Devin Carroll 
Ever wondered why you can’t get Medicare at 62 but you can get Social Security at 62?
You would think that these two critical systems for retirees (and those who will soon stop working) would be coordinated to the same age of initial eligibility.
Sadly, that’s not how the current rules are written. You can’t get Medicare at 62 today, but that could change in the near future if a group of lawmakers gets their way.
There are approximately four million individuals receiving monthly Social Security benefits based on their deceased spouse’s earnings record. These come in the form of survivors’ benefits, which provide the majority of annual income for many of the recipients.
There’s no question that survivors’ benefits are an important lifeline that the Social Security Administration provides to widows and widowers who no longer have a spouse who can help manage household expenses.
Unfortunately, there are cases where a widow or widower is told that they are not eligible for these critical survivors’ benefits because they did not meet the core requirement for eligibility.
There is a strict rule that says in order to receive survivors’ benefits, individuals must meet a marriage length requirement. Social Security requires that your marriage lasted at least 9 months to qualify for benefits.
While this rule is fairly strict, there are numerous exceptions for individuals who lose a spouse after a marriage that lasted less than 9 months. Here’s what you need to know.
The minimum Social Security benefit provision is an alternative benefit that increases benefits paid to low-income individuals.
Where the regular Social Security benefit formula bases the benefit amount on an individual’s lifetime earnings, the minimum Social Security benefit formula is based on the number of years a person has worked with earnings at or above a certain threshold.
The benefit amounts are still calculated through both formulas, but with the minimum Social Security benefit provision, the higher of the two benefits is the amount provided to qualified individuals.
The Social Security age of retirement used to be straightforward and the same for everyone. Not anymore.
From the first Social Security Act back in 1935 through 1983, the full Social Security age of retirement was 65. Then things got a little confusing. Due to the 1983 Amendments to the Social Security Act, the full retirement age began to gradually increase from age 65 to 67. However, it took 22-years to adjust! It slowly increased from 65 to 66, stayed at 66 for 11 years, and then began to move slowly to 67.
Whew! No wonder everyone is confused about their Social Security age of retirement.
Thankfully, these changes have mostly worked themselves through the system and now the full retirement age is based on your year of birth.
If you will be subject to the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), it may be possible to reduce that impact with enough years of substantial earnings. If you are planning for your retirement, you need to understand what’s on your earnings record and know how many years meet the definition of “substantial” as defined by the Social Security Administration.
In April of 2021, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal, (D-Mass.), reintroduced the Public Servants Protection and Fairness Act of 2021. This legislation was originally presented to Congress in 2019, but died without receiving a vote. But now that the balance of power has shifted in both houses of Congress, this proposal has a much higher likelihood of passage.
The goal of this Act is to provide an equitable Social Security formula for individuals with noncovered employment and to provide relief for individuals currently affected by Social Security’s Windfall Elimination Provision (also known as the WEP).
Repealing the WEP with a new formula should help ease the difficulty that individuals with noncovered pensions face when planning for retirement. Although it’s not widely known, the annual Social Security benefit estimate does not include the WEP penalty in the estimated benefit. Furthermore, most Social Security technicians – let alone financial advisors – fail to understand the nuances of how the WEP is applied. They cannot explain it adequately, and although they may be trying to help, too often only add to the confusion.
There’s no reason we need to keep going this way. It’s past time for this outdated rule to be reformed.
It’s a rare day that passes without someone asking me, “Will the WEP be eliminated?”
The WEP is the Windfall Elimination Provision, and it’s a part of Social Security that can really complicate benefits for those who fall under it. This provision can reduce benefits by nearly $500 and the Social Security Administration generally can’t explain the rules around when and how the WEP will apply. Retirees who are subject to this rule are upset and ready for a change.
Although it’s been talked about for years, I don’t think we can reasonably expect Congress to pass a total WEP repeal. My official stance is that such a change is highly unlikely. However, I do think reforming the Windfall Elimination Provision is likely, and possibly in the near future.
If you are a firefighter and are planning for retirement, you need to know the rules on receiving firefighter pensions and Social Security. Specifically, you need to understand how much the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) will reduce your Social Security payments.
This rule can reduce the Social Security benefit rules of anyone who:
1. Worked at a job where they did not pay Social Security taxes and qualified for a pension from that job
AND
2. Worked at another job where they did pay Social Security taxes, which qualified them for Social Security benefits
While these WEP rules affect anyone who has a pension from a job where they didn’t pay Social Security, there is a special nuance in these rules that could help ease the pain for many firefighters. Before we jump into that, let’s cover a few of the basics.
If you ever want to get folks riled up on both sides of an issue, mention the proposed idea to fix Social Security through raising taxes.
The potential increase on the maximum taxable wage cap for Social Security stirs the passion of just about anyone who has confronted the enormous task of saving for retirement. Unfortunately, much of the conversation that happens around this topic slants to one side.
You hear a lot of soundbites that sound good in the media or specific debates that make a certain income class feel protected — and meanwhile, the facts simply don’t get enough airtime.
Let’s give the facts the attention they deserve. In this article, we’ll dive into the large body of existing research on this topic. Along the way, we’ll correct some historical misinformation so you’ll understand how the history of the Social Security program as a whole fits into today’s proposals to fix the system.When we finish here, you’ll know the true impact of fixing Social Security through raising taxes or changing the payroll taxes really looks like.
Within the next few months, you’re going to start hearing a lot about the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the Social Security system.
Even though we have been dealing with this pandemic for many, many months now, we still don’t yet know the full measure of economic damage caused by the shutdowns of schools and businesses. We can reasonably assume this devastation will have long-term effects we’ll feel for years into the future.
