The 3 Most Important Questions About Social Security

While the vast majority of Americans will receive Social Security benefits at some point during retirement, relatively few understand the ins and outs of the system.

Do you qualify for benefits? If so, how big will your monthly check be? And finally, when should you elect to receive them? Let's address these three questions, arguably the most important when it comes to Social Security.

1. How do you qualify for Social Security benefits?

When the Social Security program was enacted in 1935, it provided benefits to a relatively small share of the American population. Generally speaking, only workers who earned wages in the private sector were eligible. But as time went on, it became more inclusive by adding farm, domestic, self-employed, and government workers to the pool of eligible beneficiaries. Today, an estimated 96% of American workers are covered by the system.

To determine whether you qualify for benefits, the Social Security Administration uses a system of credits, which, in turn, derive from your earnings and duration of employment. In 2014, workers receive one credit for every $1,200 of earnings, up to a maximum of four credits per year. Once workers accumulate 40 credits, they become eligible for Social Security retirement benefits. This typically follows approximately a decade of employment.

As may be obvious, most people earn more than 40 credits over their lifetime. For instance, let's say that you begin full-time work at age 22 and then retire at 62. In this case, you would have accumulated somewhere in the neighborhood of 160 credits, or four times the requisite amount. Unfortunately, the extra 120 credits have no bearing on the size of your monthly benefit. This is because the 40-credit requirement is nothing more than a binary threshold -- that is, you either satisfy it or you don't.

2. What determines the size of your Social Security benefits?

The size of your monthly Social Security check is principally a function of your primary insurance amount, which is the hypothetical amount one receives if applying for benefits at full retirement, which is currently 66 years of age.

To calculate your primary insurance amount, the Social Security Administration takes an inflation-adjusted average of your 35 highest earning years and then divides the number by 420 (the number of months in 35 years). It then applies a three-tiered framework. For the first $816 in average monthly earnings, you get credit for 90%. From $816 to $4,917, you get credit for 32%. And for any income above that, you get credit for 15%. Add these together and round down to the nearest dollar; that's your primary insurance amount.

It's probably obvious that calculating this figure is easier said than done. In the first case, few people have a complete record of their lifetime annual earnings. In the second case, figuring out how to index your past earnings for inflation can be a challenge to even the most financially astute retiree. The good news is that the Social Security Administration keeps a running tally of your estimated benefits. To access your own, simply go to, open an account, and access your estimated monthly benefit.

Beyond this calculation, it's also important to appreciate that the age at which you apply for benefits will affect their size. Under the original framework, only people who had reached age 65 were eligible. In the 1950s, however, the age threshold was lowered to 62. The catch was that the benefits were "actuarially adjusted" -- that is, the monthly benefit one received decreased the earlier it was applied for.

3. When should you claim Social Security benefits?

The question of when to claim Social Security benefits is one of the most contentious in retirement literature. The conventional wisdom is that you should wait as long as possible, and at least until reaching full retirement at age 66. But this flies in the face of reality, given that 62 remains the most prevalent age for Americans to take benefits.

The conventional wisdom is based on the fact that waiting longer will increase your chances of maximizing lifetime benefits -- i.e., the total amount paid to you over your lifetime. As I've already explained, the longer you wait to begin receiving benefits, the bigger the monthly payment will be. If you take them at 62, the monthly check will be 25% less than your primary insurance amount. If you take them at your full retirement age of 66, then it will be 100% of your primary insurance amount. And if you wait until turning 70, it'll be 32% larger.

From this perspective, the benefit from waiting is obvious. Let's say, for example, that your primary insurance amount is $1,000 (which is decidedly below average but simplifies the calculation) and that you live to age 84.3, which is the average life expectancy of an American male upon reaching 65. In this case, had you elected to receive Social Security at 62, your cumulative lifetime benefits would add up to $199,500. Had you waited until 66, they would be $218,000. And had you waited until turning 70, your benefits would be $224,400.

Even though this analysis is accurate, however, it makes a fundamental mistake. Namely, the conventional wisdom assumes that maximizing lifetime benefits is the primary objective of most retirees. But there are at least two other reasons that seem to factor into the equation before this strictly quantitative goal.

The first is that taking benefits before age 66 can facilitate an earlier retirement. You can deduce this from the fact that "[c]ompared to all other occupations, those who held a blue-collar job at age 60 through 62 were 55% more likely to claim early," according to a study by the Government Accountability Office. That's because "61% of those who held a blue-collar job at age 60 through 62 reported their job was physically demanding and/or involved heavy lifting most or all of the time compared to 25% of those in all other occupations."

The second reason is that many people in their 60s need the income to survive. According to the Social Security Administration, "51% of the workforce has no private pension coverage [and] 34% of the workforce has no savings set aside specifically for retirement." Or consider this: Among elderly Social Security beneficiaries in particular, almost a quarter of married couples and just under half of unmarried people rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income.

It's worth pointing out, moreover, that the Social Security benefit formula is structured to yield the same in lifetime benefits to the typical retiree irrespective of when that person retires. As the same GAO report I cited explains, "The Social Security benefit formula adjusts monthly payments so that someone living to average life expectancy should receive about the same amount of benefits over their lifetime regardless of which age they claim." 

