# Help me understand this part of my SS statement



## Homesteader (Jul 13, 2002)

Ok, I'm 55. I have not worked for about 14 years now. That "statement" that the SS sends out every so often shows my income from my working years, and then, shows zero of course for the last years.

There is this wording that says something like -- if your income continues at this rate your monthly SS benefit would be X

I can't figure out if this means, that if I went back to getting an income that would be my monthly benefit. Or if it means, that if I continue to make zero income, that is what my benefit would be. Like, if I never work again, do I get the X amount they show?

Anyone know?


----------



## Guest (Mar 19, 2014)

yes, it means that you will get the amount shown, without working any more. Which, of course will be raised for cost of living adjustments, from time to time. If there is any way possible, it would benefit you to have a few good quarters in before you start drawing SS though. Drawing a check based on the income I had in the 60's and 70's really don't hit on much.


----------



## Wolf mom (Mar 8, 2005)

http://www.bankrate.com/finance/retirement/how-income-figures-in-social-security.aspx

'What you receive when you retire is based on the highest 35 years of income indexed to current dollars."

Social Security puts the statement you quoted in as a qualifier as they believe most people's income goes up in their last few years of working.


----------



## Homesteader (Jul 13, 2002)

Thanks for your input! I can't work outside the house, would never be able to keep a job with this particular health condition. What I have doesn't fall under the lists of acceptable "disabilities", and since I haven't worked for so many years I no longer qualify for disability anyway. 

Because of this I am looking at trying to learn whether or not drawing the small amount they say I would get as soon as I am allowed by age may be the way to go. If I won't ever get an amount any higher why not take it?

If DH dies I will get something from his SS, correct? I mean to say, my taking my small amount early, will not affect his?


----------



## jassytoo (May 14, 2003)

Yes, you will get a percentage of your DHs social security at retirement age. He doesn't have to die for you to get it. If you have been married at least 10 years. You will be able to take the greater amount, either a percentage of his ( usually 50%, if you are both at full retirement age) or you can take yours. It will not affect the amount your husband receives.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

The amount of social security you get that is based on two things- your earnings you paid into social security and your age at the time you start taking it out. The fact that you stopped having earnings under social security may not be that significant if you have already paid enough years to have no zero years in the calculation. 
The amount your benefit is reduced for taking benefits before full retirement age is now over 20% as full retirement age has increased but not by a huge amount.
Then when you husband retires, you would be due a spouse's benefit if your own full retirement age benefit is less than half of his full retirement amount. The way that is calculated is by taking your full retirement amount away from half his full retirement amount then reducing that difference for your age at the time you file for that benefit.
Then if your husband dies, you would be eligible for, in most cases, the amount he was getting as long as you are full retiremnt age at that time. So at that point you would no longer see the reduction in your own benefit that you had by taking it early.


----------



## Guest (Mar 20, 2014)

As to drawing SS early: I figured up once, the difference between drawing at age 62, 66, and 70. Seems like that at about 82 years old, the amount of dollars you have gotten would be exactly the same. For instance, add up 20 years of what you draw monthly at 62, then 16 years of what you draw at 66, then 12 of what you draw at 70. All things considered, I'd rather get a little all along than a little more in a few years. You ain't guaranteed those few years. It seems to work out at break even somewhere around the average life span of Americans. My numbers may be off some since I'm no longer able to see any "what if's", but the principle is intact.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

zong said:


> As to drawing SS early: I figured up once, the difference between drawing at age 62, 66, and 70. Seems like that at about 82 years old, the amount of dollars you have gotten would be exactly the same. For instance, add up 20 years of what you draw monthly at 62, then 16 years of what you draw at 66, then 12 of what you draw at 70. All things considered, I'd rather get a little all along than a little more in a few years. You ain't guaranteed those few years. It seems to work out at break even somewhere around the average life span of Americans. My numbers may be off some since I'm no longer able to see any "what if's", but the principle is intact.


