PDF Summary:Social Security Basics, by Devin Carroll

Social Security provides a reliable, adjusted income stream for your retirement years—but navigating its system can be daunting. In Social Security Basics, Devin Carroll demystifies how to qualify for Social Security benefits, optimize your claim timing, and manage the associated taxes.

Carroll guides you through maximizing your Social Security income while considering your personal circumstances. He covers key factors like earnings history, spousal benefits, and retirement age impact. You'll also learn strategies for avoiding unnecessary taxes and securing additional support from advisors if needed.

(continued)...

Benefits are extended to the relatives of a deceased individual.

A surviving spouse has the choice to either receive their own Social Security benefits or to claim the potentially greater benefits that their deceased partner was eligible for.

Upon the death of their partner, the surviving spouse is entitled to choose between their own Social Security benefit or the higher benefit their deceased partner was receiving. However, this straightforward explanation requires further nuance when considering the timing of the deceased's benefit claim, if such a claim was made, and the moment the surviving partner elects to initiate their benefits claim.

Carroll emphasizes the importance of knowing whether the deceased spouse had begun receiving Social Security benefits before passing away. He further explains a particular rule known as the "widow's limit," which sets a maximum on the sum a surviving spouse can receive if their deceased spouse started receiving benefits before reaching the age of full retirement eligibility. The rule caps the highest amount a surviving spouse is eligible to receive at 82.5% of the deceased partner's Primary Insurance Amount, irrespective of any additional amounts stemming from the age at which the surviving spouse begins their claim.

Upon a beneficiary's passing, Social Security disburses a singular payment, in addition to continuous monthly support for any dependents left behind.

Devin Carroll points out that a one-time payment of $255 is provided by the Social Security Administration to help cover funeral expenses, along with continuous monthly benefits for survivors. Eligible children and a spouse who shared a residence with the deceased at the time of death are entitled to receive a payment.

Other Perspectives

• The system assumes that later retirement always equates to better financial readiness, which may not be true for all individuals.
• The reduction of benefits for early retirement may disproportionately affect those in physically demanding jobs who cannot work until full retirement age.
• The increase in benefits for delaying retirement assumes that individuals will live long enough to benefit from the delay, which is not guaranteed.
• The earnings limit may discourage some individuals from working past a certain point, potentially reducing their overall quality of life.
• The one-year marriage requirement for spousal benefits does not account for long-term, committed relationships that do not result in marriage.
• The dual entitlement rule may not adequately address the financial needs of lower-earning spouses, especially if the higher-earning spouse's benefit is not substantial.
• The one-time death benefit of $255 is often criticized as being insufficient to cover funeral expenses.
• The "widow's limit" may be seen as unfair, particularly if the deceased spouse was the higher earner and the survivor depended on that income.
• The system does not account for the varying life expectancies across different demographics, which can affect the optimal age for retirement.
• The approach to earnings limits and benefit reductions does not consider the diverse financial situations of retirees, such as those with significant medical expenses.

Approaches to managing tax responsibilities and completing the required documentation.

Paying into the Social Security system via taxation.

Up to 85% of your Social Security benefits may be taxable depending on your combined income.

Carroll points out that retirees often encounter the unforeseen obligation to pay taxes on their Social Security benefits. The rules set in the 1980s and later expanded dictate that taxation on your benefits can vary, with rates from zero up to 85%, depending on other income you receive.

Carroll sheds light on how to determine the taxable amount of your Social Security benefits by defining the term "combined income." To calculate your combined income, begin by taking your adjusted gross income, include any income that isn't subject to tax, add earnings from abroad that aren't taxed, and then incorporate half of your Social Security benefits. He provides a straightforward chart that demonstrates how the amount of benefits that can be taxed depends on the overall income.

You may discover strategies to reduce the taxes levied on the benefits you receive.

Carroll outlines strategies that can be implemented prior to retirement to minimize the tax burden on Social Security income. The approaches generally center on altering the timing and the amount of withdrawals from retirement funds, like Individual Retirement Accounts and 401(k) plans, often involving the conversion of these accounts into Roth accounts. He emphasizes the necessity of customizing strategies through guidance from knowledgeable advisors, since these methods may not be appropriate for everyone.

Determining when to initiate the process of claiming your Social Security entitlements.

Determining when to start receiving Social Security benefits involves a thorough analysis of the pros and cons specific to your personal circumstances.