The point is that the decision about when to take Social Security benefits is a highly personal one. If you have the luxury of waiting, then you should do so -- and particularly if you have a spouse who will be eligible for spousal or survivor's benefits. For people who don't have said luxury, however, then there's absolutely no reason to regret taking them early. They are, after all, your benefits to do with as you please.

The bottom line on Social Security benefits

No government program -- or private program, for that matter -- is perfect. And the Social Security system is no exception. It's nevertheless the backbone of America's retirement infrastructure and is bound to continue playing this role for decades to come. 

Read/Post Comments (3) | Recommend This Article (7)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On September 02, 2014, at 2:12 AM, SailorKane wrote:

    Interesting article. Details some interesting facts about SS. Some I haven't seen anywhere else.

    In my case, I earned the SS max for 30 years and recently have been filling in the other 5 zeros with temporary jobs (I'm 64 now). Earning about $40K/year gets me about $5 more in monthly SS benefits. So this schedule is very very progressive--the low income folks get a bigger piece of the pie than higher income folks. And if your income has been relatively high, its not all that important to fill all of the 35 years.....

    Second, when to take SS benefits. The PAYBACK is about 82 years old. That is, compare age 62 with 66 and it takes until age 82 for the total benefits received to be equal (that's 20 years, folks!!!). But three important points. First, the Net Present Value (NPV) calculation says that money received now is better than money received later. So, if I got the money at age 62, invested it at a decent interest rate, it might create a stream of future income that equals or exceeds the monthly increase I get for waiting. The NPV is the "best" measure of the value of income streams.

    Second, spousal benefits can begin once you've filed for SS benefits. In my case, when I file, my wife's benefit will be half of mine. So I basically get 1.5 times my SS benefit right away. Hers doesn't increase past full retirement age, though mine does.

    So in this case, the NPV is actually highest for retiring in the 64-66 age range and optimum, depending on work plans, can be at age 64. At least according to the SS maximizing program I bought. Example: Combination of my SS and spousal benefits is about $3000 a month. Waiting one month gets me about $12 more in lifetime benefits. If I invested $3000 at 5%, it provides the $12/month forever--not just until I die, and I have the $3K in the bank for emergencies If I die early, the $12/month SS benefit disappears!.

    So the articles that say WAIT--don't trigger SS too soon, may actually not only be annoying, not only ignor our current needs, but may be mathematically wrong as well. And third, they don't even include the quality of life--do I want the money now, when I can use it, or when I'm 90, sitting in a chair, drooling, waiting to die--or already dead....

    So the folks who take SS at age 62, probably because they have to, aren't that dumb after all....

  • Report this Comment On September 02, 2014, at 11:23 AM, RunningFool1955 wrote:

    One other factor left out of the article is life expectancy. The average life expectancy of an American male who is 62 today is 84 years. Looking at the graph, the total income line from taking SS at age 62 is not surpassed by the wait to age 70 income line until approximately age 79.

    So, the question becomes, how much is is worth to one to wait until 70 to declare, and does that offset the enjoyment that can be had not working (assuming one would enjoy that, some people just love to work)?

    My own personal opinion is that I will get more enjoyment out of golfing, traveling, gardening, etc in my 60's than I would in my 80's, assuming I'm still around in my 80's.

  • Report this Comment On September 02, 2014, at 5:20 PM, SkepikI wrote:

    <If I invested $3000 at 5%, it provides the $12/month forever-->

    Its and interesting dilemma if you consider can you DO this now in a GUARANTEED way.... because thats the alternative (63 and mulling....)

    Right now I do not think I can, so I am better off to wait....although on the other hand I've beat that handily every year I've been invested......still its not guaranteed......and on and on.

    The real issue for me is cash flow and not total benefits NPV... its ok for you to believe this is important, but I do not. As long as I have enough to do what I want right now, I don't need to take it and it will (maybe if you can trust congress and your children and grandchildren ha) get more valuable by 5%+ (its actually a little higher) every year delay....actually every month delay, prorata. and I cant give two hoots for if my NPV at death is the worse off or not. Now if my cash flow will require it so I can do what I want, well thats another matter.

    <My own personal opinion is that I will get more enjoyment out of golfing, traveling, gardening, etc in my 60's than I would in my 80's, assuming I'm still around in my 80's.>

    Much more pragmatic RunningFool.... more on my own line of thinking having observed the same sort of behavior in my parents and grandparents at close range..... an now observing in myself there are things I can no longer do (run a mile under 6min, hike 15 mi a day to fish in 8000 ft lakes etc) and some things are just not working as well (knees elbows back etc) as they used to...

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 3087946, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 9/2/2015 10:47:20 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...

John Maxfield

John is The Motley Fool's senior banking specialist. If you're interested in banking and/or finance, you should follow him on Twitter.

Today's Market

updated 1 hour ago Sponsored by:
DOW 16,351.38 293.03 1.82%
S&P 500 1,948.86 35.01 1.83%
NASD 4,749.98 113.87 2.46%

Create My Watchlist

Go to My Watchlist

You don't seem to be following any stocks yet!

Better investing starts with a watchlist. Now you can create a personalized watchlist and get immediate access to the personalized information you need to make successful investing decisions.

Data delayed up to 5 minutes