Question For U.s.a. Expats Who Retired Before 62

[JimGant]

I am offended by the comment that there is something shameful about a janitor getting a minimum benefit.

I'm offended you can't read any better than you do.....

I'm glad Social Security is a 'semi-welfare' program, whereby low wage earners are subsidized by the "haves." This is akin to our progressive income tax system, which is also a system (completely fair, IMO) that redistributes wealth. Whether or not the term 'semi-welfare' fits taking from the rich and giving to the poor, I don't know. But, I certainly have no problem with the concept, even if the term may be a hot button item to some.

The point you missed was that someone could work the minimum 40 quarters -- at or near max Social Security wages (vice low, unskilled wages for a lifetime) -- and be treated to the same subsidy that these low-wage earners appreciate when they start drawing a Social Security check. A loophole, in my opinion. It's been partially plugged for those who, for example, have 40 quarters of SS earnings, but then work for a State government or a Thai employer, where FICA taxes aren't assessed. However, for those who only worked the minimum 40 quarters -- but are wealthy by other means (investment income, inheritance, etc) -- they get an unwarranted subsidy. Some form of means testing needs to intervene in situations like these.

Why does the rich person get a maximum benefit when many don't need a penny of it? Welfare program my arse.

Maximum, in absolute dollars. Far from maximum as a percentage of dollars contributed. Again, the well-to-do subsidize the less-so. Again, no complaints.

But, more needs to be done. The cap on Social Security taxes should be lifted (as it already has for Medicare taxes). In fact, Social Security taxes should be levied on all income, not just earned (wages) income. But even with this, we're going to be in deep kimshi soon with our pay-as-you-go system. Means-testing (already done for Medicare premiums) will also be necessary.

Yeah, you need the 40 quarters to get your foot in the door. But, today, a lot of nice semi-welfare subsidization can take place afterwords. Tomorrow, some of this subsidization may need to migrate to the middle earners, just in the name of fairness.

[PeaceBlondie]

When I looked at the SS website, it had 3 calculators. Even the most complex calculator doesn't give the military bonus. If you answer a question wrong, you get wrong answer. The OP needs to say he'll stop working before age 62. There's a slim chance it won't matter anyway.

[chuckd]

I retired at 58 and moved to Thailand. My social security benefits has not gone down but up basis on the cost of living. I have not lost any money from social security or gain anything. In fact my first check should be in my bank today (fingers crossed). Yes of course if you continued to work until 62 you would be getting more money.

The Obama administration has already announced there will be no annual cost of living increase in 2010.

I believe this will be the first year with no increase in recent history.

Actually, Chuckd, they are working on a one-time $150 dollar payment to beneficiaries of social security, federal employee retirees, military retirees with a VA service connected disability. Got the info from www.federalnewsradio.com under Mike Causey's column

If you spread this $150 over 12 months, it comes out to $12.50 per month, or 423 Baht per month. This won't even buy a tank of gasoline. Well, I may splurge it every month on KFC. That will feed my wife and me.

Thanks for the info retirednavyman.

Chuck

[midlifecrisis]

When I looked at the SS website, it had 3 calculators. Even the most complex calculator doesn't give the military bonus. If you answer a question wrong, you get wrong answer. The OP needs to say he'll stop working before age 62. There's a slim chance it won't matter anyway.

I did.

[karazyal]

I retired at 58 and moved to Thailand. My social security benefits has not gone down but up basis on the cost of living. I have not lost any money from social security or gain anything. In fact my first check should be in my bank today (fingers crossed). Yes of course if you continued to work until 62 you would be getting more money.

The Obama administration has already announced there will be no annual cost of living increase in 2010.

I believe this will be the first year with no increase in recent history.

Funny (in the US,) liberals always scare senior citizens with the idea that if they vote for a conservative he will cut their retirement money - but the only time that has happened has been when liberals are in power!

Get the money as soon as you can if you are not working. When you turn 65 expect to lose around $100 a month for SS part B.

[Jingthing]

I retired at 58 and moved to Thailand. My social security benefits has not gone down but up basis on the cost of living. I have not lost any money from social security or gain anything. In fact my first check should be in my bank today (fingers crossed). Yes of course if you continued to work until 62 you would be getting more money.

