[CNBC article: Social Security Denying Delayed Benefits]

Non-investing personal finance issues including insurance, credit, real estate, taxes, employment and legal issues such as trusts and wills.
Post Reply
Topic Author
BahamaMan
Posts: 896
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 5:52 pm

[CNBC article: Social Security Denying Delayed Benefits]

Post by BahamaMan »

The latest Social Security horror story [link formatted by admin LadyGeek, see my comments below.]
Tom1397
Posts: 25
Joined: Sun May 17, 2015 3:45 pm

Re: Is this really a Problem with Social Security.....Need a Forum S.S. Expert...

Post by Tom1397 »

Believe I heard of it happening to someone and it is almost impossible to undo after the fact.

Based on this, if I had not yet claimed, I would be sure to expressly restrict retroactivity.

Thanks.
User avatar
ObliviousInvestor
Posts: 4212
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:32 am
Contact:

Re: Is this really a Problem with Social Security.....Need a Forum S.S. Expert...

Post by ObliviousInvestor »

When reading Kotlikoff, it can be helpful to remember where he's coming from. His position is that Social Security rules are "a disgrace and unfair to people of all ages" and that "the Social Security system gives social insurance a bad name and needs to be replaced, root and branch."

His goal when he's writing isn't just to inform you but to persuade you that the system is a problem and needs to be replaced. (And this part is just my speculation -- possibly 100% wrong -- but it often appears that he intentionally writes in an inflammatory style and/or makes things out to be more complicated than they are in order to get people riled up.)

An alternative, less inflammatory way to summarize the point of the article would be as follows: If you file for Social Security after your full retirement age, your application will be automatically backdated to the later of
1) 6 months ago or
2) the date on which you reached FRA
...unless you ask them not to.

Edited to add: For what it's worth, to the extent that this is a problem, it's not the SSA's fault but rather the fault of our elected representatives who put it in the law.
Last edited by ObliviousInvestor on Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mike Piper | Roth is a name, not an acronym. If you type ROTH, you're just yelling about retirement accounts.
hicabob
Posts: 3796
Joined: Fri May 27, 2011 5:35 pm
Location: cruz

Re: Is this really a Problem with Social Security.....Need a Forum S.S. Expert...

Post by hicabob »

Tom1397 wrote:Believe I heard of it happening to someone and it is almost impossible to undo after the fact.

Based on this, if I had not yet claimed, I would be sure to expressly restrict retroactivity.

Thanks.
From reading the article it seems you have 12 months to "undo" the retroactive lump sum. Not so unreasonable at all if so.
katsmeow
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 9:46 am

Re: Is this really a Problem with Social Security.....Need a Forum S.S. Expert...

Post by katsmeow »

It would be a problem if they don't tell you they are going to do it. They should tell you in advance and give you the clear option to choose if you want that or not.
User avatar
ResearchMed
Posts: 16795
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:25 pm

Re: Is this really a Problem with Social Security.....Need a Forum S.S. Expert...

Post by ResearchMed »

ObliviousInvestor wrote:When reading Kotlikoff, it can be helpful to remember where he's coming from. His position is that Social Security rules are "a disgrace and unfair to people of all ages" and that "the Social Security system gives social insurance a bad name and needs to be replaced, root and branch."

His goal when he's writing isn't just to inform you but to persuade you that the system is a problem and needs to be replaced. (And this part is just my speculation -- possibly 100% wrong -- but it often appears that he intentionally writes in an inflammatory style and/or makes things out to be more complicated than they are in order to get people riled up.)

An alternative, less inflammatory way to summarize the point of the article would be as follows: If you file for Social Security after your full retirement age, your application will be automatically backdated to the later of
1) 6 months ago or
2) the date on which you reached FRA
...unless you ask them not to.

Edited to add: For what it's worth, to the extent that this is a problem, it's not the SSA's fault but rather the fault of our elected representatives who put it in the law.
Does this include those who wait until age 70?
They'd get backdated to 69.5 unless they specified that "70 means 70"?

What about those who are getting Spousal benefits and then at age 70 switch to "own" benefits?

This was really surprising.

Added: When DH switched from file/suspend (so I could take Spousal) to get his own benefits at age 70, he didn't get any lump sum.
And he didn't "specifically ask to keep it at 70", because we didn't even know about this.
(Yes, I was there/on the phone for all discussions, as we wanted to make sure about the coordination of benefits.)
Did some SS workers just assume that was what we meant, even though NOT verbalized?

