Because I’ve been writing this column for about a quarter-century now, you probably can guess that there are questions I’ve been asked hundreds (if not thousands) of times during the past 25 years. And I don’t think there is a single Social Security-related question I’ve never been asked. But it dawned on me as I was answering my emails this week that there are questions I’m seldom asked, and I thought I’d gather a few of them together and put them in today’s column.
Q: My wife, who stopped working a couple years ago, is approaching age 62 and wants to sign up for her Social Security then. But I’m 65 and still working and making $250,000 per year. We file a joint tax return. Will the fact that I make that much money (well above the Social Security earnings penalty limits) cause problems for my wife’s eligibility for Social Security?
A: No. How you file a tax return has absolutely nothing to do with your or your wife’s eligibility for Social Security benefits. Just in case other readers didn’t understand your question, the earnings penalty you refer to is a law that says because your wife will be under her full retirement age when she files for Social Security, she must ensure any earnings she might have are under $19,560 per year or she will start to face reductions in her Social Security benefits. But you said she’s retired. So, she doesn’t have any earnings. And even though you file a joint tax return, all those earnings are yours, not hers.
Q: I have a question about my 68-year-old father. I know it might not be popular to admit this, but when he was 20 years old, he snuck across the border from Mexico. He’s been living and working in the U.S. ever since. In fact, he’s still working today, doing lawn and yard maintenance in Southern California. Shortly after he arrived in the U.S., he somehow managed to obtain a Social Security number and card – not from the government, but from someone who sold people false documents. Over the years, he’s used that number when working at various jobs. (He of course has also been forced to work “under the table” for many other jobs.) What I am wondering is this: Is there any way my father can collect Social Security benefits? (In case you are wondering, many times my siblings and I have tried to talk my father into pursuing one of the government’s “pathways to citizenship,” but he is just too old and stubborn – and I think a little scared – to do this.)
A: I’m sorry, but as long as your father is living here without proper documentation, there is just no way he will ever be able to qualify for Social Security benefits.
Also, I’m a little surprised his use of that illegally obtained Social Security number hasn’t thrown up some red flags at the Social Security Administration and generated some inquiries into its use. Or maybe it has, and somehow your father has managed to dodge the inquiries.
Q: I bet you don’t get asked a question like this every day. I am a 68-year-old woman, and I recently married a 39-year-old man. It’s the second marriage for both of us, and we just adopted a 3-year-old girl. I currently get widow’s benefits from my first husband. But at age 70, I plan to switch to higher benefits on my own record. Can our daughter get benefits on my first husband’s record? How about on my record once I’m 70?
A: I’ve been asked questions similar to yours many times in my career, but they have always been from an older man married to a younger woman. So, yours is the first with the roles reversed.
As long as you are getting widow’s benefits, there is no way your adopted daughter can get any Social Security benefits. But once you switch to your own retirement benefits, she would be eligible for dependent child’s benefits on your record.
In fact, that might be an incentive for you to make the switch now, rather than waiting until 70. If you wait until 70, you’d get an extra 32% added to your retirement benefit. If you make the switch now, at age 68, you’d get about 20% more. So, you’d lose that extra 12% by switching now. But you’d gain the extra benefits payable to your daughter. It would be a monthly rate equal to 50% of your benefit amount. You’d just have to sit down and do the math and see if it’s worth switching now. (My guess is it would be.)
Q: I’m 71 years old and single and I have never signed up for my Social Security. Why? Because I’m very lucky financially (I have a seven-figure trust fund) and I just don’t need the money. But someone recently told me there is a law that says once you are 70 years old, you must file for Social Security benefits. Is that true?
A: It’s not true. There is no law that requires you to file for Social Security at 70, or any other age for that matter.
But why let your money just sit there in the Social Security trust funds? It’s doing no one any good. Why not sign up for Social Security and do something constructive or helpful with the money? I mentioned at the beginning of this column that there probably is not a single Social Security-related question I haven’t been asked. And I’ve run into a few guys with questions like yours over the years. One of those guys ended up using his Social Security benefits to fund a college education for some lucky and deserving kids. Another just turned the money over to his favorite charity.
And here’s another thought. Because you are 71 years old, when you file for Social Security, you can claim six months’ worth of retroactive benefits. Assuming your monthly benefit is in the $3,000 per month range, that’s $18,000. To someone with your wealth, that probably doesn’t mean anything. But just imagine how it could help someone in need! (I can think of a Social Security columnist’s wife who has been dreaming about getting a sporty little Fiat 500!)
If you have a Social Security question, Tom Margenau has a book with all the answers. It’s called “Social Security: Simple and Smart.” Contact him at thomas.margenau@comcast.net.