FREE NEWSLETTER
Go to main Forum page »
Throughout my working years, one thing that disturbed me greatly was the lack of concern even disregard shown by many workers for a spouse, especially a surviving spouse and nearly always a woman.
I remember the “good old days” when the husband’s earnings were his money, his pension was his pension. I remember when workers hid their overtime pay from the wife and when they elected a single life annuity pension because only they earned it, when they didn’t want any information about pay and benefits mailed to the home, including W-2s.
I recall when a disgruntled retiree came to our building looking for me claiming he had a gun because I allowed a domestic relations order to give 50% of his pension to his ex-wife. Of course, it was his lawyer that gave away what was rightly the wife’s and to which the retiree agreed-perhaps without reading what he signed.
Hopefully those days are long gone. Times have changed, more women are working with their own assets. Laws were enacted to protect spouses when it came to retirement and benefit plans, the need for which is a sad testimony to the past. Still, single and widowed women struggle the most in retirement.
Our finances are set with the goal should Connie survive me, her lifestyle need not change, including periodic visits to Talbots.
She will receive 50% on a portion of my pension and 75% of another (non-qualified). Life insurance will cover at least three years of living expenses. It is combine group coverage and paid up life.
She receives my FRA Social Security benefit plus interest and dividend income in an equal amount. Then, of course, the accumulated value of our investments to draw upon.
I often read on HD about delaying SS to increase survivor benefits, but I don’t recall other strategies for survivor income. I do remember some people dismissing the need for life insurance.
If delaying SS benefits is a significant part of meeting survivor income needs, perhaps more needs to be done.
What type of financial assets and vehicles do you have in place to provide for a surviving spouse or other dependent? Have you calculated their likely needs as you may have for your own retirement?
This article brings up the question that’s always been in the back of my mind.
We have income that replaces all of our expenses and enough left over to continue funding my wife’s Roth.
I chose when I retired to take the full pension with no survivor benefit. Since I retired from my career at the age of 52 in 2010 my idea was to invest the difference, which we have.
As we’ve gotten older I’ve considered a change in investing approach. I’ve always invested in growth etf’s thinking my wife could just sell whatever she would need for income (if she would need any). But I am now considering keeping a portion in growth etf’s and putting the rest in dividend paying stocks, Reits,etc., and reinvesting the dividends until they may be needed and at that time she could turn off reinvesting the dividends and collecting the income instead.
I would really appreciate and and all HD readers input, suggestions, and ideas
Creating a stream of income for a survivor is paramount to me. But I’m not so sure individual stocks is the way to go. I have created that stream with stock and bond mutual funds, and just two utility stocks with 100 plus year dividend records.
Have you factored in any life insurance? Is you wife inclined to manage investments?
We have always bought term insurance and invested the savings of the cost of whole life. The term ends when I turn 72 (4 years).
She is not inclined but our son and son-in-law are well versed in finance.
I would lean towards dividend paying ETFs and Reits
We do have our two SS incomes of which hers will double if I pass first and three pensions, two of which she will continue to receive if I pass away first
My spouse makes twice what I do and has been maxing out her retirement options (because I insisted on it) for only a few years less than I have, so I’m not worried. I don’t think your question is about us.
What about you as the surviving spouse?
My wife had a career as did I. She earnt more than early in her career, I earnt more later. She is 3.5 years younger. We are claiming SS at about the same time, myself at 70, she at 67 (starting next year). I have a small pension with 100% survivor. We both have small cash balance pensions which we are deferring. She is, of course, the beneficiary on my retirement accounts and my deferred compensation. We both have LTCI and we both have deferred annuities. We also have a financial advisor in part to help the survivor-each of us also has a 10 year rolling TIPs ladder.
We are blessed with sufficient assets (much of which is in pre-tax retirement a/c’s) and income, but my goal is to sell our home and invest these funds in the next few years in order to ensure that my wife will have a much larger buffer of after tax assets to draw upon as needed. If I am the one who survives, I would have the same goal.
What is your plan for residence once you sell your house?
Dick, I don’t receive a pension, but if I did, I would have elected my survivor to get 100% of my pension payments.
I know you didn’t delay SS, but I am until age 70. My wife whose SS benefit at FRA is about 30% of mine, will get my much higher 70 benefit should she outlive me. This was always part of our plan, and the generous delay credit SS provides.
At age 73, SS and RMDs from our IRAs should provide ample income to live on, along with dividends from our taxable portfolio.