RM
This signature is a placebo. You are in the control group.
User avatar
ObliviousInvestor
Posts: 4212
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:32 am
Contact:

Re: Is this really a Problem with Social Security.....Need a Forum S.S. Expert...

Post by ObliviousInvestor »

ResearchMed wrote:
ObliviousInvestor wrote:When reading Kotlikoff, it can be helpful to remember where he's coming from. His position is that Social Security rules are "a disgrace and unfair to people of all ages" and that "the Social Security system gives social insurance a bad name and needs to be replaced, root and branch."

His goal when he's writing isn't just to inform you but to persuade you that the system is a problem and needs to be replaced. (And this part is just my speculation -- possibly 100% wrong -- but it often appears that he intentionally writes in an inflammatory style and/or makes things out to be more complicated than they are in order to get people riled up.)

An alternative, less inflammatory way to summarize the point of the article would be as follows: If you file for Social Security after your full retirement age, your application will be automatically backdated to the later of
1) 6 months ago or
2) the date on which you reached FRA
...unless you ask them not to.

Edited to add: For what it's worth, to the extent that this is a problem, it's not the SSA's fault but rather the fault of our elected representatives who put it in the law.
Does this include those who wait until age 70?
They'd get backdated to 69.5 unless they specified that "70 means 70"?

What about those who are getting Spousal benefits and then at age 70 switch to "own" benefits?

This was really surprising.

Added: When DH switched from file/suspend (so I could take Spousal) to get his own benefits at age 70, he didn't get any lump sum.
And he didn't "specifically ask to keep it at 70", because we didn't even know about this.
(Yes, I was there/on the phone for all discussions, as we wanted to make sure about the coordination of benefits.)
Did some SS workers just assume that was what we meant, even though NOT verbalized?

RM
Yes, in theory, it should include people who wait until 70 (including people who have previously filed for spousal benefits).

And, your husband wouldn't necessarily had to have said anything about not backdating the application. Perhaps he said something as simple as "now that I've reached age 70..." or "I would like to start my benefit at age 70."

Edit: I read too quickly. I was thinking here that your husband had been the one to file a restricted application -- hence my reply about "including people who have previously filed for spousal benefits." This whole automatic-6-month-backdating thing only deals with date of application, not with date of unsuspension.
Last edited by ObliviousInvestor on Wed Jun 24, 2015 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mike Piper | Roth is a name, not an acronym. If you type ROTH, you're just yelling about retirement accounts.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 95686
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 4:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Is this really a Problem with Social Security.....Need a Forum S.S. Expert...

Post by LadyGeek »

I changed the thread title. To keep this thread on-topic and actionable, ObliviousInvestor has summarized the article:
ObliviousInvestor wrote:...An alternative, less inflammatory way to summarize the point of the article would be as follows: If you file for Social Security after your full retirement age, your application will be automatically backdated to the later of
1) 6 months ago or
2) the date on which you reached FRA
...unless you ask them not to.
Please stay factual and focus on your own Social Security situation. Opinions of the political process are off-topic.
Wiki To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
User avatar
ResearchMed
Posts: 16795
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:25 pm

Re: Is this really a Problem with Social Security.....Need a Forum S.S. Expert...

Post by ResearchMed »

ObliviousInvestor wrote:
ResearchMed wrote:
ObliviousInvestor wrote:When reading Kotlikoff, it can be helpful to remember where he's coming from. His position is that Social Security rules are "a disgrace and unfair to people of all ages" and that "the Social Security system gives social insurance a bad name and needs to be replaced, root and branch."

His goal when he's writing isn't just to inform you but to persuade you that the system is a problem and needs to be replaced. (And this part is just my speculation -- possibly 100% wrong -- but it often appears that he intentionally writes in an inflammatory style and/or makes things out to be more complicated than they are in order to get people riled up.)

An alternative, less inflammatory way to summarize the point of the article would be as follows: If you file for Social Security after your full retirement age, your application will be automatically backdated to the later of
1) 6 months ago or
2) the date on which you reached FRA
...unless you ask them not to.

Edited to add: For what it's worth, to the extent that this is a problem, it's not the SSA's fault but rather the fault of our elected representatives who put it in the law.
Does this include those who wait until age 70?
They'd get backdated to 69.5 unless they specified that "70 means 70"?

