Filing for US Social Security from Thailand

[IMA_FARANG]

First of all, I set up a direct deposit for my Social Security monthly pension with Bangkok Bank in September 2014 and receive it monthly.

I went through the process via the Social Security office in Manila as they were far more knowledgeable than my local SSA office which I found out was basically clueless about retirees living overseas and n fact didn't want to bother about people living outside the U.S.

I liv in Bangkok and it is no longer true you need to go to the same Bangkok Bank branch where you opened the direct deposit.

At least this is true in Bangkok, up country I don't know.

It just happens I live about 100 meters (maybe less) from a mall with a Bangkok Bank service that is open 7 days a week (including weekends).

By now they know me, so I can get my funds any day of the week I no longer have to go through the Bangkok Bank branch where I opened my direct deposit.

The first time you get a SSA direct deposit they may require you to go the Bangkok Bank main office on Silom Road to verify your account details, but after that you are entered into their database, and you can use any branch office.

At least this is true in Bangkok.

They do want to see your passport however each month, which they photocopy as your I.D.

For me it is the most convenient way to get my SSA pension each month.

Due to Social Security rules I am NOT allowed to have an ATM/debit card on the same account that my funds are transferred into.

However r I opened a second personal account with Bangkok Bank which I transfer funds to which I have an ATM c ard for.

I use that for personal expenses to live on.

For me, it is the most convenient solution to living here in Bangkok.

 

 

[avvocato]

10 hours ago, IMA_FARANG said:

...

I liv in Bangkok and it is no longer true you need to go to the same Bangkok Bank branch where you opened the direct deposit.

At least this is true in Bangkok, up country I don't know.

...

 

I think this is true anywhere. I'm in Khon Kaen and same same.

[tutsiwarrior]

12 hours ago, IMA_FARANG said:

 

Due to Social Security rules I am NOT allowed to have an ATM/debit card on the same account that my funds are transferred into.

However r I opened a second personal account with Bangkok Bank which I transfer funds to which I have an ATM c ard for.

I use that for personal expenses to live on.

 

yeah...I do the same, go to the bank and with the bank clerk's assistance transfer from my BKK bank direct deposit account that the SSA pension money is received into to my K - Bank account for which I have an ATM card...it's handy as our BBK Bank branch resides across from the tescos checkout counters where we do our weekly grocery shop...the transfer is almost instantaneous as I immediately receive an SMS from both BBK Bank and K - bank confirming the transaction...

[SpokaneAl]

Not to rain on your parade, but if you don't really need the money, you might consider waiting.  Each year you wait before 66, you get an extra 7 or so percent per year.  And each year after 66, you get an extra 8% - all for life!  Plus if you have a wife who'll collect in the future, she'll get extra too. 
 
So, for example, if you  were going to draw $1000 and you wait the 4 years to 66, you'd get $1280 per month for life.  Now, if you wait to 70, the latest you can wait, another $320 a year for life- around $1600.  That's a big difference, but then you didn't draw checks all those other years.  There's a book I'm reading on the subject that you might like called Get What's Yours: https://www.amazon.com/Get-Whats-Yours-Revised-Security/dp/1501144766/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1485336519&sr=8-1&keywords=get+what's+yours+the+secrets+to+maxing+out+your+social+security
Good luck!

FYI, if a spouse is a non US citizen/non US resident then the chances are very slim that that person could/would receive spousal Social Security benefits.

http://www.crevelingandcreveling.com/blog/what-expat-americans-foreign-spouses-need-know-about-social-security


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[SpokaneAl]

First of all, I set up a direct deposit for my Social Security monthly pension with Bangkok Bank in September 2014 and receive it monthly.

I went through the process via the Social Security office in Manila as they were far more knowledgeable than my local SSA office which I found out was basically clueless about retirees living overseas and n fact didn't want to bother about people living outside the U.S.

I liv in Bangkok and it is no longer true you need to go to the same Bangkok Bank branch where you opened the direct deposit.

At least this is true in Bangkok, up country I don't know.

It just happens I live about 100 meters (maybe less) from a mall with a Bangkok Bank service that is open 7 days a week (including weekends).

By now they know me, so I can get my funds any day of the week I no longer have to go through the Bangkok Bank branch where I opened my direct deposit.

The first time you get a SSA direct deposit they may require you to go the Bangkok Bank main office on Silom Road to verify your account details, but after that you are entered into their database, and you can use any branch office.

At least this is true in Bangkok.

They do want to see your passport however each month, which they photocopy as your I.D.

