Forum Thread

"New" social security law complicates the filing process

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 4 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I just came across this today and I can't help but be a little upset. Last year, a bill passed in the dead of night that reduced the benefits of married couples and divorcees who were younger than 62 before January 2, by up to $60,000. This "new" law prevents people who reach the age of 66 from providing spousal benefits to their spouse or children while their retirement benefit grows. One exception is for those who filed their retirement benefit, but suspended before April 29.

    It also makes it to where spouses who were not 62 before Jan 2, HAVE to file for their retirement benefit when they file for their spousal benefit. Social security won't pay two benefits at once, so they have to choose the larger of the two benefits, losing one. Those who reached 62 before Jan 2 , can still collect their spousal benefit between 66 and 70, then take their own retirement at 70.

    There were no public hearings on this law, or congressional debate. The gist here, is that congress just cut many American's Social Security benefits by tens of thousands of dollars. Which results in many people having to take their retirement benefits earlier at lower levels than planned. It just feels like the age that folks are able to retire, increases ever 5 to ten years. If someone waits until they are 70 to collect their retirement benefit, it will be 76% higher than it would be if someone decided to collect at 62.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I remember when I first heard about retiring as a kid that you did so when you were 62. Since then it seems that number keeps going up every few years. Is 70 the new 62? Or is social security hurting financially that bad? I know the baby boomer generation cashing in is set to seriously tax the system, making it much harder to stay solvent, as is.

    Actually, we have another thread on here discussing this law change, called File and Suspend. It did just end, but as the other forum suggests, not for everyone.

    Recommend also checking it out. Might help shed a little more light on the issue.

    Is a good conversation to have though - at what age should a person be able to retire with full social security benefits, without having to worry about getting less by cashing in early? I always thought 65 seemed fair. I know life expectancy is technically on the rise on this country though, and that should also change the equation of what the government program can afford to handle over time.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    YellowSubmarine Wrote:

    I remember when I first heard about retiring as a kid that you did so when you were 62. Since then it seems that number keeps going up every few years. Is 70 the new 62? Or is social security hurting financially that bad? I know the baby boomer generation cashing in is set to seriously tax the system, making it much harder to stay solvent, as is.

    Actually, we have another thread on here discussing this law change, called File and Suspend. It did just end, but as the other forum suggests, not for everyone.

    Recommend also checking it out. Might help shed a little more light on the issue.

    Is a good conversation to have though - at what age should a person be able to retire with full social security benefits, without having to worry about getting less by cashing in early? I always thought 65 seemed fair. I know life expectancy is technically on the rise on this country though, and that should also change the equation of what the government program can afford to handle over time.

    Very good point. My guess, and I think I could bet money on it, is that the government put this through as a preemtive measure, regarding the baby boomers. They wanted a cut-off, a bottle neck if you will. Growing up, I was told that I would probably never see a social security check when I am old. Alas, it's probably true.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Flinterman Wrote:
    Growing up, I was told that I would probably never see a social security check when I am old. Alas, it's probably true.
    Yeah, I was told the same thing. Being that I was born between Generation X and the "millennials" (I hold no allegiance to either).. I have always expected as much. The program just celebrated it's 80th birthday last year I believe, citing no late payments ever. How long can that realistically last, without change? I don't and won't bet on another 40-50 years, which is what it would take to supplement workers like myself that have been paying in like everyone else, albeit so far on a much smaller timeline.