What about those who are getting Spousal benefits and then at age 70 switch to "own" benefits?

This was really surprising.

Added: When DH switched from file/suspend (so I could take Spousal) to get his own benefits at age 70, he didn't get any lump sum.
And he didn't "specifically ask to keep it at 70", because we didn't even know about this.
(Yes, I was there/on the phone for all discussions, as we wanted to make sure about the coordination of benefits.)
Did some SS workers just assume that was what we meant, even though NOT verbalized?

RM
Yes, in theory, it should include people who wait until 70 (including people who have previously filed for spousal benefits).

And, your husband wouldn't necessarily had to have said anything about not backdating the application. Perhaps he said something as simple as "now that I've reached age 70..." or "I would like to start my benefit at age 70."
Thanks.

Yes, he would have said something about "70"...

I'm a couple of years away still, before I switch from Spousal to Own.

Just curious about IF I told SS I wanted to change to "Own" without mentioning age [and now I will certainly make a point of it].
They'd subtract what I'd received during the previous 6 months from the lump sum if they'd send due to the backdating?

RM
This signature is a placebo. You are in the control group.
User avatar
ObliviousInvestor
Posts: 4212
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:32 am
Contact:

Re: Is this really a Problem with Social Security.....Need a Forum S.S. Expert...

Post by ObliviousInvestor »

ResearchMed wrote:Just curious about IF I told SS I wanted to change to "Own" without mentioning age [and now I will certainly make a point of it].
They'd subtract what I'd received during the previous 6 months from the lump sum if they'd send due to the backdating?
My understanding is that they would send a lump sum check for: 6 months of the age-69.5 benefit, minus any spousal benefits received during those 6 months that you wouldn't have received if you had actually filed for retirement benefits at 69.5.

Or said differently, they'd send a check for however much more you would have received during those 6 months if you had filed at the beginning of those 6 months.
Mike Piper | Roth is a name, not an acronym. If you type ROTH, you're just yelling about retirement accounts.
User avatar
ResearchMed
Posts: 16795
Joined: Fri Dec 26, 2008 10:25 pm

Re: Is this really a Problem with Social Security.....Need a Forum S.S. Expert...

Post by ResearchMed »

ObliviousInvestor wrote:
ResearchMed wrote:Just curious about IF I told SS I wanted to change to "Own" without mentioning age [and now I will certainly make a point of it].
They'd subtract what I'd received during the previous 6 months from the lump sum if they'd send due to the backdating?
My understanding is that they would send a lump sum check for: 6 months of the age-69.5 benefit, minus any spousal benefits received during those 6 months that you wouldn't have received if you had actually filed for retirement benefits at 69.5.

Or said differently, they'd send a check for however much more you would have received during those 6 months if you had filed at the beginning of those 6 months.
Yup, what I figured.
Thanks.

Odd that *none* of our friends/colleagues mentioned this "lump sum", and there are quite a few in this age range.
There has certainly been much discussion about filing (either about benefits, or strategies, or just "I can't believe I'm old enough for this"!).

Is it possible that most SS reps hear something about "now" or "my age [now]" that has them using the actual date, and not backdating?

RM
This signature is a placebo. You are in the control group.
User avatar
ObliviousInvestor
Posts: 4212
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:32 am
Contact:

Re: Is this really a Problem with Social Security.....Need a Forum S.S. Expert...

Post by ObliviousInvestor »

ResearchMed wrote:Is it possible that most SS reps hear something about "now" or "my age [now]" that has them using the actual date, and not backdating?
An SSA employee's goal will be to give you what you want. So if they have reason to think that you want your benefit to start at age X, that's what they'll do. (That said, if you know what you want, you should definitely be as explicit as possible rather than leave anything to chance.)

As far as I can tell, SSA policies seem to follow the general line of thinking that, when you have multiple options:
1) If you make it clear which option you want, they'll give you that, but
2) If you don't make it clear, they'll give you the option that gives you more money right now.
Mike Piper | Roth is a name, not an acronym. If you type ROTH, you're just yelling about retirement accounts.
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52211
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: [CNBC article: Social Security Denying Delayed Benefits]

Post by nisiprius »

Mike, thank you for being the voice of reason here.

Kotlikoff leads with an entire paragraph of "shock," "horror," "galling example," and "worst we've ever seen." If it's the worst he's ever seen he's led a charmed life. To his overwrought alarmism on Social Security, add his overwrought alarmism on the SIPC (Close Your Brokerage Account) and it begins to look like a pattern.