For me it is the most convenient way to get my SSA pension each month.

Due to Social Security rules I am NOT allowed to have an ATM/debit card on the same account that my funds are transferred into.

However r I opened a second personal account with Bangkok Bank which I transfer funds to which I have an ATM c ard for.

I use that for personal expenses to live on.

For me, it is the most convenient solution to living here in Bangkok.

 

 

What happens if you become ill or incapacitated and can no longer make the trek to obtain your money or perform the funds transfer?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[taxout]

"That's true, but it's an arithmetic question, not a matter of principle, isn't it?  Medicare Part B cost per month is $109 if you are currently collecting SS benefits or $134 if you are delaying.  So, the cost of delaying is an extra $25/month.  But the benefit is approximately %8/month when you hit 70 or decide earlier to collect.  In my case that is about 8% of $2200 or $176.  Since I am 67 I will be paying the extra $25/month for three years or a total of $900.  Three years from now I will be collecting a benefit that is 24% greater or about $528 more per month.  So I recover the $900 in about two months of increased benefit.  Not a tough decision to make."

 

That analysis somehow skips accounting for the value of the benefits you don't receive if you postpone taking Social Security for three or four years. Three or four years of benefits is a big number, and you are vastly over-stating the benefits of delaying Social Security.

[SpokaneAl]

"That's true, but it's an arithmetic question, not a matter of principle, isn't it?  Medicare Part B cost per month is $109 if you are currently collecting SS benefits or $134 if you are delaying.  So, the cost of delaying is an extra $25/month.  But the benefit is approximately %8/month when you hit 70 or decide earlier to collect.  In my case that is about 8% of $2200 or $176.  Since I am 67 I will be paying the extra $25/month for three years or a total of $900.  Three years from now I will be collecting a benefit that is 24% greater or about $528 more per month.  So I recover the $900 in about two months of increased benefit.  Not a tough decision to make."

 

That analysis somehow skips accounting for the value of the benefits you don't receive if you postpone taking Social Security for three or four years. Three or four years of benefits is a big number, and you are vastly over-stating the benefits of delaying Social Security.

There is a break even analysis that would help which takes into account those early payments. If only we knew the exact day we were going to die, we would be able to calculate a precise answer to your concern.

http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/06/19/if-youre-thinking-about-delaying-social-security-u.aspx

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[CaptHaddock]

19 hours ago, taxout said:

"That's true, but it's an arithmetic question, not a matter of principle, isn't it?  Medicare Part B cost per month is $109 if you are currently collecting SS benefits or $134 if you are delaying.  So, the cost of delaying is an extra $25/month.  But the benefit is approximately %8/month when you hit 70 or decide earlier to collect.  In my case that is about 8% of $2200 or $176.  Since I am 67 I will be paying the extra $25/month for three years or a total of $900.  Three years from now I will be collecting a benefit that is 24% greater or about $528 more per month.  So I recover the $900 in about two months of increased benefit.  Not a tough decision to make."

 

That analysis somehow skips accounting for the value of the benefits you don't receive if you postpone taking Social Security for three or four years. Three or four years of benefits is a big number, and you are vastly over-stating the benefits of delaying Social Security.

My analysis only addressed the increased cost of Medicare for those who have registered for Medicare, but are delaying SS benefits, since that was the issue raised by the poster to whom I was responding who seemed to think that the additional Medicare charge made delaying not worthwhile.   It does not address the total cost of delaying SS for which the biggest cost would be not receiving the benefits during the period of delay, as you point out, although even with that substantial cost, Delayed Retirement Credits are a better deal for those who can afford to wait.

 

I am not overstating the benefit of the Delayed Retirement Credits.  For those of us born after 1943 the benefit is 8% per year.  So, delaying for three years increases the benefit by about 24%.  The comparison between taking benefits at 62 versus 70 is indeed enormous.  My Full Retirement Age is 66.  If I had taken benefits at 62, the benefits would have been 75% of my FRA benefits.  By waiting until age 70 I will receive benefits that will be 132% of my FRA benefits, or 76% per cent more than the age 62 benefits.  So, for an example, if my FRA benefit were to be $2200/month, my age 62 benefit would have been $1650/month and my age 70 benefit would be $2904/month, which is an increase of 76% over the age 62 benefit.  Of course, COLA increases, if any, are in addition to Delayed Retirement Credits.  My DRCs last my whole life and my US citizen wife will inherit them.