This is absolutely true. I just worked it out for myself because I had to decide whether to take an early pension (Canadian) or not. If I start collecting at age 60 instead of the person who only starts at age 65 and we both live until age 75 then I will have collected the same amount of money by age 75. Meanwhile my pension can go to finish paying off the mortgage 5 years early.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

emdeengee said:


> This is absolutely true. I just worked it out for myself because I had to decide whether to take an early pension (Canadian) or not. If I start collecting at age 60 instead of the person who only starts at age 65 and we both live until age 75 then I will have collected the same amount of money by age 75. Meanwhile my pension can go to finish paying off the mortgage 5 years early.


That is always a personal decision. My usual patter when I worked for social security, once I was sure that they understood the figures, was that some people feel they should take whatever they can get now because no one knows what's going to happen but others feel they don't need the money now but might later.
It's a human choice unless the recovery point is likely never to happen. And that doesn't happen with artifically low interest rates.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

It is a personal choice but no one knows if they will be alive tomorrow let alone in 5 years. Might as well collect while you can. The fact that so many people die before collecting or just collecting for a short period of time is what makes any insurance profitable - and old age pensions are a form of insurance. 

If you think that you might need the money later you can always collect it early but not spend it. Save it and build up your savings. Or put it towards payment of things - such as a mortgage or new windows, insulation etc - all of which will save you money in the long run. More then you would collect by waiting.


----------



## Homesteader (Jul 13, 2002)

This has been so helpful! The money is enough to make a significant dent in rising costs and I think based on what I see here (and of course I would go meet with a SS rep first), it will be of great benefit for me to take mine at...........

wait, what age can I begin taking it?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

emdeengee said:


> It is a personal choice but no one knows if they will be alive tomorrow let alone in 5 years. Might as well collect while you can. The fact that so many people die before collecting or just collecting for a short period of time is what makes any insurance profitable - and old age pensions are a form of insurance.
> 
> If you think that you might need the money later you can always collect it early but not spend it. Save it and build up your savings. Or put it towards payment of things - such as a mortgage or new windows, insulation etc - all of which will save you money in the long run. More then you would collect by waiting.


And a response I got from people who made a different choice is that their parent's lived into their 90s. It is always better to leave personal decisions to the people making them. They are much more aware of their needs.
Most people made the choice for benefits now. Same as you but some didn't. And they have a right to do their own thinking as long as they understood the arithmatic.
It is not a personal criticism to think differently.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Homesteader said:


> This has been so helpful! The money is enough to make a significant dent in rising costs and I think based on what I see here (and of course I would go meet with a SS rep first), it will be of great benefit for me to take mine at...........
> 
> wait, what age can I begin taking it?


62 unless that has changed.


----------



## emdeengee (Apr 20, 2010)

where I want to said:


> And a response I got from people who made a different choice is that their parent's lived into their 90s. It is always better to leave personal decisions to the people making them. They are much more aware of their needs.
> Most people made the choice for benefits now. Same as you but some didn't. And they have a right to do their own thinking as long as they understood the arithmatic.
> It is not a personal criticism to think differently.


Who said it was? 

My opinion is clearly stated and I did what worked best for me. Each person must consider their situation. 

Of course how the money plays out over the years depends a lot on your health and other pension income and assets. You can plan for a 15 or 20 or 30 year retirement but no one knows what their health situation will be or even whether or not there will be SS or Old Age pensions in the future or if they will be drastically reduced. In the end it is a lottery.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

The more you work and have S.S taxes taken out, the more quarters you earn. The more quarters you earn the higher your S.S. retirement benefit.


----------



## Ramblin Wreck (Jun 10, 2005)

I haven't calculated the break even point as Zong did, but 82 would seem about right for me based upon the numbers I got when I established my on-line ssn account a few months ago. I estimated my "useful life" at 85, and if I lived to that age, I would draw more by waiting until age 70. That's a big if for sure.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

zong said:


> As to drawing SS early: I figured up once, the difference between drawing at age 62, 66, and 70. Seems like that at about 82 years old, the amount of dollars you have gotten would be exactly the same. For instance, add up 20 years of what you draw monthly at 62, then 16 years of what you draw at 66, then 12 of what you draw at 70. All things considered, I'd rather get a little all along than a little more in a few years. You ain't guaranteed those few years. It seems to work out at break even somewhere around the average life span of Americans. My numbers may be off some since I'm no longer able to see any "what if's", but the principle is intact.


