As I’ve pointed out over and over again in this column, there are thousands of myths about Social Security benefits. Those myths are usually started online, but then they get picked up by uninformed people and spread from one nattering novice to another. I couldn’t squeeze a thousand myths into a book, but I have written one called “Social Security: 100 Myths and 100 Facts.” I recommend you get it at Amazon.com or other booksellers and read it.
But in today’s column, I’m just going to concentrate on myths about benefits for spouses. And by “spouses,” I almost always mean women—because 95 percent of all spousal benefits are paid to women. But if you happen to be in a marriage where the wife is the primary breadwinner, meaning the husband might potentially be due spousal benefits on his wife’s Social Security account, then you should know that the same rules apply to a dependent husband.
Q: After reading your article entitled, “There are No Social Security Marriage Penalties,” I have a question. I have been a pastor for 40 years. Many widows have told me that they are not going to remarry because they’ve heard their Social Security benefits will be reduced or eliminated. That sounds a lot like a marriage penalty to me. In too many cases, these women have chosen to cohabit with their new “boyfriend.” Some of them have asked me to perform a wedding ceremony, but they refuse to get a marriage license because they don’t want the government to know. Isn’t this a marriage penalty?
A: These women you have talked to have been duped by myths and rumors. The law says that a widow who remarries after age 60 will not lose the benefits from her first husband. And since age 60 is the earliest a woman can usually get widow’s benefits, that essentially means that any widow who remarries will never lose any of her former husband’s Social Security benefits.
And just FYI: Many widows are getting their own Social Security benefits, and a new marriage will never end her entitlement to her own benefits.
Q: I am 62. My husband is 57. I was a homemaker most of my life and have no Social Security record. Someone told me I won’t get any of his Social Security until he starts drawing benefits himself. Is this true? I hope it’s one of the myths you keep writing about!
A: I’m afraid that’s not a myth. You made the same mistake my wife did: You married a younger man! And the rules say you can’t collect on his Social Security account until he signs up for his own benefits.
Q: My husband and I are in our 70s. He started his benefits at age 66. I never worked outside the home, so I get spousal benefits on his record, which I took when I was 62. He gets $2,800 per month, and I get just a little more than $900. But according to all of my friends, I am being paid incorrectly. I am supposed to get half of his benefits, so I should be getting $1,400. How do I fix this?
A: There is nothing to fix. And I can tell you from 50 years of experience that “friends” are pretty good at spreading myths, so they are a bad source of Social Security information.
Anyway, you would be getting 50 percent of your husband’s benefits if you had waited until your full retirement age to start your spousal benefits. But you said you took them at age 62, and the rate for a woman who does that is more like 35 percent. You are being paid correctly.
Q: My husband took his Social Security at age 70. He gets $4,200 per month. I took my own benefits at my full retirement age of 66. I get $1,900 per month. I don’t get any extra benefits on his account. But everything I’ve read online says I should be getting a “spousal bump” of $300 to take my total benefits up to $2,100, or half of his benefit. So where is my bump?
A: Sorry, no bump for you. Either you were misled by something you saw online or you misread it. A spouse’s benefit is based on her husband’s full retirement age rate, not on his augmented benefit amount if he waited until age 70 to file.
If he is getting $4,200 per month, I’m guessing his full retirement age benefit is about $3,200. Half of that is $1,600, and you’re already getting more than that in your own retirement benefits.
So again, no spousal bump—at least while he is alive. If he dies before you do, your widow’s rate is based on his full age 70 benefit rate. If, God forbid, he died tomorrow, you‘d keep getting your $1,900 retirement check, and then you’d get an extra $2,300 in widow’s benefits to take you up to his $4,200 level.
What’s the takeaway? A wife doesn’t share in her husband’s augmented benefits. But a widow does.
Q: I am 62 years old and got divorced about a year ago. I tried to claim benefits on my ex-husband’s record and was told I have to be divorced for two years before I can collect. But I have a friend who also is recently divorced, and she was able to get her ex’s Social Security. What’s going on?
A: My educated guess is your friend’s ex is already getting Social Security benefits. In that case, the two-year rule doesn’t apply. But a divorcee can claim spousal benefits even if her ex (who is at least age 62) hasn’t filed for benefits yet. If your ex is at least 62 but hasn’t applied for his own Social Security yet, the law imposes that two-year waiting period. Why? I’m guessing Congress wanted to make sure disgruntled wives don’t dump a guy just to get his Social Security.