 

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/delayret.html

 

If you do not understand the substantial benefits of DRCs then you really have no idea what you are talking about and should read up on the subject instead of broadcasting misinformation.

Edited February 1, 2017 by CaptHaddock

[Pib]

When to start taking social security pension is a highly personal decision for numerous reasons such as just need the money to pay bills, expected life expectancy, just bunches of different reasons.  

 

I also think some people want to wait until their full retirement age simply because mentally they don't want to accept anything less than 100%, with that 100% of benefits constantly talked about.  Some people just feel cheated unless they get 100% (or more) but will explain their reasoning as a purely financial one....that is, I wanted to get a higher monthly pension payment....but really it was just a mindset of always wanting at least 100%.    That's OK....it's a personal decision.

 

Most people do not want until their full retirement age (generally 66 to 67 for the current crop of folks nearing SS pension age)....and few wait beyond their full retirement age.   The majority of Americans start their pension before age 66 with the biggest percentage starting it at age 62.

 

fact,      

 

[SpokaneAl]

There really is no one size fits all answer for when to begin taking social security. The answer is that it depends. If one needs the money to live on, then they have few options and need to take it soon. Perhaps others have sufficient income and/or investments and believe that by taking SS early they can invest and earn a higher return than that received via waiting. For myself, my full retirement age is 66 and I will sign up for SS at 66.5. I would say that the only people who absolutely should not sign up for SS are those who are still working.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[CaptHaddock]

3 hours ago, Pib said:

When to start taking social security pension is a highly personal decision for numerous reasons such as just need the money to pay bills, expected life expectancy, just bunches of different reasons.  

 

I also think some people want to wait until their full retirement age simply because mentally they don't want to accept anything less than 100%, with that 100% of benefits constantly talked about.  Some people just feel cheated unless they get 100% (or more) but will explain their reasoning as a purely financial one....that is, I wanted to get a higher monthly pension payment....but really it was just a mindset of always wanting at least 100%.    That's OK....it's a personal decision.

 

Most people do not want until their full retirement age (generally 66 to 67 for the current crop of folks nearing SS pension age)....and few wait beyond their full retirement age.   The majority of Americans start their pension before age 66 with the biggest percentage starting it at age 62.

 

fact,      

 

 

While it's true that personal preferences about accepting risk levels and delaying gratification, etc. may come into play in the decision about when to take SS, it is misleading to consider the whole issue as nothing more than preferring vanilla to cherry pistachio in which case anyone's personal preference is as good as anyone else's.  One's preferences can only be considered once one has understood the facts of the matter.  As I read poster after poster worrying about not "breaking even" while basically no one mentions the risk of outliving one's portfolio, I am not persuaded that these "analyses" or "personal preferences" are even remotely competent.  Those posters, like yourself, who present rosy predictions on the investment returns they are going to get in the future seem  blithely unaware that stock market returns are highly volatile and carry substantial risk of loss, particularly for retirees who may be unable to recover from such losses.  By comparison, SS is as close to risk-free as anything in this world, particularly when considering the exceptional bonus of inflation-protection and survivor's benefits, which are, by the way, free. 

 

As far as the statistics on age of claiming, it should hardly be necessary to point out that this entire discussion on when to claim is directed only at those retirees who have sufficient resources to fund their lifestyle without SS benefits until 70 or however long they wish to delay.  That excludes the overwhelming majority of Americans older than 60.  The average of retirement assets for Americans aged 55 to 64 was $104,000 in 2015 according to a government study.   These people will have no other choice, but to claim SS benefits as soon as they stop working, whether voluntarily or otherwise.  So the statistics are not very relevant for those of us who do have choices.

 

Beyond that most people are fools.  It's well known that investors habitually overrate their investing ability and retirees who face the option of taking a lump-sum distribution from their corporate pension plans instead of a life annuity, overwhelmingly choose the lump-sum, which the plan sponsors understand well enough to discount the lump sum usually significantly versus the value of an equivalent private annuity.  Unless you already have a terminal illness taking the lump-sum distribution is a sucker move, not some personal preference like any other.  I'll be persuaded of the competence of the posters here when they tell us about their detailed plans for funding their living costs from age 90 to 95 instead of focusing on the regret they will feel in the grave for failing to exact the last dollar from Uncle Sam.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SpokaneAl]

 
While it's true that personal preferences about accepting risk levels and delaying gratification, etc. may come into play in the decision about when to take SS, it is misleading to consider the whole issue as nothing more than preferring vanilla to cherry pistachio in which case anyone's personal preference is as good as anyone else's.  One's preferences can only be considered once one has understood the facts of the matter.  As I read poster after poster worrying about not "breaking even" while basically no one mentions the risk of outliving one's portfolio, I am not persuaded that these "analyses" or "personal preferences" are even remotely competent.  Those posters, like yourself, who present rosy predictions on the investment returns they are going to get in the future seem  blithely unaware that stock market returns are highly volatile and carry substantial risk of loss, particularly for retirees who may be unable to recover from such losses.  By comparison, SS is as close to risk-free as anything in this world, particularly when considering the exceptional bonus of inflation-protection and survivor's benefits, which are, by the way, free. 
 