I think whatever plans are made, question your assumptions, and have contingencies in place. This year alone, four friends and/or family members in my orbit have died: all four females in their 60s. All of whom left widowers in their 60s or early 70s. I have had no male friends or family members who have died this year. I realize it’s only early May …
Yes … husbands typically die first. But not all the time. Matter of fact, my mom died 9 years before my dad. When I asked dad at some point why they didn’t have a life insurance policy on mom he said, “Never, in my wildest dreams, did I ever think she would die first.”
You have a point, but the real issue is who is providing the income to the household? Historically it was the man, but not necessarily true today.
Is life insurance on a non working spouse with no retirement income necessary? Perhaps not for the survivor, but maybe other reasons like grandchildren.
The non working spouse is exactly the one that needs to have life insurance income, unless you’d rather they have to immediately become a working widow/widower?
I said life insurance on a non working spouse, not as a beneficiary for income. They may indeed need the income, but you have look at the total situation, including if the spouse is working or retired.
It’s more than just who is providing the income, but also who is providing the needed services at home. If Connie hadn’t been around to raise the kids, cook the meals, do the laundry, clean, …. who would have done it? All of those tasks would likely have to be performed by someone who charges.
In retirement this need may lessen, but does not go away. I recall my mom remarking that all the widowers in our neighborhood remarried quite quickly after the passing of their wives. Most acknowledged they would struggle fending for themselves. I did find it confusing that, to the best of my knowledge, none of the widows in our neighborhood remarried. I guess that speaks to the number of widows vs. widowers.
Believe me, it also speaks to a lack of desire to get married again on the part of the widows. Do a search on “nurse and a purse”.
Rick, maybe your last paragraph tends to show the dependency of widowers on women, and the independence of widows.
David, I’m sure that is part of it, especially of my mother’s generation. It’s also the demographics. I’ve seen statistics that indicate there are 3 times as many widows as widowers. Certainly aver longevity (women live longer than men) plays a part. My Mom’s observation was 30 years ago, and a small sample.
During working years, I agree. In retirement perhaps, but not the same situation. That would depend on the total family financial situation – could needed services be paid for from retirement income.
It also depends on the man. Not all of us are the variety totally taken care of by the smarter sex.
Some of us do the shopping, most cooking, cleaning up, making the bed and paying for the cleaning ladies.
Laundry is questionable. Currently I am banned from doing laundry or touching the machines. I am not allowed to remove clothes from the dryer as I don’t have the skill to fold the clothes properly. Worst case may be wrinkled sheets and undershirts. 😁
Despite perceptions not all of us are actually 🦖🦕🦖🦕
On the other hand, I have a relative who couldn’t warm a can of soup.
You beat me to writing this!! You are totally correct. The cash value of the work performed by women, or in some cases men, who do not work outside the homeshould not be underestimated. My MOTHER insisted I have a sizable term policy in the years before I was employed.
My wife and I each have pensions and we chose survivor benefits (50% of hers and 100% of mine) to protect the surviving spouse. Additionally, my wife’s retirement benefits from her large governmental employer reimburses us both for our Medicare premiums plus our IRMAA premiums on an annual basis, which would continue for me as a surviving spouse.
We have that nice Medicare retirement deal, too.
Only government and colleges can afford to do that 😎
Governments can’t afford it.
Public employee unions put
put pressure on politicians,
who understand that details like
IRMAA reimbursement are too
obscure for taxpayers to grasp.
Public interest not well served.
My husband and I currently live very comfortably on our state pensions ( Wi doesn’t have a cola , but if the Employee Trust Fund earnings in a given year exceed what is necessary to guarantee current and future payments, the excess is added to our monthly benefits— we’ve had sizable increases in all but but one year we’ve been retired. We both elected 100% pension benefits to the other. The state converts all unused paid time off benefits to a cash fund that pays our Medigap premiums. My husband’s money is expected to last until we’re 123; mine will undoubtedly revert to the state. I have some paid up life insurance. Each of us claimed SS at our full retirement age on our own earnings record.
We also have Long Term Care insurance. While our pension would cover the expenses of one spouse who required care for dementia or other costly care, that high cost could well compromise the lifestyle of the other. We view the increasingly expensive LTC premiums as important to assuring the well-being of both of us and as a means of protecting our assets for our children. We hope never to need it!
We too would feel that we failed if our children had to help us financially.
.
Good point on the LTC plans. We have those, too, for the same reasons.
Just curious. If you both have pensions why reduce current income by selecting 10O% survivor options or did i misunderstand?
