I usually like to have a theme to my columns. For example, I might write a column that centers on widow’s benefits. Or another column might explain the Social Security disability program. But today, I’m just going to reach into my mailbag (well, actually, I’m opening up my email folder), and I’m just going to answer random questions.
And as long as I’m on the topic of retroactivity, I’m always puzzled by those who choose that option after reaching full retirement age. Here is an example. Let’s say Alice, whose full retirement age is 66, was going to start her Social Security at age 70 in October 2023. But when she filed for benefits, she learned she could take the option of up to 6 months in retroactive benefits. So she jumped at the chance to get that big retroactive check, even though it would mean a slightly smaller ongoing monthly benefit rate. In effect, it would be as if Alice chose April 2023 (six months before October) as her starting month.
Of course, Alice can do whatever she wants. So why am I puzzled? Well, if Alice wanted April to be her starting month, why didn’t she file for benefits in April? Why did she let the government hang on to her money for 6 months, and then file for those benefits in October and get the money back—without interest? Oh well, I guess it’s just the idea of that big retroactive check that is so tempting.
But to repeat the point I made at the start of this answer: No retroactive benefits can be paid before your full retirement age.
In the prior column you mentioned, I think I was answering a guy who asked this question: “My wife is turning 62 and is filing for her Social Security. I plan to wait until I turn 70 in a few years before I file for mine. Can she file for spousal benefits on my record now?” And I told him no. I said she can’t get anything on your record until you are getting benefits yourself. And by saying that, I was just trying to tell him that his wife can’t get anything on his record until he is eligible for benefits himself. I didn’t mean to imply that he had to have an actual Social Security check in his hand before she could file on his account.
Perhaps you are advocating that you should get both your own Social Security benefit plus a widow’s benefit on your husband’s account. I’ve heard this proposal made many times over the years. But I’ve always responded with this point. If you should be allowed to get benefits on two accounts, why shouldn’t everyone? For example, should I be allowed to get my own Social Security benefit plus a husband’s benefit on my wife’s record? And then, for that matter, should my wife get her own Social Security benefit plus a wife’s benefit on my record?
Also, we have a friend who is a fairly well-to-do widower who gets a very generous Social Security retirement benefit. Should he be allowed to get that and also receive a widower’s benefit on his deceased wife’s account? My goodness. If Social Security had always paid these double benefits to everyone, the system would have gone belly up many years ago!
One final point to help other readers understand the rules. When I said you get the benefit that pays the higher rate if you are due benefits on two accounts, a better way to phrase that would be to say you get an amount equal to the higher benefit. For example, if one of your friends was due $1,200 on her own account and $2,000 in widow’s benefits, she would be paid her own $1,200 retirement benefit and then she would get $800 in widow’s benefits to take her total benefits up to her husband’s $2,000 rate. She ends up getting one monthly check for $2,000 and probably doesn’t even realize that on the Social Security Administration’s books, it’s coming off of two accounts.