I personally experienced something similar but in the reverse direction. I was expecting a benefit increase, and due to an accident of my parents' timing, relative to the rhythm of the Social Security batch-processing cycle, it was delayed for nearly a year, and accompanied by a lump-sum retroactive payment. If I were a columnist I could have spun this as a horror story. Did the retroactive payment include interest? I didn't and don't care, but it probably didn't and that would be a further horror.

The grain of truth in this is that Social Security does seem to have some antiquated DP and in our dealings with Social Security both my wife and I have experienced quite a bit of "long delay and retroactive payment" or, worse, "long delay and retroactive bill."
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
pshonore
Posts: 8212
Joined: Sun Jun 28, 2009 2:21 pm

Re: [CNBC article: Social Security Denying Delayed Benefits]

Post by pshonore »

A few years back I decided to suspend benefits after FRA . About a year later, I decided to resume benefits and wanted to do it retroactively for 2 months. I was told I could not do it retroactively. Of course I knew I could and just happened to have a copy with me of the POMS manual section reflecting that. After I produced it, no more questions were asked. In fairness, I think this was the first time the SS rep had encountered that situation. But then, no one could understand why I wanted to suspend benefits in the first place either. (to reduce my income and keep unexpected Cap gains from a merger buyout in the 15% bracket and pay no tax on them as well to earn DRCs at the same time )
User avatar
Frugal Al
Posts: 1736
Joined: Fri May 28, 2010 10:09 am

Re: [CNBC article: Social Security Denying Delayed Benefits]

Post by Frugal Al »

No doubt Kotlikoff is trying to sell columns and books, but he is not wrong that the system really needs improvement. It needn't be as complex as it is. My experience with my local office was pathetic. I was amazed by the overall lack of knowledge there. I love it when governments and/or corporations develop policies under the guise of "helping" their clients, when in reality it isn't helping anyone, but rather a cost savings for the organization. I fail to see why one should have to knowingly "restrict" retroactivity in such a case. This seems to be more of a case of untrained personnel and the proper questions are not being asked of prospective recipients. You shouldn't have to know which "magic words" to say to get the SS to which you're entitled.

Mike, I'm beginning to think you have something against Kotlikoff.
User avatar
ObliviousInvestor
Posts: 4212
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:32 am
Contact:

Re: [CNBC article: Social Security Denying Delayed Benefits]

Post by ObliviousInvestor »

Frugal Al wrote:Mike, I'm beginning to think you have something against Kotlikoff.
Against him personally? No. I quite enjoyed his book Spend 'Til the End, and would even credit it as having a significant impact on my own personal financial planning. (As a person with no bequest motive, the book was especially applicable to me.)

And I agree with the overwhelming majority of his Social Security financial planning recommendations.

I do take issue, however, with many of his descriptions/explanations of Social Security. In my view, people already have enough trouble navigating the system. Inflammatory writing just makes it more difficult.
Mike Piper | Roth is a name, not an acronym. If you type ROTH, you're just yelling about retirement accounts.
User avatar
alec
Posts: 3181
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 1:15 pm

Re: [CNBC article: Social Security Denying Delayed Benefits]

Post by alec »

ObliviousInvestor wrote:
Frugal Al wrote:Mike, I'm beginning to think you have something against Kotlikoff.
Against him personally? No. I quite enjoyed his book Spend 'Til the End, and would even credit it as having a significant impact on my own personal financial planning. (As a person with no bequest motive, the book was especially applicable to me.)

And I agree with the overwhelming majority of his Social Security financial planning recommendations.

I do take issue, however, with many of his descriptions/explanations of Social Security. In my view, people already have enough trouble navigating the system. Inflammatory writing just makes it more difficult.
Well, if you never take positions, you may never make tenure. :mrgreen:
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" - Upton Sinclair
User avatar
ObliviousInvestor
Posts: 4212
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:32 am
Contact:

Re: [CNBC article: Social Security Denying Delayed Benefits]

Post by ObliviousInvestor »

alec wrote:Well, if you never take positions, you may never make tenure. :mrgreen:
A fair point, and I should probably be more understanding of the fact that, as a professor, he operates in a different world than I do.
Mike Piper | Roth is a name, not an acronym. If you type ROTH, you're just yelling about retirement accounts.
User avatar
Artsdoctor
Posts: 6063
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 3:09 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Re: [CNBC article: Social Security Denying Delayed Benefits]

Post by Artsdoctor »

I've read "Get What's Yours" and I agree: it's written in pretty dramatic prose and sometimes is over the top.

