I'd say that's not the best way to think about it. The "missing" DRC payments aren't lost, since they were never yours to begin with -- no matter what choices you make.Before or at FRA it doesn't matter, since there's no DRCs to lose. After FRA, either January or at age 70 avoids losing any DRCs.
Think about it this way. Say you're planning to start receiving benefits in February of the year you turn 68. You notice that you'd "miss" one month's DRC payment that you expected for delaying from January to February. But here's the thing. If you decide to "fix" things by starting in January instead, you still don't receive that DRC payment for delaying until February. If you start a few months earlier, or a few months later, or the following January, you still don't receive that payment. Since nothing you can do will change this, then logically the "missing" DRC payment should not affect any decision one way or the other.
I certainly understand the desire to avoid situations that seem a bit arbitrary and unfair, but that's just the way the rules work. And since it affects one year only, you're not missing out on much. If your PIA in the above example is in the $4000 range, the "missing" part of your February payment would be around $25. And it's just that one year: you'll get the extra $25 the following January, and then every month for the rest of your life. So to change your retirement plans over that amount -- maybe by giving up $25 every month for life in order to not feel like you're missing out during that first year -- would really seem to be overreacting.
For those of us trying to understand our payment amounts in detail, or setting up spreadsheets to do that, these asymmetric quirks in the rules are an annoyance. For those maintaining tools like opensocialsecurity or ssa.tools, they're no doubt a constant irritant. But for those simply trying to plan out their retirement, it's probably best to just ignore the whole thing.
Statistics: Posted by ssel — Sat Jun 22, 2024 11:39 pm — Replies 11 — Views 1362