The Obama administration has already announced there will be no annual cost of living increase in 2010.

I believe this will be the first year with no increase in recent history.

Funny (in the US,) liberals always scare senior citizens with the idea that if they vote for a conservative he will cut their retirement money - but the only time that has happened has been when liberals are in power!

Get the money as soon as you can if you are not working. When you turn 65 expect to lose around $100 a month for SS part B.

That was very misleading. Granting COLAs or not is based on a set formula based on objective economic criteria. Bush tried very hard to privatize social security and happily failed miserably.

[karazyal]

I retired at 58 and moved to Thailand. My social security benefits has not gone down but up basis on the cost of living. I have not lost any money from social security or gain anything. In fact my first check should be in my bank today (fingers crossed). Yes of course if you continued to work until 62 you would be getting more money.

The Obama administration has already announced there will be no annual cost of living increase in 2010.

I believe this will be the first year with no increase in recent history.

Funny (in the US,) liberals always scare senior citizens with the idea that if they vote for a conservative he will cut their retirement money - but the only time that has happened has been when liberals are in power!

Get the money as soon as you can if you are not working. When you turn 65 expect to lose around $100 a month for SS part B.

That was very misleading. Granting COLAs or not is based on a set formula based on objective economic criteria. Bush tried very hard to privatize social security and happily failed miserably.

Yearly Social Security increases are based on a COLA formula but every year for the past 30 years some increase was voted in just to keep up with Medicare expenses. This year the people in power voted against even a token 1% but they will give more money to foreign countries, even those countries who hate the US! With the cost of Medicare going up seniors on SS may end up with less money in their checks. The election is over there is no need to kiss senior citizen butts for votes until just before the next election. Expect an increase in SS money just before the next election!

[Jingthing]

The increases are voted in based on the economic formula. This year the formula, unfairly or not, indicated no increase was due. To characterize this as a political decision to ignore seniors just isn't true. I also see you conveniently failed to acknowledge the previous republican effort to TRASH THE ENTIRE PROGRAM.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Jingthing

[flying]

SS is a tax. Nothing more nothing less.

Whether or not receive benefits when your time comes.

Just depends especially given the current political climate.

Under the current system, once a worker pays his or her Social Security taxes into the system, the worker no longer owns that money. Most workers assume that because they pay Social Security taxes into the system their whole working lives, they have some sort of legal guarantee to the system's benefits.

Unfortunately, exactly the opposite is true. In two landmark cases, Flemming v. Nestor and Helvering v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no right to receive Social Security benefits. Congress and the president may change, reduce, or even eliminate benefits at any time. Retirees must ultimately depend on the good will of 535 politicians to determine how much money they will receive in retirement. Where is the dignity in such a system?

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3718

[TerryLH]

"This year the people in power voted against even a token 1% ..."

But why did they do that? (Refer to Post 38)

Last year they had a 5.8% increase, based largely on the price of oil/gas. Those prices quickly dropped, but the date the COLA is calculated fell during the highest prices.

To be fair, the rise was a bit high considering the whole year, yet the govt still gave it to us.

To me, I just look at it like I'm getting two years worth of increases up front. When you do the math, I like it.

If they cut it, or don't give a raise next year, come back and I might feel differently about it.

Until then, color me happy!

[chuckd]

Following is the history of COLA increases since 1975. Each year COLA has caused the payments to increase automatically. NOBODY has voted for anything. It is automatic.

This year, alas, the administration has said already there will be no increase, even though the data is not supposed to be calculated until October of each year.

While our friends in Congress are trying to be gracious and give each of us a $150.00 gratuity, the SSA is, at the same time, spending $24 Million on computer upgrades for the system. Interesting.

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/electron...-records-pr.htm

Just for the record, I worked from the time I was 17 years old until I retired at age 71. I paid in,and feel the SS check I receive each month has been earned.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Cost-of-Living Adjustments

Automatic Increases

COLA determination

SSI payment rates increase with COLA

Since 1975, Social Security general benefit increases have been cost-of-living adjustments or COLAs. The 1975-82 COLAs were effective with Social Security benefits payable for June in each of those years; thereafter COLAs have been effective with benefits payable for December.