However, the book was really written for the general public, and the vast majority of retirees really know nothing about social security. He's trying to make it understandable, and you have the admit that the system is absurdly complex.

There's no way that someone should be expected to know when walking into a social security office at age 69 that they will be given a 6-month sum retroactively unless they request otherwise. The SSA representative should explain that "this is the rule and unless you tell me otherwise, you will get a 6-month lump sum and your future payments will be decreased accordingly."

Clearly, the system is dysfunctional. If the guy is passionate about it, it's hard to really fault him.

As an aside, I've had two colleagues who wanted to File and Suspend at the local SSA office and they were told by the rep that they were making a mistake by doing so. They were both talked out of it, but they both decided that they would leave, read more (because they thought they had made a mistake) and then go back. What's up with that?

Kotlikoff's prose might be a little over the top but he's right to be angry at the current set-up.
drawpoker
Posts: 2809
Joined: Mon May 19, 2014 6:33 pm
Location: Delmarva

Re: [CNBC article: Social Security Denying Delayed Benefits]

Post by drawpoker »

Thank you, Thank you, BahamaMan, for posting this.

Very, very eye-opening! Since this is BH there are a great many of us who plan on waiting until age 70 to draw the max. Inasmuch as SSA is constantly whining "be sure and file 3 months before" so your benefit checks will "start on time" I can see why this is a horror story.

Apparently, even if you tell them "I want to start drawing when I turn 70" that is not enough. What I am taking away from this article is you have to make it abundantly clear that you are Refusing Any Lump Sum payment, and also refusing to allow your application to be back-dated by so much as a day. Am not quite clear on how anyone can get a signed acknowledgement of this from SSA - think I heard as far as the regional office for my area, they won't entertain any filings for old age benefits unless it is done online or by phone. (?)

Sheeesh, altho I am four years away from this, am now wondering if I should just plan on waiting until I am 70 & 1/2 before attempting to file any application with them.
User avatar
VictoriaF
Posts: 20122
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 6:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Re: [CNBC article: Social Security Denying Delayed Benefits]

Post by VictoriaF »

ObliviousInvestor wrote:
Frugal Al wrote:Mike, I'm beginning to think you have something against Kotlikoff.
Against him personally? No. I quite enjoyed his book Spend 'Til the End, and would even credit it as having a significant impact on my own personal financial planning. (As a person with no bequest motive, the book was especially applicable to me.)

And I agree with the overwhelming majority of his Social Security financial planning recommendations.

I do take issue, however, with many of his descriptions/explanations of Social Security. In my view, people already have enough trouble navigating the system. Inflammatory writing just makes it more difficult.
Mike,

Thank you for adopting this thread, which could have given trouble even to Bogleheads. I'll add a few points that reduce the "horror" factor.

1. People receive an annual statement from the Social Security Administration that tells them not only the annuity amount that they would receive at the FRA but also the amount at the age of 70. Thus, the SSA is well aware of the delaying option and is nudging the recipients by showing the advantages of waiting.

2. Let's say someone has forgotten to explicitly state his preference for collecting at the age of 70. He would see two red flags:
(a) his monthly payments would be lower than the maximum amount he expected based on his annual statements
(b) he would get a lump sum and call the SSA for explanation

Both of these flags arrive in time to reverse the SSA's action within one year.

The magnitude of the "horror" notwithstanding, this thread is illustrative of the continuing value of the Bogleheads. Even after we finalize our asset allocation and rebalancing technique, there will always be new personally-relevant financial issues to discuss.

Victoria
Inventor of the Bogleheads Secret Handshake | Winner of the 2015 Boglehead Contest. | Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52211
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: [CNBC article: Social Security Denying Delayed Benefits]

Post by nisiprius »

Obviously SSA has an antiquated IT structure. It's probably so antiquated I should be calling it "DP" rather than "IT!" It relies on batch processing and doesn't have the real-time responsiveness we now expect from modern systems. (Perhaps it may not have the security vulnerabilities we now expect from modern systems, either).