When I took my pension I chose the 100% survivorship option as well. I think the difference in monthly benefits was around $100/ month. We figured if the difference of $100/month would effect my wife’s lifestyle as my survivor, that I had done a very poor job in setting up our retirement finances, and there were much bigger issues to address.
I agree, but my comment related to two pensions and each taking 100% J&S annuities. A big factor is the age difference between parties and the actuarial subsidy the plan provides, that is, what is charged for the annuity.
The difference wasn’t that great; we also took a guaranteed 15 year payout to our survivors, if both of us died before that time. Even so our current monthly payment from the pensions is much greater than our earnings when working! I’ll be honest, we never paid much attention to all the material we got from the benefits people, and we were pleasantly shocked when we saw what we were getting.
Oh my, one reason i retired was 50 years of employees “never paying much attention” to the benefits material i created. 😩😩😩
In regards to what Mr. Quinn alluded to above, retirees not informing spouses of their survivor benefit plan (SBP) options in order to maximize their pensions for themselves became such a problem that Congress passed a law in 1986 requiring the assent of military spouses if their husbands, and it usually was husbands, desired not to opt in to the military’s SBP. When I retired, I went full up SBP which provides 55% of my retired pay to survivors for the rest of their lives–assuming the surviving spouse does not marry. Yes, it costs a good bit every month, however, it’s very cost effective due to Uncle Sam subsidizing a portion of the cost. When I spoke with a benefits counselor before retiring, he said they get calls every month from surviving spouses asking where are their husband’s retirement check. Imagine what the rest of that call entails. Here’s the other kicker to the military’s SBP: one is paid up after 30 years. Thus, when I reach about 78 or so, God willing, I’ll be paid up and get a nice plus up to my retirement check around the time of social security break-even.
On another note, life insurance agents love to speak with soon to be retiring military members about substituting life insurance for SBP. The smart people I talked to said the military’s SBP is so good, actuarially, it’s a no brainer. To supplement SBP, I also purchased 20 years of level term life that expires when I turn 68 just to provide some extra dough if I went early. With 4 kids still needing to get through college when I retired, I thought the term policy was a bargain. My dilemma coming up will be whether to buy another term policy when I’m 68. We’ll cross that bridge when the time comes–I hope. 🙂
The Humble Dollar money guide – safety net has a section about Hybrid Life and LTC policies that may interest you if/when you consider another term policy.
Mr. Quinn: you’ve initiated another very interesting and useful online conversation.
This issue, to us, is the basis of our financial planning. All expenses are covered now, but we both know that there are higher tax rates for single filers as well as reduced income for the survivor. We are in good shape whenever that happens:
“Doing the math” into the future leads us to believe our future financial needs are more than sufficient.
Thanks again for raising a nice discussion topic!
I am not surprised Richard that you have planned well for Connie should you be the first to die.
One concern I have for our survivor regardless of which of us goes first is the compression of the tax brackets when the first spouse dies. For a long term perspective my current expectation is that the size of survivor lower tax brackets will be approximate one half of your current brackets. Those lower brackets start in the calendar year after the year of death of the first spouse when tax filing status for the surviving spouse will likely be single and not the previous married filing joint tax status. Thus a same taxable income stream to the survivor will have a higher portion go to taxes to the extent the income falls in then compressed lower tax brackets.
Your life insurance coverage should you die first is a classical way of dealing with the income replacement issue and under current tax law does so with a death benefit that is tax free. Good on you.
As noted in your article and Rick Conner’s comment Connie will get your higher social security benefit if you die first and her then current SS benefit will end. Your overall planning likely makes the elimination of that income stream have less of an impact than those couples whose joint SS benefits are the major part of the overall income that is thought of as guaranteed for the life of the survivor. Looking at our current combined social security benefit my wife’s gross benefit is about 38% of our total SS benefit. I expect I need in my planning to try to target replacing her lower net income stream upon my death. By net I mean her current SS gross benefit less all the Medicare insurances I pay for me regardless of whether the premium is withheld or I pay the premium directly.
Currently, I am working on building a 10 year rolling TIPS ladder in her traditional IRA which hopefully will have time to migrate via in kind conversion to her Roth when we can do so in a tax smart way.
We each have our own traditional and Roth IRAs and both I and my wife plan to transfer the first to die spouse’s IRAs to the survivor upon the death of the first in a tax free transfer. Doing so will help the survivor have as simple as possible RMD requirements. I am currently working on balancing the value of our IRAs between us as currently mine has a higher value and my wife is younger than me.