As far as the statistics on age of claiming, it should hardly be necessary to point out that this entire discussion on when to claim is directed only at those retirees who have sufficient resources to fund their lifestyle without SS benefits until 70 or however long they wish to delay.  That excludes the overwhelming majority of Americans older than 60.  The average of retirement assets for Americans aged 55 to 64 was $104,000 in 2015 according to a government study.   These people will have no other choice, but to claim SS benefits as soon as they stop working, whether voluntarily or otherwise.  So the statistics are not very relevant for those of us who do have choices.
 
Beyond that most people are fools.  It's well known that investors habitually overrate their investing ability and retirees who face the option of taking a lump-sum distribution from their corporate pension plans instead of a life annuity, overwhelmingly choose the lump-sum, which the plan sponsors understand well enough to discount the lump sum usually significantly versus the value of an equivalent private annuity.  Unless you already have a terminal illness taking the lump-sum distribution is a sucker move, not some personal preference like any other.  I'll be persuaded of the competence of the posters here when they tell us about their detailed plans for funding their living costs from age 90 to 95 instead of focusing on the regret they will feel in the grave for failing to exact the last dollar from Uncle Sam.
 
 
 
 
 
 

Great points all. And the older we get, while spending on pleasure decreases, medical bills seem to grow exponentially.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[avvocato]

On 1/31/2017 at 6:29 AM, SpokaneAl said:

What happens if you become ill or incapacitated and can no longer make the trek to obtain your money or perform the funds transfer?

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

This is a good question. Any takers?

[oldcarguy]

Anyone like to guess on how the next 4 years will go with SS and Medicare ?

I see it as a bumpy ride , may trying to privatize  one or both , because on paper it looks good to get it off the Federal governments books.....

 

No other President would dare even talk about it , but that does not seem to be the case these days.....

 

the real important thing is what happens when they find a cure for cancer and heart disease and a large nuber of people start living to over 100 years old ?    there is just not enough money , or young workers to support 35 years of retirement payments.....

[SpokaneAl]

Anyone like to guess on how the next 4 years will go with SS and Medicare ?
I see it as a bumpy ride , may trying to privatize  one or both , because on paper it looks good to get it off the Federal governments books.....
 
No other President would dare even talk about it , but that does not seem to be the case these days.....
 
the real important thing is what happens when they find a cure for cancer and heart disease and a large nuber of people start living to over 100 years old ?    there is just not enough money , or young workers to support 35 years of retirement payments.....

I don't see any change or impact on current or soon to be SS recipients.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[CaptHaddock]

3 hours ago, SpokaneAl said:

 

 

I don't see any change or impact on current or soon to be SS recipients.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

 

The future of SS and Medicare, indeed of such fundamental services as public education, depends on how the revocation of Obamacare goes.  If the working class who are the primary beneficiaries of the ACA, especially the six million or so of Trump voters who will lose their insurance, understand how Trump and the Republican party have betrayed them, that could discourage further Republican assaults on the working class.  Disgruntled former Trump voters could conceivably turn into Sanders supporters calling for a single-payer system like all the other rich countries.  However, that's not what I expect to happen.  The Republicans will blame the catastrophic loss of insurance from the repeal of Obamacare on the Democrats and the white working class, who will get angrier, will be encouraged to take that anger out on helpless innocents like Muslims, black people, and all the usual suspects. 

 

If the Republican program of obfuscation succeeds, as I expect it will given the befuddlement of the average Trump supporter, then they will proceed to attempt to dismantle the rest of the Great Society, i.e. Medicare, before attacking the New Deal, i.e. Social Security.   I can't say whether they will succeed in that program or not, but it should be clear to everyone that the political risk to SS is the greatest it has ever been since 1935.   Their strategy on SS won't be to attack current recipients first.  Instead, they will offer private investment accounts to young workers which will cut off the payroll tax that supports the current recipients.  At first, the government will make up the lost revenue separately and the current recipients will not be affected much, but by and by there will be a crisis, such as a war with Iran or China, and it will be found that the government can no longer afford to support the retirees who benefits will then be cut repeatedly.  It will be presented as regrettable, if unavoidable, economics. 