SSA says it has begun a gigantic, grandiose--they call it "ambitious"--project to create an IT infrastructure facility for the 21st Century blah blah. I think anyone who has worked in IT recognizes that the failure rates of gigantic IT projects, whether private or public, has been very high--for every healthcare.gov there is a Bank of America MasterNet--but anyway there you have it, they are working on it.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
User avatar
FabLab
Posts: 1127
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 12:15 pm

Re: Is this really a Problem with Social Security.....Need a Forum S.S. Expert...

Post by FabLab »

ObliviousInvestor wrote:When reading Kotlikoff, it can be helpful to remember where he's coming from. His position is that Social Security rules are "a disgrace and unfair to people of all ages" and that "the Social Security system gives social insurance a bad name and needs to be replaced, root and branch."

His goal when he's writing isn't just to inform you but to persuade you that the system is a problem and needs to be replaced. (And this part is just my speculation -- possibly 100% wrong -- but it often appears that he intentionally writes in an inflammatory style and/or makes things out to be more complicated than they are in order to get people riled up.)

An alternative, less inflammatory way to summarize the point of the article would be as follows: If you file for Social Security after your full retirement age, your application will be automatically backdated to the later of
1) 6 months ago or
2) the date on which you reached FRA
...unless you ask them not to.

Edited to add: For what it's worth, to the extent that this is a problem, it's not the SSA's fault but rather the fault of our elected representatives who put it in the law.
Mike,
I read Kotlikoff's Get What's Yours and found it informative and also entertaining. That's something when it comes to a subject as wildly fun as Social Security :wink:
In fact, I used much of his verbiage in providing the SS rep the language to include in my application for spousal benefits. And she did, word for word, follow the "restricted application" process I explicitly wanted to pursue. (During the meeting, I also gave her the specific POMS regulations relating to my right to restrict my application.)

I hope you will be kind enough to provide some assistance per a real-world set-up:

1) my better half applied for her benefits at FRA (66)
2) then when I hit FRA (66) I applied for spousal benefits via a restricted application
3) I do not intend to file for my own benefits until 70

Question: Given the discussion above about some 6-month lump sums and possible SS assumption of 69.5, what do I do specifically at 70 to ensure that I ONLY receive my full benefits starting at 70, no lump sums, no assumptions that I really intended to apply at 69.5?

Thanks so much, I really appreciate all your fine advice on this topic.
The fundamental things apply as time goes by -- Herman Hupfeld
User avatar
ObliviousInvestor
Posts: 4212
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2009 9:32 am
Contact:

Re: Is this really a Problem with Social Security.....Need a Forum S.S. Expert...

Post by ObliviousInvestor »

FabLab wrote:1) my better half applied for her benefits at FRA (66)
2) then when I hit FRA (66) I applied for spousal benefits via a restricted application
3) I do not intend to file for my own benefits until 70

Question: Given the discussion above about some 6-month lump sums and possible SS assumption of 69.5, what do I do specifically at 70 to ensure that I ONLY receive my full benefits starting at 70, no lump sums, no assumptions that I really intended to apply at 69.5?
I have never heard of it being any more complicated than stating exactly what you've stated. That is, that you intend for your benefit to start at 70, and you do not want to receive a 6-month lump sum.

If you're interested in things to print out and bring with you so that you can reference them, here's the relevant CFR:
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/404/404-0621.htm

In particular, you would want to note that paragraph (a)(2) states that "you may receive benefits for up to 6 months immediately before the month in which your application is filed."

And here are the relevant POMS references:
https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0200204030
https://secure.ssa.gov/apps10/poms.nsf/lnx/0200204040

Paragraph B2 in the first link is where the ability to receive retroactive benefits is described. And the first two sentences in the second link state that your "month of election" (i.e., the month in which you want your benefits to start) can be the month of filing (as opposed to a month in the past).
Mike Piper | Roth is a name, not an acronym. If you type ROTH, you're just yelling about retirement accounts.
User avatar
bobcat2
Posts: 6076
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:27 pm
Location: just barely Outside the Beltway

Re: [CNBC article: Social Security Denying Delayed Benefits]

Post by bobcat2 »

In general, considering this and other problems when applying for Social Security benefits, is it better to apply online, by phone, or in person for starting SS benefits?