We are both aware that many assets, like our home and stocks held in a taxable account get a step up in basis upon death so to get a full step up at death the assets have to be owned/titled appropriately for a full step up in my state. For those living in community property states the step up rules are currently different.
Doing this kind of planning and still keeping finances as simple as possible is a ongoing process and typically not a one and done event. Major changes in the tax laws is always a planning consideration.
“I am currently working on balancing the value of our IRAs between us as currently mine has a higher value and my wife is younger than me.”
Bill, how would you do this, other than by drawing down yours? (Or by converting from yours, if you meant just the value of your Traditional IRAs.)
I am of a age where RMD’s are required for me and I still work on a seasonal part time basis. On January 2 of this year I took my 2025 RMD and separately my wife funded her 2024 spousal IRA to the $8K maximum out of a joint checking account. I have sufficient 2025 earned income to do the same on January 2, 2026 if I want. The harder decision for us is does she contribute to her traditional or her Roth IRA.
Here is another way of balancing the values of a couple’s retirement accounts when you are both retired and have no earned income. It has to do with income taxes.
My wife’s retirement account balance is about 40% of mine. We both have traditional and Roth IRAs. I am in the process of a multi year conversion of all of her traditional into Roths. This accomplices two things.
First, regarding this topic, if she ever had to withdraw money from the Roth account, the money is all tax free. When we withdraw funds from my mostly traditional accounts 12% is taxable.
Second, we are currently in the process of converting all of her traditional to Roths so when we both turn 73 in ‘31 I only have to deal with RMDs from my traditional account.
We currently are withdrawing funds only from my traditional account to pay for living expenses prior to claiming Social Security at 70. After claiming SS we may have to take more than the RMD amount from my traditional after age 73, so over time my balance will decrease.
We will most likely only withdraw money from my traditional account during our lifetimes, so we will most likely never tap her Roth account, so those funds will be inherited tax free by our children (hopefully after they allow it to continue to grow for 10 years after inheriting).
Makes sense. I wasn’t thinking of anyone continuing to contribute. Thanks
“We are both aware that many assets, like our home and stocks held in a taxable account get a step up in basis upon death so to get a full step up at death the assets have to be owned/titled appropriately for a full step up in my state“
Mr. Perry, could you please explain this in more detail please? I admit that I am not as knowledgeable about taxes planning as I should be or want to be.
And IMO, it sure would be helpful if there was a longer transition to the changing tax brackets for a surviving spouse.
Thank you.
—Jan
There is a good article on Investopedia titled Step-Up in Basis: Definition and How It Works for Inherited Property that I recommend you google.
Best, Bill
Thank you, Bill! I thought you had provided an easy to understand example using inheriting a home, but it’s disappeared or maybe I read it in another reply.
It did disappear. My comment had a link to the Investopedia article and sometimes comments with links which need administrative approval vanish. A small glitch when the site sometimes has to herd cats. Glad my example worked for you.
I think the below investopedia link is a good introduction to the concept of the change in tax basis that occurs when you inherit a asset or you own property jointly with your spouse when the spouse dies.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/stepupinbasis.asp
Key in my thinking is understanding that some assets, like a traditional IRA, do not get a step up in basis due to the death of the owner while some assets, such as real property, does.
A short example – your mother dies and you inherit her home. Your parents bought the home 40 years ago for $100K and the house has a fair market of $1 million on the date your mother dies. If your mother had sold her home while alive she would have a big taxable gain less an exclusion determined by IRC 121(sale of home) under the current tax code.
If you inherit her house the basis changes to the fair market value at the date of death of your mother so your tax basis in the house is $1 million. You shortly sell the house after your mother’s death for $1 million and the sale, while reported to the IRS on form 1099-S, has neither gain or loss because you sold the house for your basis. You report the sale on your return.
Alternatively, say your mother while alive was worried about the process and gifted her home to you while alive. Gift basis typically passes at the lower of the owner’s basis or FMV. Your mother dies but because she had made a quitclaim gift transfer to you, your basis is $100K and when you sell for $1 million you have a taxable gain of $900K.
I wish I could tell you the penultimate paragraph description is entirely hypothetical but sadly, no, such events do happen. Plan accordingly.
Best, Bill
I sure am hoping that we have made the “right” financial decisions that will provide the best outcome for both of us as a potential surviving spouse.