Prior to 1975, Social Security benefit increases were set by legislation.

Social Security Cost-Of-Living Adjustments Year COLA

1975 8.0%

1976 6.4%

1977 5.9%

1978 6.5%

1979 9.9%

1980 14.3%

1981 11.2%

1982 7.4%

1983 3.5%

1984 3.5%

1985 3.1%

1986 1.3%

1987 4.2%

1988 4.0%

1989 4.7%

Year COLA

1990 5.4%

1991 3.7%

1992 3.0%

1993 2.6%

1994 2.8%

1995 2.6%

1996 2.9%

1997 2.1%

1998 1.3%

1999 a 2.5%

2000 3.5%

2001 2.6%

2002 1.4%

2003 2.1%

2004 2.7%

Year COLA

2005 4.1%

2006 3.3%

2007 2.3%

2008 5.8%

a The COLA for December 1999 was originally determined as 2.4 percent based on CPIs published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Pursuant to Public Law 106-554, however, this COLA is effectively now 2.5 percent.

The first automatic COLA, for June 1975, was based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) from the second quarter of 1974 to the first quarter of 1975. The 1976-83 COLAs were based on increases in the CPI-W from the first quarter of the prior year to the corresponding quarter of the current year in which the COLA became effective. After 1983, COLAs have been based on increases in the CPI-W from the third quarter of the prior year to the corresponding quarter of the current year in which the COLA became effective.

SSI COLAs

COLAs for the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program are generally the same as those for the Social Security program. However, COLAs for SSI have generally been effective for the month following the effective month of Social Security benefit increases. See SSI historical payment standards for more detail.

Privacy Policy | Website Policies & Other Important Information | Site Map

Last reviewed or modified Thursday Oct 16, 2008 Need Larger Text?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

the URL is:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/colaseries.html

[PeaceBlondie]

SS is a tax. Nothing more nothing less.

Whether or not receive benefits when your time comes.

Just depends especially given the current political climate.

NAH. Nope. Strongly disagree.

Yes, the taxes on covered earnins are earning taxes; and much more. F

[PeaceBlondie]

SS is a tax. Nothing more nothing less.

Whether or not receive benefits when your time comes.

Just depends especially given the current political climate.

NAH. Nope. Strongly disagree.

Yes, the taxes on covered earnings are taxes on earning; and much more. FICA and SECA are earnings taxes for OASDI, with specified earned benefits for workers.

[Jingthing]

Frankly, I wasn't really sure whether to grant the COLA's or not was automatic. I had assumed it was automatic strictly based on predetermined economic statistics. Either way, legislators theoretically could increase, decrease, or cancel a COLA if they had the votes, yes? I am sure politically for both parties it is more convenient to just make the decision based on the predetermined formulas. Of course they can change the formulas too. It is a government program, it will change over time.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Jingthing

[chuckd]

Frankly, I wasn't really sure whether to grant the COLA's or not was automatic. I had assumed it was automatic strictly based on predetermined economic statistics. Either way, legislators theoretically could increase, decrease, or cancel a COLA if they had the votes, yes? I am sure politically for both parties it is more convenient to just make the decision based on the predetermined formulas. Of course they can change the formulas too. It is a government program, it will change over time.

That is correct. Congress may enact legislation to alter the formula or stop it if they wish.

[karazyal]

The increases are voted in based on the economic formula. This year the formula, unfairly or not, indicated no increase was due. To characterize this as a political decision to ignore seniors just isn't true. I also see you conveniently failed to acknowledge the previous republican effort to TRASH THE ENTIRE PROGRAM.

I have no problem with privatizing the Social Security program and I think it is a good thing! Anything the U.S. government runs - such as the Post Office, Medicare, food stamps and other government welfare programs is always run inefficiently and rife with problems and high overhead for pensions.

