<p>I think alot about this subject. H just turned 55, his dad died at 64 and his mom is still alive at 86. His dad was an alcoholic. H has heart problems. I am three years younger than H.</p>
<p>I worked over 20 years for a company with an old fashioned pension but was downsized a few years ago. I can take it in 3 years but am not sure how it would affect my financial aid. My youngest is just in 6th grade. I am with another company now and will vest in my pension there in a few months. I can’t take it till I retire. I also have 401 K money and H has a small SEP.</p>
<p>H is self-employed and I am the breadwinner and carry the health insurance. H would get SS on my record.</p>
<p>My plan is to have him start collecting at 62 IF it won’t mess up our financial aid and if my income won’t reduce his SS to where it becomes worthless. I am not sure when I will retire. My plan is to try to go p/t with my current company when I’m 62 so I can still get health insurance and then work till Medicare age.</p>
<p>We own two homes and will inherit his mom’s house. We are selling one home now to reduce our debt and have money to pay for college for the other kids.</p>
<p>There are many things to take into consideration, you need to talk to a good, fee based advisor (do not deal with one that works on commission) so you can maximize your retirement income.</p>
<p>My goal is to either leave the snow behind entirely or be a snowbird. It’s been my fantasy since my uncle did it when I was a kid.</p>
<p>Same in CA. It is pretty shocking, I agree. And this loss of SS spousal benefits applies even if your own teacher pension is only for a few years of work as a teacher or a few hundred dollars…</p>
<p>No need to be confused VH…it’s the way it is. The states where teachers do NOT contribute to SS agreed to this provision. Teachers in those states do not collect SS in most cases, and if they do, it’s a very reduced benefit due to the state retirement benefit offset.</p>
<p>Yes…if I had been a stay at home spouse, I WOULD have been entitled to SS based on my husband’s earnings. BUT as a teacher in CT (and a half dozen other states) this is NOT the case. Not.</p>
<p>I also know families where both husband and wife are career teachers in this state…having started here 25 or more years ago. They also are NOT eligible for Medicare…ever. Teachers hired in CT after 1988 (I think that is the year) contribute to medicare from their pay so they will be eligible for that when the retire. The others do not get medicare. This means that they must pay the full price of health insurance as retirees…minus $110 a month per person. </p>
<p>I’m actually HAPPY that I have enough quarters in the SS system to at least qualify for medicare and a minimum SS benefit. Some teachers in my state are not so lucky.</p>
<p>And NO I will never collect a nickel based on my husband’s earnings. I just got back from the financial planner and he laid out three scenerios to help me choose retirement options. All included my SS, DHs SS, 401k/TSA/Ira account earnings, and my retirement benefit. When DH dies, the ONLY SS I would receive would be the $120 a month or so that I get as a reduced benefit. That will go directly to pay my Medicare bill.</p>
<p>My father died at age 61 so I plan on collecting SS at age 62. My wife will still work and provide us with health insurance. I plan on working part-time to supplement my SS. I have reached the age where working full-time for an uncaring employer is no longer acceptable to me.</p>
<p>Yea, states can make different arrangements with the federal government. The part-time judges in HI do NOT contribute to SS and do NOT get any benefits (they are careful not to give them too many hours of work so that they would otherwise qualify for benefits). It doesn’t matter how many years you work for the state–when you leave, all the benefits of vacation and sick leave they put on the ledger for you get erased and you NEVER get them unless you get hired & become a full time employee of the state. I’m sure the state saves a LOT of money in this manner. They DO pay in to Medicare. These employees also do not qualify to participate in any retirement plans, other than whatever IRA they would ordinarily or whatever they qualify for with any other employment.</p>
<p>There is a huge offset (40%?)from SS for Federal retirees from what they would otherwise get if they are eligible for that program. Based on my retirement job, and the money I earned before I began my Federal career, I began collecting as soon as I reached full retirement age. Why wait? I intend to enjoy the money now. Who knows what will happen?</p>
<p>When I retire from this job, I will be a triple dipper; Federal and State retirements and SS. I deserve it.</p>
<p>Suze thinks you should be dead before you enjoy life. Great strategy. One problem–you get old and doing most anything becomes too much of a chore. But she does have a great plastic surgeon. I was shocked how old she is.
Too bad they closed that sweet pay it back loophole. Now it’s a tough decision.</p>
<p>DW’s company pressured her to retire at 61. Finally, last year, this company had a general Reduction-In-Force, she was nearly 63. They gave her a nice severence package. We pulled the bell cord for SS this month, which is a bit more than 63 but a bit less than 65 and about ~$150 less than 67. The question is whether is the difference of SS worth the effort in finding a new job at reduced pay vs taking the SS now. She has her 91 mother living with us and I have my 94 yo mother whom I’m taking care of.</p>
<p>The difference in drawing SS at 62 vs 65 is not too great but is fairly large difference between 62 and 67. The question we had to ask is whether we could survive on today’s SS plus other funds vs waiting. The even elephat question is the medical insurance expense which we have to cover for 1 year for DW and 3 years for me. </p>
<p>We figured that we can do it but its gonna to be tight for 1 year afterwhich I can draw SS at age 62. </p>
<p>We also figure that drawing on SS prior to 65/67 is far better than suffering at much reduced working wages inorder to collect only a < 10% bit more on SS. We have a very large bet on our IRA’s to increase in 3-5 years and to the level of prior Bush years plus added capital.</p>
<p>“Teachers hired in CT after 1988 (I think that is the year) contribute to medicare from their pay so they will be eligible for that when the retire. The others do not get medicare. This means that they must pay the full price of health insurance as retirees…minus $110 a month per person.”</p>
<p>Unless as is the situation of many teachers in CT who retire with minimal payments into their health care plans that they had as teachers.</p>
<p>I recently attended a presentation by my financial planner on this exact subject. They were suggesting a ‘hybrid’ strategy of having the lower wage earner collect their benefit + spousal benefit beginning at 62 and the higher wage earner waiting until 70 to begin collecting their benefit (if they can afford to wait). In every scenario they analyzed, even if the higher wage earner died at say 72, this was the best way to collect the most money overall. I remember that the powerpoint slides were from Blackrock. </p>
<p>A separate analysis would be necessary if one wage earner paid into a separate system.</p>
<p>For us, we would probably live comfortably on the pension H has so could afford to defer my SS. H’s pension is higher than any spousal SS benefit he would get based on my SS withholdings so he’ll get no spousal benefit, more than completely offset. Unless someone comes along and gives us some amazingly good reason, we’ll probably defer my SS until later when we may be entitled to higher payouts and may need it more.</p>
<p>Of course, if my health takes a nosedive (as it could well do) and shortens my life expectancy, I may start drawing SS as soon as I can qualify, so who knows what the future will bring.</p>