It’s seems more likely given our age difference and health history that I will be the surviving spouse. My husband has a pension that covers 100% of our essential expenses and 90% of our total expenses. His pension plus investments will definitely provide more than enough for him in the (seemingly) less likely event of me predeceasing him.
When we married 9 years ago, I took an early retirement to care for him through a health crisis. At that time, we made the decision to limit the survivor benefit of his pension to the bare minimum that would still allow me access to his excellent health insurance plan and would preserve most of his monthly pension. Instead, we took out a 15-year term life insurance policy to bridge the gap until I turned 70 and would begin receiving my delayed SS. (My spouse does not qualify to receive social security on his own earnings, nor spousal benefits on mine until I begin to claim my own benefits.). Our thinking was that this plan would allow us to delay withdrawals from investments for as long as possible. We did do that until last year when we began taking a small monthly withdrawal (less than 1%) to fund our travel. We’ve since decided to stop those withdrawals to allow for more Roth conversions and because of this year’s market volatility. At the time of my early retirement, we also “bought” a small SPIA for 15 years, mostly because the shock (to me) of no longer having income of my own made me anxious and afraid to spend.
Because of earlier career decisions, some good luck and my saver/investor mentality, it seems like we should be okay. But I still find myself thinking what if we were wrong? Although I know that (in good health) I can live off very little if necessary, I don’t want that for myself or my children. My goal would be to fund a comfortable life and allow for a possible CCRC in the distant future and hopefully be able to leave a meaningful amount for the children.
But I still find myself thinking what if we were wrong?
Have you seen a fee only financial advisor to review your plan? If you do it could help to alleviate some of your anxiety.
David, thank you for reading my post and replying. We did work with a fee only advisor several years ago when we made some of these decisions. He suggested we purchase the SPIA through NYLife/Fidelity, predominantly to give me some peace of mind. (I think growing up in an environment of constant crisis predisposes me to expect that calamity lurks around the corner.) Also, It surprised me to read that choosing 50%-100% survivorship for pensions had minimal impact on monthly payments. If I remember correctly, the impact on my husband’s was significant enough that we would have had to use more of my savings/investments to cover expenses. Anyway, the next big decision is when to start SS and the recommendation from Mike Piper’s calculator, which I wrote about on a different thread.
Delaying to 70 esp considering the COLA is about the best longevity insurance one can buy (how much you value that insurance and how much other longevity insurance you can purchase and at what cost would also be part of the equation).
Right now I lean towards 100% survivor, in our pension projections (they aren’t major portions of our total portfolio, and the differences aren’t big enough to embrace the added complexity of modeling different end games)
We use Boldin to model spending out to longevity, just the free tool for now, I’ll likely upgrade to paid this year and start running multiple scenarios, fine tune everything. For me, it’s a tool that makes it easy to make sure you don’t miss the target, even if you know a bullseye is highly unlikely. I hope that makes sense!
This has been the major consideration in our financial planning over the decades. We both worked for the state (me at a university, him for a state agency), so our earnings would be limited compared to working for the private sector (for him, anyway; he’s a lawyer who could have made more in private practice)—but the pensions and health benefits evened things out for us.
He retired from the state in 2016 after 20 years of service (which got both of us vested in the retiree health benefits). His pension from the state has 100% survivor benefits for me. The two pensions I’ll get from two university systems will have 100% survivor benefits for him. All three have annual COLAs. He also vests in a couple of weeks (on his 65th birthday) in a small pension from his current private sector employer. We’ve talked about maybe taking that as a lump sum to fund a nice trip whenever he retires. It wouldn’t be that much on a monthly basis.
While we were earning the service credit and raising kids, we bought term life policies. We each have two, one of which will end later this year and the other in 2029. That takes us just short of age 70 for the maximum Social Security benefits (we’ll both hit that in 2030). I’ve wondered about buying new term policies at least to pay off the mortgage on our condo, but I don’t think we’ll need them. Even when one of us goes and the survivor loses one of the SS benefits, we should be OK.
Another issue for the survivor, of course, is the so-called “widow’s penalty” in the tax code, which could really come back to bite one of us when RMDs hit us at 75. Overall, though, we know that we’re in an incredibly fortunate position.
Dr. Lefty, whether to buy another term life policy for my survivors, when my current policy expires at age 68 is something I’m wondering about. I don’t think I’ll need it either, but I may just go ahead and do it just in case. It’s an interesting decision in many ways.