Determining when to begin drawing Social Security benefits involves a complex decision with considerable consequences, as emphasized by Carroll. Starting Social Security benefits later can often result in a higher cumulative amount received throughout a person's life, yet this strategy might not be optimal when taking into account various other retirement planning factors. He underscores that many people, influenced by the inclination to favor immediate gratification over more substantial future benefits, choose to initiate their Social Security payouts earlier than necessary, enticed by the prompt access to money, even though postponing their application could lead to a more significant cumulative disbursement.

The author lists several reasons for starting Social Security benefits prior to the typical age of retirement, such as economic need or having young dependents, and also explains the advantages of postponing claims, which can lead to accrued credits for delayed retirement and higher benefits for heirs. Your choice is shaped by factors such as your health, expected longevity, financial status, and the part that Social Security plays within your overall retirement plan.

Relying exclusively on Social Security claims software to formulate your retirement strategy may not result in the most beneficial plan, as it does not consider every facet of your retirement circumstances.

Carroll recommends that individuals should not depend exclusively on Social Security-specific software to determine the timing of their benefit claims. These approaches often recommend postponing the start of Social Security payments until the last allowable moment, but they tend to disregard the importance of other retirement savings, diverse income streams, and their impact on tax implications.

He provides a comprehensive examination of an example that highlights the different financial consequences of starting to receive Social Security benefits at age 65 rather than at 70, illustrating how this decision affects one's tax obligations and the overall sum of their retirement funds. People who started to withdraw from their retirement funds at 65 accumulated greater sums in their accounts due to drawing smaller amounts earlier, leading to lower taxable income and consequently a reduced tax liability. He emphasizes the need to customize the analysis for an individual's specific circumstances and highlights the importance of examining different strategies to identify the best course of action for someone.

Other Perspectives

• While up to 85% of Social Security benefits may be taxable, this does not account for potential changes in tax legislation that could affect this percentage.
• Strategies to reduce taxes on Social Security benefits may not be equally effective for all individuals, and some may find the process complex and potentially not worth the perceived savings.
• A personalized analysis for claiming Social Security benefits is important, but it can be argued that some general rules of thumb could apply to broad groups of people, simplifying the decision-making process.
• Economic need or having young dependents are valid reasons to start Social Security benefits early, but it could be argued that other financial planning tools and support systems should be considered to potentially offset the need for early Social Security benefits.
• Postponing Social Security claims does lead to higher benefits, but this assumes that the individual will live long enough to benefit from the delay, which is not a guarantee.
• While relying solely on Social Security software may not be optimal, for some individuals, these tools could provide a sufficient basis for decision-making, especially if they lack access to professional advice.
• Customizing retirement strategies to minimize tax liabilities and maximize retirement funds is sound advice, but it may not be feasible for everyone due to the complexity of tax laws and investment options, potentially requiring costly professional assistance.

Resources and support

Seeking assistance

Assistance can be obtained from various sources, such as regional Social Security administration centers, in addition to lawyers and financial advisors, but it is crucial to choose the right expert.

Carroll recognizes the procedure for obtaining Social Security benefits as exceptionally frustrating. Navigating the procedures of the Social Security Administration grows more complex with the surge in retirement numbers. Staff cutbacks have led to an overburdened system, causing extended delays for individuals seeking assistance. The proficiency and staffing levels at the Social Security Administration's call centers and local branches may vary, which could lead to disruptions in service. Fewer than 20% of Americans aged 50 and above have received guidance from their financial advisors regarding Social Security benefits, according to research conducted by Nationwide Retirement Institute.

To successfully steer through the complexities of Social Security planning, one must diligently search for a knowledgeable expert who can offer advice.

Carroll underscores the significance of comprehending the different functions of Social Security Administration personnel to enhance the likelihood of obtaining accurate assistance and information. Service Representatives manage routine questions, whereas Claims Representatives specialize in guiding individuals through the benefits application process, and Technical Experts tackle intricate issues. If you encounter difficulties in accessing information or specific guidance, consider seeking assistance from an expert well-versed in the rules and provisions of the topic.

