I was telling Jen about claiming only one record. I was not
correcting a quote from you.
I am aware that file and suspend is grandfathered in for some
people. I am also glad that Congress closed the loopholes with
bipartisan support when they are unable to do much of anything
else with bipartisan support. I have heard financial advisers
absolutely giddy over the words "file and suspend". Interesting
how many prosperous citizens who condemn the poor for what they
see as abusing the welfare system have felt no shame whatsoever
in getting more than their fair share on Social Security through
financial sleight-of-hand.
On 4/02/16, Retired Teacher - S.S. buff wrote:
> To clc,
>
> In your 2nd paragraph you wrote, "my understanding is that you
can
> claim SS on either your own record or your spouse's but not
both."
>
> I did NOT say that you can claim both. I restate what I said
in
> earlier post that people can collect different types of
> benefits--but not simultaneously. They can start with one type
> and switch to another when they are get bigger--but it has to
> happen at the right time. Example: If you are divorced (after
> having been married for 10 or more years) and turn 62 no later
> than Jan. 1, 2016, you can still file just for your divorce(e)
> spousal benefit at full retirement age and wait until 70 to
> collect your own retirement benefit.
>
> See item #3 on the following website:
> www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/12-secrets-maximizing-
social-security-benefits-new-rules/
>
> The 2 strategies that are being phased out in the Bipartisan
> Budget Act of 2015 are listed below. Congress passed these
items
> that were buried in the middle of a huge bill that was rushed
> through to avoid a government shut down last fall. There was
no
> debate about the SS part--most people did not even know it was
there.
>
> "File & Suspend" can still be done for those have reached full
> retirement age on or before May 1, 2016.
>
> "File restrictive application" can be done if a person is 62
on or
> before January 1, 2016
>
> On 4/02/16, clc to jen wrote:
>> I don't claim to be an expert on Social Security or even a
>> buff. I am a divorced woman who took Social Security at 62 on
>> my own record. Some of the strategies which have been
>> referred to here are loopholes that have been recently closed
>> by law for most new applicants. Were you born after January
>> 1, 1954? If so, you don't get to play games and milk the
>> Social Security System as many legally did before. Things
>> like file and suspend aren't allowed for you. If you were
>> born before, talk to a qualified financial adviser. Believe
>> me, they will be happy to tell you about file and suspend.
>>
>> As for divorced people with a living ex-spouse, my
>> understanding is that you can claim SS on either your own
>> record or your spouse's but not both. You also now have to
>> take the larger amount you are entitled to. At 62 you can get
>> either 35% of your ex's SS amount or 75% or your full
>> retirement amount (at 66) whichever is higher. MY ex makes
>> more than I ever did but my 75% was higher than his 35%. I
>> live and worked in a state where teachers paid fully into
>> both SS and the pension system. Our pensions are lower than
>> yours in CA, however. I took SS at 62. I had lived on just my
>> pension for 2 years before that, but it was tight and I
>> didn't want to have to dip into my savings and investments
>> too much. I decided not to wait until 66(full retirement age)
>> so I am stuck with and happy with my 75% until my death or my
>> ex's death.
>>
>> If my ex should die before me, then I will be entitled to the
>> equivalent of his SS payment at the time. I can't get both
>> his and mine. I do get the larger amount. He is planning to
>> retire and take his SS at 66 (next year) so if he dies before
>> me (not wishing him gone), I would see a significant increase
>> in my income. That's why the SS poster told you, your ex is
>> worth more to you dead than alive.
>>
>>
>> On 4/02/16, Retired Teacher - S.S. buff wrote:
>>> On 4/02/16, Jen wrote:
>>>> I read you post several times and still have questions.
>>>> Where can I find strategies for divorced spouses? Thank
>>>> you!
>>>
>>> JEN,
>>>
>>> Divorced spouses have the same options to maximize or
>> optimize
>>> their SS benefits as a married couple--plus some that are
>> not
>>> available to the married couple.
>>>
>>> You have several types of benefits available--on your own
>> work
>>> record, spousal benefits, survivor (widow) benefits. The
>>> amounts collected vary based on your work record, the work
>>> record of the ex-spouse and your age when you start them.
>> All
>>> these benefits can be taken, but not simultaneously. You
>> can
>>> start with one type and later switch to another type after
>> it
>>> has grown because of delayed retirement credits.
>>>
>>> There are even benefits available to you if you care minor
>>> children up to age 18 or 20 if still in high school, for
>>> children who were disabled before age 22, etc.
>>>
>>> Some types of benefits might require a person to delay the
>>> start them which might necessitate working longer or
>> needing
>>> to spend down other resources during the delay.
>>>
>>> I could give you specific advice for some of these
>> strategies
>>> but I would need to know the amount of your PIA (full
>>> retirement age benefit on your own work record) and the PIA
>> of
>>> your ex-spouse, and the birth month/year of you and your
>>> ex-spouse.
>>>
>>> You can find out more about these strategies by visiting
>> the
>>> SSA website--but sometimes they are confusing. You could
>>> google a topic like: social security strategies for
>> divorced
>>> spouse.
>>>
>>> There are several SS claiming programs with calculators on
>> the
>>> internet--some better than others. They can help people
>> sift
>>> through the maze of options that are available. Some are
>>> free. Some have a $40-$50 fee, but are more powerful and
>> show
>>> more details and reports.
>>>
>>> You don't want to JUST get a benefit...you want to get the
>>> best benefit and at the best TIME for YOU.
>>>
Posts on this thread, including this one