If Obama asked his party to support a token Social Security raise they would do it! There were other times over the past 30 years that the criteria might have said to not give a raise but they voted it in to offset other raises in Medicare expenses that come up. Maybe they should give less money to foreign countries (even the ones who hate the U.S.) and use that money for seniors on SS!

[flying]

SS is a tax. Nothing more nothing less.

Whether or not receive benefits when your time comes.

Just depends especially given the current political climate.

NAH. Nope. Strongly disagree.

Yes, the taxes on covered earnings are taxes on earning; and much more. FICA and SECA are earnings taxes for OASDI, with specified earned benefits for workers.

I personally do not think it would be withdrawn but as I said it depends on political climate..... Like all Federal programs

The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn

There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional

Edited September 18, 2009 by flying

[Jingthing]

The increases are voted in based on the economic formula. This year the formula, unfairly or not, indicated no increase was due. To characterize this as a political decision to ignore seniors just isn't true. I also see you conveniently failed to acknowledge the previous republican effort to TRASH THE ENTIRE PROGRAM.

I have no problem with privatizing the Social Security program and I think it is a good thing! Anything the U.S. government runs - such as the Post Office, Medicare, food stamps and other government welfare programs is always run inefficiently and rife with problems and high overhead for pensions.

If Obama asked his party to support a token Social Security raise they would do it! There were other times over the past 30 years that the criteria might have said to not give a raise but they voted it in to offset other raises in Medicare expenses that come up. Maybe they should give less money to foreign countries (even the ones who hate the U.S.) and use that money for seniors on SS!

Happily, those favoring such a radical change ...

LOST.

[TerryLH]

I just saw this on Yahoo news.

http://finance.yahoo.com/retirement/articl...retire-planning

What You Need to Know About Social Security

by Walter Updegrave

Thursday, September 17, 2009

This benefit should be the cornerstone of your retirement planning. The answers to these five questions will help you to get the most out of it.

(Money Magazine) -- You've probably spent a lot of time sweating over your 401(k) and IRA. But have you given much thought to the way Social Security will fit into your retirement plans?

You should. In fact, Social Security provides 50% of the income for more than half of married retired couples and about 20% for high earners. Moreover, it's the only source of income you're likely to have that's guaranteed to last for life and keep pace with inflation.

But given the complexity of the Social Security calculations, it's tough to figure out how to make the most of it. The amount of your monthly check will depend on when you retire, how much you and your spouse earned, and whether you work in retirement. "That makes it hard to plan," says former Social Security Administration deputy commissioner Andrew Biggs. The following guide will answer those questions and give you strategies that can help you maximize your benefits.

QUESTION 1: Can I count on Social Security to be there?

You can. Despite what you may hear about the system going broke, the funds from workers' payroll taxes will cover all retirees' payments until 2016 even if no changes are made to the current program. After that the Social Security Administration can cover full benefits until 2037 by cashing in its Treasury bonds from the Social Security trust fund. And when the bonds run out, income from payroll taxes would be enough to cover about 75% of payments for decades.

That said, the government is looking at ways to shore up the system. President Obama has talked about imposing Social Security payroll taxes on income over $200,000 (currently, earnings over $106,800 are exempt). Other possible fixes: upping payroll taxes, raising the retirement age, and scaling back payments in some way.

The good news for anyone in or near retirement: "People 55 and over are likely to see no change or just a marginal change in benefits," says actuary Bruce Schobel, who worked on the commission headed by Alan Greenspan nearly 30 years ago that fixed the system (at least until now). But even younger workers can rest assured that drastic cuts are unlikely.

QUESTION 2: How much will I get every month?

Like all things Social Security, there's a complex formula involved. But essentially, the amount you'll get at your full retirement age is based on your average lifetime earnings, adjusted for rising wage levels over the years. Depending on when you were born, your full retirement age varies between 65 and 67. Grab your payments earlier than your full retirement age, and they'll be reduced: Wait, and you'll get more.

Spouses can also qualify for up to 50% of their husband or wife's full retirement age payment; if that amount is larger than what you would get based on your own earnings, you'll get the higher figure. Similarly, if your spouse dies, you would receive a survivor's benefit of up to 100% of what your deceased spouse was collecting, if that amount is higher than your own payment. Divorced? You may still be eligible for spouse and survivor benefits as well.