When seeking advice from a financial expert, it's imperative to carefully evaluate their consultation methods to confirm that your financial health is their foremost concern, not merely promoting their investment products. Are your financial planning services provided for a flat fee or charged by the hour? To gain a comprehensive grasp of Social Security, it's essential to explore various crucial elements, including identifying when you qualify for complete retirement benefits, recognizing the gradual rise in benefits from age 62 to the age of full retirement, being aware of the necessary duration of marriage for qualification, evaluating how work affects your benefits, and grasping how your Social Security benefits are taxed. Carroll concludes by comforting readers with the notion that through diligent observation and asking the right questions, they can certainly obtain the support they need.

Other Perspectives

• While the text suggests that the Social Security Administration (SSA) is overburdened, it's possible that some regions or offices may have optimized their processes to handle the increased demand more efficiently.
• The assertion that fewer than 20% of Americans aged 50 and above have received guidance from financial advisors on Social Security may not reflect a lack of service availability but rather a choice by individuals not to seek such advice.
• The recommendation to seek out knowledgeable experts implies that most individuals cannot understand Social Security without professional help, which may not be true for everyone, as some may be capable of self-education through available resources.
• The text implies that all financial advisors might not have clients' best interests at heart, which could be seen as an unfair generalization of financial professionals.
• The suggestion to evaluate financial planning services based on whether they charge a flat fee or by the hour doesn't consider the value or quality of the advice provided, which could be more important than the pricing model.
• The idea that diligent observation and asking the right questions will always lead to obtaining the necessary support may not account for systemic issues that can prevent even the most diligent individuals from accessing the help they need.
• The text does not address the potential benefits of using online tools and resources, which can be a cost-effective and convenient alternative to in-person consultations for some individuals.
• The emphasis on the complexity of Social Security may overlook the fact that many people successfully navigate the system without expert assistance, suggesting that while the system can be complex, it is not necessarily insurmountable.
• The text does not consider the role of community organizations and non-profits that often provide free or low-cost assistance with Social Security benefits, which can be a valuable resource for those who cannot afford professional advice.

Specific rules are in place for individuals employed by the government.

The provision known as the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP)

People who have a pension from work not covered by the Social Security system will experience a decrease in their Social Security benefits.

The author clarifies that the Windfall Elimination Provision, a regulation set in place in 1983, reduces the Social Security benefits for individuals who receive a pension from jobs not included in the Social Security system, like some government employees and educators. The rule was established to prevent individuals who receive a pension from non-Social Security sources in addition to Social Security benefits from obtaining a total sum that might be considered excessively substantial. The aim is to preserve fairness, yet the implementation can appear complex and often results in disproportionately severe consequences for those who have dedicated their careers to public service.

The WEP modifies how the key elements of the benefits formula are determined. The WEP alters the formula by using a 40% factor for the first part of the Average Indexed Monthly Earnings instead of the usual 90%. In 2024, the maximum deduction has been established to be $587. The PIA is recalculated by applying this reduction before taking into account any changes connected with the individual's filing age.

Earning sufficient credits by working consistently over a number of years can reduce or even eliminate the WEP penalty within the framework of Social Security.

The author outlines strategies to lessen the impact of the Windfall Elimination Provision. People with a history of significant earnings from jobs encompassed by the program spanning 21 to 29 years will see a lesser reduction in their benefits due to the WEP. "Substantial earnings" refers to an annual income that meets or surpasses a predetermined limit, adjusted to reflect fluctuations in living expenses. Individuals who have consistently earned substantial income over a span of three decades do not fall under the purview of the Windfall Elimination Provision. Individuals who spend several years working in a job that participates in the system, whether that period comes before or after holding a position outside the system, find themselves with an opportunity in such circumstances.

The Windfall Elimination Provision ensures that the maximum reduction in benefits will not exceed half of the pension earned from employment that does not participate in the Social Security program. Should you receive a pension of $600 each month from employment not covered by Social Security, the decrease in your Social Security benefits caused by the Windfall Elimination Provision will be capped at $300, even if the standard reduction is higher.

The regulation referred to as the Government Pension Offset (GPO)

If you receive a pension that was not subject to Social Security taxes, the Social Security benefits you are entitled to as a spouse or survivor will be reduced by two-thirds of the pension amount.

People receiving a pension from work that does not participate in the Social Security program face further decreases in their spousal or survivor benefits due to the Government Pension Offset. If you receive a pension from work not covered by Social Security, two-thirds of its value will be deducted from any spousal or survivor benefits you are entitled to.