Yeah, but can you live on what you get at age 62 for the rest of your life?
Take into consideration your spouses death and the resulting stoppage of their SS. Consider; illness, cost of living, replacing your vehicle, home repairs, taxes, special assessments from the county, etc.
Sorry, seen too many broke old folks forced to live with relatives, each resenting the other and nothing can be done about it. In that situation now with my idiot older brother; never saved a dime, retired at 62, SS is not enough to even get an apartment and pay utilities - guess who he's living with.

To me, unless you are rich, you're nuts to not work until at least full retirement. YMMV


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2014)

You can work as long as you like, it makes no difference to me what you do. However, I live the life I made for myself, which some people might consider nuts anyway, and that, too, doesn't matter. Part of the life I made for myself includes not being arrogant enough to assume I know total strangers lives well enough to call them nuts. However, as you so wisely point out "YMMV". I like to think people have a right to their opinions, and their decisions.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Shrek said:


> The more you work and have S.S taxes taken out, the more quarters you earn. The more quarters you earn the higher your S.S. retirement benefit.


I don't remember what the max number of quarters is, but once you reach the max number of quarters worked you get no increase in benefits from continuing to pay Social Security. I believe my last 3 years were all at the max level. At 52 I had maxed out what my SS benefit would be so I stopped working. Didn't make sense to keep paying into a system without a corresponding increase in benefits.

If I had continued to work until 65, I would have paid an additional $50,000 plus into SS, plus my employer would have contributed another $50,000 plus and my increase in benefits for this $100,000 would have been $0.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> I don't remember what the max number of quarters is, but once you reach the max number of quarters worked you get no increase in benefits from continuing to pay Social Security. I believe my last 3 years were all at the max level. At 52 I had maxed out what my SS benefit would be so I stopped working. Didn't make sense to keep paying into a system without a corresponding increase in benefits.
> 
> If I had continued to work until 65, I would have paid an additional $50,000 plus into SS, plus my employer would have contributed another $50,000 plus and my increase in benefits for this $100,000 would have been $0.


Mostly true but it depends. SS uses a certain number of years in calculating a benefit. Once you have the reqired number of years, your benefit would increase due to additional earnings only if the additional year was higher than a previous year used. As the amount available to be taxed goes up each year, it is possible to keep replacing a lower than max year in the past. But it would be pretty minimal for a person whose paid max all those years.
The real advantage in waiting comes to most people by reducing the reduction for age for filing before full retirement age.


----------



## Chixarecute (Nov 19, 2004)

Back to post #4, if the OP collects on own record, it will not change amount spouse gets. (I am not sure how it works if you collect at age 62 on spouse's record.)

If spouse dies, the OP will not be able to collect widow/widower benefits until age 60 (provided you were married 10 years or more). I believe the spousal rate is 80% of the amount the deceased would have collected. 

SS office will usually run those calculations for you, to see if you are better off collecting on your record or his.


----------



## newcolorado (Jan 31, 2012)

I am one that worked to passed 70 before getting SS. Just how it worked out as had good job and needed the years to get full SS, They passed you could work and not reduce your SS then. Where it had been 70. I was working full time and put in. I did not have 35 years in yet. I worked till 72 and retired. I got increased for each year I worked and I banked the SS. My Dec work check and vacation time and some sick leave time was my 35th year of wages. I had no empty years then. But my first years were part time and low wages. At 62 it was just too small. My deceased husband's SS was no good to me as too tiny .I had to go to work. I could also save part of my wages and so built up my savings. 

We all are in different situations. That is how it worked out for me. Really did not have a choice. I did the best I knew.


----------