Your checks are also automatically adjusted for inflation each January. Payments increased by 5.8% for 2009. But given the near-term inflation outlook, the Congressional Budget Office estimates there may not be a cost of living increase for the next few years.

QUESTION 3: At what age should I begin collecting?

The majority of people take Social Security before full retirement age. But it often pays to wait. Just in terms of benefits accrued, if you have an average life expectancy or better, you'd probably come out ahead waiting for a larger payment that you won't collect as long. More important, you'll have a bigger check at an age when your retirement savings are diminished and you aren't likely to be able to work to supplement your income.

The math gets more complicated for married couples, however, since in addition to what they get from their own earnings, one of them may also qualify for spousal benefits and eventually collect payments as a surviving spouse. So married couples should aim to max out their benefits over both their lifetimes.

Generally, the best strategy is for the higher-earning spouse to delay taking Social Security for as long as possible. That's because survivor benefits are based on the larger of the couple's checks. The lower-earner, meanwhile, should usually claim benefits earlier. That will often, though not always, provide the greatest amount of income as well as security in old age.

QUESTION 4: Will I lose benefits if I work?

It's true that if you collect early and work at the same time, your payments may be reduced (once you reach full retirement age, feel free to toil away; your golf game might suffer, but there's no effect on your Social Security). Your checks will be reduced by $1 for every $2 you earn over an annual limit, currently $14,160 (the hit is considerably less during the calendar year you hit full retirement age).

But despite what you often read or hear, you don't actually "lose" that money. At full retirement age Social Security will begin compensating you with a larger check for the benefits that were withheld. And you'll receive that higher payment for the rest of your life. If you are reasonably long-lived, you'll wind up collecting more -- and you'll have extra income from your additional years as a wage slave.

Working in retirement can also up your payments in other ways. Your check is based on your 35 highest years of wages. If you work fewer during your career, your benefit will be adjusted to reflect any extra years of work. Even if you clocked all 35 years pre-retirement, you could still get a bump if your annual earnings during your golden years were higher than some years earlier in your career.

QUESTION 5: Will my benefits be taxed?

You thought Uncle Sam would cut you a break after retirement? Fat chance. Currently, about a third of Social Security recipients pay income tax on a portion of their benefits, and the Social Security Administration projects upwards of 42% of recipients will be doing so by 2018.

To see whether you'll owe taxes and, if so, to estimate what the bill might be, use our simplified worksheet ("Add up the tax bill," above, right) or fill out the extremely detailed one in IRS Publication 915: Social Security and Equivalent Railroad Retirement Benefits, available at irs.gov.

If you want to lessen the tax bite, there are a couple of options. One is to wait at least until full retirement age to claim Social Security, if you think that income from a post-retirement job could result in a big tax bill.

[midlifecrisis]

The increases are voted in based on the economic formula. This year the formula, unfairly or not, indicated no increase was due. To characterize this as a political decision to ignore seniors just isn't true. I also see you conveniently failed to acknowledge the previous republican effort to TRASH THE ENTIRE PROGRAM.

I have no problem with privatizing the Social Security program and I think it is a good thing! Anything the U.S. government runs - such as the Post Office, Medicare, food stamps and other government welfare programs is always run inefficiently and rife with problems and high overhead for pensions.

If Obama asked his party to support a token Social Security raise they would do it! There were other times over the past 30 years that the criteria might have said to not give a raise but they voted it in to offset other raises in Medicare expenses that come up. Maybe they should give less money to foreign countries (even the ones who hate the U.S.) and use that money for seniors on SS!

According to the letter I got from SSA this week, the program is solvent until 2041.

I hardly think that will impact me at almost 59 years old now.

[Jingthing]

You are right. People who are 59 now are set for this program. The younger you are now, the less set.

Unlike Thai immigration, the politicians want to give people as much warning as possible about the future of this vital program. There is no logical reason to think they will spring a big change on people so close to the benefits age.

Funding for SS is not a crisis and can rather easily be tweaked to fix. Medicare is another story entirely.

