That’s one of the provisions that has been eliminated. So basically I think the only real benefit to file-and-suspend going forward is that it might be a little bit faster to get a check after unsuspending than with the initial application. I don’t really know – but this article on the AARP web site says that it’s best to apply for SS 3 months in advance – see http://www.aarp.org/work/social-security/info-07-2012/when-can-i-apply-social-security-benefits.html
It looks like once you have benefits, then you can suspend or unsuspend with a simple phone call. So basically I think that suspending might still be a good idea just to get the paperwork out of the way before the person is age 69+.
@AboutTheSame – I suggest that rather than playing the role of self-appointed moderator, you actually read the post I was responding to. It’s really easy. My post #80 directly answers the question asked by @arabrab in post #79.
@notrichenough : Actually, it affects a lot of public employees who have looked to whatever strategies are available to make up for the lack of annual bonuses and stock options and all that other stuff. It’s not just the rich who are affected by this. The rich could probably give a flying whatever.
For Social Security to survive, a lot of changes will have to be made but no one wants to do it.
Next year will be interesting though. If nothing is changed, those on disability (SSI) will see a decrease of about 20%. The expected cut will occur in late summer or early fall, I believe. This will occur during an election year, and so, it is hard to say what will or will not be done.
It does away with “file and suspend” after 180 days from enactment.
One can still use restricted withdrawal at FRA if you’re 62 by the end of this year.
"This deemed filing rule is the reason that, when people want to file a restricted application (i.e, an application to collect just spousal benefits while they allow their retirement benefit to continue growing), they must wait until full retirement age in order to do so.
For anybody who will be 62 or older as of 1/1/2016, there will be no changes to this deemed filing rule or to the restricted application strategy."
I can’t even begin to explain “deeming” for those under 62 as of Jan. 1st.
My husband is 6 years older. Our plan had been he waits until 70 to collect. At 67, my FRA, I file for half of his benefit while allowing mine to continue growing. I switch to my full benefit at 70. So - that is now gone, is what I am resding. If I file at 67 - I have to take my benefit. Or I wait until 70. So basically losing 3 years of collecting half of his benefit while allowing mine to grow. Do I have that right? That’s the deeming thing - if I file at FRA - I am deeming to take my benefit or half of his - whichever is greater - but I am deemed that I am filing for benefits - not a restricted application - so no further growth in benefits.
The vast majority of private sector workers do not get annual bonuses and stock options. And most don’t get pensions either. Are you in the public sector? What will the NPV of your pension be when you retire? Average pay in the public sector now exceeds average pay in the private sector. So I’m not sure what your beef is.
For us, the restricted filing no longer exists. Under any circumstances. “Deeming” was the default state: any time a person applies for one benefit, they are “deemed” to be seeking any and all benefits to which they may be entitled.
The “restricted” filing was a special type of filing that people could make – and that people who are 62 as of Dec. 31st can still make, that allows them to apply for only one benefit (spousal benefit) without triggering an application for others (early retirement at age 62, or full retirement at age 66+) Now that is gone.
As I understand it, the change means you can no longer collect a spousal benefit while letting your own benefit increase, at any age. The deeming age has been extended to age 70, which means that no matter when you file for spousal benefits, you are deemed to have applied for your own benefit as well, and you get the larger of them.
Well, those authors of the books on how to get the most out of your social security will lose their readership and author fees if it is suddently more straight-forward as to how SS works. There used to be books and websites devoted to how to calcuated the way to get the most/best benefits for the people and their families. I figured I would just wait until I turn 70 and then collect whatever I am able to, if I’m able to collect anything. That’s currently still my plan. If they ever make SS means tested, I probably won’t get anything, even though I did pay into SS for decades.
now that we cannot file and suspend because I turn 66 in August :(( the new plan is that I will take my full benifit at 66 and H will take a spousal benefit of 1/2 of mine. His will continue to grow for a few years until he is 70.
Mine will no longer grow as file and suspend would have allowed.
I want all my hours back that spent on understanding file and suspend! I was getting to be the local expert.
I still do not accept that this was pulled so fast and with only 6 months to the end. I would think at least this calendar year, if not longer.
oregon - are you sure that still works? You are describing the restricted application where H files for the spousal benefit while his own continues to grow. Isn’t that the deeming thing discussed above?
Wait, never mind. You are old enough to still be able to do this. You are right.
The budget bill did a fix on the disability trust fund problem by authorizing a movement of funds out of the OASI fund, and shifting the allocation of future payroll premium deductions from the retirement side towards the disability side. There are also changes in the procedure for disability eligibiliy, since a guess there is some sense that a few people are collecting disability payments who might be employable. Among them, I believe, is that there will have to be two doctors certifying.
As far as the notice is concerned the current administration brought this issue up last spring in their budget proposal, albeit quietly, demanding changes in what they saw as “aggressive” collecting strategies. They now have what they wanted.
So maybe I’m being a bit thick. It wouldn’t be the first time.
Facts: I turn 67 in about three weeks and have never filed for SS. DH turns 65 in January 2016 and has never filed for SS.
The Old Plan: When DH turns 66, in January 2017, I will file and suspend and he will get my spousal benefit while I wait until I turn 70 (November of 2018) to get my max benefit. Then, when DH turns 70 in January 2021, he will file for his max benefit.
@VeryHappy I do not think so…I believe you need to file and suspend within the next six months…that provision goes away after that.
But unless, I’m wrong…I believe YOU can file and suspend now, and your husband could file and get the benefit off of your earnings now. Then your benefit would continue to grow until you are age 70, and he could collect on his own earnings at age 66 or 70.
No. You both have to be 66 or older within six months of the bill passing to follow your original plan.
Now when your DH turns 66 you can have the lower earner apply for their own SS.
The higher earner then applies for a spousal benifit (1/2 of the lower earner).
The higher earner’s SS continues to grow while the lower earners does not.
S0–the lower earners SS $$ and 1/2 spousal benefit $ is yours until the higher earner files.