66 years old for us, but they don't want to save money by raising the retirement age for younger people at certain increments by only 1 year at a time. Their lifespans will be longer than ours. Could it be because AARP is on the government's side, while we pay to keep them alive? The seniors now have worked all their lives and it is unfair to take even a penny from them. Retired people usually need the help the most unless they are very wealthy. Even if retirees have $500,000 saved there is no replenishing it if we are not working. It must last through sickness, bad times and good - hopefully without relying on our kids or the goverment in our last days.Young people are just starting or have paid a much shorter time. Why target seniors? Seniors have to have a voice in government about their retirement. I don't hear anyone else fighting hard for us. We do not have many fighting for us and we need to be our own advocates.

Posted by: Phyl at 10/05/2010 08:17:12 PM

I just read the article on this site about 13 new tax changes. It would be good for everyone to read the article, and especially #8 about seniors and Medicare. .



Featured Videos From Kiplinger





Connect With Kiplinger

E-mail Updates: Select the Kiplinger columns and topics to be delivered to your inbox.

email-sign-up

facebook
twitter
RSS