 

They are already plotting out strategies like this even as we speak. 

[Langsuan Man]

2 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

The future of SS and Medicare, indeed of such fundamental services as public education, depends on how the revocation of Obamacare goes....................................................... 

They are already plotting out strategies like this even as we speak. 

If history is any guide you are unfortunately entirely correct.......worked for Trump get the country divided:  by working class...versus the middle class.....poor against the rich  ...now pit the young against the old

[jmd8800]

50 minutes ago, CaptHaddock said:

 

The future of SS and Medicare, indeed of such fundamental services as public education, depends on how the revocation of Obamacare goes.  If the working class who are the primary beneficiaries of the ACA, especially the six million or so of Trump voters who will lose their insurance, understand how Trump and the Republican party have betrayed them, that could discourage further Republican assaults on the working class.  Disgruntled former Trump voters could conceivably turn into Sanders supporters calling for a single-payer system like all the other rich countries.  However, that's not what I expect to happen.  The Republicans will blame the catastrophic loss of insurance from the repeal of Obamacare on the Democrats and the white working class, who will get angrier, will be encouraged to take that anger out on helpless innocents like Muslims, black people, and all the usual suspects. 

 

If the Republican program of obfuscation succeeds, as I expect it will given the befuddlement of the average Trump supporter, then they will proceed to attempt to dismantle the rest of the Great Society, i.e. Medicare, before attacking the New Deal, i.e. Social Security.   I can't say whether they will succeed in that program or not, but it should be clear to everyone that the political risk to SS is the greatest it has ever been since 1935.   Their strategy on SS won't be to attack current recipients first.  Instead, they will offer private investment accounts to young workers which will cut off the payroll tax that supports the current recipients.  At first, the government will make up the lost revenue separately and the current recipients will not be affected much, but by and by there will be a crisis, such as a war with Iran or China, and it will be found that the government can no longer afford to support the retirees who benefits will then be cut repeatedly.  It will be presented as regrettable, if unavoidable, economics. 

 

They are already plotting out strategies like this even as we speak. 

To make a long story short: The only time there was a 'middle class' was when 2 world wars and a great depression took the wind out of the sails of the wealthy elite. The New Deal and Great Society were the 2 main driving forces. Since Reagan there has been a very successful push to discredit the US government's role in everyday lives. The wealthy elite have come to take that money back.

 

When it comes to economic policy all anyone really needs to know is:

 

The people are broke, governments are broke and banks/corporations/wealthy elite are sitting on trillions of dollars in cash.

 

Back to original topic... how long after the application is filed can I expect to wait for any phone calls. I'm planning on a trip to USA. This phone call will help determine if I file before, during or after the trip.

Edited February 2, 2017 by jmd8800

[oldcarguy]

one of the worse things they keep talking about is letting everyone "invest" in their own retirement fund ,

 

this will just open the door for every con man in the world , and all the greedy "investors" who will believe they can earn 10-20% yearly and  just sit back and do nothing , 

 

when they lose it all it will just make a bigger mess......

[Langsuan Man]

one of the worse things they keep talking about is letting everyone "invest" in their own retirement fund ,
 
this will just open the door for every con man in the world , and all the greedy "investors" who will believe they can earn 10-20% yearly and  just sit back and do nothing , 
 
when they lose it all it will just make a bigger mess......

And that is not even taking into account the latest Presidential order the removes the requirement that your investment advisor or broker has to advise you based upon Your best interests. Now the Wall Street' ers can sell you what makes them the most money, the hell with your needs

Sort of like the banks were allowed to steer housing finance to friendly funds and we all know how spectacular that turned out






Sent from my Nexus 5X using Thaivisa Connect mobile app

[Pib]

Sure hope we don't see another Great Rescission like occurred during George W. "Freaken" Bush's final year in office.   George W. drove the economy off a financial cliff, bailed out before it even hit bottom & went back to Texas, and then left it up to Obama to putout the economy crash fire.  

 

Now Obama has turned over an economy in good shape with low unemployment.  Will have to wait and see how Donald and Republicans drive the economy.  Sure hope they don't drive the economy over the same financial cliff George W. drove over by allowing the banksters to run free & wild.   And sure hope they don't mess with Social Security.