BobK :?: :?
In finance risk is defined as uncertainty that is consequential (nontrivial). | The two main methods of dealing with financial risk are the matching of assets to goals & diversifying.
User avatar
nisiprius
Advisory Board
Posts: 52211
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:33 am
Location: The terrestrial, globular, planetary hunk of matter, flattened at the poles, is my abode.--O. Henry

Re: [CNBC article: Social Security Denying Delayed Benefits]

Post by nisiprius »

bobcat2 wrote:In general, considering this and other problems when applying for Social Security benefits, is it better to apply online or in person for starting SS benefits?

BobK :?: :?
I applied online. I didn't time it but I think it took me much much less than twenty minutes, and it took care of applying for Medicare part A and B, too. In my case, of course, the process mostly consisted of verifying and confirming things, as they had most of my information already and, as it happened, it was all correct. It was exactly the same for my wife, quick and painless. (And it worked, because we are receiving benefits).

I'd try online first, and go in person only if you encounter problems. However, I've also found going in person to be reasonably painless, too--I've had to do it three or four times--so if you just prefer the human touch, why not?

P.S. I had a rather unworldly friend who had gotten to age 73 without claiming--not the optimal claiming strategy--and I said to him "You are going to sit down at the computer now and you are going to apply now and I am not leaving until it's done." There were one small delay: they wanted to know the date he was married. He was married but estranged from his wife, and he did not remember the date they were married (!) and he had to call his wife and ask very politely if she could help him out with that. Including that, it took him perhaps thirty minutes.
Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness; Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.
User avatar
bobcat2
Posts: 6076
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:27 pm
Location: just barely Outside the Beltway

Re: [CNBC article: Social Security Denying Delayed Benefits]

Post by bobcat2 »

Hi Nisi,

If you apply online, how do address the problem discussed in this thread? Is there a line on the form that says I don't want retroactive payments for 6 months? Or is there a place where you would simply write this request out?

In researching this a little bit online, I see that Kotlikoff recommends shopping say three local SS offices and one phone contact and picking the office where you get the best deal, which in this case would be the office you feel most comfortable with in granting your request not to have retroactive payments. Is following Larry K's advice in this case prudent or overkill? :? :wink:
You can and should shop different Social Security offices and staff manning the phones for the best deal.

The best deal is the one that lets you maximize your lifetime benefits based on the system’s actual rules, not based on the rules that untrained and often overwhelmed Social Security staff invent.
Link to LK advice - http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sens ... best-deal/

I have just now received a PM from a Boglehead who applied online w/o submitting and then went to the local office to submit. This seems like a good idea. They should be the same, and if they are not, discuss in the office why not. If that is not satisfactory, head for office two.

BobK
Last edited by bobcat2 on Tue Jul 14, 2015 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
In finance risk is defined as uncertainty that is consequential (nontrivial). | The two main methods of dealing with financial risk are the matching of assets to goals & diversifying.
earlyout
Posts: 1542
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 4:24 pm

Re: [CNBC article: Social Security Denying Delayed Benefits]

Post by earlyout »

I'm having trouble believing this is a real problem since my experience with 2 online applications for SS benefits was very easy and error free. I made a restricted application for spousal benefits about 6 weeks before my FRA and then about 2 months before my 70th birthday I applied for my own benefits. I don't remember the application for restricted benefits as well as the application for my own, but the online application asks for the month you want your benefit to start. By specifying the month you want to start, you make it clear to SSA that you do not want to start immediately and that you want to wait until you are 70. I had no problems with either application. If an application is incomplete or inconsistent SSA apparently assumes, as Nisi pointed out earlier, that you want your benefits to start ASAP.
JW-Retired
Posts: 7189
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:25 am

Re: [CNBC article: Social Security Denying Delayed Benefits]

Post by JW-Retired »

bobcat2 wrote: In general, considering this and other problems when applying for Social Security benefits, is it better to apply online, by phone, or in person for starting SS benefits?
Our experience:
(1) DW claim her own benefits at 66 calling in a couple of months prior to that time. (2) I claimed age 66 spousal using an online form a few months later when I was nearing 66. (3) 4 years later I claimed via a phone appointment on my own account at/for age 70 and DW switched to (a larger) spousal amount in the same call. We called in 1-2 months before I was age 70.

Steps (1) & (3) went without a hitch. My restricted spousal claim online didn't. They were proceeding to give me my own age 66 benefit instead, but they phoned us later with a fairly unrelated question and we caught their error in time so no harm was done.