Should you be eligible for a spousal benefit of $1,000 and concurrently receive a $1,500 pension from a job that does not participate in Social Security, the spousal benefit you are entitled to will be decreased by a sum corresponding to two-thirds of your pension, which in essence nullifies the spousal benefit. The Government Pension Offset could lead to a complete loss of your spousal or survivor benefits, whereas the Windfall Elimination Provision merely limits the amount of reduction.

Several tactics can be employed to lessen the impact of the Government Pension Offset by participating in work that meets certain criteria in the five years before retiring.

The author highlights different tactics to lessen the impact of the Government Pension Offset, such as complying with regulations related to the last five years of employment or choosing not to participate in a pension plan that lacks coverage. To be eligible, the person must have a job that pays into Social Security and must also be part of the pension plan linked to their previous job, which was not part of the Social Security system. This allows public servants to exempt themselves from the GPO by working in a covered position for the last five years of their career. It is essential to differentiate between employment covered by the Social Security system and that which is not during the five-year span, as mixing the two would negate the exemption. Employment for a brief period at an institution that is not part of the Social Security system may result in the application of the Windfall Elimination Provision as well as the Government Pension Offset.

To avoid the effects of the Government Pension Offset, you might choose to only take out the funds you've contributed to your pension along with the accumulated interest. However, you must forgo potential claims that might counterbalance the merits of receiving the complete spousal or survivor benefits. This strategy can be advantageous for individuals with smaller pensions as it safeguards their entitlements to spousal or survivor benefits that might be diminished because of the Government Pension Offset. Eligibility for pension benefits requires prior contributions. If you continue working after becoming eligible for benefits, this approach will not be practical.

Income obtained from different work-related sources.

Assessing how the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset affect someone involves meticulous analysis if their work record includes both jobs that paid into Social Security and those that did not.

Carroll examines the circumstances of a person whose employment record encompasses both jobs that contribute to Social Security and those that do not. He emphasizes the importance of identifying the portion of the retirement benefit that originates from work not encompassed by the Social Security framework.

He presents a case in which a person works for 15 years in a school district that contributes to both a state pension and Social Security, and then spends an additional 15 years working in another district that only provides a state pension. To determine the segment of their retirement benefits identified as not included under Social Security, a proportional calculation is necessary. In this scenario, the amount by which a spouse or survivor's benefits are reduced is equivalent to two-thirds of the pension from employment not covered by Social Security, leading to a reduction that is significantly less severe than it would be if the entire pension sum were included in the calculation.

Determining the precise decrease requires allocating the pension funds.

The author acknowledges the challenges in obtaining prorated pension information through one's employer. Pension administrators often maintain records that do not clearly differentiate the segment of the benefit that arises from insured employment from that which does not. He provides a clear strategy for modifying the retirement income that is linked to your employment record and the compensation documented with the Social Security Administration. This method results in an accurate determination of the decrease attributed to the Government Pension Offset, potentially resulting in an annual increase in benefits by a substantial sum.

Other Perspectives

• The WEP may be seen as unfairly penalizing individuals who have split their careers between public service and other sectors, as it can significantly reduce their Social Security benefits despite having paid into the system during other parts of their careers.
• The 40% factor used in the WEP formula is arbitrary and may not accurately reflect an individual's actual earnings history, leading to disproportionate reductions in benefits.
• The strategy to reduce or eliminate the WEP penalty by earning sufficient credits might not be feasible for older workers or those who are unable to continue working due to health issues or other constraints.
• The cap on the WEP reduction, while intended to prevent excessive penalties, may still represent a significant financial hardship for retirees on a fixed income.
• The GPO can be seen as overly punitive, especially for those who have low pensions from non-Social Security work, as it can completely eliminate their spousal or survivor benefits.
• The tactics to lessen the GPO impact may not be practical for all individuals, especially those who are close to retirement or who have health issues that prevent them from continuing to work.
• The requirement to work in a covered position for the last five years to avoid the GPO may not be an option for all public servants, particularly if suitable positions are not available or if they are not physically able to continue working.
• The complexity of assessing the impact of WEP and GPO can place an undue burden on individuals, requiring them to navigate complicated rules and potentially seek professional advice, which can be costly.
• Accurately allocating pension funds to determine the precise decrease in benefits can be challenging and may require assistance from pension administrators or financial experts, adding to the complexity and potential expense for retirees.