Posted on 05/12/2010 12:42:03 PM PDT by Kaslin
Dear Carrie: While I am still employed, can my nonworking wife retire and receive Social Security benefits? -- A Reader
Dear Reader: There's a lot of confusion about whether or not a nonworking spouse is entitled to Social Security benefits, so I'm glad you asked this question. The short answer is that a nonworking spouse who has reached age 62 can collect Social Security based on the working spouses earning's record, once the working spouse has filed for benefits.
You say that you're still employed, so I'm going to assume that you're not collecting Social Security yet. I'm also going to assume, for the sake of simplicity, that your wife doesn't qualify for her own benefits. (If she did, she could file in her own name regardless of your filing status once she turned 62.) If my assumptions are accurate, while your wife may be eligible for Social Security benefits, she can't collect until you file for benefits yourself.
This sounds clear enough, but as with so much that has to do with the government and money, there are a number of rules and exceptions to complicate things a bit.
WHAT AND WHEN A NONWORKING SPOUSE CAN COLLECT
The Social Security benefit of a nonworking spouse is 50 percent of the full benefit of the working spouse. So if your full benefit is $2,000, your wife would be able to collect $1,000. However, the age limits that apply to worker benefits also apply to spousal benefits. There are two choices. Your wife can:
-- Take Social Security at age 62. But the 50 percent spousal benefit would be further reduced by about 25 percent for the rest of her life.
-- Wait until what the IRS designates as her "full retirement age" (between 65 and 67, depending on when she was born) to receive the full spousal benefit. In this case, she will receive 50 percent of your full benefit.
Just for the record, there is an exception to the age requirement if your spouse is caring for your child who is under age 16.
WHY TIMING IS IMPORTANT
Both you and your wife should give a lot of thought to when to begin collecting Social Security. For instance, if you applied early at age 62, your benefit would be permanently reduced. If your wife also elected to take Social Security early, her 50 percent benefit would be permanently reduced. That could make a big hole in your monthly income.
While it might seem smart to begin taking benefits as soon as possible -- after all, you'll then collect checks for a longer period of time -- it's a good idea to look at your "break-even age" before making a final decision. This is how long you need to live to make sure choosing a later date will give you greater lifetime benefits. You can find a break-even calculator at IRS.gov. It's definitely worth a look. Chances are, the longer you can each wait, the better.
ANOTHER STRATEGY
You don't say how old you are, but if you've reached your full retirement age, you could file for benefits, even though you're still working, and your wife could then file for the spousal benefit. At full retirement age, there's no limit on the amount you can earn and still collect full benefits. However, if you prefer to delay taking your own benefits, there's another strategy to consider. The IRS lets you file for Social Security and then immediately suspend your benefits. This would allow your wife to begin collecting a spousal benefit based on your earnings while you continue to work. At the same time, your own future benefit would continue to grow. Another plus to this strategy is that the larger your eventual benefit, the larger your wife's survivor benefit. That's because, should you die first, your wife would collect 100 percent of your Social Security.
As you can see, there are a number of things to consider. I'd suggest you talk to your financial or tax adviser about the best strategy for both you and your wife. A little planning can help maximize the total benefit for your household. And why not? After all, you've earned it!
Untrue - given current taxation rates, the projections are that 77% of current benefits could be paid from current revenues, on a pay as you go basis ...
I have to proceed very carefully, but there is a lot of wrong/incomplete information being posted on this thread - I advise you strongly to check SSA’s website for complete, correct information.
Yes, they do. And many of their children are the ones running wild around the neighborhood between the hours of 3pm-7pm when school lets out and their parents come home from work. The fire dept was at one such house just 2 weeks ago when the oldest (11yrs) turned on the oven to cook something and caught something in the oven on fire. We've also got a great after-school GANG initiation program for the kids who are really lonely.
You think it’s not? They have been ‘borrowing’ from it for years. Remember what Bush wanted to implement?
Longer than most parents think.
Those kids would be running around anyway - just families are not the norm. Are you trying to insinuate all those gangs in Chicago have concerned parents? Pleeeeeeze! One or both parents are more likely at home or in jail.
Family of eight across the street - six children in private school, both parents work, they run a tight ship. They have one advantage - the grandma gets a few off the bus. Couldn’t ask for nicer kids.
It’s call arranging your life to meet the needs. Kids run wild when their home life is wild to begin with. Save you sob stories for the libs.
Longer for those parents who baby them.
Which part of this clause did you not understand? "Retirement" was considered inability to work due to age - the only change to that is you used to have to stop working to get benefits - Clinton changed that so now Donald Trump can start collecting in 2012 when he reaches his full retirement age.
Social Security is an Insurance program, not a retirement program. If two people are eligible they can collect based on one contribution (up to the family max). If the worker has children under 16 THEY can also collect when he retires.
Shouldn’t this read.. .’non-employed’ spouse?
“Don’t imply those working outside the home don’t do more work in LESS TIME than those who don’t work outside the home! Been on both sides of the fence, I can’t be conned, I know the deal.”
*********************************************************
I don’t think a blanket statement works here. Probably more likely that SOME working outside the home do more work in less time than SOME who don’t, and SOME staying at home do more work in less time than SOME who work outide the home. Consider that there are all sorts of situations.Many of the stay at home moms are organizing, volunteering in the classroom, being the support or go-to person in the neighborhood and many other sorts of things which are definitely work and not play. Others do the minimum. Same with working moms. Some have demanding jobs and are tied to a desk, others have more flexible situations, others don’t have to work very much at their work and just want to work in order to get away from the work of child-rearing and be around grown-ups to have a social life. There are countless situations which make it sketchy to make a blanket statement that women who work outside the home do more work in less time.
No, I don’t think so. That could imply the spouse had worked previously and now unemployed or non-employed, as you say. The spouse in this situation never gave into the system, so she was never employed.
Of course, let’s not get ridiculous here. That’s not the point of the article what people do with their time. People work outside the home and volunteer and take care of the neighbors kids along with their own - so let’s not beat a dead drum.
I think someone got burned by a lazy stay at home ex-wife.
My son had a stroke at nine days old. He will NEVER “grow up,” and I’ve been “not working” ever since.
He’s currently 12, and we try to give him as much knowledge as he can get before he reaches the plateau of his abilities. He is homeschooled, and we’ve attempted to fill his schedule with interesting and educational things, but it takes a lot of running around to do that.
In all probability, he will never learn to drive a car. He will never be able to support himself. He will always live with us, until we die, and we will take care of him as long as we can. Then...his brother or other family will have to take over.
Add to that the currently stable bum ticker that caused the damned stroke in the first place, and you can’t begin to imagine the worry and work it takes to even keep going day after day.
I held some kind of job from the age of 12-31, when I had my first baby. Even then, when the kids went to (Catholic)school, I took a job at the school just to keep an eye on him. Now that he’s not at school anymore, I stay home with him and teach him what I can while still keeping house. I can tell you that THIS is the hardest thing I’ve ever done, hands down.
Oh, how I wish my Johnny would “grow up” one day....but he won’t.
Regards,
Just one of the 1/2 or 3/4 truths in this article. For anybody interested, look up the annual retirement test and adjustment of the reduction factor. 31 years was enough for me to be sick of explaining them. By the way, given the condition of the SSA "trust fund", it's optimistic to believe that benefit formulas will be static forever, therefore who the hell knows what a "break even point" will be.
There - is that simple enough for you to understand?
No = so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.