Years ago I got out the old spreadsheet to answer this very question. It’s one of the reasons I took SS at 70 as well. Chris will only lose her SS when I croak. With the reduction in living expense that come along with my demise, she will be just fine. She will also have the RMDs from our IRAs.
And gone are the days when a worker could cut their spouse out of the
survivor benefit on a defined benefit pension without their signing off. My uncle did that to my aunt, who outlived him by many years. What a putz.
Hi Dan,
Regarding “…gone are the days when a worker could cut their spouse out of the survivor benefit…” I think this applies only to plans covered by ERISA.
Many government plans aren’t. It may also depend on the rules of the particular government plan or state law (community property states).
Vicki I think you are correct. All my experience in private sector.
And with the transition away from DB plans, there is still plenty of risk for beneficiaries.
What have you estimated as the reduction in living expense? I figure it at somewhere between 25% and 35% (because a lot of expenses are fixed, like RE taxes, gas, electric etc don’t change)
Not as a percentage, though I suspect it’s in your range as well. I looked at food, car expenses, health insurance, and ect. I also frequently meet with friends for lunch, so that would be eliminated as well.
Yep. We both had to sign off on each other’s pension decisions. I think it’s state law (or federal?).
G worked in both the private and public sectors, has a pension and is entitled to SS on her own work record. While she was working I had her contribute to a 403B and I convinced her to begin a Roth in 2004 and take additional cash and invest in bonds. We used the net of my income to legally fund the Roth. I also enrolled her in a Long Term Care policy.
Today, that Roth comprises about 45% of her retirement accounts.
I have calculated G’s needs and my planning assumes she will live beyond me, to age 92, although there are sufficient finances in place to allow her to live well to 102. At that time there are assets to sell.
These plans assume a possible 20% SS benefit reduction. With the recent change in SS rules she will draw a larger SS benefit. My plans always assumed a zero benefit for her, which was inaccurate even prior to the change in rules. I haven’t updated the finances to reflect the change in status, although we do know the amount of her benefit.
We are like a pair of squirrels, with nuts buried everywhere. I should make a treasure map for the children.
Re: Treasure Map for the children – may I suggest Quicken Premier as an option? I prefer their downloaded software version stored on our computer, with encrypted backup copy stored on a cloud server- I also use Boldin (which is an online-only option).
Both cost about the same annually (around $100). Quicken is much better for capturing all the nitty gritty accounts details in one place, both present and past (i.e. where we are currently, and where we’ve been in the last x number of years). Boldin is more future-focused with some nice projection tools designed to help determine where we plan to go financially in next 25-35 years (god willing).
My oldest child has logins and passwords for accessing both of these tools should he be called upon to assist my wife – this backup plan assumes that I could pull an “Irish goodbye” exit from the earth. Hoping for the best…planing for the worst.
In practical terms, after my demise G will have two traditional IRAs to draw from and two Roth IRAs. She’ll have to take RMDs but I’ve increased cash in the trads so she won’t have to deal with stock sales for about 10 years. She’ll have to decide upon SS survivor benefit or her own. After my diagnosis we ceased full-time RVing and bought a house. I’ve decided any bonds purchased at Treasury Direct will be in her name, easing things for her to do after my demise. I’ve made a road map for the retirement accounts, and she can go to a fee based advisor if she so chooses.
Also important, G is the beneficiary of all accounts. She also has a secure list of all websites, accounts and passwords related to financial matters.
Dick you mentioned your wife receives a SS spousal benefit of half your FRA benefit. If you predecease her I believe she would then switch to a survivor benefit equal to your benefit, plus the one-time $255 lump sum. That’s what happened to my mom and mother-in-law. In both cases their husbands had the higher earnings record.
My wife has significant longevity in her family. Her grandmother lived to 97, her mother to 88. Should I predecease her she would get 75% of my pension, and a SS survivor benefit. I had the higher earnings record, and that is one reason we started her SS at 65 and are delaying mine to 70. We also have investment and retirement assets and significant home equity should it be needed. If all else fails, we have 2 great sons and daughters-in-law.
I should have also mentioned age at retirement and the difference in ages between the spouse as factors to consider. In our case Connie is 4.5 years older than me.
I exclude home equity as a resource because if at all possible, she wants to stay where we live and we hope at least a couple of our children will want to keep the vacation home.
If Connie ended up relying on our children financially, I would consider myself a failure.
You right Rick that was a mistake. I was thinking what she receives now. Thanks for catching that error.
I figured it was just an oversight. I’m sure you know all the rules.
Ditto on our experience with SS (I help mother-in-law)