I would recommend you use the phone appointment since that worked best for us. Do not even try to describe what you want in SSA jargon (e.g., "restricted application") because you may have the jargon wrong. Just repeat what you want to happen in English in various ways until SSA gets it and can feed it back to you.
JW
Retired at Last
cherijoh
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:49 pm
Location: Charlotte NC

Re: Is this really a Problem with Social Security.....Need a Forum S.S. Expert...

Post by cherijoh »

ResearchMed wrote:
ObliviousInvestor wrote:
ResearchMed wrote:Just curious about IF I told SS I wanted to change to "Own" without mentioning age [and now I will certainly make a point of it].
They'd subtract what I'd received during the previous 6 months from the lump sum if they'd send due to the backdating?
My understanding is that they would send a lump sum check for: 6 months of the age-69.5 benefit, minus any spousal benefits received during those 6 months that you wouldn't have received if you had actually filed for retirement benefits at 69.5.

Or said differently, they'd send a check for however much more you would have received during those 6 months if you had filed at the beginning of those 6 months.
Yup, what I figured.
Thanks.

Odd that *none* of our friends/colleagues mentioned this "lump sum", and there are quite a few in this age range.
There has certainly been much discussion about filing (either about benefits, or strategies, or just "I can't believe I'm old enough for this"!).

Is it possible that most SS reps hear something about "now" or "my age [now]" that has them using the actual date, and not backdating?

RM
RM, for anyone filing for SS at or before they hit their FRA, this would be a non-issue. I think the number of people who wait to begin collecting SS (excluding Bogleheads of course) is probably quite small. Do you know of friends or colleagues who waited past their FRA?
dbr
Posts: 46181
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 8:50 am

Re: [CNBC article: Social Security Denying Delayed Benefits]

Post by dbr »

bobcat2 wrote:In general, considering this and other problems when applying for Social Security benefits, is it better to apply online, by phone, or in person for starting SS benefits?

BobK :?: :?
Some years ago I applied online. A couple of weeks later I got a call from a nice gentleman who wanted to ask if I was sure that I wanted to file and suspend, start benefits at 70, blah, blah and that if that was what I intended that was what I was going to get and he thought that was a pretty good idea and just wanted to make sure that was what I wanted. Age 70 benefits have started like clockwork. They even sent me a letter along the way explaining exactly how much and on what dates the payments would phase in, correct to the penny and day so far.
User avatar
Electron
Posts: 2658
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:46 pm

Re: [CNBC article: Social Security Denying Delayed Benefits]

Post by Electron »

Here is a very helpful article with two important tips for those filing online.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/pe ... 101054756/

"When you file, there are two questions that seem to trip people up, according to Brewton. One: If you are eligible for both a retirement benefit and a spouse’s benefit, do you want to delay receipt of retirement benefit? And two: When do you want benefits to begin?”

"The second question is a "gotcha” because, says Brewton, the field is pre-populated with the earliest possible date for someone to start benefits. For those who are filling out the application up to four months in advance of when they want benefits to start, they’ll need to change the date in the field, she says."

"Use the comment section. Would-be Social Security beneficiaries should always use the comments section near the end of the application to clearly spell out what their intentions are, says Brewton."

This information seems appropriate since this thread is referenced in the Wiki article below.

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Social_ ... e_payments

In regards to filing online, does anyone know where the application is actually read and processed?
Enjoying the Outdoors
User avatar
Electron
Posts: 2658
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 7:46 pm

Re: Is this really a Problem with Social Security.....Need a Forum S.S. Expert...

Post by Electron »

ObliviousInvestor wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:36 am An alternative, less inflammatory way to summarize the point of the article would be as follows: If you file for Social Security after your full retirement age, your application will be automatically backdated to the later of
1) 6 months ago or
2) the date on which you reached FRA
...unless you ask them not to.
There is some good news to report on this subject at least for online applications. The article below shows the actual online screens for a portion of the online application.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sens ... ned-about/

The application initially defaults to the month of the application. However, you can then select the month of your choice going back in time up to 6 months or forward up to 4 months.

I just went through the process and was happy to see the changes. Email confirmation was received after submitting the application. A second email arrived the following day with additional details and the location where the application will be processed. The status of the application is made available online for those who have registered for a My Social Security Account.

If you use the paper application form SSA-1 make note of the comments in the article. The form instructs applicants who are at least six months past full retirement age not to answer the month-of-election question #26. Social Security then contacts the applicant to provide help in choosing the best month to start benefits.
Enjoying the Outdoors
Post Reply