Edited September 18, 2009 by Jingthing

[flying]

QUESTION 1: Can I count on Social Security to be there?

You can. Despite what you may hear about the system going broke, the funds from workers' payroll taxes will cover all retirees' payments until 2016 even if no changes are made to the current program. After that the Social Security Administration can cover full benefits until 2037 by cashing in its Treasury bonds from the Social Security trust fund. And when the bonds run out, income from payroll taxes would be enough to cover about 75% of payments for decades.

That is hard to believe & even they contradict by saying despite what you hear yet

yet then go on to say it is scheduled to go broke in 2037. Which is correct.

Then they talk about future generation easily paying 75%....Yet they do not tell you the truth & that is with the baby boomers all coming due at the same short time.

This results in a large drop in the worker-to-beneficiary ratio. For example, in 1950 the worker-to-beneficiary ratio was 16-to-one. Currently the ratio is 3.3-to-one, and within 40 years it will be 2-to-1. That is if the current loss of jobs stops & production somehow returns.

QUESTION 5: Will my benefits be taxed?

You thought Uncle Sam would cut you a break after retirement? Fat chance.

So lets get this straight....SS was removed as a tax all your life from your labors.

Now when returned to you it is taxed again? Yeah Uncle Sam dont cut me a break but do I need to bend over so far to collect what many say is mine? How about I cut you a break & not charge interest if you just give it all back now?

Edited September 18, 2009 by flying

[PeaceBlondie]

Two points.

Overseas SS recipients can only work less than 45 hours per MONTH before FRA. For any month you tell SSA you worked more HOURS regardless of salary, SSA cuts your ENTIRE month's check. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10137.html page down to Foreign work test.

Most retirees never pay one cent of US income tax on SS benefits. If they do, they're not being double-taxed.

[barryofthailand]

When you get ready to retire, before you move to thailand, go to a local social securety office and get a print out. Tell them you are retiring early, and they will give you the amount you will get monthly at age 62. I moved to Thailand at 58, and when I applied for social security at age 61 and a half I received the exact amount they gave me on the print out plus cost of living adjustments. Don't try and figure it out, because it's almost impossible.

Barry

[KhunG]

I saw it mentioned that they reduce your benefit if you start drawing at age 62 but continue to get an income from work. Do they also reduce your benefit if you get an income from a private pension and investments?

[jgm005]

Retired at 54.

Applied for S/S at 61 10 months.

Started when I hit 62.

Piece of cake to get it going.

[Petbon]

Sorry this is off topic.

WOW your pension system is much fairer than in NZ where every citizen (and recent immigrants) gets around $19,000p.a. gross at 65, despite some never worked/contributed ever! A bundle of additional living allowances, medical/dental/old folks home etc benefits if no savings from no work or overspending.

The average income retired, like me, live at a lower level because of a lifetime's frugality and saving.

[PeaceBlondie]

I saw it mentioned that they reduce your benefit if you start drawing at age 62 but continue to get an income from work. Do they also reduce your benefit if you get an income from a private pension and investments?

No reduction generally. The complex formula penalizes you if you or your spouse earned a pension outside of the FICA system. No penalty for investments, but maybe income tax on SS pension.

[ACMIKE]

I admit I didn't read all the posts.....but there is a good calculator at the SSA website, all you have to do is enter where you stop wotking and it will give you the proper figures. I plan on going about 5 years early and it was a minimal amount of difference for not working to 62. Of course it will depend on whether you have the max credits or not.

[CaptHaddock]

The OP should consider delaying his SS benefit until age 70 if he can afford to live without it until then. If he starts collecting at age 62 he will get 75% of his Full Retirement Age benefit for life. However, if he can wait until age 70 before collecting he will get 132% of his FRA benefit. That's a guaranteed increase of 7% to 8% for each year he waits, not including the cost of living adjustment.

I think it is criminal that the SSA does not offer expert advice to recipients on how to collect the maximum benefit for which they are eligible. How many divorced wives know that they can collect the spousal benefit (roughly 50% of the husband's benefit) provided that they were married for at least 10 years and she has not remarried?